The advice "don't get your legal advice from random commentators on slashdot" is sound.
However, with the preface that the best advice is to not take advice from me: the treaty is something that your government follows. You merely have to follow the laws put forth by your government; it is up the them to put in place whatever such laws are required to make them compliant with the treaty.
Except the face of a bear and a "man" aren't remotely alike.
Well, yes, except that I don't think that there are good views of the face in Yeti sightings, and certainly no photographs of the yeti's face. Since most sightings seem to be in bad conditions, by people nearly snow-blind, often with somewhat ice-fogged goggles, and not to mention the fact that eyeballs can change focus at low pressure, it's not implausible. Keep in mind that manatees were reported as mermaids in the 1500s-- manatees look nothing like mermaids. Unless mermaids are a lot uglier than the legend says.
So, the hypothesis would be that, during the glacial maximum of one of the previous ice-ages, polar bears (or, proto-polar-bears) expanded their territory southward, and when the ice retreated, a small colony got cut off and colonized the high-altitude niche. Not impossible. A question of "what do they eat?" is going to be relevant here, but the Himalayas are not completely devoid of prey.
More evidence is needed that the animal even exists (if it doesn't actually exist, it doesn't need explanation), but it's not a hypothesis that can be rejected out of hand.
The amount of energy generated by fusion is quoted as having exceeded the amount of energy absorbed by the fusion fuel [my italics].
The misleading part comes from the fact that the target absorbs only a small fraction of the energy in the laser pulse. The August experiments used a laser pulse of 1.7 million joules to generate 8000 joules of fusion energy (measured from neutron yield). So the fusion energy amounts to a few percent of the energy in the laser pulse (and much less if you account for the inefficiency of the laser).
As for the second part, people in this country don't get turned away because they're poor, they get medicare or medicaid (depending on age).
Some do. Some don't. Some have too much money for medicaid, but not enough to pay for a big hospital bill. Some charge hospital bills on their credit cards, and then go bankrupt when they can't pay them (sticking you and me with the bill). Some can't get credit cards, and use the Emergency Room for health care. Some just die.
"Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday."
I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is one of the first things that's going to be axed as soon as the USA gets its next Republican president... which is inevitable at some point in the future, given a two-party system.
Not at all clear-- the president can neither pass nor repeal legislation. Even a Republican president would have to work through Congress to do so, and unless both chambers are also Republican, this may be difficult.
In any case, though, the reason that Republicans are trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act so urgently is that they believe that once it is in place, people will like it so much that it will be impossible to repeal. So if this is true, then no.
You're thinking of an inverse neutrino field diverted through the deflector dish. That's how you generate a biased coherent tachyon beam. Be sure to use compressed pulse power modulation to prevent plasma feedback induction.
but what if you simply reverse the polarity of the neutron flow? That always works!
Or there are some biologists out there working for a corporation that requires patents on all research. For some reason they don't agree with this. They are sticking it to the man by preempting their corporate master and posting anonymous coward.
Apparently not. From the comments in the linked article: "Spiegelman said patents weren't an issue here as he had filed patent applications on this before giving any presentations at scientific meetings on the findings (presenting something publicly before filing would itself invalidate patent applications)."
I am aware that this comment was a troll, but I do feel compelled to point out that such an event would retroactively justify all of the NSA's surveillance, provide an concrete demonstration that their surveillance was too limited and needs to be greatly expanded (and kept more secret). Basically, it would cement the NSA's spying permanently into place for good.
Le sigh. Open source and public domain are not mutual, nor is one needed for the other. Public domain means anyone can have it for free as long as they don't try and sell it
No. Public domain means that it's in the public domain: that means nobody owns it, and anybody can do whatever they like with it.
(under most licenses, EG Creative Commons),
If you have to agree to a license to use it, it's not public domain.
while open source means anyone can try and make it better. You can have one without the other, and vice versa.
I see no reason to believe that; particularly since you already clearly stated that you won't read something if you think that it doesn't agree with what you've already decided.
You say you want to see evidence-- but you refuse to read it, because you won't look at it if you think it won't confirm what you already know. Good rationalizations.
The difference between the WSJ and the IPCC reports is that the former isn't presented as a rigorous summary of all research in an important area of climatology
Correct. They're not. Which is why you shouldn't use editorials in the Wall Street Journal as the source of your science information.
