the great global warming swindle
 

Apologies if this has been posted before. A friend of mine sent me this & I'd be interested to hear opinions as to the validity of their arguments. (you might want to skip the first 10 minutes which seems to contain unnecessary hyperbole)

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Thanks for the link. I'm by no means an expert in this particular field, but the people interviewed in this video certainly seem to fit the profile of "reasonable scientists" more than a lot of the crusaders from the other side that I've met or watched.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

I found the arguments (against the human causes of global warming) very persuasive - I wasn't expecting to.

I've read other people claim that various statements made are incorrect. But without spending a lot of time studying the data it's difficult to know whether to believe "expert" A over "expert" B.

For example: The argument about the expected temperature gradient from the earths surface through the troposphere. The idea that CO2 induced warming would see temperatures rising as you move from the surface to the top of the troposhpere. The programme claimed that this isn't seen in any (of many/all?) recording studies performed. This is a major problem for proponents on human caused global warming - it's actually a massive/fundamental blow to their theories/arguments. But, I've read others who claim that more recent studies, including satellite bases observations, have shown the "expected" temperature gradient.

So, who do you believe?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Another state scam uncovered.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Another good arguement from the film is that CO2 emissions didnt really get going until 1940. Although the industrial revolution has been around for a couple of hundred years, it has mostly been limited to very few geographic areas. The graphs presented in the film claim that the current warming trend started early in the 20th century and actually dipped (global cooling scare) after 1940. It seems really hard to believe that if human CO2 causes global warming we would see it within 50 years. The movie claims that it takes the oceans 800 years to warm up, 50 years is nothing on a geological time scale.

I really liked the arguement that global warming causes an increase in CO2, they even show the graphs where CO2 lags behind global temperatures implying the causation. If the data presented in the film is true, there is no way I could possible believe in global warming any more.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.

LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

I haven't watched the whole thing, but one thing that stood out very sharply is the graph of solar strength and temperature. Notice how he stops it at 1975. That's incredibly dishonest. We have data all the way to present day. Want to know why he stops at 1975?

Because the temperature starts rapidly pulling away from the solar strength line, all the way to the present day.

The guy is dishonest, and almost certainly getting paid by oil companies. Contrast this with some of the scientists he interviews, who strongly believe human induced warming is real, yet present all the facts including contradictory evidence.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Cliff notes?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Two of the Scientists in the Film actually agree with Global Warming, yet the film didnt mention this, it just misrepresented their views via editing.

LOL at the way they presented numerous scientists who didnt agree with man made global warming yet the only source they sited for the case for MMGW was "Al Gore's emotional film."

The documentary made no attempt at balanced debate. There are literally thousands of scientists that are pro MMGW and the film didnt reference 1 of them. Indeed it presented pro MMGW scientists as anti MMGW.

Anyone who is influenced by this film is a sucker. Not because they dont agree with MMGW but because they can be influenced by so totally overt biased media programming.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.

LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which implies the guy likes to make comments that run counter to perceived wisdom. But, that doesn't mean the scientists interviewed in the film are wrong.

Where is this "wacki" of which you speak?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

I'm glad someone pointed out the editorial bias in this 'documentary'.

Still, the lead climatologist in France's government recently changed his opinion from a, "yes humans cause global warming" to "we're not 100% sure yet". As a result he said that maintaining biodiversity by ceasing overpoaching in the seas and controlling toxic substances is far more important.

No matter what the outcome with regard to global warming, the idea of a society concerned with sustainability is without a doubt important to human survival. At the very least the global warming frenzy is just an omen; a reminder that we cannot live on fossil fuels indefinitely. Without the climate scare there would be much less research in solar and wind technologies which are on the verge of breaking the cost barrier currently preventing them from powering households across the country.

