We should be nice to RCG. He's trying to be a new, kinder RCG. He's even started a little music thread here. I suspect as the election season rolls on he will revert back to his liberal attack mode and we'll have to cut his legs out from under him again. He's not much good to us if we don't have reason to beat him up!
From a nonpartisan perspective take a look at the graph. Most traders should be familiar enough to read it correctly. It clearly shows CO2 levels dramatically increasing around the time of the industrial revolution. Because this goes back over 400,000 years and includes four ice age cycles it clearly shows a change in normal patterns. The earth is a finite area. I don't know why someone would think that hundreds of millions of cars and all the industry in the world wouldn't cause an effect in the limited atmosphere we live in.
Don't be naive. We've covered this ground already. It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores? At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that itâs the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa. [snip] The differences in cooling periods does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
I'm by no means an expert in this area and I think it's safe to say no one here is either. That being said, I read over the article you've linked and I can't quite quantify it yet but something doesn't seem to add up. On first glance at the article you've posted the writer is using pre industrial revolution data to create his explanation. At the very least if tempature movements precede CO2 levels as a cycle before the industrial revolution, it's an unknown what will happen with a continuous increase in CO2 levels being added to the atmosphere. CO2 at no point until recently in the overlapped graph showing the natural tempature/CO2 cycles provided in your link has CO2 dramatically shot ahead of tempature. The writer also includes that CO2 levels do have an effect on tempature movements and doesn't have any definitive explanation how they do. All this in my view suggests caution on the part of human development. There's also the pollution factor to consider with burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere and the long term viability. Sure they are cheap now but wouldn't it make sense to start working on some alternatives that don't pollute? It's likely just a matter of time as gas prices keep increasing alternatives will become more common.
You forgot about catalytic converters. Don't worry about CO2. It's a trace gas. But as I've said, we've been all over this discussion just recently. Do a search. There's no point in going over everything again. We get the same conclusion. Man made CO2 is not a factor in global warming. End of discussion.
Strange though, that the consensus of the world's scientists agree that human activity is contributing to tempature increases. Overall, less pollution in any form is a good thing for everybody. That way we don't risk our future and that of future generations on unknown outcomes.
Right, I've never really understood the violent opposition when discussing GW. It seems most do think there is some man made causes, you would think it makes sense to conserve, recycle and all that. Cut emissions, drive less, save gas, etc. Using CSX as an example of saving fuel while hauling freight is a great commercial example. How is conserving not a good thing? Maybe it's because so many hated Al Gore for his movie and his ranting about it. c