There's two ways. One is by analysing isotopes in pollution to find whether the carbon contains a "fingerprint" of human activity, but the easier way to understand is that alternatively there's only two places for the CO2 to have come from, the oceans or the land and if it was emitted from either there would have been a carbon reduction measured in either. There have been more than 20 published studies using 6 independent methods of the oceans, for example, and no carbon decrease has been found. Yes, el nino and seasonal changes definitely have an effect. However, here's the trend, including each el nino year and seasonal variation: <pic>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png</pic> As a trader, can you see a trend in this stock? (In your cite he pulls a little sleight of hand and shows a graph not of the total CO2 in the atmosphere like this one, but a graph showing each year's growth of CO2 from the previous year. So his graph looks flat. As well he omits a key piece of information about isotope monitoring -- he claims that this odd ratio could be due to a biological explanation -- he doesn't know that they've managed to pull C13 out of tree rings and ice cores and contrary to his claim the current wild ratio is not consistent with anything in history. Ooops for him!
BRING ON THE CARBON TAXES!!!!!!! my guess is that with a very lucrative cap-and-trade commodity market the earth will be back to the ideal temperature in no time.... stupid, it is the humans
Cap and trade of SO2 was introduced under Bush I to let the market resolve the issue. If you don't like that solution, what would you recommend?
no technology can be implemented before its time... THERE IS NO CURRENT ALTERNATIVE TO FOSSIL FUELS. we aren't going to die in the time it takes for the market to come up with its own solutions. (the energy market is enormous, and the free-market is working feverishly to tap into it, without the idiots in washington meddling). Frankly, I'm in favor of taxing gasoline to better reflect its true costs, constant war in the middle east etc ... basically cap-and-trade will do nothing but replace investment capital with tax-payer funded susidies, and of course, make Al Gore an insane amount of money. My solution... STOP THE HYSTERICS
Why does there have to be an alternative to reduce emissions? Consumers don't have to replace all oil to use it more efficiently. I hope you're right, I genuinely do. But that isn't based on any measurements, and if you're wrong... You'd rather have higher taxes than a market solution to emissions? Huh. Personally I'm not sure that the solution chosen matters, just as long as the problem is addressed in some manner. Al Gore's already rich -- he made a massive fortune investing in Google when it was still small. Ummm... of the two of us, you're the only one writing in all caps.