Uhhh, which proper method? Everyone has a "proper" method, which is yours?
If there are thousands of different methods for arriving at the truth, how do we select between them? The answer, of course, is that we wean away the methods that have lead to conclusions which are false. We keep what is left. There is a core stock of methods dating back a couple thousand years that have been unfailing. This set is called logic, and is exceptionally more structured than the layman typically knows. What most people call "logical" or "illogical" is an abuse of these ancient terms. Actual logic is the first set of proper methods. Not layman logic.
The second set of proper methods started a little over four hundred years ago. In a sense, this set of newer methods is a structure built around the core set of logical methods. Logic must be used, but the newer set uses methods above and beyond logic. This newer set is also able to go much further than logic in discovering our world, but for that advantage it's also much more susceptible to arriving at false conclusions.
But, that doesn't mean there is any other set of methods more capable of weaning away false conclusions. This newer set - science - is unmatched by any other set of methods. Nothing compares, except for the logical subset, which is required for good science.
Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.
This is what is called a false dichotomy. If you reference the first set of methods, you'll find it's a mistake of reasoning dating back thousands of years.
So, I am to assume that life, no matter what form, originated in that? Or waited for more favorable conditions and THEN, life came from non-life? lol Oh boy, Saturday morning cartoons weren't that good. lol
This is an appeal to incredulity. The universe is filled with incredible things. Until we discover them and know them to be true, reactions such as yours are detrimental. Appealing to incredulity does nothing but make you feel better about what you believe. Unless you show that it's impossible, you have nothing. Incredulity is meaningless.
Our puttering hasn't increased all that much. Human nature is exactly the same.
This is a mistake of false equivalence. Human nature may not have increased, but our puttering has increased exponentially. They are two different things.
It's never a good thing when billions die. Of COURSE, I believe in climate change and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it. It is called WEATHER! Now, pollution on the other hand...
It's called anthropogenic climate change. The question is whether or not humans are having an impact on our environment. The evidence answers this question with a resounding and unfortunate "yes".
No, YOU need to know that YOU are wrong.
I could be wrong. But at the very least, I'm a hell of a lot closer to the truth than you are. The sheer number of mistakes of reasoning you make in a single post demonstrates this. From what I can tell, you use emotional reasoning, which is the fastest way to false conclusions. Keep responding, the evidence will pile up. Not that it will matter.