They call this a consensus?

Click to go to source article

In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions.

CO2 - Air Pollution

A level head is only as good as an open mind

CO2 has not been proven to cause global warming

it is only a theory

Wikipedia - Scientists who oppose mainstream belief that CO2 is the cause of global warming

Click to go to

PROS

The main argument that is given for CO2 as a cause for global rise in temperature is that our production of this air pollutant as well as it's presence in our atmosphere has been increasing at a rapid rate. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas. This is the IPCC consensus.

CONS

The main argument against this theory comes from climatologists who point out that ice core samples show that carbon levels follows the temperature and cannot guide it. Thus if something else were to cause the temperature to increase, CO2 levels will rise regardless of how much is man made.

The secondary argument is that it's amount in the atmosphere is insignificant to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which is by far a greater greenhouse gas. 

Global Warming Theories

How do the theories Compare?

Al Gore did a great thing for the world by helping to make people aware of the danger and bringing humanity to the next step. If it weren't for his movie Broadcast Theory never would have been discovered. But the next step is here and now that people are aware of the danger, they now need to be aware of the cause. Many scientists have concluded that CO2 is mearly a symptom and not the cause.

The Theory

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's atmosphere and surface.

Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect, without which mean temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower so that Earth would be uninhabitable.[13] Thus scientists do not "believe in" or "oppose" the greenhouse effect as such; rather, the debate concerns the net effect of the addition of greenhouse gases, while allowing for associated positive and negative feedback mechanisms.

On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago.[14] "About three-quarters of the anthropogenic [man-made] emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation."[15]

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 383 parts per million (ppm) by volume.[16] Future CO2 levels are expected to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, natural developments, but may be ultimately limited by the availability of fossil fuels. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100.[17] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100, if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively used.[18]

Positive feedback effects such as the expected release of CH4 from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes) may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions[19] not included in climate models cited by the IPCC.[1]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Click for more

David Evans worked for the Australian Government for 6 years building CO2 climate models before the evidence supporting CO2 fell away and he became a skeptic. See what he has to say!                     Click & go