Make a Pig of Yourself at a Dinner Party - What's Wrong with 'Green'

Image credit.

Geologist Ian Plimer:

That is where I struck difficulty with the global warming movement: that there is a huge body of evidence — and that is mainly in life science / geology — that shows that the argument that human emissions of carbon-dioxide drive global warming is not substantiated by evidence. [Time marks 40:15 to 40:35, in the second video below]

In the below radio interview, which I find very substantial and persuasive, Plimer (between time marks 18:05 and 18:50) makes a point that to my flabbergasted incomprehension is never made even by sceptics [my comments in brackets, and my emphasis]:

There is a fundamental question that has never been answered ... Can you show me that the human emissions of carbon-dioxide drive global warming [—however, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, temperatures driving CO2 rather than the other way around]? Now, assume that I am wrong ... and that you can show me, then I ask you the supplementary question: ... The IPCC tells us that 97 % of carbon-dioxide emissions are natural [i.e. not caused by human beings]. Please show me that the 97 % of carbon-dioxide emissions from natural causes don't drive global warming. It's checkmate before the game starts."

There is far more CO2 being emitted by dying vegetation, volcanoes, animal flatulence and the oceans than by humans. Why is global warming supposed to be ended or satisfactorily controlled only if those 3% of all CO2 ascribable to human activities is subjected to a significant reduction? And in doing so preposterously one will have to eliminate a substantial part of that little portion of 3%, meaning bring human life as we know it to a standstill.