> if the change is small, then it doesn't matter. If you eat at burgerking everyday, then cutting down from supersized menus to normal size will still make you horridly obese.

Sorry, counter-examples only count one way. If you say "all small changes have small effects", I can refute this by giving an example of a small change with a large effect, but it is not enough for you to give a single example of a small change with a small effect to refute me.

This is very basic logic. You really ought to understand at least THAT much if you're going to be in an argument at all.

> please, >>95, abandon the name 'anonymous scientist,' because you know bollocks about science.

And you know more? You haven't made a single scientific argument yet. All you've done is pull numbers out of your ass like the mean anything, such as this:

> However, do small changes really have a small effect? Even then, such small changes, to be significant, have to be relatively large when we make them: Purely hypothetical, if Humans contribute 5% to CO2 production next to natural sources (and I think this is already large) then reducing total CO2 production by half a percent still requires a 10% change in human caused emissions. Do note, that humans then still contribute 4% (actually, slightly more) to total CO2 production, which in a environmental system with a very unstable balance (as many environmentalists like to pose it) might still be not enough.

This means nothing, especially when the numbers are completely made up, and you have no understanding of the processes involved. If you want to make an argument, reference some real data and real research, please.

I've provided at least some references for my argument, but you have obviously not read them, and neither have you given any yourself.