I am constantly amazed at the lengths of rationalization that deniers go through to avoid actually reading any of the science.
Yes, if you work hard, you can come up with reasons to avoid ever reading anything that will explain any of the science.
Who decides the scope of Wall Street Journal editorials, and who decides what writings to include-- particularly of the non peer-reviewed sort? These processes aren't transparent. Who decides what what the high profile "editorials" say and why isn't that process more transparent? There's a lot that's mysterious about how the Wall Street Journal editorials are constructed, even what it decides is part of its mandate. But as works of propaganda, these things are readily explained. In order to control the message, there must be filters to exclude or downplay undesired viewpoints or messages. And these filters have to be hidden from view so that the Wall Street Journal retains an air of legitimacy. Hence, the need for a lack of transparency.
It was the consensus among a certain slice of scientists who specialized in climate... Remember that before the recent wave of government grants funding "climate studies" and "global warming" and before universities had large structures in place dedicated to milking the current political demand, there were VERY FEW "climate scientists" and even a small number agreeing on something was a significant percentage...
To the contrary. Until the politically-motivated attack machine started to be funded, there was no scientific question about the greenhouse effect-- it was considered well-understood science. Grab any astronomy textbook from the '70s or '80s and check "greenhouse effect" in the index. It was completely non-controversial.
And it still isn't controversial, in a scientific sense. The denial machine is cranked up to continue to generate the illusion of uncertainty, but so far every challenge to the science has been answered. There aren't any alternate hypotheses that haven't been disproved with data.
You are claiming through logic that additional CO2 is a problem and that we MUST act in some fashion.
No, actually I am not.
I am claiming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the average temperature, and that the science of this is both understood and well supported by data. I am stating that the science is sound.
As to whether this means we "MUST" act, or in what way we should act-- that's a different question. It's one which could, I think, benefit from serious thinking rather than deliberately avoiding it, but that's not the claim I'm making, and I consider it a reasonable argument that can be made that one of the "solutions" to be considerd is to not do anything.
But the "solution" of "I've decided that I don't like any of the solutions that I think are possible therefore the science is wrong and the measurements are inaccurate" fails basic logic.
The fact that you don't like the solutions doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
I have a suggestion. If you don't like the solutions, Mr. Anonymous Coward, let me propose that paying attention to the real world, you might work on coming up with an approach you do like. Quit attacking the science, if it is in fact the politics you don't like.
Some realistic thought, rather than invective, on what the consequences are and the pros and cons of various actions would be very useful.
I consider the IPCC as having an adversarial relationship with the truth, like a lawyer in court.
You think the IPCC has an "aversarial relationship with truth," so you get your information from editorials in the Wall Street Journal ????
The mind boggles.
(And, of course, I can safely bet you don't actually read the IPCC reports. The denier never do.)
My view is that implies that temperature sensitivity estimates have dropped significantly and the IPCC is being forced to account for that.
It hasn't. The IPCC is summarizing reports in the peer-reviewed literature. The estimates haven't dropped. The information the Wally is using is contradicted by the scientists who they misquote [ref]
....Finally, if anyone didn't want "leaked" paraphrasing to dominate the discussion of upcoming IPCC reports, then perhaps a more open and public process is in order?
The report is to be released in ten days. The Wally wanted to put their spin in before the open and public process started, so they could spin the argument before everybody had the facts.
The logical fallacy of that should be obviously: whether a particular solution is right or wrong has no logical bearing on whether the science-- that human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to temperature according to well-known models-- is correct.
I don't believe I have seen anyone argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
You haven't paid attention, then-- among the garbage-dumpsters of junk pouring out from the so-called skeptics, yes, that argument is there, in truckloads.
The arguments are over the "feedbacks" and the "forcing factors" in the models
Uh, why are you putting these words in quotes?
Also, according to this, the warming contribution of CO2 tails off asypmtotically.
The word you want is "logarithmic," not "asympototic." (a logarithm does not have a horizontal asymptote). This has been known since Arrhenius made the first calculation back in 1896, so I'm puzzled that you're suddenly amazed at it. It is why climate sensitivity is conventionally quoted in terms of doubling (that is, log base 2), instead of, say, response per ppm.
....Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up,
OK, I will momentarily suspend my skepticism and consider the hypothesis that you actually are interested in the evidence. I have a question, then: Have you actually read the IPCC working-group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change. I don't mean, a summary of it, or a critique by some website with an axe to grind, or somebody's paraphrasing it, or somebody else's explanation of why you shouldn't read it. Have you actually read the report?
