Funny, I do not recall implying anyone was a fool in this post??? . . As for the frequency of occurrence, the most accurate and precise base line we have is what we can measure now. Extrapolating that to paleodata measurements will certainly be less defined because we are able to obtain data contemporaneously thereby creating a more precise data base than what is available from interpretations of paleodata. Additionally, I was not dismissing the possibility of global warming being accelerated by anthropogenic sources. I posed the question of how and to what extent, and I suggested what I believe to be a reliable and verifiable form for that explanation, or at least a start for one.
The news is inundated with questionably motivated responses and quasi scientific essays on the subject, and both sides of the topic play the same game. So, why not address it from a purely scientific view point and see where that takes us?
I suspect, from a personal point of view, that pure science is no longer desirable in the public realm because it does not provide politicians an emotional tool with witch to manipulate voters thereby prompting the political world to decrease the funds to research that does not support the current political agenda. (NOTE: substitution of witch for which intended to illustrate the point)
If this is interpreted by anyone as implying that he or she is a fool then I suggest that those who are offended reevaluate their paradigm of self esteem.