Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[wilcopops]

Another report from BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

World on course for warmest year

I will accept (dis)info from the BBC when it rains potatoes...

Ditto for all the lamestream media.

QED

What DO you accept, BTW?

(you DO realise, don't you, that it isn't the BBC's idea? They are simply reporting the findings of the researchers).

Edited December 4, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

RB - I'm sure you are a relatively alert person, but have you not noticed the KIND of people who are supporting your ideas on this thread? Doesn't that concern you?

Not at all. Their views are their own, individual opinions. Some I agree with, some I don't. Indeed, I agree with some of the points put forward by people who don't support my ideas on this thread.

My interest is the science and policy surrounding climate change, as I see and interpret it.

Skeptics are like that; we like to form our own opinions from reading multiple sources, not blindly follow some self-appointed higher authority, however "noble" the cause may appear to be.

This is purely an opinion, but I think it is a mistake to believe anything so fervently that you feel you must support it 100%, agree with everyone else who supports it, and oppose anyone who does not support it. To my mind, that is cultism.

Or, in the words of Ken Wilber: "Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time."

You know that you're not a skeptic, don't you? you are clinging to 19th century beliefs. (and earlier)

Edited December 4, 2014 by wilcopops

[chuckd]

Happy Anniversary, Penny!

It is five years to the day since noted astronomer Penny Sackett, in her position as Chief Scientist of Australia (ie main advisor to government), told the press:

"We’ve got 5 years to save world, says Australia’s chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett

"The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint."

Well, we didn't. Time's up. So if you really believe the catastrophic warnings, now's the time to start making your plans while reciting "Woe is me! for I am undone."

Penny's "Five Years to Save the Planet" is a cover version of Prince Charles' flop "less than 100 months to act to save the planet" and Bill McGuire's "7 years to save the planet" from mid-2008,

None of these activists seem capable of grasping one simple fact of human nature -- repetitive agit-prop turns people off. Nobody likes being hectored. The more the activists drool with the rabies of climate alarmism, the less people listen.

Even the Millerites and Harold Camping had better audiences for their catastrophic predictions.

The next Day of Judgement is Bill "Eve of Destruction" McGuire's in mid-2015.

RB - I'm sure you are a relatively alert person, but have you not noticed the KIND of people who are supporting your ideas on this thread? Doesn't that concern you?

e.g. - If I found myself in a room full of nutters and found myself agreeing with them, I'd be seriously concerned about my own perspective on life.

And would a "nutter" be anybody that had an opposing position to one of yours?

Just because they disagree doesn't make them "nutters".

[RickBradford]

you are clinging to 19th century beliefs. (and earlier)

What beliefs are those?

[lovetotravel]

Another report from BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

World on course for warmest year

I will accept (dis)info from the BBC when it rains potatoes...

Ditto for all the lamestream media.

As mentioned above, this is just an article on a study by a few different groups. One being the UN. It has nothing to do with the BBC.

Very strange comment.

[boomerangutang]

Another report from BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

World on course for warmest year

I will accept (dis)info from the BBC when it rains potatoes...

Ditto for all the lamestream media.

If the messenger brings news you don't want to hear, then cast mud on the messenger.

[wilcopops]

Happy Anniversary, Penny!

It is five years to the day since noted astronomer Penny Sackett, in her position as Chief Scientist of Australia (ie main advisor to government), told the press:

"Weve got 5 years to save world, says Australias chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett

"The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Governments chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint."

Well, we didn't. Time's up. So if you really believe the catastrophic warnings, now's the time to start making your plans while reciting "Woe is me! for I am undone."

Penny's "Five Years to Save the Planet" is a cover version of Prince Charles' flop "less than 100 months to act to save the planet" and Bill McGuire's "7 years to save the planet" from mid-2008,

None of these activists seem capable of grasping one simple fact of human nature -- repetitive agit-prop turns people off. Nobody likes being hectored. The more the activists drool with the rabies of climate alarmism, the less people listen.

Even the Millerites and Harold Camping had better audiences for their catastrophic predictions.

The next Day of Judgement is Bill "Eve of Destruction" McGuire's in mid-2015.

RB - I'm sure you are a relatively alert person, but have you not noticed the KIND of people who are supporting your ideas on this thread? Doesn't that concern you?

e.g. - If I found myself in a room full of nutters and found myself agreeing with them, I'd be seriously concerned about my own perspective on life.

