But that's not the case today. Today it's the leading release of CO2 that is causing the temperature rise.

All of this you well know, because this has been addressed multiple times in this very thread, however not yet on this particular page.

Climategate - what you really need to know:

Da da dum dum dum...

...

...

Da da dum dum dum...

The 100 years of temperatures is too short period of time, but it can tell you trending. I think that scientists rely more on ice core samples from some place like Antarctica to determine CO2 levels during known ice age periods and warm periods, or something like that, which is why scientists are alarmed at the CO2 levels today.

For convenience sake here are articles debunking 29 common climate myths, many of which have been brought up in this thread multiple times. These can all be referenced directly from Climate change: A guide for the perplexed.

Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails

Any cooling disproves global warming

Global warming stopped in 1998

Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Polar bear numbers are increasing

The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

The oceans are cooling

Mars and Pluto are warming too

Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

It's too cold where I live – warming will be great

We can't do anything about climate change

Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

It's all down to cosmic rays

The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

Chaotic systems are not predictable

We can't trust computer models

Many leading scientists question climate change

It's all a conspiracy

They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Just in case that isn't enough the following is a link to 83 Skeptic arguments along with their scientific response.

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says

A picture is worth a thousand words:  No debunking, just debate,, but some do not understand the difference:

For convenience sake, here is the rebuttal to the rebuttal (not debunking) of the strawmen that religious zealots love to trot out. 

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/scientific-american-answers-to.html

You see, when they (the religious zealots) get to frame the questions, they will always have the answer.  When the real questions are asked, they have no answers.

I didn't watch the above video (I intend to). I am not sure if it is pro-AGW theory or against, but just seeing the picture of Senator Inhofe makes me cringe. How that guy makes it into office each year is beyond me.

His campaign largest campaign contributors are Oil & Gas:

In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership pacs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.^[47] In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).

He's also compared the EPA publicly to the Gestapo, believes that the American-Isreali Foreign policy should be based on what the Bible says. Also, the website Politifact debunked what Inhofe said about the email controversy here (this is an independant website that has won the Pulitzer Prize):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/11/james-inhofe/inhofe-claims-cru-e-mails-debunk-science-behind-cl/

You know, we established the existence of Global Warming (in this thread) for the more rational (two or three) skeptics 15-20 odd pages ago...At this point, per Oscar Wilde, we are just haggling over the price.

You don't think it's about CO2, right?  OK, why not?  Is it that you don't think CO2 levels are high, or that you don't think they are manmade, or that you don't think CO2 traps infrared and near-infrared light, or all of the above?

We have research results that show these things, documented to the nth degree, so please detail your specific issues here.  Seriously, we have spent 30 odd pages linking you to most of the climate science internet, and we get responses like this:

Don't confuse my politeness with agreement.  Moreover, my experience in these threads is that the AGW proponents tend to have more than their fair share of lunatics.  

You or someone else insisting your opinions are correct simply because the current "scientific consensus" says so doesn't make them so.

I am skeptical that humans are affecting the climate.  Skeptical is not the same as denial.  I am even more skeptical that CO2 is the cause because CO2 is such minor warming effects and if it did have major effects, the temperature would be continuing to shoot straight up because the CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to shoot up drastically while temperatures have not.

I don't know any of you in "real life" but my real life experiences with AGW proponents tend to be people who aren't terribly bright but suddenly think they are somehow intellectuals because they saw An Inconvenient Truth.

My "real life" experiences in these debates typically involve the same people who come to me to settle some argument on string theory or relativity or evolution or what have you but suddenly decide I must be an idiot because I haven't bought into CO2 produced AGW. As if any of these people themselves are somehow educated enough to understand the issue.

I've been following the topic for decades. As I mentioned to Mumble, I was reading up on RealClimate.org since its founding and so I'm quite familiar with the way data is spun.  

