Sorry, but that is just not a good argument.
Very often subtle changes can have huge impacts. A teeny tiny amount of botulin toxin will kill you dead right there. Size doesn’t always matter.
I have yet to see conclusive evidence of AGW, but this particular argument isn’t one of the many good ones against it.
It is THE argument, thank you.
One of the best arguments involves looking at the temperature graphs for the past 640,000 years and realizing the cycle has gone from ice age to warm period and back all those other times with nary an SUV or coal-fired power plant. If these things occurred in nature before without significant human intervention before, it stands to reason that we are not the driving force in the equation.
DENIER DENIER! Thats the worst kind
Occam's razor here. A man is found with a smoking gun in his hand and a wound to his head. The police say "death by gunshot wound." Is this logical proof that he died this way? No. It is possible that a forensically untraceable gamma ray burst hit him at the same time that the gun fired and actually caused death. Sure. It's possible. Logically, it is very difficult to prove anything in the real world, especially a negative proposition ("Can you prove that he wasn't killed by the gamma rays"). But, in this case, as in most, we make use of our common scientific sense to consider first the overwhelmingly preponderant common causes and not the .000001% possibilities.
abclilly's post is a good argument. It is probably true. But, granted, it is not a logically complete argument. It is not a mathematical proof. In the real world, we rarely get such.