And would a "nutter" be anybody that had an opposing position to one of yours?

Just because they disagree doesn't make them "nutters".

NB - to RB, QED!

[RickBradford]

you are clinging to 19th century beliefs. (and earlier)

What beliefs are those?

Or was that just a piece of made-up nonsense?

[RickBradford]

As we pass the anniversary of Penny Sackett's warning that we're all going to fry because we didn't take "climate action" over the past 5 years, the UN is holding another of its useless climate confabs in Peru, flying thousands of people across the globe to repeat, for the 20th time, that we "must take action now."

At the same time, the UN has run a poll, portentously called "My World", asking people worldwide to vote for the six things they most want to see in the future. About 6.5 million people voted.

Once again, "action on climate change" is in last place, even behind Internet and phone access.

The only avenue remaining to the Green/Left is the Gruber Doctrine, which states that ordinary people are so stupid that their views must be ignored or bypassed.

[boomerangutang]

If Ms Sackett said something like that, it's her right to express her opinion. That's what's cool about science, it encourages alternative viewpoints. It's the opposite of religion (or Thai/Burmese/Chinese politics) in that regard. I haven't read Ms Sackett's book (and it's doubtful RB has either), but there's a time reference that might be key to what she's saying. According to RB, she warned: "we're all going to fry because we didn't take "climate action" over the past 5 years." Did she say we would 'fry' at the end of that 5 yr period? More likely she probably said something more akin to: '....if we don't start taking dynamic action within the next 5 years....' '....then we're going to fry later.' Obviously I can't paraphrase someone's claim which I haven't read, but it's no more remiss than RB cherry-picking a twisted excerpt out of context, culled from an anti-GW site, and claiming an opinion as fact. Message to RB: if you're going to do that, try and get one or more paragraphs from the author, instead of an opinion of a sound-bite taken from an anti- GW web site.

Here's an example of how easily a quote can be twisted towards a misleading conclusion: A book-reviewer writes a review: "That book was far from the best I've read this year." A newspaper writer (who happens to be friends with the author) prints it as: ""That book was the best I've read this year."

[RickBradford]

First, Prof. Sackett is not just anybody. At the time, she was Australia's Chief Scientist, whose job was to advise the Government on all scientific matters. With that high official position, go responsibilities above and beyond her personal opinion.

Second, it wasn't "a twisted excerpt out of context, culled from an anti-GW site." It came directly from an interview she did with the Herald Sun newspaper, a prominent daily newspaper.

As I posted before, the headline read: "We’ve got 5 years to save world, says Australia’s chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett"

The lede read: "THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett."

In the context, I think my paraphrase using the word "fry" is reasonable. How else are we supposed to die under "disastrous global warming" -- freeze?

My point is threefold:

1) In her official position, Sackett should have refrained from making such an idiotic and indefensible statement.

2) The media shouldn't have swallowed it in such a compliant manner.

3) But maybe it doesn't matter, because nobody's listening anyway.

That's what's cool about science, it encourages alternative viewpoints.

Exactly. And that's why we know that climate "science" isn't really science at all, because it vigorously discourages alternative viewpoints (the debate is over, the science is settled etc)

[Johpa]

[quote name="RickBradford" post="8761605" timestamp="141774478

Exactly. And that's why we know that climate "science" isn't really science at all, because it vigorously discourages alternative viewpoints (the debate is over, the science is settled etc)

In a thread permeated by ignorance, the post above takes the cake.

[canuckamuck]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

As I said there has been a marked increase at the time of the industrial revolution and in the 70's, both of these increases are on your data but of course nothing to compare with as you chose to look at the period starting at the increase. Now look at temperature increases before this period.

Please provide your own data if you don't like what is presented.

[boomerangutang]

In the context, I think my paraphrase using the word "fry" is reasonable.

That's what's cool about science, it encourages alternative viewpoints.

Exactly. And that's why we know that climate "science" isn't really science at all, because it vigorously discourages alternative viewpoints (the debate is over, the science is settled etc)

Thanks for admitting you added the word 'fry' to a quote you attributed to her in an earlier post. But again, there's a time reference which could be interpreted different ways. Did she say GW would end the world in 5 years (?), or we've got 5 years within which to start programs toward straightening things out?

