Apparently humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure. Okay. Fine. That data is easy to find and is credible.
Problem is, as I argued, with current science that change in CO2 does not necessarily mean a change in temperature. Apparently the warming effect of CO2 is just too small to detect.
Again, yet again, over again, once again, one more time, (A) as I explained in detail, Al Gore badly misread the data in his graph and showed no evidence that CO2 had any effect, warming or cooling on the climate, (B) in the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age, we had significant warming/cooling without a role for CO2, (C) the warming early in the 1900s was likely from the end of the Little Ice Age and not from human sources of CO2, another case of temperature changes not caused by human CO2, (D) with the CO2 from WWII and the postwar boom, we had significant cooling from 1945 to 1970, a tough problem for the alarmists' arguments, (E) as in the famous reference I gave there were many studies, models, calculations evaluating the effects of CO2, and ALL the studies that predicted significant warming, including the "hockey stick", were badly wrong, a real shot in the gut of all modeling of the effects of CO2 that predict warming from human sources of CO2, (F) from the failed predictions of the modeling efforts, the science of global warming has lost its credibility, (G) similarly, from the failed predictions, the UN and IPCC have no credibility.
The alarmists are stuck: (i) the empirical evidence from the 800,000 years of ice core data, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the the last 120 years do not support any claims of human sources of CO2 causing significant warming. (ii) As in the famous reference I gave, the modeling efforts lack all credibility. (iii) As I explained, the UN and its IPCC are not credible sources of science.
Since ALL the modeling efforts that predicted significant warming failed, predictions of temperature increases in 2050, 2100, etc. are just silly talk.
Actually, the significant increase in CO2 concentration with NO credible evidence of significant warming is good evidence that the warming effect of CO2 is just tiny, too small to observe.
Lots of alarmists say there is lots of data showing the significant warming effects of CO2, but I've never seen a credible reference, graph, data set, etc. showing that. Instead I see a lot of stories like the snow in Scotland.
But long ago I carefully studied the highly credible
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council ISBN: 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, 7 x 10, (2006)
then and still now (I just checked) available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
Sorry, the solid, objective science that human CO2 has caused, is causing, or will cause significant warming just is not easy enough to find or not there.
Again, net, so far, as best as I can tell from years of paying attention, there is no credible evidence that CO2 from human sources has caused, is causing, or will cause significant global warming.
The credible evidence just is NOT there. Politics, stories, worries, claims -- lots of those. Credible evidence -- no.
If you have some credible evidence, then trot it out. Your just saying I can find the evidence is not good enough. If the alarmists want to make their case, then they need to make public and easy to find, as easy to find as the story about the snows in Scotland, credible evidence of warming.
That's why in my first post I begged for evidence from THERMOMETERS and not just some story about Scotland.
The alarmists have to hurry because there are some cycles in the weather, e.g., from the 11 year cycles of sun spots, El Nino episodes, etc. that complicate the analysis.
Meanwhile, to me the alarmism is a hoax and a scam to get money and power. It's clear that a lot of money and power are involved. And the pursuit of money and power are MUCH better explanations for the alarmism than any credible science about CO2.