…

The bottom line, is that the relationship between atmosperic CO2 and temperature has been demonstrated by retrospective data, and therefore it is simply not possible to determine the causal relationship between these two variables. Could rising CO2 cause warming? Possibly. Could warming cause rising CO2? Possibly. Could something else cause them both? Possibly. There is no way to know, a priori.

On the other hand, we do know (as does anyone who has opened a warm can of coke), that oceanic warming causes CO2 to be less soluble in the world’s oceans, and to come out of solution into the atmosphere. Thus we have a highly plausable argument for the proposition that warming causes increased CO2 levels. If it were also true that increased CO2 levels causes warming, then it is likely that the Earth’s temperature would have spiraled out of control a long, long time ago.

The fact that it hasn’t suggests that either increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause warming, or that there is some other factor that interferes with this effect (e.g. increased cloud cover reflecting more of the Sun’s radiant energy from the Earth). In either case, the fact of warming causing increased CO2 makes it highly unlikely that increased CO2 is anything to worry much over.

And again, I own a Prius and drive very little, and have absolutely nothing to do with any industry that would suffer from implementation of the Kyoto treaty, or anything like it. I’m just a scientist who likes the pursuit of truth for its own sake, and who secretly wishes gasoline were $20 a gallon for geopolitical reasons.

2. I agree, CO2 is not a pollutant in the traditional sense of being immediately harmful to human health. However, that plants need it to live is not an excuse for leaving it unregulated, especially when evidence suggests (see: IPCC, Union of Concerned Scientists, any PEER-REVIEWED science journal) that its emissions could be harmful to our long-term health (see: climate destabilization)

3. 80% from fossil fuels? And where does this number come from? How about the large portions of uncalculated energy use. If a man living in rural Ghana burns wood in a fire to cook his food over, is this use taken into consideration? No. Global energy usage estimates and portioning like that are vague estimates that often overlook key factors.

4. I agree with both sides. However, if consumers cannot see that they do not need a Lincoln Navigator to drive to 3 miles each way to and from CVS, there is a problem. Some products should just be taxed extremely heavily to make up for the near-sightedness of many consumers. See/precedent: taxes on cigarettes

5. I agree with both sides.

6. I agree with both sides.

7. There is no ideology of total control of land and production inherent in radical environmentalism. You have no basis for this, only the fear that you won’t be able to drive your hummer down the street to your friend’s McMansion.