If you haven't-- well, then I can reject the hypothesis that you are actually interested in the evidence, if you're not willing to look at the evidence.
Considering the fact, that he himself just recently purchased a multi-million estate not in, say, Colorado mountains, but at an ocean-front, I find it very difficult to believe, his implorations and exhortations are sincere. In other words, he is lying.
I'm not terribly interested in Al Gore, who is not a scientist, but given that Montecito is at an elevation of 180 ft above sea level (55 m) while the projection for sea level rise is roughly 2 feet by 2050 (.7 m), I don't see that the fact that Gore bought a house in Montecito is indicative of anything.
Your right, we SHOULD be listening to the people pushing for more taxes for the government instead, because they OBVIOUSLY have your best interest in mind.
Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?
What is being said here seems to be "I don't like the solutions that I think will be imposed, so therefore I will vehemently argue that the problem doesn't exist, or if it exists that it's not as bad as projected."
The logical fallacy of that should be obviously: whether a particular solution is right or wrong has no logical bearing on whether the science-- that human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to temperature according to well-known models-- is correct.
If you don't like the solution, perhaps you should work on figure out a proposal for a solution that is acceptable, rather than denying the science is right.
you are seriously proposing that if the U.S. president simply were to stop taking any international trips using Air Force One because of the carbon dioxide it produces, this will inspire "commoners" (your term) around the world to spontaneously cut their energy consumption and that this would solve the global warming problem?
No. Sorry.
OK. Since flying it isn't a significant source of the problem, and not flying it wouldn't solve the problem, it's pretty clear that discussing Air Force One really is completely irrelevant to talking about how to solve the problem.
Sweet! Then there's no point in me worrying about my carbon footprint.
Correct. No individual human has a large enough carbon footprint to make a detectable difference in climate.
.... I guess then it's safe for everyone else to do the same, because small amounts of things don't add up to large amounts of things.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I assume you are attempting sarcasm, but since you don't seem to be very good at it, it looks like you're just saying something stupid.
Global warming is a collective effect: the carbon emissions of a large number of humans, added together, have a significant impact. The carbon emission of a single human doesn't.
This is, in fact, exactly why the problem is so difficult: it's a problem that can't be solved by an individual, or even a moderate number of individuals, deciding on their own to scale back their carbon use.
The question being addressed is the effect of human-generated carbon dioxide on global temperature, specifically, by how much does a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases temperature?
As you point out, in the Cretaceous the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was higher, the global temperature was warmer, and the Earth did not have polar ice caps. If this is relevant to the discussion at all, it is by pointing out that increased carbon dioxide and higher temperatures have, in the past, occurred together. The direction of the causation can be debated, since we don't have very good records of other climate parameters at that period, but increased carbon dioxide does seem to correlate with higher temperature.
I'm not sure what your comment "wipe out all life on Earth 65 million years ago" is about. If some people are saying that a few degrees of global warming will "wipe out all life on Earth," I don't know who they are, but they are certainly not mainstream scientists of any sort. Please feel free to ignore them. More specifically, please, in the future, try to learn what the actual scientists are saying, rather than trolling around on the web to find the most extreme misrepresentations of straw men that parody what the most extreme fringe says, and then ridicule that parody.
When Obama flies around nilly-willy on Air Force One he dumps tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Are you saying there's no climate change when he does that?
Have you ever heard of a form of ignorance called innumeracy? No? You should, because you have it.
If, in fact, flying Air Force One (which all presidents fly in, not just Obama, of course) dumps merely tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, yes, that would be irrelevant to climate change. If it dumped thousand of tons, that would be irrelevant. If it dumped millions of tons, that would be irrelevant.
Do you have the slightest idea how many tons of carbon dioxide are put in the atmosphere by humans every year?
Slashdot Mirror
The advice "don't get your legal advice from random commentators on slashdot" is sound.
However, with the preface that the best advice is to not take advice from me: the treaty is something that your government follows. You merely have to follow the laws put forth by your government; it is up the them to put in place whatever such laws are required to make them compliant with the treaty.
Except the face of a bear and a "man" aren't remotely alike.
