The assertion is not incorrect.

The time scale is.

You're right about the causation correlation conflation. It boils down to a chicken-and-egg problem with temperature and carbon dioxide, complicated by paleo-climate proxies that only stable isotope biogeochemists seem able to talk about. Models are built with low 3D resolution and a vast array of unverified "constants" then calibrated using limited data sets. Underlying all of it is the fact that even peer-reviewed science is imperfect and fraught with academic politics.

The caveat is that we could have a serious, global, and long-term problem on our hands.

How would you risk manage this situation?

It is interesting to note that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide may have been as much as 20 times higher as it is today at points in Earth's geologic past. Of course, you wouldn't want to live there :)

Sometimes people compare today's warming with the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Yes, you are the only one who sees a massive logic fail because you are taking the statement at face value instead of trying to educate yourself about what they are talking about. I hope you were being facetious, but just in case: Atmospheric methane is oxidized in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide and water. FTA: "The 100-year global warming potential of methane is 25, i.e. over a 100-year period, it traps 25 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide."

You have asserted that an increase in the price of gasoline will cause everyone to want a hybrid vehicle. The last seven years contradict that assertion. The increase of gas prices has continued unabated even though the proportion of hybrid vehicles sold has remained more-or-less flat.

Source?

IF increased carbon dioxide causes warming
AND sources, sinks, and fluxes of carbon dioxide can be quantified
THEN the human contribution to warming can be estimated

Climate proxies are used to extend the record, and often give useful correlations between carbon dioxide and temperature.

Our understanding of the deep past hinges on a small number of assumptions, such as radioactive dating and plate tectonic theory. While we have no reason to suspect that our assumptions are incorrect, we also know that there are probably lots of things we don't know. I think this is a clever theory, and have always wondered about the effects of a large bolide on a planetary body. There are a variety of impact metamorphism features, and potentially effects on climate, but can they affect plate tectonics?

Fallacy of defective induction.

TFA is about the pertussis vaccine.
Your sweeping generalizations about vaccines in general are inaccurate and misleading.

Your opinion equally condemns those who opt out of the influenza or varicella vaccines as it does those who opt out of the polio or pertussis vaccines.

I also challenge your assertion that sanitation is the most important public health technology in the history of mankind. The true prime is self-evident ;)

All of the decisions made about our child are discussed at length in a rational manner. We always come to a resolution, and the average outcome shows that we are each "right" about half of the time. I suspect many people who are under 40, have a family, and live in a large urban centre may share that experience as gender-based roles have transformed in recent decades. Respecting your position, single-income households where the father is working must by necessity favour the mother in decisions regarding children. The opposite should be true for single-income households where the mother is working. In those cases "daddy knows best".

In 2010 11% of single income households had a stay-at-home dad.
In 1976, it was 1%.

Those numbers are for Canada, but I think in the USA the number is closer to 16% though the way the statistics were collected makes it hard to compare. I could only find one survey for the UK indicating 6% stay at home with the kids, but I'm not sure how representative that data is.

I think maybe you had your kids in the 70's? The times, they are a changin'.

I recently encountered this conundrum as well with a new arrival in my family. Without having been exposed to the recent "controversy" and the usual polarization of "you're either for vaccination or you're with the child pornographers", I did what I usually do and that is question the merits of whatever course of action has been recommended to me. Living in Canada, vaccines are crowd sourced, so money does not factor into my decision making. There is actually a pretty good federal resource here, so it is convenient to inform myself.

The Public Health Agency of Canada recommends vaccinating your child against 13 separate "diseases". My "cohort" has been vaccinated against maybe half that number. Why the change? Why those 13, why not more, or less? What are the risks and benefits for each one? Are they all equal? Are some more beneficial than others? Who made these decisions? What research was used in each case? How long have they been in general circulation? Unfortunately the government FAQ doesn't contain that information.

We ended up getting the DTaP-IPV-Hib (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Polio, Hib) and Pneu-C-13 (Pneumococcal disease) vaccines but opted out of the Rot (Rotavirus) vaccine after weighing the risks and benefits. I am still not sure if I have made the right decision; it seems that there are people on both "sides" using emotional arguments to try and sway me one way or the other. The nurses looked at us like we were criminals for not getting the Rotavirus vaccine. In the coming months, we will have to choose whether to vaccinate against Influenza, Varicella, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Meningococcal disease. Wait, why are Chicken Pox and the Flu on the immunization schedule now? I don't get the free flu shots every year and I had chicken pox when I was younger, to no great detriment of which I am aware. Do I blindly trust what the health agency recommends? Policy and science do not always go hand in hand -- I'm a scientist and I work for government so I know how that shit works.

I once had a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine and want to avoid that risk for my children where possible, if it is reasonable to do so. Maybe I will only give my child a few of those vaccines... Have I made a horrible mistake? Do I deserve to burn in hell like some of the commenters suggest? Do I get to wear an "anti-vaccine" badge now? In which bi-chromatic "camp" do I belong?

Speaking of Gulliver's Travels, it was written in 1726 and I would classify it more as a Science Fiction novel than a Fantasy novel (consider Part III of the book). How is Frankenstein, written almost 100 years later, "arguably the first time Science Fiction appears"?

Does that makes his madness tolerable?

A die-off of marine life could lead to more severe long-term consequences if the oxygen balance of the ocean is sufficiently disrupted. There has been research and speculation on oceanic anoxic events suggesting that anaerobic bacteria, specifically sulphate reducers that normally live in sea-floor sediments, could gradually migrate towards the surface as environmental conditions became more hospitable for them (i.e. less oxygen in the water). If you're really interested, you'd find some interesting reading by Googling "Permian Triassic". Here's a couple of quick teasers to get you started.

Unless you paid cash for your house, you're renting it from the bank.