Who believes man made CO2 is responsible for Global Warming?

Question

Who believes man made CO2 is responsible for Global Warming?

Answer 1

seeing as how we're a source of about 3% of the carbon dioxide, I question the reasoning. Also, consider the fact that the sun's energy output increase about .2% in the last 40 years and Mars and Pluto are heating up... Read here - of course no one believes it !

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/su...

Answer 2

There's an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed scientific data that says that it's real and mostly caused by us.  Short and long summaries.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The swindle movie is wrong.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie they have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

Good website for more info:

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 3

We aren't, a new documentary is coming out specifically to challenge Al Gorleone's "documentary"

I've seen some of it, they show how Al misinterpreted data, where he makes mistakes, and why, here's one example

The ice-core data is frequently cited as principle evidence to argue that CO2 is the earth’s main climate driver. It is, in a way, the jewel in the crown of the theory of man made global warming. But the ice-core data does not show that CO2 drives climate. It shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way round. The two phenomena are divided by a time lag of several hundred years.

Answer 4

Wow, the arrogance of the naysayers here is appalling.  You are saying that you know more than the 2,500 top scientists in their respective fields from around the world who have worked on studying this for the last 19 years?  Where are your credentials?   OK, somebody made a movie where they found 5-10 experts that disagree.  You can always find disagreement in science, but as for the "preponderance of the evidence" you have to take this report as the "the leading theory".  Sheesh.

Answer 5

Noone, all the arguing is about whether it makes the globe warm up dangerously fast or not.

Answer 6

In order for that to be true it would require CO2 to precede a warming period.

CO2 and Temperature: Ice Core Correlations Reference

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B.  1999.  Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations.  Science 283: 1712-1714.

What was done

The authors examined contemporaneous records of atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature derived from Antarctic ice cores that extended back in time through the last three glacial-interglacial transitions.

What was learned

In all three of the most recent glacial terminations, the earth warmed well before there was any increase in the air's CO2 content.  In the words of the authors, "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."  During the penultimate (next to last) warm period, there is also a 15,000-year time interval where distinct cooling does not elicit any change in atmospheric CO2; and when the air's CO2 content gradually drops over the next 20,000 years, air temperatures either rise or remain fairly constant.

What it means

One of the reasons for conducting studies of this type is to see what can be learned about the ability of increases in atmospheric CO2 to enhance earth's natural greenhouse effect and induce global warming.  As is readily evident from the work described here, however, the relationship between temperature and CO2 appears to be just the reverse of what is assumed in all of the climate model studies that warn of dramatic warming in response to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: temperature rises first, and then comes an increase in atmospheric CO2.  Or, CO2 remains essentially unchanged while temperatures drop.  Or, CO2 drops while air temperature remains unchanged or actually rises.  Nothing even comes close to resembling what we are continually being warned about by state-of-the-art global climate models.

So what is one to believe?  Theoretical predictions or historical fact?  The choice of wisdom would appear to us to be history.  It has an uncanny way of repeating itself.

Answer 7

I certainly do. It would be foolish to think otherwise with millions upon millions of tonnes being sent into the atmosphere every year.