The argument is against "unforeseen change" - well that's rather stupid now isn't it? Quite a fun way to attempt to live life - you are basically arguing for the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle has a lengthy successful track record. Relevant case studies include the Montreal Protocol and NAAQS.
No, carbon dioxide is pumped into greenhouses to increase productivity. You appear to be making things up (again).
Source? One that demonstrates that CO2 creates photosynthetic demand, not visa versa. Again, you have causality issues.
So that's your comeback to me pointing out that you didn't even know that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas?
You continue to ignore the lack of triangulation. No surprise.
You need to build some credibility because you have none at this point.
Irony much? 
There are no significant problems with the data.
Your observation skills really suck, because you tripped yourself up when even I wasn't expecting it. You see, you began your response quoting a mistake I made before I edited it out (quite trigger happy on your part, since the edit occurred 2 minutes max after my initial post), which was assuming that the data had been adapted and altered by another party. In reality, C. Scotese merely provided the temperature data. However, you attempted to justify the proposed data alteration regardless. Laughable.
I accept your admission of defeat.
As I said before, if you think my claim about carbon dioxide levels being much higher for most of the history of life on this planet is incorrect then feel free to show data that contradicts that claim.
Not all life is equal. What matters are CO2 levels before and after the rise of vascular plants, and CO2 levels before and after the proliferation of CaCO3 exoskeletons in marine organisms. A.K.A. What matters are CO2 levels under conditions most similar to today's. Unless you address this, you're merely deluding yourself.
Didn't I just say the source? You can't look up Mann's hockey stick? It is all over the internet:
Janus said:
The uncertainty is just as great
I'll repeat: Source?
As you can see, the grey shows the uncertainty. The red line at the end actually uses a different data set. He basically combined two datasets to get the scare-looking picture - because the proxy data doesn't show that spike at the end.
Mann's dataset is a hell of a lot more robust than the one you're taking out of context.
Your "point" was irrelevant cherry-picking.
So you admit your lack of understanding and inability to apply my point?
1. Not all that life went extinct
2. The life that evolved after that also evolved under high levels of carbon dioxide
1. 57% of all families and 83% of all genera is a lot of life. Life that went extinct as CO2 levels increased.
2. That life evolved in a niche occupancy vacuum in the relative absence of competition, which was far more instrumental than that gas you have an autoerotic fetish with.
If carbon dioxide alone causes mass extinctions then life wouldn't exist. That's why you are cherry-picking.
You appear to have an odd obsession with cherries...
The end-Permian mass extinction was caused by a large meteor impact, sparking a supervolcanic eruption that lasted for thousands of years, which pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise CO2 concentrations by 2000 ppm, raise global temperature by 8 degrees Celsius, and filled the impact crater with basalt, creating the Siberian Traps.
It's not unreasonable to believe that such an increase in CO2 would have induced other systemic effects through systemic mechanisms, including the release of methane, a reduction in the Earth's albedo, widespread anoxia, shifts in precipitation patterns, and changes in pH.
There are numerous events that could cause planet-wide extinctions and increase carbon dioxide
That's right. The most devastating extinction of all time occurred after a rather convenient, sudden, suspicious, and well documented rise in CO2.
Perhaps you should join an ST board. They might find such nitpicking interesting.
I'm laughing at the fact that you apparently think that was an insult. What are the real estate prices on Global Temperature Avenue?
That's right, I try to ignore irrelevancies.
Agreed. You automatically categorize things you don't understand as irrelevant.
And neither did I.
That's another straw man on your part.
No, that's yet another dodge on your part. You said temperature was key. I cited the Amazon vs the Sahara to show that your assertion was false because moisture and macronutrient availability are also important factors.
Your quote from the OP, sweetums:
2. Life typically thrives under higher temperatures. For example, compare the equatorial climates to the polar ones.
Oh goodie! You are making another scientific claim! Anyone care to take bets on his accuracy? Keep in mind his dismal track record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Wow, so it looks like carbon dioxide, a compound necessary for photosynthesis, is actually a macro-nutrient. What a shocker!
If you actually knew anything about the subject then you wouldn't once again make a fool out of yourself.
*yawn*
Again, you ignore the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_nutrition
-the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K)
-the three secondary macronutrients: calcium (Ca), sulphur (S), magnesium (Mg)
-the micronutrients/trace minerals: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)
CO2 is distributed relatively homogenously.
Increased carbon dioxide levels reduce the need for water because it reduces water loss.
Plants open their stomata to absorb CO2, but in the process water is lost through transpiration. At higher levels of CO2 they don't need to keep their stomata open as much
So yeah, I expect some more irrelevant response from you because you are incapable of thanking me for repeatedly educating you about basic science.
Again, this doesn't establish evolutionary causality. Lower CO2 levels aren't required for the evolution of the C4 mechanism.
Perhaps someone should step up and make the claim that global warming will be a catastrophe. Until then I can only argue against claims that are commonly made.
I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to put yourself out there though - you haven't had a great track record so far.
I demand you justify the existence of sasquatch!
Actually I was talking about rising oceans in that part of the post.
But really, I like this "he said, she said" stuff - really riveting. I'm quite impressed.
4. Ocean acidification is not going to be a problem either - again, look at the historic levels of CO2 and keep in mind the physiology for those climates is largely still in place (yes, this includes corals).
Ha! Well if that's your argument then my counter-response is "my data on the internet which you haven't refuted."
Make a specific claim, cite specific data or GTFO.
I'm not going to debate random links you googled and which you probably don't understand.
*
And as you can see, carbon dioxide levels were much higher during and after the Jurassic than they are now.
Your selective attention seems to be missing the part of the Jurassic where these marine organisms proliferated and sequestered mass amounts of carbon.
Prove it.