But at the end of the day, I don't care whether people believe in AGW or not.  I only care if people with guns (the government) tries to make pay for what I consider their religion.  Moreover, I don't have a lot of patience with random internet guy insulting me on my own forum by explicitly comparing me with a holocaust denier (as if AGW is a historical documented fact, the sheer arrogance is astounding).

Showing a little respect for other human beings in a discussion will go a long way. Because if they can't do that, I will show them the door.

From http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Like the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has: 

Manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence.

Adopted a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message and thereby confuse the public.

Promoted scientific spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or cherry-pick facts in their attempts to persuade the media and the public that there is still serious debate among scientists that burning fossil fuels has contributed to global warming and that human-caused warming will have serious consequences.

Attempted to shift the focus away from meaningful action on global warming with misleading charges about the need for “sound science.”

Also from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2.

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco.

The fact that I've posted these same links elsewhere is immaterial as they have not been rebutted there or anywhere else. Again this is not evidence of legitimate debate, these are merely attempts to cloud the issue and give the appearance of controversy, where in fact no significant controversy exists.

If you really want to argue the case then show me the peer reviewed papers published in respected journals by credentialed scientists and then I will give them some credence. Certainly a few such articles exist but virtually all of them still support the two underlying premises of AGW, that the earth is indeed warming and that human activity is a significant contributor to that warming. The balance of documented evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW.

Even in the very few cases where they don't it is generally very new information that has yet to be fully incorporated into the science and if the past is any guidance it will usually end up being more supportive of the scientific "consensus" than being "the final nail in the AGW coffin" as they are undoubtedly initially touted.

However if your point is to argue that you don't agree with the high end of predicted range of outcomes then that's a different story. The most common range of temperature increases expected by the end of the century is a rather wide range of 1°C to 7°C. If you subscribe to the idea that 1°C by the end of the century is where you expect to be and that doesn't represent such a catastrophic outcome then I cannot prove you wrong. I may not agree with your opinion but it's within the range of the reasonable. Personally I don't tend to accept the high end of the range as likely either but then that's just my opinion.

What I feel is settled is the idea that the earth is indeed warming and that human activity is a significant contributor to that warming. To deny that aspect is *in my opinion* denial, whereas what the effect of AGW will be as well as what could and should be done about it are perfectly reasonable topics of debate, but for some reason it just *seems to me* that those that are ideologically opposed to proposals of what to do about AGW prefer to deny the existence of AGW itself as opposed to concentrating on what they truly find objectionable which is the proposed cure.

CO2 is what everyone is fighting over.  Not the amount, but if it's the cause itself.

I'd be more willing to bet that our problems have been over the sulfer and nitrogen we have been shooting in the air, causing acid rain and air pollution, then carbon dioxide and any of the bullshit that goes with that (Such as cow farts polluting the planet).  I'd be more then willing to bet that once we completely remove these pollutions we'd find every issue reversed.

You say "Showing a little respect..." and in that same paragraph you compared people on the opposite side to the religious, which is a big insult to me, and that "AGW proponents tend to be people who aren't terribly bright". So practice what you preach. 

You know, you don't have to quote the entire reply to make a two sentence response to a one or two sentence excerpt from someone's reply, just highlight the text you want to quote prior to hitting the quote button.

It just makes for a more readable thread.

Nobody is wrong and yet everyone is right.  Except when you practice fraud and deceit. (Thatis the royal you and not the 2nd person you): http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2

Oh so true!

Yes, I know how to quote, but I was at work and made a quick reply. I deleted the one or two paragraphs that did not apply just for you. Hopefully, you can now read and comprehend the 31 page thread in its entirety without my post messing with your head or confusing you.

First, the comparison was implicit at most, not explicit.  He's not calling you a Holocaust denialist, any more than I am.  You were saying you didn't see why AGW proponents got mad about skepticism on this topic, he brought up some other topics he gets mad at skeptics for, and then linked to a site devoted to the tactics used by a given faction with a certain viewpoint on those topics.  Read the methodology - it matches up quite neatly (on a movement and policy level, again, not about individuals here)

You took offense, and I don't get that.  The tactics used by denialists, in whatever topic, regardless of ideology, are similar, no?  Once again, the fact that you, personally, don't identify with a given faction on a given topic changes nothing about the fact that the methods used to manufacture debate are the same, across factions, and across topics. 