Some people get passionate about this topic. I can't speak for her, but perhaps she saw increased ranges of desertification in the Sahara and other great deserts. Perhaps she's apprised of the Arctic having less ice overall, and increasing amounts of methane getting released from warming tundra - or nearly all the world glaciers losing bulk. Then there's rising sea levels which threaten many large sea-level cities, like Bkk, Shanghai, Miami, Dhaka, NYC, Mumbai, .....

Measurements tell us that global average sea level is currently rising by about 1 inch per decade. But in an invisible shadow process, our long-term sea level rise commitment or "lock-in" — the sea level rise we don’t see now, but which carbon emissions and warming have locked in for later years — is growing 10 times faster, and this growth rate is accelerating.

An international team of scientists led by Anders Levermann recently published a study that found for every degree Fahrenheit of global warming due to carbon pollution, global average sea level will rise by about 4.2 feet in the long run. When multiplied by the current rate of carbon emissions, and the best estimate of global temperature sensitivity to pollution, this translates to a long-term sea level rise commitment that is now growing at about 1 foot per decade.

We have two sea levels: the sea level of today, and the far higher sea level that is already being locked in for some distant tomorrow.

source

[RickBradford]

Thanks for admitting you added the word 'fry' to a quote you attributed to her in an earlier post.

I didn't add anything. As I explained at some length, it was a paraphrase.

Did she say GW would end the world in 5 years (?), or we've got 5 years within which to start programs toward straightening things out?

Try reading and understanding what I posted before you reply. Had you taken the trouble to do so, you would see it is clearly the latter.

Edited December 5, 2014 by RickBradford

[kieran2698]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

As I said there has been a marked increase at the time of the industrial revolution and in the 70's, both of these increases are on your data but of course nothing to compare with as you chose to look at the period starting at the increase. Now look at temperature increases before this period.

Please provide your own data if you don't like what is presented.

I don't think I can as I am using a phone. It can't be that hard to just look at the period before the industrial revolution instead of starting right at the height of it though, can it?

[kieran2698]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

As I said there has been a marked increase at the time of the industrial revolution and in the 70's, both of these increases are on your data but of course nothing to compare with as you chose to look at the period starting at the increase. Now look at temperature increases before this period.

Please provide your own data if you don't like what is presented.

I don't think I can as I am using a phone. It can't be that hard to just look at the period before the industrial revolution instead of starting right at the height of it though, can it?

[RickBradford]

It can't be that hard to just look at the period before the industrial revolution instead of starting right at the height of it though, can it?

Q1: When was "the height" of the industrial revolution, in your opinion?

Q2: Having looked at the graph, answer Q1 again.

It is generally accepted that humanity's industrial actions (in terms of CO2 emissions) cannot have impacted the climate until 1950, when the CO2 emissions really take off.

We therefore see temperature trends before humanity's influence (1860-1880,1910-1940) which are identical to those after humanity's alleged influence (1975-1988, 1975-2009).

These simple data suggest, therefore, that humanity's influence on temperature is negligible.

In real life, the situation is rather more complicated, but that's the bare bones of it.

Regrettably, very few politicians, journalists or activists are able, or willing, to comprehend this.

Edited December 6, 2014 by RickBradford

[lovetotravel]

Another interesting report:

http://time.com/3621246/california-drought-study/

California’s Drought Is Now the Worst in 1,200 Years And it might not be ending anytime soon

California’s three years of low rainfall is the region’s worst drought in 1,200 years, according to a new study.

Record high temperatures combined with unusually low levels of precipitation have been the primary causes of the dry conditions, according to the study in the journalGeophysical Research Letters

[boomerangutang]

Another interesting report:

http://time.com/3621246/california-drought-study/

California’s Drought Is Now the Worst in 1,200 YearsAnd it might not be ending anytime soon

California’s three years of low rainfall is the region’s worst drought in 1,200 years, according to a new study.

Record high temperatures combined with unusually low levels of precipitation have been the primary causes of the dry conditions, according to the study in the journalGeophysical Research Letters

I resided in rural northern California for a quarter century. We had some droughts during that time, or they could be described as 'particularly dry dry seasons' because CA has annual dry seasons (opposite months to Thailand's). One thing, among many, which became evident: During a drought, trees become stressed and are more susceptible to damage from beetles. I now reside in rural northern Thailand, and have noticed the same here. Though, because it's a tropical climate, the phase happens quicker: In Thailand, a large mature tree can look healthy on month, and then be beetle riven and die within months. In California, the same pattern would take longer.

