"A thoughtful, understandable post and reference.

And the points are that the climate is warming and human activities are contributing. The degree is the question."
No, point is that climate warms and cools regardless of human activity, though humans have some affect and the degree of this affect has been the question from the "get go".

"Up until recently the argument was whether it was warming at all, or if it was, if human activities had any impact on that."

Wrong again. Question remains has human activity significantly added to the global warming: we had the Little Ice Age a few centuries ago, there is no doubt we are warmer in comparison to that time. There also is no doubt that urban areas create "heat islands" which increases temperature locally.
More facts: "in the beginning" this planet of course had more CO2 than presently (O2 was the trace gas), but after the rise of O2 there have been many periods where there has been higher concentrations of CO2 than current levels. And even as recent as last major ice age, there has been higher global temperatures than current temperatures. There has also been periods of time in which the global temperature has been lower than current and had higher CO2 levels.

"So, we've moved from whether to degree of causation."

Degree of causation has been the question from start.

" "He still cautions that we should take steps to reduce manmade greenhouse gases and he makes a good point. Frankly, I'll take his opinion over yours and all the other climate change dogma believers put together."

That's been my point all along. That whatever is happening, Man isn't doing it any good, and might want to minimize his impact. "

Well, there *could be* some benefits from increasing global levels of CO2. There *could be* benefits from increasing global temperature. But I wouldn't want some "govt program" to increase the CO2 level and/or increase global temperatures:)