This is a special post for my favorite climate contrarian, Sch00dles, a great guy, good writer and director, and extremely tall human. He raised some objections to the prior post and I have responses.
Hello again. Whereas, the climate worldwide may be getting warmer, it is not evident that this is due to CO2.
It’s pretty evident. Scientists have actually observed CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere. But more importantly, at no point did scientists just assume that’s what was causing it. They spent decades doing painstaking research, which is available in the IPCC reports and elsewhere. But if you have the climate science evidence to overturn them by all means present it. You may be in line for a Nobel.
There are many inconsistencies in the facts which contradict this theory. Here are several. From the 1970s to the 1990s C02 production was at record highs, while scientists still worried about global cooling.
Wrong. There were some concerns about cooling in the popular press, and among a few scientists, but not in the science press and science research. Most climate scientists were not concerned about cooling and in fact some of the foundational research on warming began in the 70s.
Far greater levels of C02 have been present throughout the world’s history without apocalypse. After all, here we are.
Yes, you can find greater levels if you go back more than 650,000 years! That was before Homo sapiens. And it was probably quite a bit farther back before levels were higher than today. Check out this graph.
Historical records also show that CO2 levels follow rising temperatures rather than precede them.
Not too surprising to find examples of that in earth’s history since things other than CO2 can cause warming. And whenever it gets warmer, more CO2 is released. You get warming, then CO2, then more warming. Good explanation here. More to the point is, as noted above, there is very strong evidence that today’s warming is mostly caused by CO2.
Singling out CO2 to label as a pollutant in not justified by research. Here’s more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
I might agree with you that CO2 shouldn’t be labeled as a pollutant. It’s a semantic thing – how do you define “pollutant”? Maybe not like this.
As for that article — so a libertarian lawyer with the Heartland Institute denies the scientific consensus? He brings up specious, long debunked arguments and cites the Heartland Institute’s “Climate Change Reconsidered” publication for support. Heartland is the same group that fought against secondhand smoke legislation due to free market ideology rather than science.
This all comes down to my final point. The problem with the claim that CO2 is not the cause of global warming is that you have to search long and hard to find even a handful of actual experts in the subject who will provide any support for this. You can find some, just like you can find a few evolution deniers and anti-vaccinationists, but they are tiny minority.
Evidence behind CO2 being the warming driver mounts and mounts. Most climate scientists across the globe agree. What would it take to convince you personally of this evidence?