This demonstrates that you misunderstand the philosophy of science and the limits of empiricism and the scientific method.
And after that, prove such a correlation isn't related to something more important like temperature differences.
I trust that someone with your purported pedigree and abilities can find these:
Gray J.S. 1997. Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodiversity Conservation 6:153–75
Chen, C. Y., and Edward G. Durbin. "Effects of pH on the growth and carbon uptake of marine phytoplankton." Marine Ecology-Progress Series 109 (1994): 83-83.
And if you're a fan of tangibooks: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/marine-biology/marine-biodiversity-patterns-and-processes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation
Sorry, that might work if you haven't repeatedly be shown to be wrong on fundamental scientific facts.
You don't know what either of those phrases mean, do you? Here, I'll help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_cascade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_vortex
Meaning what exactly?
Huge uncertainty is okay with you if other massively uncertain data agrees with it?
Sounds like an ad hoc excuse on your part to believe shit data.
Meaning that one cannot assess past climate events or future warming potential by examining CO2 alone; One must also examine data on other greenhouse gases. Methane, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, CFCs, sulfur hexaflouride, etc. CO2 alone does not a bastardized attempt of a scientific case make.
The funny thing I actually know how they did that shit. You are the one who should be hopping to it.
Here are some tips for you:
1. They looked at a few fossils and tried to infer the ancient pH levels from them
2. They say they can do it within a tenth of a point on the pH scale
Of course, like Mann's hockey stick this has huge uncertainties involved with it and known problems they can't explain (e.g. divergence problem), but whatever, you said uncertain data is okay with you if other uncertain data agrees with it.
Fantastic fucking science right there.
So in other words, you can't actually critique their methods, results, or conclusions. Gotcha.
In other words, you can't prove your claim.
Thanks for playing.
It's extinct. Do you see it anywhere other than the fossil record? It's pretty self-evident.
Actually you did make that claim. Amusingly you want to simultaneously say you can't prove it but that it wasnt' your claim to begin with, which begs the question of why you said, "And too bad the physiology of the life isn't largely still in place..."
Please quote where I claimed that "we have substantially different biological mechanisms that would make CO2 dangerous to us." 
It IS a recent evolutionary development. They only evolved a few million years ago.
Good lord can you get anything fucking right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation#The_evolution_and_advantages_of_the_C4_pathway
C4 carbon fixation has evolved on up to 40 independent occasions in different families of plants, making it a prime example of convergent evolution.[11] This convergence may have been facilitated by the fact that many potential evolutionary pathways to a C4 phenotype exist, many of which involve initial evolutionary steps not directly related to photosynthesis.[12] C4 plants arose around 25 to 32 million years ago[11] during the Oligocene
You are wrong again. C4 plants are metabolically much more inefficient than C3 plants. They use far more energy than their older counterparts. You'd know this if you bothered to read the article.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. More efficient at utilizing CO2.
20-25% of global primary productivity is accomplished by C4 plants. That's pretty efficient utilization of CO2 for 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.
Collatz, G.J., J.A. Berry, and J.S. Clark. 1998. Effects of climate and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure on the global distribution of C4 grasses: Present, past, and future. Oecologia 114:441–54.
Sage, R.F., D.A. Wedin, and M.-R. Li. 1999. The biogeography of C4 photosynthesis: Patterns and controlling factors. In C4 plant biology, ed. R.F. Sage and R.K. Monson, 313–73. San Diego: Academic Press.
They use the CO2 at night because if they did it during the day they'd lose too much moisture because the CO2 levels are too low to make it worthwhile.
They would've never evolved without low levels of CO2 - and they didn't. For hundreds of millions of years they never showed up - until just a few million years ago after most of the CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels and limestone.
Nope. Light availability was the driving factor in the evolution of the C4 pathway. It was then facilitated by moisture and CO2 availability.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1663/1753.full
Seasonal aridity, fire, the activity of large mammalian herbivores and edaphic factors increase the availability of open habitats through the reduction of woody plant cover (Sankaran et al. 2008). Our data are therefore consistent with the hypothesis that these factors raise the likelihood of C4 pathway evolution in the grasses (Sage 2001). The strong statistical dependence of C4 pathway evolution on habitat openness is also consistent with the environmental responses of photosynthesis in extant C3 and C4 grasses: temperature and irradiance are greater in open than shaded environments, especially in the period after a disturbance event (Knapp 1984), which enhances the advantage of C4 photosynthesis for CO2 fixation over the C3 type (Black et al. 1969; Björkman 1971).
Just the modern agriculture system that feeds an extra billion people with less land.
Sounds like modern agriculture has a problem, no?
None of which
cando meet our needs.
And who says we need to meet these "needs?"
Cutting down on the quarter of the Earth's land used for grazing and 2/3 of arable land dedicated to livestock feed production would be a good start, imho.
Yep, I'm one of those people that uses facts and logic to create my belief system rather than warping my facts and logic around my beliefs.
So in that case you can empirically justify this statement you made, amirite?:
Janus said:
Creating large inefficiencies in the economy due to regulatory bans and limitations creates poverty.
We have centuries of fossil fuels left.
Fossil fuels with widely known and well documented detrimental side effects that are progressively becoming more difficult and costly to extract. Optimal Foraging Theory much? Competitive Exclusion much? Even... Competitive Exclusion in the arena of fuel sources and technologies?
Just because something isn't "renewable" doesn't mean it should be banned.
The bronze age didn't begin because we ran out of stone.
And you are really starting to bore me. Not sure if I'll be responding to you in the future and if I do I'll have to ignore you constant barrage of fallacies and irrelevancies.
Still waiting on the things you didn't address previously:
http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=402554&postcount=50
I think it is more the thing about diversity and adaptation, advancement if you will, if we are to consider the potential number one target for life as we know it. 
