<p>"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 think a part of that could be melting ice. Ice reflects heat, water absorbs, thus accelerating the process. It’s speeding up now since more ice is becoming melted (which in turn is caused by the higher temperature).</p>
<p>Clearly, that couldn’t actually account for everything, but would be a good part of it.</p>
<p>My argument with the whole carbon-temperature correlation is that while it may be slightly shaky since we don’t understand it perfectly, it’s been proven that carbon and methane contribute to a fairly large degree so I don’t really see a reason why we shouldn’t.</p>
<p>And they wouldn’t be taxing you, they would be taxing companies for carbon emissions. The U.S voters are NEVER going to accept direct carbon taxes on citizens, you would have riots. Taxes on companies would be the only + most effective way they would address the carbon issue, really.</p>
<p>However I don’t like global warming believers who refuse to debate it with skeptics. It delegitimizes their side and misses alternative ways to combat it. No matter the extent of carbon in global warming, global warming is still a problem.</p>
<p>Also, Al Gore is such a hypocrite. Just my 2 cents.</p>