Well, yes, except that I don't think that there are good views of the face in Yeti sightings, and certainly no photographs of the yeti's face. Since most sightings seem to be in bad conditions, by people nearly snow-blind, often with somewhat ice-fogged goggles, and not to mention the fact that eyeballs can change focus at low pressure, it's not implausible. Keep in mind that manatees were reported as mermaids in the 1500s-- manatees look nothing like mermaids. Unless mermaids are a lot uglier than the legend says.
So, the hypothesis would be that, during the glacial maximum of one of the previous ice-ages, polar bears (or, proto-polar-bears) expanded their territory southward, and when the ice retreated, a small colony got cut off and colonized the high-altitude niche. Not impossible. A question of "what do they eat?" is going to be relevant here, but the Himalayas are not completely devoid of prey.
More evidence is needed that the animal even exists (if it doesn't actually exist, it doesn't need explanation), but it's not a hypothesis that can be rejected out of hand.
yeah, comes from hasty editing and no "oops, I need to revise that" button. Should have been "few tenths of a percent." sorry.
There's a good discussion by Jeff Hecht in the Laser Focus World blog: "Progress at NIF, but no 'breakthrough'"
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/10/progress-at-nif-but-no-breakthrough.html
The amount of energy generated by fusion is quoted as having exceeded the amount of energy absorbed by the fusion fuel [my italics].
The misleading part comes from the fact that the target absorbs only a small fraction of the energy in the laser pulse. The August experiments used a laser pulse of 1.7 million joules to generate 8000 joules of fusion energy (measured from neutron yield). So the fusion energy amounts to a few percent of the energy in the laser pulse (and much less if you account for the inefficiency of the laser).
As for the second part, people in this country don't get turned away because they're poor, they get medicare or medicaid (depending on age).
Some do. Some don't. Some have too much money for medicaid, but not enough to pay for a big hospital bill. Some charge hospital bills on their credit cards, and then go bankrupt when they can't pay them (sticking you and me with the bill). Some can't get credit cards, and use the Emergency Room for health care. Some just die.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
"Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday."
I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is one of the first things that's going to be axed as soon as the USA gets its next Republican president... which is inevitable at some point in the future, given a two-party system.
Not at all clear-- the president can neither pass nor repeal legislation. Even a Republican president would have to work through Congress to do so, and unless both chambers are also Republican, this may be difficult.
In any case, though, the reason that Republicans are trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act so urgently is that they believe that once it is in place, people will like it so much that it will be impossible to repeal. So if this is true, then no.
You're thinking of an inverse neutrino field diverted through the deflector dish. That's how you generate a biased coherent tachyon beam. Be sure to use compressed pulse power modulation to prevent plasma feedback induction.
but what if you simply reverse the polarity of the neutron flow? That always works!
Or there are some biologists out there working for a corporation that requires patents on all research. For some reason they don't agree with this. They are sticking it to the man by preempting their corporate master and posting anonymous coward.
Apparently not. From the comments in the linked article:
"Spiegelman said patents weren't an issue here as he had filed patent applications on this before giving any presentations at scientific meetings on the findings (presenting something publicly before filing would itself invalidate patent applications)."
I'm puzzled; I'd think that this was covered by the Medical Records Privacy laws.
Personal information you give to your doctor is shared with insurance companies, pharmacies, researchers, and employers based on specific regulations.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html
https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8-med.htm
His job description entails standing around telling the NSA to stop doing all of the things the NSA does....
Let me be the first to nominate Bruce Schneier for the position.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519336/bruce-schneier-nsa-spying-is-making-us-less-safe/
I am aware that this comment was a troll, but I do feel compelled to point out that such an event would retroactively justify all of the NSA's surveillance, provide an concrete demonstration that their surveillance was too limited and needs to be greatly expanded (and kept more secret).
Basically, it would cement the NSA's spying permanently into place for good.
Le sigh.
Open source and public domain are not mutual, nor is one needed for the other. Public domain means anyone can have it for free as long as they don't try and sell it
No. Public domain means that it's in the public domain: that means nobody owns it, and anybody can do whatever they like with it.
(under most licenses, EG Creative Commons),
If you have to agree to a license to use it, it's not public domain.
while open source means anyone can try and make it better. You can have one without the other, and vice versa.
BTW, I do read some research.
I see no reason to believe that; particularly since you already clearly stated that you won't read something if you think that it doesn't agree with what you've already decided.