The video makes some good points but it certainly changes nothing about the way I will continue to live my life. I'll still recycle, I'll still bike to work and school every day instead of drive and I'll still be an avid proponent of electric vehicles and high fuel efficiency. The only way mankind can hope to survive the tidal wave of technology that we are on the verge of is if we consider more than our consumer impulses when we live our lives.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at people who attack peoples bias as proof that they are wrong. Attack the ideas please. I'm sure a lot of what he said was probably wrong, but a lot of it might be right. Its probably just the nature of trying to compress a complicated issue into an hour program that is going to cause people to be misrepresented.

Are the graphs he showed wrong? Did the current warming trend not start before the majority of our CO2 output occured in 1940? Does it even make sense that we would see an effect on the environment in a brief 65 years since CO2 production has drastically increased?

At this point I dont care where these ideas came from, I believe they may be legitimate criticisms to Global Warming. They are now my ideas, am I biased and paid by oil companies?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what the outcome with regard to global warming, the idea of a society concerned with sustainability is without a doubt important to human survival. At the very least the global warming frenzy is just an omen; a reminder that we cannot live on fossil fuels indefinitely. Without the climate scare there would be much less research in solar and wind technologies which are on the verge of breaking the cost barrier currently preventing them from powering households across the country.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you watched the movie but the cost barrier is no where near to being broken. For us rich north americans we can talk about funding programs to produce solar for us, but in the third world their only choice is live in poverty or use fossil fuels. I honestly think that global warming debate is completely pointless, nothing is going to curb CO2 emmisions.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]
LOL at people who attack peoples bias as proof that they are wrong. Attack the ideas please.

[/ QUOTE ]
I said nothing about them being wrong. Neither of us know enough to intelligently comment to that volume of information - few people do, which is why propagandists are so dangerous. I'm simply warning to take it with a grain of salt. That's different to what you claim. And when you don't know all the facts, the credibility of the documentary maker is everything. Do you see why?
This guy has previous produced a documentary arguing that silicone breast implants are beneficial to women's health. I think we know where his loyalties lie - not with the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Are the graphs he showed wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
The solar strength-temperature graph is missing the most recent 30 years of data. It stops at 1975. And that missing data is nothing short of damning to his theory. I doubt any of the graphs are actually wrong, but the above shows how information can be cleverly distorted by someone without scruples.

[ QUOTE ]
They are now my ideas, am I biased and paid by oil companies?

[/ QUOTE ]
There's an excellent chance that he was paid by oil companies. Many of these organizations are. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_..._for_opponents

Big oil has paid for documentaries and shills before. And it's important to realize that many of these people aren't "trying to get the truth out" - they are directly on the payrolls of oil companies. That changes things, don't you think?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone who is influenced by this film is a sucker. Not because they dont agree with MMGW but because they can be influenced by so totally overt biased media programming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that most people who do not "believe" in global warming do so because they do not *want* to believe in global warming. The potential consequences of global warming are too scary -- it's much easier to just stick your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening.

A film like the one linked in the OP gives the nay-sayers a feeling of vindication -- even if the feeling is almost certainly completely unjustified.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there has never been any evidence that silicone breast implants are harmful to health.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

I believe in global warming, and also global cooling, as does apparently everyone in this particular video. Why should I be on the edge of my seat prepared to crap my pants, again?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]

Two of the Scientists in the Film actually agree with Global Warming, yet the film didnt mention this, it just misrepresented their views via editing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Names and links to their stated positions please (or at the very least the names).

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Here is a 5 page rebuttal to the program:

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_...ng_Swindle.pdf

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

lol @ this video

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in global warming, and also global cooling, as does apparently everyone in this particular video. Why should I be on the edge of my seat prepared to crap my pants, again?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I was saying and you know it. I was referring to "human caused" global warming, not the fact that the Earth warms and cools naturally over time.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol @ this video

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

[/ QUOTE ]

unless we see the whole transcript, theres not way to know which side is telling the truth. I can see either side lying on this.

Re: the great global warming swindle *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by AlexM

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a 5 page rebuttal to the program:

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_...ng_Swindle.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

i hope people read this, cause it sucks.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Two of the Scientists in the Film actually agree with Global Warming, yet the film didnt mention this, it just misrepresented their views via editing.

