Al Gores whole basic theory is based on the LIE that CO2 causes global tempertures to rise.

Are record cold temperatures an indication of global cooling or a new ice age? NO

Are record cold temperatures an indication of global cooling or a new ice age? NO.

Fact: Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at a record high, not just in human history, but in the geological record for the last 600,000 years Is this increased carbon dioxide the result of human activity? Almost certainly. We are digging up coal and pumping up oil that was buried over hundreds of millions of years. We are dumping the spent products of combustion into the atmosphere pretty quickly. Before we have exhausted the world's supply of coal and oil, we will raise carbon dioxide even higher.

Fact: Carbon Dioxide levels and global ice volume are inversely proportional in the geological record for the last 400,000 years.

Does Carbon Dioxide itself cause temperature to rise?

That is the popular theory. There is no appearent correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature in longer term studies for the last 500,000,000 years (Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer, "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" Geological Society of America Today 13:7 July 2003 p4-10). Actual temperature increase, measured by methods that may be tainted by the Urban Heat Island Effect, still show an increase less than 0.5C since 1880. While carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere has gone up continuously for more than 100 years, average global temperatures have risen as well as fallen during that period.

The drop in carbon dioxide levels observed during the ice ages may have caused the ice age, may be caused by the ice age or both may have a common cause, but are otherwise unrelated. Scientific analysis of the correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide indicate that rising temperatures PRECEDE carbon dioxide increases by about 800 years, suggesting that temperature causes carbon dioxide to rise, which is not the position of global warming theorists. (Caillon et al, "Timing of Atmospheric CO and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III", Science v299, March 2003, p1728-1731).

Global Temperature changes correspond more accurately to changes in solar activity than they do to the continuous rise in carbon dioxide during the last hundred years. (Friis-Christensen et al, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate", Science, v254, 1991, p698-700) There is some evidence these data sets have begun to diverge in recent years, but the data is only published on the internet, not in scientific review journals. Current scientific data cannot be easily interpreted to portend global warming. Mathematical models can be constructed to project future temperature changes many different ways, but those mathematical models projecting large increases are considered "realistic" while straight line projections (which aren't very scary) are not popular, possibly because they are not exciting.

Is increased carbon dioxide bad for the environment if it has no effect on global temperature? No.

Carbon dioxide is a necessary nutrient that plants depend upon. Carbon Dioxide levels many times higher than current levels on earth improve plant growth and vitality. A significant portion of the increased farming productivity observed during the last 50 years may not be due to pestisides or improved techniques, but to the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Sherwood B. Idso, Bruce A. Kimball, "Tree Growth in Carbon Dioxide Enriched Air and Its Implications for Global Carbon Cycling and Maximum Levels of Atmospheric CO2," Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 7(1993):3:537-555, p. 537-5380)

Is increased temperature bad for the earth?

In and of itself, temperature increase would not be bad. Longer growing seasons and increases in arable land would improve crop yields even more and increase the earths sustainable population. In the 1970s, when a broad consensus of scientific opinion and projections suggested the earth was rapidly cooling, mass-starvation was a cause for worry, but global warming would not have that particular effect.

For the non-human population of the earth, over hundreds or thousands of years global warming would change the viablility of species. Plants and animals would migrate, adapt or become extinct. Would it be worse, i.e. more deadly, than the ice ages that have fallen over the whole earth 4 times in the last 400,000 years? That would depend on the quickness with which the climate changes.

Global sealevels have been rising continuously for several centuries at a rate of 1-2mm per year. An acceleration of the rise in global sealevels would have a more significant effect than slower rates, but coastal cities will be forced to change with the times either way. Sea levels 18,000 years ago were 100 meters lower than they are today. Sea level has risen an average of 5.6mm per year for the last 18,000 years, so we are actually in a rather slow period geologically as far as sea level changes. During the "Little Ice Age" of 1650 to 1850, the rate of sea level rise was virtually halted, but we have now moved back into a relatively warmer period and sea levels are rising once again, but not yet at thier historical clip. About 3.5 million years ago, sea levels were around 30 meters higher than today.

The earth will change and we will change with it. Some of the changes we may cause, but other changes will be out of our hands. Change is not necessarily good or bad. Slow change is inevitable. The earth can adapt and so can we.

About the Author

Steve Johnson is writes on a large variety of subjects and topics. Currently Steve is involved in The Truth About Iraq