[thaibeachlovers]

If Ms Sackett said something like that, it's her right to express her opinion. That's what's cool about science, it encourages alternative viewpoints. It's the opposite of religion (or Thai/Burmese/Chinese politics) in that regard. I haven't read Ms Sackett's book (and it's doubtful RB has either), but there's a time reference that might be key to what she's saying. According to RB, she warned: "we're all going to fry because we didn't take "climate action" over the past 5 years." Did she say we would 'fry' at the end of that 5 yr period? More likely she probably said something more akin to: '....if we don't start taking dynamic action within the next 5 years....' '....then we're going to fry later.' Obviously I can't paraphrase someone's claim which I haven't read, but it's no more remiss than RB cherry-picking a twisted excerpt out of context, culled from an anti-GW site, and claiming an opinion as fact. Message to RB: if you're going to do that, try and get one or more paragraphs from the author, instead of an opinion of a sound-bite taken from an anti- GW web site.

Here's an example of how easily a quote can be twisted towards a misleading conclusion: A book-reviewer writes a review: "That book was far from the best I've read this year." A newspaper writer (who happens to be friends with the author) prints it as: ""That book was the best I've read this year."

....if we don't start taking dynamic action within the next 5 years....' '....then we're going to fry later.

Without a time reference, that is absolutely correct and completely irrelevant. When the sun runs out of fuel in however many years, it will get larger and fry the planet before becoming dead and cold. So yes, we, or whatever species exists then will indeed fry, but do something about that Ms Sackett .

[thaibeachlovers]

Another interesting report:

http://time.com/3621246/california-drought-study/

California’s Drought Is Now the Worst in 1,200 YearsAnd it might not be ending anytime soon

California’s three years of low rainfall is the region’s worst drought in 1,200 years, according to a new study.

Record high temperatures combined with unusually low levels of precipitation have been the primary causes of the dry conditions, according to the study in the journalGeophysical Research Letters

If, for sake of argument, man made climate change caused it, that would be a case of the chickens coming home to roost, given that Americans like to use large cars that pollute far more than those used in most other countries. Plus, they use far more of the planet's resources than any other country.

[lovetotravel]

Another interesting report:

http://time.com/3621246/california-drought-study/

California’s Drought Is Now the Worst in 1,200 YearsAnd it might not be ending anytime soon

California’s three years of low rainfall is the region’s worst drought in 1,200 years, according to a new study.

Record high temperatures combined with unusually low levels of precipitation have been the primary causes of the dry conditions, according to the study in the journalGeophysical Research Letters

If, for sake of argument, man made climate change caused it, that would be a case of the chickens coming home to roost, given that Americans like to use large cars that pollute far more than those used in most other countries. Plus, they use far more of the planet's resources than any other country.

I think China has taken over as the worst country for pollution:

http://www.actionforourplanet.com/#/top-10-polluting-countries/4541684868

[thaibeachlovers]

Another interesting report:

http://time.com/3621246/california-drought-study/

California’s Drought Is Now the Worst in 1,200 YearsAnd it might not be ending anytime soon

California’s three years of low rainfall is the region’s worst drought in 1,200 years, according to a new study.

Record high temperatures combined with unusually low levels of precipitation have been the primary causes of the dry conditions, according to the study in the journalGeophysical Research Letters

If, for sake of argument, man made climate change caused it, that would be a case of the chickens coming home to roost, given that Americans like to use large cars that pollute far more than those used in most other countries. Plus, they use far more of the planet's resources than any other country.

I think China has taken over as the worst country for pollution:

http://www.actionforourplanet.com/#/top-10-polluting-countries/4541684868

Correct, and they are suffering for it. Air pollution is terrible in the cities.

[kieran2698]

Another interesting report:

http://time.com/3621246/california-drought-study/

Californias Drought Is Now the Worst in 1,200 Years

And it might not be ending anytime soon

Californias three years of low rainfall is the regions worst drought in 1,200 years, according to a new study.

Record high temperatures combined with unusually low levels of precipitation have been the primary causes of the dry conditions, according to the study in the journalGeophysical Research Letters

If, for sake of argument, man made climate change caused it, that would be a case of the chickens coming home to roost, given that Americans like to use large cars that pollute far more than those used in most other countries. Plus, they use far more of the planet's resources than any other country.

I think China has taken over as the worst country for pollution:

http://www.actionforourplanet.com/#/top-10-polluting-countries/4541684868

I wonder how much of that pollution is caused by servicing America alone. The us consumes 29% of all resource but only has 5% of the population.

