I don't question that the earth is warming somewhat. But the doomsday predictions are what get me. In the cretaceous average temperatures were somewhere around 4-7 deg celsius warmer than now (remember the doomsayers are predicting global catastrophe with a 2 degree change), and life was incredibly abundant. Plants and animals all reached enormous sizes. There were a much larger variety of plants and animals than we know of today. Ocean temperatures, another doomsday predictor, were anywhere from 17 to as much as 30 deg cels warmer than today, yet there were several times the species evident in the oceans that there are today. I just think that the one part of this that cannot be supported are the doomsday predictions.
You also have to wonder, at the current levels, say 400 ppm, that is 0.04%. So far less than one percent of earths atmosphere is CO2. In the cretaceous it was 0.2%, yet the temperature differential was 4 degrees. There was no polar ice cap for much of that epoch. Yet the argument is that if we melt the polar icecap practically all dry earth will then be covered in water. Why wasn't it all covered during the cretaceous?
I question the true anthropomorphic influence and the predicted outcomes.
Not saying it isn't happening, just not on board with the why's and results. Also the fact that millions of dollars and entire economies are potentially at stake with sanction and restrictions (ala the Kyoto Protocol, which would substantially over-penalize developed countries who participate but not affect many of the larger CO2 producers who did not participate, namely China and India), not to mention huge government grants associated with the study of anthropomorphic global warming (tacking on the "anthropomorphic" label nearly quadrupled grant money from what was previously spent on climate study and global warming) makes this a bigger issue with innumerable stakeholders and potential "winners" and "losers".
And the crux of it is, all the outcomes are speculation. Yet they want us to commit huge resources to combating a disputed issue with questionable outcomes. And even at that unless we literally strangle off all carbon emissions we will do little to affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now. What would it do to the world economies if we shut off all fossil-fuel usage right now? And 3rd world countries would be the hardest hit as they do not have the resources to find some alternative, as we might be able to if forced that route.
By all means we need to take care of the environment. We need to find alternate forms of energy that are sustainable and practical, and soon. But I am not buying into the panic-inducing arguments coming from researchers whose livelihood depends on the next grant for their research, which will only come in those large amounts fueled by that panic.
And don't get me started on "carbon footprint". There is the biggest red herring of all time.