It offended you earlier when we drew the explicit links between the Tobacco Lobby and anti-AGW lobby, but again, I don't get it.  No one is saying *you* are the tobacco lobby, but on a policy level the tobacco lobby is deeply involved on the anti-AGW side.  The link exists, and Mumble kindly provided it again on this page.  You can't show anything which puts the lie to that.  How is that a personal insult against you, Frogboy, or any of the commenters here, worthy of muting somebody for?  

Of course I empathize with your initial impulse to muzzle anyone who points this stuff out, but doing it out of righteous indignation smacks of naivete - these are the dogs you are sleeping with, and yes, you will get fleas

That's a good line ^^

As far as real life goes - people tend to stereotype.  I'll admit, when I meet someone who doesn't go with the first few tenets of AGW I'm usually going to fill in the blanks (and get, I'm sure, many of them wrong): Conservative, Christian, Anglo, family-oriented, moralistic, monolingual, if American then Republican or Libertarian, likes Fox News, likes Sarah Palin, hates MSNBC, hates San Francisco, possibly uneasy around ethnic diversity, nationalistic, jingoistic, creationist, pro-life, pro-death penalty, (as part of the two immediately preceding) zero sense of irony, pro-gun rights, non-urban, small-government, possibly college graduate but not necessarily (if so then at least upper-middle class income and business owner or manager), not a scientist, not an educator.  

And of course this is where you jump on me for the parts in that admittedly biased perspective that don't fit you, specifically, right?  Please remember, like Frogboy, I'm talking about my stereotypes in real-life encounters, not the people on this thread.  

Seems like mere high school students stood up to him quite well. 

Problem, this is the primary evidence for CO2 driven warming.  Because it never existed, there is no evidence for CO2 driven warming.  They can't get the models to show reality, so the models are evidence to the contrary, not support.

What we know about the greenhouse effect, basic physics, physics 101 basic.  None of the blocked infrared passes through the atmosphere.  It is blocked very high up, and more is created bouncing other frequencies off surface objects.  That new infrared is then blocked in the lower troposphere on it's way back up.  The change in where the energy is blocked is equal both directions, more CO2 simply absorbs it faster on both the way in and the way out.  The math says the sum effect is zero.  The heat lost from the upper atmosphere, due to less atmosphere for the absorbed heat to dissipate through, is equal to the increase near the surface.  This hasn't been shown.

The poles are the only regions warming significantly, the warming in the poles was a predicted outcome of CFC's depleting the ozone at those locations.  This is a known, demonstrable effect.  The surface stations show vastly greater warming near land than the necessarily equal amount of cooling in the upper levels.  The surface shouldn't be warming as much as the lower troposphere, yet shows almost twice as much.  A theory is only valid until disproven, AGW is proven invalid simply by the math.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/rutherford-et-al-2005-highlights/

We simply cannot afford to gamble by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climatic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to reasonable be ignored.

Lowell Ponte, The Cooling p.237

I don't want to get involved in this specific train-wreck here about 'science' and 'public policy,' but I will admit that in crude voting-booth terms, I'm more or less in Mumblefratz's camp. As for why Brad is justly offended by being compared to a Holocaust denier, you're making something like an error of both category and degree.

First, in the climate change context, the 'denier' thing is useless name-calling best skipped in favor of direct, fact-driven critique. Second, even accepting 'denier' as a useful category for a public debate, it's just stupid to reach directly for the Nazi baggage if you really want to talk rhetorical tactics. You disrespect the Holocaust and its legacy by treating it as nothing more than mud to fling in political argument. Mud is common, normal, sometimes even fun. The Shoah--never again. (No, I'm not Jewish; just born from several Southron generations and edu-macated enough to know that the first Jew to hold a cabinet level office in 'America' was a Confederate.)