How can people "not believe" humans accelerate global warming?

Your graph shows a temperature variant of .6 degrees and is skewed to show a result that the graph creator wanted. What is the range of error in a graph going back 2000 years? Aren't actual temperatures from hundreds or thousands of years ago problematic?

Well, you may have done research but your research is flawed. (see below).

Even if levels of CO2 increase, they do not cause climate warming. Here are some facts. First, the Sun does not warm the air directly. The sun warms the sea and the ground which radiate the heat and warm the air. So, some use this to claim that increased CO2 has a "greenhouse" effect in that it hiders the radiation of heat back into space. True enough. However, that is not all increased CO2 levels do. They also increase cloud cover by raising humidity levels. Ever actually look at a greenhouse? See the condesation on the glass?

CO2 increases cloud cover which blocks the Sun's radiation and also results in cooler temperatures. So you see, this whole ecosystem is self-correcting. The more Carbon Dioxide you emit, the better plants grow. Plants breathe in Carbon Dioxide and give off Oxygen. CO2 has a greenhouse effect in that it inhibits heat from escaping but it also produces cloud cover that inhibits heat from getting to the surface to warm the air in the first place. Back to balance.

This ecosystem we call Earth is not all that fragile. The only thing great enough to cause dramatic changes is global climate is the Sun. It does this on all the planets. More Solar activity, global warming. Less Solar activity global ice age. All this long before the first man even existed. It occurrs now and will occurr long after man has gone.

Nothing I have stated here is untrue. I defy anyone to prove it to be false.

*

Here's why.

First thing, CO2 comprises a remarkably small percentage of our atmosphere. Only 0.0387%. Other gases such as water vapor contribute much more to warming this planet than CO2.

I don't care if 97% of people who study this stuff believe it. And quite frankly, you read that study wrong. Only 82% believed it was human caused. I know, 82% is still a big number.

Now look at the chart I link to. Sure, it's gotten warmer in the last 150 years, because we were just getting out of the Little Ice Age. At least twice before, we've been significantly hotter than we are now, long before the invention of the SUV. And during that Mideval warm period, records show it was a positive thing. Areas that were generally uninhabitable became habitable. It became easier to grow crops. Oh, and my chart says the mideval period was warmer.

Another reason why I disbelieve is that 4 times in the last century, "experts" flipped positions and were warning us about the how the earth was headed for warming or another ice age. Every couple of generations gets a new cycle of hot or cooling spells, and proclaims a new disaster is upon us. Only the GW folks figured this out, and now they are using the term "Climate Change." Now, any change in climate can be blamed on man, not just warming. They are setting themselves up for the long game regardless of which way the climate goes.

Another problem I have is that the big government types have latched on to Global Warming as their way of pushing higher taxes, lower standards of living and wealth transfer. Basically, the solutions fit their agenda anyway.

Another problem, and this one you won't read much about, but I have investigated, is the unreliability of weather station data. Oh, the temperatures recorded are correct enough, but the surrounding areas have changed significantly over the last century. Many went from being out in the country or small towns and are now in major metropolitan areas near artificial heat sources like Air Conditioners or industrial equipment, or just acres of blacktop. There's a web site that's been investigating this. See my second link.

There are still many republicans that disagree. And it's far more than 1% of the scientists that disagree about Global Warming. Start investigating the issue for yourself. These statements like "The Debate is over," or "The Deniers are funded by the oil industry," are a bunch of bunk. You in fact demonstrate the worst qualities. Every scientist that disagrees must be a whack job or funded by the oil industry in your opinion. No, heaven forbid a scientist disagree because the science doesn't back it up, or the outrageously hyped doom and gloom we are fed maybe isn't backed up by science. Apparently, there are no such honorable scientists that disagree in your opinion. You are being sold a bill of goods by the politicians and mass media that dislike America with it's current culture and economic system. They've all latched on to man made Global Warming as a way to change things for what they see America should be.

The fact is, they put the blame onto the normal working person. It is our governments that cater for us, they give us our energy sources. We do not ask for fossil fuels, especially when the technology has been there for years in the way of solar, tidal, wave, wind and geothermal which effectively could power the world forever but the powers that be, the corporations who use oil as a tool for leverage and power cannot survive without using fossil fuels or without causing serious pollution. They do not want or are ever going to finance such clean, sustainable energy sources but yet it is us who are being punished through crippling taxes for ''climate change''. Of course the climate is going to change if it is perpetually polluted at the rate it is just now. Taxing us is not going to change anything and until people wake up and notice this then nothing will ever change and climate pollution will continue to get worse.