LOL at the way they presented numerous scientists who didnt agree with man made global warming yet the only source they sited for the case for MMGW was "Al Gore's emotional film."

The documentary made no attempt at balanced debate. There are literally thousands of scientists that are pro MMGW and the film didnt reference 1 of them. Indeed it presented pro MMGW scientists as anti MMGW.

Anyone who is influenced by this film is a sucker. Not because they dont agree with MMGW but because they can be influenced by so totally overt biased media programming.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... it's just like Al Gore's film. Not surprising really, no one really tries to convince people with facts anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause having someone say that everyone who agrees with him is right and everyone who disagrees is stupid without providing actual evidence is really helpful. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Wacki is practically an expert on this stuff and has a site with information: http://www.logicalscience.com/

If you're talking about my comments in this thread, questioning the integrity of the filmmaker as well as actual points that he raised (i.e. the solar strength-temperature graph which he cut at 1975) were all valid commentary, especially when people are quickly jumping to conclusions after watching this.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

My point is that one can believe in global warming and not that the consequences are too horrific to contemplate. Global temperature variation is a fact -- why is it okay if it's "natural" but it becomes some kind of doomsday scenario if humans happen to be one particular cog in the whole works?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a 5 page rebuttal to the program:

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_...ng_Swindle.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

and this part of the rebuttal is kind of confusing

[ QUOTE ]
3. That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round -TRUE.

The programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC – NOT TRUE.

For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he agreeing that the temperatures are driving CO2 production? Does this mean that they are arguing that human CO2 production is far outweighing the natural causes of CO2 production? What is the amount of human CO2 production vs natural CO2 production during times of high temperatures? What is the amount of human CO2 production from the beginning of the industrial revolution to present? How long does it take for us to see the effects of CO2 show up in the temperatures?

I'm not saying you are wrong and this documentary closes the case. I believe that, regardless of its biases, the documentary brought up some interesting points. Including

[ QUOTE ]
9. Action on climate change by developed countries may have a negative influence on development of the world’s poorer countries – POSSIBLY TRUE.

A strong non scientific point made towards the end of the
programme concerned the possible effect of pressure from the developed world on developing countries to develop without use of fossil fuel sources of energy. There is something inherently unfair in such pressure that could
hamper growth of developing country economies especially when rather little is being done by developed countries to reduce their own fossil fuel emissions. Further, the greater proportion of the damage from climate change will tend to fall on developing countries. The responsibilities of developed countries therefore are clear, first to reduce their own emissions as rapidly as possible and secondly to assist developing countries with resources and skills to develop their energy and other requirements in
sustainable ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the points I would be most interested in discussing. I believe that discussing who is funding who, who is biased, etc adds very little to the conversation. I keep it in mind when I see stuff like this, but if someone brings up interesting points that require further investigation we should investigate them regardless of who it is bringing them up.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.

LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that silicone breast implants have been approved again for use? And, that the bulk of the "science" and medical positions as to the dangers of silicone breast implants were found to be unsupportable?

It is interesting that you would use silicone breast implants to mailgn this person's character when silicone breast implants and man-caused global warming appear to have a lot in common. Could it be that he is now out in front of a second "Chicken Little" scenario and will be found right again?

NCAces

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that one can believe in global warming and not that the consequences are too horrific to contemplate. Global temperature variation is a fact -- why is it okay if it's "natural" but it becomes some kind of doomsday scenario if humans happen to be one particular cog in the whole works?

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue isn't simply "man-made" = good and "natural" = bad (although poorly educated environmentalists tend to fall for this fallacy) it's that rising temperatures will change our ecology, environment, and economies a lot. So much so that even if everything evens out overall (some areas do better and some worse) there will still be a massive cost associated with infrastructure adjustment to the new climate.

I can think of at least two significant differences between projected climates and similar climates in pre-history:

1) the rate at which temperatures are increasing.

