That's a more reasonable attitude than I took from your initial post.

What really irks me are the people who take the lack of proof of CO2-related warming the last 50 years, and extrapolate up from that to claim that the very principle of greenhouse warming is simply a myth and that if we burned every last ounce of fossil carbon by this Christmas, it would do nothing to the climate.

There certainly are such types out there. Maybe I spend too much time at political web boards and blogs, but I could point you at plenty of conservatives who would indeed say that converting all the earth's coal into CO2 overnight would have zero, absolutely zero, effect on anything. Hell, there are plenty who subscribe to the view that it is arrogance and paganism to even think that puny humans could do anything to alter this world that Great God Almighty created for us.

I think it is important to acknowledge that continuing on a fossil fuel path for the next 100 to 200 years would cause problems in virtually *anyone's* model, and I'd like those who differ to explain exactly why 1,000ppm of CO2 won't have the effect that basic physics would predict.

When you say you don't agree with those levels, I'm assuming you mean you think we'll switch to other energy sources? I think that's likely, too, but I'd also like to see those switches ocurr more rapidly than I think is likely without any policy intervention. Simply braying about how the greenhouse effect is a myth and Kyoto was merely an attempt to sabotage the US economy (though again, I was not a Kyoto fan) doesn't help bring us fusion plants or solar power.