At the end of the day my point is, we have a established system in place that relies on oil production. We are sold it by the established system but yet are punished for using it. Can anyone see the irony here?

In addition to several points made on doubts about the science (who measured temperatures 200 years ago, what about global cooling...), I also have doubts about the scientific community. If you read "The Wisdom of Crowds", the author generally says that decisions are best made by groups. But, in his chapter on science, he points out several biases regarding which scientific research gets attention and which doesn't. Papers from well-known scientists that build on prior research from other well-known scientists get more attention (and grant money) than dissenting papers from less-known scientists. Therefore, as "global warming" became more popular, the scientific community became very biased toward producing research that confirms the hypothesis rather than denys it. These scientific theories build momentum, until they don't. Then the scientists move on to the next thing.

Also, even if global warming were real, and was caused mostly by humans, there are far more cost-effective things we can do to help people than what's being proposed about global warming (oops - I mean "climate change")

Can you tell me what the scientists names are from 2000 years ago to present that these graph's came from or do these graph's come from

scientist that are speculating on what they thought the temps were or did they use a computer to do the research that they programmed to

fit their idea of what they thought temps were back then. I didn't realize

that they kept temperature readings in medieval period. Or could it be that a lot of these scientist could not get grant funding for their projects

without say they believed in global warming. We all know that temps have cooled over the last 10 years because of global warming. The reason the liberal left changed from global warming to climate change

is because they can blame climate change how ever they see fit.

The world is getting cooler it's climate change the world is getting warmer, it's climate change, see how convenient that word climate change work for you liberals.

So,will destroying the US Economy,and sending even more work to countries like China solve this problem? They will simply replace any CO2 reductions we make,in fact with such lax Environmental Rules they may exceed our CO2 Emissions.

And why,if CO2 is such a harmful thing,do so many oppose one of the most effective ways we could lower our emissions,Nuclear Power? seems to work quite well for others,but somehow here it's a no-go. Could it be that a lot of this has much more to do with Politics than Science?

As for the Scientists,I guess they couldn't possibly be manipulating the data,to reach the conclusion those who pay them want.After all,we know Scientists never do anything unethical for money,Right? Other than creating Nuclear Weapons,Or Chemical Weapons,or Biological Weapons of course.But other than that they never do anything unethical for money.

And lastly,Are these the same types of Scientists who cannot seem to give me an accurate Weather Forecast beyond about 5 days,yet somehow they have figured out the long term Climate Conditions to come over the next Century?

RWE

There are several problems.

1) Looking at the temperature of the earth over the past 10,000 years, the change in temperature is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. It's less than 1 degree, where the climate generally changes by +/- 5 degrees C over long periods of time,

2) So-called "scientists" who have a political agenda have destroyed the credibility of this argument. One of the first documents describing global warming intentionally mis-stated the result of a survey of thousands of credible scientists. There are numerous examples of intentional mis-reporting of information on this issue,

3) The question is not whether we COULD change the temperature, but whether we ARE doing so to a significant degree. This certainly hasn't happened YET, but could it? Maybe. Is it worth paying attention to? Yes! Is it worth bankrupting our country over? Well, I'll let you answer that one...

2000 years? Is that ALL? I mean ok, fair enough the records speaks for themselves but the Earth has existed for millions and millions of years...2000 years is hardly a dent in that, is it?

I noticed that you used the term "global warming". Global warming was just a phrase in order for people to fork out more money in green taxes, silly really. The term is now called "Climate Change" because they just don't have sufficient evidence that the Earth is heating up. Climate change has come about with irregular weather patterns on Earth. Back in 2004, I visited an observatory in the Czech Republic where I got to see the sun in great detail through the telescope. The astronomer explained that irregular solar activity was causing the dramatic weather changes in our Earth and he showed me the huge sun spots and a solar flare or two with great excitement. It is not our doing, it is out of our control.

I would have a word with the manufacturers and factories who produce the crap in our atmosphere, it's bad for the environment, I agree but it is out of the normal every day persons hands.