Temperature changes we're expected to see over the next century typically took millenia to occur. Slow change gives plant and animals time to move and/or adapt. Rapid change does not.

2) human civilization wasn't around back then.

Having sea levels rise a few metres when we were living in caves is a lot different from having it happen now. It's a hell of a lot easier to move to a different cave than to move all the coastal cities and/or protect them from the water. This is just one example. There's also the effects on agriculture, water supply, hydropower, and flood protection. I'm sure there are others - these are just the ones I'm familiar with.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Bah, I deleted that post before you responded. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

One of their main arguments is that there is an industry based on climate control and research and there are economic forces trying to make people believe in global warming because of their vested interest.

This seems reasonable. ...until you realize that 9 of the top 10 fortune 500 companies and a far greater number of lobbyists have a vested interest in denying global warming.

The $2trillion/year motor/oil industry makes the few billion invested in climate watch and control look like chump change.

Actually the more I consider it the more ridiculous that video seems.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

Question for Wacki:

How are the leading environmental scientists in this field predicting the negative effects of global warming will occur? Are we to anticipate a slow, gradual rise in the ocean levels, or is it supposed to happen all at once, like a big terrifying "The Day After Tomorrow" deal?

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.

LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that silicone breast implants have been approved again for use? And, that the bulk of the "science" and medical positions as to the dangers of silicone breast implants were found to be unsupportable?

It is interesting that you would use silicone breast implants to mailgn this person's character when silicone breast implants and man-caused global warming appear to have a lot in common. Could it be that he is now out in front of a second "Chicken Little" scenario and will be found right again?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between the two cases. Silicon breast implants were never deemed dangerous in any sort of scientific consensus.

But I agree that the analogy certainly doesn't help the global warming case [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of their main arguments is that there is an industry based on climate control and research and there are economic forces trying to make people believe in global warming because of their vested interest.

This seems reasonable. ...until you realize that 9 of the top 10 fortune 500 companies and a far greater number of lobbyists have a vested interest in denying global warming.

The $2trillion/year motor/oil industry makes the few billion invested in climate watch and control look like chump change.

Actually the more I consider it the more ridiculous that video seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another problem with this argument is that general scientific opinion is so one sided that you'd have to believe in a major conspiracy theory.

Researchers at major universities don't need to make up horror stories to secure funding, they'll get it anyway. It's not like climate and weather are marginal fields without obvious practical application.

I realize that being able to put a scare spin on a subject certyinly helps an individual researcher's grant application but this is just as true of other fields as well.

If there's a natural tendency for research in general to focus on artificial doomsday scenarios because of vested interests in maintinaing or increasing funding then we should see this happening in many fields. But having a massively one-sided scientific consensus on a supposedly debatable topic (never mind the claims by some deniers that climate change is a total non-issue) never happens. At least I can't think of a single example.

If these deniers want to claim a funding bias to explain the consensus they need to do a lot more than simply say that it's theoretically possible. They need to at least explain why it's happening in the climate research community but not in other fields.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with this argument is that general scientific opinion is so one sided that you'd have to believe in a major conspiracy theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to invoke some sort of conspiracy theory. I'm sure if all you read was scientific journals you would have a fairly moderate view of climate change. Sure its happening probably not going to be the disaster everyone thinks its going to be. IMO its the sensationalists that make the most money out of this. How much would Al Gores movie have grossed if he claimed "moderate temperature rise, we can probably adapt to it". How many news papers will sell on the headline "Temperatures to rise 1 degree in 100 years!!!!", its always 2-5 and they write about the consequences of the worst case scenario.

I also think that there are other mechanisms that might kick and be beneficial

[ QUOTE ]
. . . a warmer planet has beneficial effects on food production. It results in longer growing seasons-more sunshine and rainfall-while summertime high temperatures change little. And a warmer planet means milder winters and fewer crop-killing frosts. . . . Infrared satellite readings show that the Earth has been getting greener since 1982, thanks apparently to increased rainfall and CO2. Worldwide, vegetative activity generally increased by 6.17 percent between 1982 and 1999-despite extended cloudiness due to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo and other well-publicized environmental stresses. . . . When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is also massive amounts of money to be made in global warming 'solutions'

[ QUOTE ]
A joint British government and business statement listed on Tuesday steps needed to improve the European carbon market, but avoided the most contentious issue of how to curb utility windfall profits.

