The real truth is that the GW fear mongers ignore everything. YOU ignore the EPA chart showing a shape decline in CO2 emissions. I am not sure what the GW hand wringers even want. More Eagles killed in dreamland wind mills? More land grabs by the BLM to construct unprofitable, non-base load, solar? All the hand wringing on a 1.5 degree change in 100 years. WHOW!! The only true environmental thing to do is hydro but ood luck getting that built with liberals running amuck. The GW fear mongers wanted a drop in CO2 emission and got it and that still isn't good enough. Meanwhile China and India, along with most of the rest of the world, is laughing at the US. They are more then happy to pick up our manufacturing base to satisfy the GW fear.
And here I thought you were going to answer my question. Or at least contribute something worth while to the GW debate.
Instead it the same ole bull shit. Wtf is wrong with you right wing whack jobs? Answer a simple question for once.
In earths history when has man burnt coal and oil at comparable levels to what we burn coal and oil now? And what was the result?
You right wing whackers claim to know all about this topic, so come on and answer a simple question.
Man hasn't been through many ice age cycles, and except for this one, man wasn't keeping any records. However, your question has no bearing on anything other than your own ignorance. We had a mini ice age over the North Atlantic before we were burning coal and oil at today's level, and we had an interglacial warm period before we were burning coal and oil at today's level. Obviously, the burning of coal and oil didn't cause either event.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gasses trap heat. Increases in CO2 in the earth's atmosphere traps heat, and causes some degree of warming. Imagine how cold last winter would have been without the mitigation caused by greenhouse gasses.
You loons seem to want to debate simple science, while ignoring the real questions concerning global climate change. The projections of gloom and doom are based on computer models, and computer models are no better than the assumptions used to create them. When computer models cannot reliably predict the known past, they cannot reliably predict the future. So much for your "settled science".
Not to mention that the words "maybe", likely, etc., are not "scientific" terms, and therefore statements made that contain those words are not valid scientific statements, and they are definitely not "settled science".