If CO2 is the result, not the cause of global warming where does that leave the climate change debate?

Answer 1

Well, the debate is a bit like the debate over whether the earth revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun.

There are people, who for political and economic reasons, like to lie and spin and deny reality. So the "debate" is between scientists and political types and the fools who believe their lies.

For example, a couple of lies from the data-free crowd.

1) Temperature fluctuations are normal. So the recent changes are nothing but normal fluctuations.

Well, that is 100% true that fluctuations are normal. Nobody ever has said otherwise. But the scientists have taken that into account. The human body has normal fluctuations in temperature -- but if somebody has a temperature of 102 degrees we do not say "oh, that is a normal fluctuation."

2) Scientists used to think that the Earth is cooling in the 70s. Now they say it is warming.

Well, the Earth did cool slightly in the 70s. Part of the normal fluctuations in temperature. A couple of climatologists wrote about this and said the Earth might be cool but they do not know and would not even know the questions to ask to look into this subject. That is not the same as today when virtually all climatologists say the Earth is warming and have developed spot on models to demonstrate it.

3) The scientists who say things are cooling are doing it for the money.

Bizarre lie when Exxon and others are paying people to write pieces criticizing mainstream science.


4) Scientists are not always right. Take Galileo for example.

Well, bad example. Galileo was one of many scientists who knew the Earth revolved around the sun. The people who were fighting his ideas were not scientists, they were politicians.

Answer 2

The earths temperature does change naturally and this is pretty obvious when you consider how mant different ice ages there have been.
The earth is now in a warming stage as it should be, however there is proof that over the last 100 years or so that the increase in temperature is greater than expected and is occurring faster than nature can be held account for.

It is also a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is over the last 100 years that we have been producing it in vast amounts. There is no doubt that CO2 does contribute to global warming.

How fast the global warming is happening and if it is fast enough to worry about is more of an issue.

Answer 3

The IPCC report, as clearly demonstrated by a recent Channel 4 programme, has a bigger hole in it than the ozone layer.

Add to this the "Stern Report" which falsified the conclusions by basing them on the "worst case scenario" model of climate-change.

The infant science (which is what it is) of "climate change," does not meet quite the approval that the IPCC claim; especially since a number of very respected scientists distanced themselves from the conclusions of the IPCC.

So, to a certain extent, the science needs to mature, and the replicable evidence needs to be verified by the passage of time, and not simply by spurious figures or guesstimates based on flawed models.

It is especially bad when politicians strut the world-stage, claiming to be the "green leaders," when the only thing green about them is the possibility that they might as well come from Mars.

However, it matters not whether the debate is about "global warming" or not, because fossil-fuel consumption lies at the heart of both the global-warming debate, and at the heart of the excessive consumption of earth resources.

So conservation of resources requires a similar sort of response, except that by focusing on "carbon emissions", it is quite possible that more important and more pressing ecological concerns could be overlooked, and encourage the idea that nothing else matters.

I just wish that those enjoined in the debate could some degree of honesty and integrity; which seems to be totallly lacking at the present time, because unless they do, they will not get support from people, and without that, nothing will ever be achieved.

Answer 4

It begs the question of whether the climate is inherently stable or unstable.

If you think it is unstable, then a slight rise in CO2 from fossil fuel consumption has heated the planet slightly which causes CO2 to be released from the oceans which causes the temperature to rise more which causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans which...

In the above scenario you have a classic 'vicious circle'. Ice caps melt, sea levels rise, and al Gore's dire predictions come true.

In a stable system things happen to counter-balance the effects. Plants thrive on higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures. Higher evaporation rates happen creating more clouds which have a cooling effect. Also, more precipitation will cause the ice sheets in the places that are in no danger of thawing to grow.

It is more likely that we have a stable climate or things like solar events and volcanoes would have caused the climate to spin out of control many times in the past.

Answer 5

I have thought that global climate changes are natural for ages - look at the past history of the planet which has gone through ice ages and warm periods before. For the climate change debate - I'm sure they'll carry on as before and I think they should as the overall results of it will benefit the world. Recycling and finding different sources of energy that are greener are essential as the earth only has so much of those resources such as oil & gas.

Answer 6

It's left the "SUVs Are Killing The Planet" crowd flat footed and drop jawed.

As anyone who is in the wastewater treatment business will tell you, decomposition of organic material takes oxygen from the air and returns it as CO2. And the rate at which this process is done speeds up every year as winter turns into spring and into summer i.e as the Globe Warms up.

Its established fact that the earth started to emerge from a mini Ice Age shortly after the American and French Revolutions, and an increase in heat radiated from the sun would indeed cause elevated temperatures on the earth, as well as an increase in the rate of decompositon of dead organic material which would emit more methane and CO2, both dubbed "greehouse gases" by the Lets Feel Guilty About Something fanatics.

Answer 7

It leaves it in tatters. Yes air pollution is a problem but know where near on the scale of CO2 causing global warming.

The problem is: WHAT DEBATE?
This is a closed issue now. You are branded a heretic or stupid if you dare to challenge the accepted view. There are far to many people who depend on it being true for their own existence and far to much money involved for there ever to be an HONEST debate.

Answer 8

Amazing how few understood the question but global warming is a matter of faith so understanding doesn't really factor into it. When I see the correlation of CO2 to temperature, while realizing that water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas, I have to ask myself if the CO2 increase is causing the higher temperature or the higher temperature is causing the CO2. For me the more likely answer is that the temperature is causing the increasing CO2. It is likely that it is a state of dynamic equilibrium based on many factors one of which is temperature. If the global warming alarmists can't blame man, their god dies.

Answer 9

At ground Zero! I would encourage anyone serious about understanding the issue to watch BBC's (The great global warming swindle). Just google it. It is a scientific explaination of the real reasons for climate cycles.

Answer 10

i might say extensive form 3 - each thing has a reaction yet with guy contributing decrease than a million% of the whole Co2 emissions according to twelve months that's merely no longer a significant reason. i've got faith it rather is actual one in all those perverse conceitedness to think of we are able to alter the climate. What mad does have a tendency to do is over-income from organic components yet that's yet another question!