[klikster]

"let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet- or save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves." Michael Chrichton

I respectfully disagree with fellow-author Chrichton.

LOL!

How many copies of your "works" have you sold?

[kieran2698]

It can't be that hard to just look at the period before the industrial revolution instead of starting right at the height of it though, can it?

Q1: When was "the height" of the industrial revolution, in your opinion?

Q2: Having looked at the graph, answer Q1 again.

It is generally accepted that humanity's industrial actions (in terms of CO2 emissions) cannot have impacted the climate until 1950, when the CO2 emissions really take off.

We therefore see temperature trends before humanity's influence (1860-1880,1910-1940) which are identical to those after humanity's alleged influence (1975-1988, 1975-2009).

These simple data suggest, therefore, that humanity's influence on temperature is negligible.

In real life, the situation is rather more complicated, but that's the bare bones of it.

Regrettably, very few politicians, journalists or activists are able, or willing, to comprehend this.

Very few would trust any data produced by a fuel company such as you have provided.

By the way, coal power alone produces 23 billion tonnes, far more than on BP's graph.

Temperature's increased from the beginning of the industrial revolution until the mini ice age, then increased until today, now surpassing temperatures of the last thousand years.

Why not post a graph of the same period showing temp increase?

Besides, it is more probable that cfc's are the cause, take a look at a comparison of CFC immission and temperature.

Edited December 6, 2014 by kieran2698

[kieran2698]

Another interesting report:

http://time.com/3621246/california-drought-study/

Californias Drought Is Now the Worst in 1,200 Years

And it might not be ending anytime soon

Californias three years of low rainfall is the regions worst drought in 1,200 years, according to a new study.

Record high temperatures combined with unusually low levels of precipitation have been the primary causes of the dry conditions, according to the study in the journalGeophysical Research Letters

I resided in rural northern California for a quarter century. We had some droughts during that time, or they could be described as 'particularly dry dry seasons' because CA has annual dry seasons (opposite months to Thailand's). One thing, among many, which became evident: During a drought, trees become stressed and are more susceptible to damage from beetles. I now reside in rural northern Thailand, and have noticed the same here. Though, because it's a tropical climate, the phase happens quicker: In Thailand, a large mature tree can look healthy on month, and then be beetle riven and die within months. In California, the same pattern would take longer.

Are you talking about powder post beetles? They live in the tree for at least two years and up to ten before they come and the damage is revealed. It may be that a drought causes them to leave but the infestation would have to of happened long before.

[canuckamuck]

It can't be that hard to just look at the period before the industrial revolution instead of starting right at the height of it though, can it?

Q1: When was "the height" of the industrial revolution, in your opinion?

Q2: Having looked at the graph, answer Q1 again.

It is generally accepted that humanity's industrial actions (in terms of CO2 emissions) cannot have impacted the climate until 1950, when the CO2 emissions really take off.

We therefore see temperature trends before humanity's influence (1860-1880,1910-1940) which are identical to those after humanity's alleged influence (1975-1988, 1975-2009).

These simple data suggest, therefore, that humanity's influence on temperature is negligible.

In real life, the situation is rather more complicated, but that's the bare bones of it.

Regrettably, very few politicians, journalists or activists are able, or willing, to comprehend this.

Very few would trust any data produced by a fuel company such as you have provided.

By the way, coal power alone produces 23 billion tonnes, far more than on BP's graph.

Temperature's increased from the beginning of the industrial revolution until the mini ice age, then increased until today, now surpassing temperatures of the last thousand years.

Why not post a graph of the same period showing temp increase?

Besides, it is more probable that cfc's are the cause, take a look at a comparison of CFC immission and temperature.

Can't take you serious if you can't provide any data or links, all I see is your say so.

[RickBradford]

Besides, it is more probable that cfc's are the cause, take a look at a comparison of CFC immission and temperature.

That's an interesting theory that has been put forward by a number of scientists. (I assume you mean 'emission' rather than 'immission', which is the opposite).

The University of Waterloo wrote a paper on it last year with the provocative statement: "Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says."

a graph from the paper.

It looks plausible, but there are so many other things going on (solar, Milankovich cycles, orbits, cosmic rays) that it should be treated with caution.

Anyway, to clear CO2 of the charge of destroying the world, means to be an evil denier in the pay of Big Oil.

Because if CO2 isn't such a deadly gas, we don't need to dismantle Western industrial society after all, and where's the pleasure in that?