Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Aractus]

But, if there is an imbalance without anthropogenic CO2, then this imbalance only gets worse with anthropogenic CO2.
OR do you have data that supports that anthropogenic CO2 has a negligible contribution to the plot I showed in a previous post?

Well, we don't expect it to be balanced, as your ice-core graph shows we expect CO2 to either be building up in the atmosphere or dissipating.

Over-fishing? It may be one more factor to be thrown into the pot.
From what I remember of reading about this in that National Geographic article I linked before, the main CO2 absorbers in the ocean are shellfish, with a big impact on plankton.
Global ocean acidification may be affected by over-fishing in areas where plankton doesn't get replenished... but I'm not convinced the lack of fish would lead to lack of plankton.... If anything, I'd imagine it would lead to a (at least temporary) increase of plankton. But I have no data either way, so I have nothing to substantiate it. Do you?

Not on hand, but I thought scientists generally agree that ocean acidification is mostly due to the effect of overfishing on the bio-system?

In the past, maybe... Right now, not so sure. Do note the spike in CO2 in the last few data points of the plot in the previous post. I'm not sure those points are outliers.

TBH, I actually don't have a hard time accepting anthropogenic EGHG's being responsible for about 0.2 - 0.3 degrees of the trend. If true it points to CO2 being directly attributable in and of itself to 0.1-0.16 degrees. That's such a tiny amount though that I can't see the reason why we are so worried about it. And I have a hard time accepting that it will be a significant impact in the future. The global climate is always changing, we are always experiencing climate change, at least a few tenths of a degree per century.

If the theory on water-vapour feedback was rock-solid and proven, I'd accept AGW theory. But I see this as the biggest problem with the theory.