<p>^I learned the same things you did. I’ve done experiments with carbon dioxide, learned ways to reduce my power use, seen pictures of melting icecaps… But what caused me to be skeptical of the theory was when I studied biology and actually got to see the numbers involved. I’ve an interest in statistics, so I’ve done quite a bit of thinking on this.</p>
<p>Over the last 100 years, the Global temperatures have fluctuated wildly, but the overall trend was a slight rise (about .4 degrees C) from 1900 to 1930, followed by a fairly steady temperature to 1978. There appears to be a sudden drop in 1979, but that is due to the change to sattelite measurements, which included the oceans as well as the land. The trend holds steady until the 80s and 90s, when it begins rising again. Enter Al Gore and An Inconvienent Truth. In the last 10 years the average temperature has hovered around the 1999 levels or about .8 above 1900.</p>
<p>So yes, the world has warmed. But then you look at CO2. If the theory were true, you would expect a CO2 spike in the first few decades of the century, then fairly steady levels until the 80s when the temperature began rising again. Instead, you see very little change form 1900 to 1930, then a steadily steepening slope all through the rest of the century. It bears no resemblance at all to the temperature graph. The only way to claim any correlation is assume a bunch of arbitrary variables about how long the CO2 takes to have an effect and so forth, thus pushing the signifigant parts of the graph off of the periods we have data for. In other words, if Global Warming was just a giant scam created by a few scentists over coffee, we should expect exactly the same graphs that we have now.</p>
<p>I’m willing to belive the theory if anyone will convince me with actual facts, instead of lies followed by “well, it’s true but you wouldn’t belive it so we lie to make things easier.”</p>