Even the CO2 "measure" is up for debate - see
vs
The Hawaii measurements are well known (Keeley is an IPCC "scientist" after all), maybe the others are less so (
google Quick View)
Quote:
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel. Evidence for lacking evaluation of methods results from the finding that as accurate selected results show systematic errors in the order of at least 20 ppm [28, 29, 30, 31, 57, 73]. Most authors and sources have summarised the historical CO2 determinations by chemical methods incorrectly and promulgated the unjustifiable view that histoerical methods of analysis were unreliable and produced poor quality
results
|
Disclaimer - I don't know which is correct but what seems absolutely obvious is that the "simple physics" model doesn't seem to fit any more - or at least not reliably.
Before we decide whether to prevent (for which it is apparently either too late, or we have another 4 years / 100 months, 10 years to "save the world") or adapt or do nothing it would be good to find out more.
As for other species - a lot of what is around now has also been around when it has been a lot warmer and a lot cooler. The biggest threat it faces is us, now.