Ok, the topic has gotten off, so I'm just going to post a link to an incredibly erudite editorial, scientific explanation and examination in brief of what most real scientists actually think of global warming, including a much more likely culprit for global warming than CO2 and an explanation of why the current global warming hysteria is wrong in a couple of important areas.
If you're really interested in understanding what's probably really going on related to what some are claiming the possible end of the world, read through this from top to bottom. Look at some of the links the author includes to explain in more detail certain concepts. Look at the author's credentials and those to whom he references.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.htm
The following is an extremely, extremely short summary of what is discussed. It goes into the best detail I've ever seen in the shortest space possible (and therefore is still long) while providing references to what drove their conclusions.
Mann, the scientist that the IPCC (the UN committee on global warming) used to base all of their current policies on, either screwed up hi mathematics horribly when he "analyzed" his data, or he downright committed fraud. The man-made global warming scare is a mega-money maker for many people involved in politics and the green industry.
CO2 is incapable by the laws of physics of affecting more than an extremely small amount of temperature. Most real climatologists understand this and have never been on board with this scare.
In fact data untouched by Mann's algorithms, along with known historical temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, show temperatures approximately 1000 years ago were as high or higher than they are now, actually helping Europe climb out of the Dark Ages as the world warmed and food production capability increased. Temperatures 200-300 years ago were much lower, causing more crop failures. These are known facts that are not seriously disputed. But Mann's graph didn't even show this.
Mann, btw, published his paper that showed the steep climb of temperatures in the 1900's and called 1998 the hottest year ever in recorded history, in Nature. It was not peer reviewed. It was then taken up by the UN's IPCC and they used it to develop policy, actually completely opposite of what a statement in 1995 had put their position.
The sun goes through cycles that coincide with the heating cycles going back in history. Yes, we have been going through a warming cycle, for the last 100 years or so, but it's not man made and it's also not a bad thing.
CO2, btw, seems to be produced en mass (aside from volcanic eruptions which is the absolute largest CO2 producer) by the heating of the earth and the out-gassing of CO2 in land and ocean. Yes, we do contribute CO2 to the air, but natural cycles produce MUCH MORE.
The graph that Al Gore made of CO2 versus Global Temperature in his "An Unpleasant Truth" movie actually shows the opposite of what Gore is saying, but the two lines are separated vertically and what you don't see, which is the opposite of what Al Gore says (but you do see when you merge the lines) is that rise in temperature ALWAYS precedes rises in CO2.
CO2 is not causing warming, it is a symptom. And a beneficial symptom at that. CO2 is not an actual greenhouse gas - it is only physically capable of trapping 8% of the energy that "touches" the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. It is a trace gas at a very low concentration. Water vapor is responsible for 98% of the temperature in the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is absorbed by plants because that is what they use to breathe and fuel their processes much like we use oxygen.
The more CO2, the better crop yields. But no real measurable effect on global temperatures.l