You say you want to see evidence-- but you refuse to read it, because you won't look at it if you think it won't confirm what you already know. Good rationalizations.
The difference between the WSJ and the IPCC reports is that the former isn't presented as a rigorous summary of all research in an important area of climatology
Correct. They're not. Which is why you shouldn't use editorials in the Wall Street Journal as the source of your science information.
I am constantly amazed at the lengths of rationalization that deniers go through to avoid actually reading any of the science.
Yes, if you work hard, you can come up with reasons to avoid ever reading anything that will explain any of the science.
Who decides the scope of Wall Street Journal editorials, and who decides what writings to include-- particularly of the non peer-reviewed sort? These processes aren't transparent. Who decides what what the high profile "editorials" say and why isn't that process more transparent? There's a lot that's mysterious about how the Wall Street Journal editorials are constructed, even what it decides is part of its mandate. But as works of propaganda, these things are readily explained. In order to control the message, there must be filters to exclude or downplay undesired viewpoints or messages. And these filters have to be hidden from view so that the Wall Street Journal retains an air of legitimacy. Hence, the need for a lack of transparency.
It was the consensus among a certain slice of scientists who specialized in climate... Remember that before the recent wave of government grants funding "climate studies" and "global warming" and before universities had large structures in place dedicated to milking the current political demand, there were VERY FEW "climate scientists" and even a small number agreeing on something was a significant percentage...
To the contrary. Until the politically-motivated attack machine started to be funded, there was no scientific question about the greenhouse effect-- it was considered well-understood science. Grab any astronomy textbook from the '70s or '80s and check "greenhouse effect" in the index. It was completely non-controversial.
And it still isn't controversial, in a scientific sense. The denial machine is cranked up to continue to generate the illusion of uncertainty, but so far every challenge to the science has been answered. There aren't any alternate hypotheses that haven't been disproved with data.
You are claiming through logic that additional CO2 is a problem and that we MUST act in some fashion.
No, actually I am not.
I am claiming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the average temperature, and that the science of this is both understood and well supported by data. I am stating that the science is sound.
As to whether this means we "MUST" act, or in what way we should act-- that's a different question. It's one which could, I think, benefit from serious thinking rather than deliberately avoiding it, but that's not the claim I'm making, and I consider it a reasonable argument that can be made that one of the "solutions" to be considerd is to not do anything.
But the "solution" of "I've decided that I don't like any of the solutions that I think are possible therefore the science is wrong and the measurements are inaccurate" fails basic logic.
The fact that you don't like the solutions doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
I have a suggestion. If you don't like the solutions, Mr. Anonymous Coward, let me propose that paying attention to the real world, you might work on coming up with an approach you do like. Quit attacking the science, if it is in fact the politics you don't like.
Some realistic thought, rather than invective, on what the consequences are and the pros and cons of various actions would be very useful.
I consider the IPCC as having an adversarial relationship with the truth, like a lawyer in court.
You think the IPCC has an "aversarial relationship with truth," so you get your information from editorials in the Wall Street Journal ????
The mind boggles.
(And, of course, I can safely bet you don't actually read the IPCC reports. The denier never do.)
My view is that implies that temperature sensitivity estimates have dropped significantly and the IPCC is being forced to account for that.
It hasn't. The IPCC is summarizing reports in the peer-reviewed literature. The estimates haven't dropped. The information the Wally is using is contradicted by the scientists who they misquote [ref]
....Finally, if anyone didn't want "leaked" paraphrasing to dominate the discussion of upcoming IPCC reports, then perhaps a more open and public process is in order?
The report is to be released in ten days. The Wally wanted to put their spin in before the open and public process started, so they could spin the argument before everybody had the facts.
The logical fallacy of that should be obviously: whether a particular solution is right or wrong has no logical bearing on whether the science-- that human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to temperature according to well-known models-- is correct.
I don't believe I have seen anyone argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
You haven't paid attention, then-- among the garbage-dumpsters of junk pouring out from the so-called skeptics, yes, that argument is there, in truckloads.
The arguments are over the "feedbacks" and the "forcing factors" in the models
Uh, why are you putting these words in quotes?
Also, according to this, the warming contribution of CO2 tails off asypmtotically.
The word you want is "logarithmic," not "asympototic." (a logarithm does not have a horizontal asymptote). This has been known since Arrhenius made the first calculation back in 1896, so I'm puzzled that you're suddenly amazed at it. It is why climate sensitivity is conventionally quoted in terms of doubling (that is, log base 2), instead of, say, response per ppm.
....Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up,
OK, I will momentarily suspend my skepticism and consider the hypothesis that you actually are interested in the evidence. I have a question, then: Have you actually read the IPCC working-group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change. I don't mean, a summary of it, or a critique by some website with an axe to grind, or somebody's paraphrasing it, or somebody else's explanation of why you shouldn't read it. Have you actually read the report?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
If you haven't-- well, then I can reject the hypothesis that you are actually interested in the evidence, if you're not willing to look at the evidence.
Considering the fact, that he himself just recently purchased a multi-million estate not in, say, Colorado mountains, but at an ocean-front, I find it very difficult to believe, his implorations and exhortations are sincere. In other words, he is lying.
I'm not terribly interested in Al Gore, who is not a scientist, but given that Montecito is at an elevation of 180 ft above sea level (55 m) while the projection for sea level rise is roughly 2 feet by 2050 (.7 m), I don't see that the fact that Gore bought a house in Montecito is indicative of anything.
Your right, we SHOULD be listening to the people pushing for more taxes for the government instead, because they OBVIOUSLY have your best interest in mind.
Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?
What is being said here seems to be "I don't like the solutions that I think will be imposed, so therefore I will vehemently argue that the problem doesn't exist, or if it exists that it's not as bad as projected."
The logical fallacy of that should be obviously: whether a particular solution is right or wrong has no logical bearing on whether the science-- that human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to temperature according to well-known models-- is correct.
If you don't like the solution, perhaps you should work on figure out a proposal for a solution that is acceptable, rather than denying the science is right.
you are seriously proposing that if the U.S. president simply were to stop taking any international trips using Air Force One because of the carbon dioxide it produces, this will inspire "commoners" (your term) around the world to spontaneously cut their energy consumption and that this would solve the global warming problem?
No. Sorry.
OK. Since flying it isn't a significant source of the problem, and not flying it wouldn't solve the problem, it's pretty clear that discussing Air Force One really is completely irrelevant to talking about how to solve the problem.
Sweet! Then there's no point in me worrying about my carbon footprint.
Correct. No individual human has a large enough carbon footprint to make a detectable difference in climate.
.... I guess then it's safe for everyone else to do the same, because small amounts of things don't add up to large amounts of things.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I assume you are attempting sarcasm, but since you don't seem to be very good at it, it looks like you're just saying something stupid.
Global warming is a collective effect: the carbon emissions of a large number of humans, added together, have a significant impact. The carbon emission of a single human doesn't.
This is, in fact, exactly why the problem is so difficult: it's a problem that can't be solved by an individual, or even a moderate number of individuals, deciding on their own to scale back their carbon use.
You seem to be addressing a different question.
The question being addressed is the effect of human-generated carbon dioxide on global temperature, specifically, by how much does a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases temperature?
As you point out, in the Cretaceous the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was higher, the global temperature was warmer, and the Earth did not have polar ice caps. If this is relevant to the discussion at all, it is by pointing out that increased carbon dioxide and higher temperatures have, in the past, occurred together. The direction of the causation can be debated, since we don't have very good records of other climate parameters at that period, but increased carbon dioxide does seem to correlate with higher temperature.
I'm not sure what your comment "wipe out all life on Earth 65 million years ago" is about. If some people are saying that a few degrees of global warming will "wipe out all life on Earth," I don't know who they are, but they are certainly not mainstream scientists of any sort. Please feel free to ignore them. More specifically, please, in the future, try to learn what the actual scientists are saying, rather than trolling around on the web to find the most extreme misrepresentations of straw men that parody what the most extreme fringe says, and then ridicule that parody.
Do you have any links from actual scientists, not corporate shill skeptics?
How about Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
When Obama flies around nilly-willy on Air Force One he dumps tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Are you saying there's no climate change when he does that?
Have you ever heard of a form of ignorance called innumeracy? No? You should, because you have it.
If, in fact, flying Air Force One (which all presidents fly in, not just Obama, of course) dumps merely tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, yes, that would be irrelevant to climate change. If it dumped thousand of tons, that would be irrelevant. If it dumped millions of tons, that would be irrelevant.
Do you have the slightest idea how many tons of carbon dioxide are put in the atmosphere by humans every year?