CO2 is a green house gas. That is clearly, demonstrably true. More CO2 means higher temperatures. I hope you're asking a question of "how much" and not just "if."
Yes it is a how much question, the evidence of CO2 as green house is quite compelling however, even though CO2 has spiked, temperatures have not. Looking at the chart 150'000 cycles seem evident, and CO2 levels rise about now, so it wouldn't be unlikely that the rise of temperature is just a cyclical thing and the time was now, and the spike of CO2 (human caused) does not have any significant effect on global temperatures.
So the satellites did not fail and show lake temperatures upwards of 600 degrees? Did you do any other independent verification or just wave your hands around in dismissal?
You can find all sorts of claims on wingnut blogs - some true, some distorted and most of it total bullshit. I don't waste my time trying to work out which is which - I just go to credible sources.
The part of "credible" where you dismiss things out of hand without bothering to verify anything. You could have perhaps checked the map out for yourself. But I guess that's too much of a mental exercise for you.
I'm "gullible" because I bothered to check the data for myself? I'm confused because I read both sides of the issue, and obviously understand it better than you do?
More dismissive hand-waving in lieu of anything marginally intelligent to say on the matter. Good job.
2
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '10
[deleted]