Since Massive Amounts Of CO2 Was Proven Not To Change Temperatures In The Past...?

Question

what mislead you to believe CO2 is changing the temperature right now? There have been greater amounts of CO2 during the earth's history than what is in the atmosphere currently. Also, within the last 20,000 years, there have been far faster increases in temperature than what we have now. And there were no SUV's back then. And the human population back then was far less than 50 million people (around the size of the population of England).

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/dev/images/Popn_Graph3.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle&hl=en

Don't trust the website realclimate.org. NASA data proves them wrong when it comes to historical teperatures.

NASA: "Rapid changes between ice ages and warm periods (called interglacials) are recorded in the Greenland ice sheet. Occurring over ONE OR TWO DECADES, the warming of the Earth at the end of the last ice age happened much faster than the rate of change of the Earth’s orbit."
NASA link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/Images/gisp2_temperature.gif

NASA data has proved that the "Little Ice Age" was caused by less light reaching the earth ("solar variability", which means changes in the sun). http://tinyurl.com/227h3p (NASA's data about the little ice age)

"Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.""
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

"Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.""
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

Answer 1

CO2 is a gas that traps heat.This has been proven numerous times and is accepted science fact. Temperature fluctuations in the ancient past could have been caused by any number of factors including solar output and global positioning. What we know for certain, what we can see firsthand in experiments is that CO2 works like a blanket trapping heat. When you put a blanket on it takes a minute to warm up. The same is happening to the earth.

Answer 2

Because its as popular as believing in Santa Claus and Rudolph.

So popular that Australia taxes cow f#rts. When a few serious scientists state that the sun is getting warmer, they are ignored and derided.

Man can shift patterns of rainfall somewhat, when thousands of acres of rain forest are denuded, for example.

Most people do not realize that small villages around the world that burn wood for heating and cooking actually pollute more than a medium size city in the US.

California puts out 1% of worldwide C02, India 16%.

Answer 3

It's funny that environmental stewardship has become so politicized and polarized around the issue of global warming. It is a fact that humans have an adverse effect on the environment in many ways.

Any sane individual should be able to see that it can only benefit humankind to use all our technological knowledge to help preserve the natural environment and to lighten the human "footprint" as much as possible. If a major climate event does happen it's quite possible millions of people will die. Even though the evidence on global warming is "inconclusive", it wouldn't be very "human" to not act to reduce our greenhouse gas contribution if it means possibly saving lives. We launched a pre-emptive strike against Iraq to save future American lives. As a nation we will easily kill to "save lives" but we bawl when someone suggests changing a few filthy habits.

Ah well, we may be the last to burn but we'll still burn.

Answer 4

Why don't you people follow up on your anti-science films as well as you do with Al Gore's film? If you did I'm sure you'd see what a complete piece of rubbish that Swindle mockumentary is. Honestly, the thing hasn't got even the slightest shred of scientific credibility. But, as LeVar Burton was so fond of saying, you don't have to take *my* word for it.

Here's a lovely sort of site (one actually run by credible climate scientists, no less. That should serve as a nice change of pace to all the political propaganda you've no doubt been reading of late) that completely debunks the whole film for you. As well as a nice little article completely smashing the idea that CO2 had nothing to do with past climate changes. Enjoy:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

(^^^Is the article about the film)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

(^^^ Both are about the issue with the CO2 lag you mentioned)

Edit: NASA data does no such thing. And RealClimate is a Blog run by fifteen highly qualified climate scientists, many of whom have done research for NASA, so I think I'll be taking their word over yours. Sorry.

Answer 5

It is good to see someone is actually looking into the real facts.

Answer 6

Hi. "Ignorance is bliss". Cypher, from "The Matrix". Your descendants will despise you (if you have any). Cirric, from "Reality".