British parliamentarians last week cited research estimating that UK power companies, the highest polluting business sector, would earn 800 million pounds ($1.54 billion) a year as a result of participation in the first phase of the scheme from 2005-07.



[/ QUOTE ]

Just some things to think about

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if all you read was scientific journals you would have a fairly moderate view of climate change. Sure its happening probably not going to be the disaster everyone thinks its going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total conjecture. How can you be "sure" that "if" you read the journals the outcome would be x or y. You can only know by reading the journals.

According to the Lord Stark report (He read all the journals) the cost of Global warming will probably be at least 5% of global GDP with a worst case scenario of at least 20% if we do nothing.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

I dont know if wacki just hasnt had any time to respond to the CO2 lag, but I've been reading some www.logicalscience.com and I found it on their site which led me to the link http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 which had this to say:

[ QUOTE ]
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.



[/ QUOTE ]

So basically there is some probably unknown cause that starts the warming and CO2 increases it. This explanation leaves me very unsatisfied to say the least. How do we know that this unknown cause isnt whats causing both temperature and CO2 to increase? Wouldnt the CO2 compund with this cause and increase temperatures exponentially? What mechanisms stop runaway greenhouse effect? Isnt it safe to assume that this will stop our current increase in temperature too? Isnt it just a simpler explanation that the temperature increase causes CO2 increase? There is nothing in their rebuttal that refutes the temperature theory. It really seems like they are invoking an unknown cause because the data isnt fitting with their theory.

But it gets better:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/723...icecore3gl.jpg

If you look at the downswing of every spike, the temperature sharply decreases and the CO2 lags in decreasing by about 100K years. Which would once again imply that the decrease in temperature eases the mechanism that increase CO2, and that it takes a long time for the CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere. If CO2 causes temperature increases we would see CO2 decrease first even if there was some other initiater of the CO2 warming.

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Question for Wacki:

How are the leading environmental scientists in this field predicting the negative effects of global warming will occur? Are we to anticipate a slow, gradual rise in the ocean levels, or is it supposed to happen all at once, like a big terrifying "The Day After Tomorrow" deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmkpoker,

Look at this graph

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...arge/01.17.jpg

Nice how the CO2 emissions go to zero yet the sea level keeps rising for over a 1,000 years. It's a lot like putting a block of ice in a room that's at a constant temp and waiting a few days for it to melt. When the ice sheets are several miles thick it takes a long time for them to melt. What sucks even more is that melting ice reflects exposes rock, rock absorbs more light, permafrost melts, permafrost releases methane which is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, and the cycle continues.....

Re: the great global warming swindle
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if wacki just hasnt had any time to respond ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I am extremely short on time and simply don't have time to respond to everyone. Plus all of this stuff has been discussed countless times before.

Glad you found the link. You are reading up on the topic which is highly commendable.

[ QUOTE ]
So basically there is some probably unknown cause that starts the warming and CO2 increases it. This explanation leaves me very unsatisfied to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

It WAS unknown. It's no longer unknown:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...limate-shifts/

[ QUOTE ]
If CO2 causes temperature increases we would see CO2 decrease first even if there was some other initiater of the CO2 warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would assume that CO2 is the only factor. It's not. If the earth wobbles in it's orbit and the new orbit causes the earth to receive less sunlight then all the CO2 in the world isn't going to help. And that is precisely what is going on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

There are other factors as well but Milankovitch cycles and Dansgaard-Oeschger events (discussed in the realclimate link above) are the two biggest ones. I've been meaning to create a web page explaining this stuff. So pressed for time right now so I dunno when I'll get to it. You are thinking critically which is excellent. Keep up the good work.