Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[Pappa]

But I'm not questioning if CO2 is higher due to man. What I do question is that it has any but the tiniest effect on global temperatures. I want to see the evidence, and if it's not there, I want to know why.

What kind of evidence are you expecting? Are computer models of future warming good enough for you? How about ice cores, sediments, etc. for past records? Or are you purely relying on current CO2 levels and current temperature records?

[mistermack]

Even if man made CO2 weren't the cause it is only going to exacerbate the changes and should be reduced.

Evidence???

[Tero]

Fears we've got coming out of out ears. I was after evidence. You're stacking one fear on top of another there. The truth is that we should act on evidence, not speculation.
CO2 has been much higher in history, that has been proved. As have global temperatures. Neither has led to calamity or any kind of runaway effect.
.

20 million years ago. And warm was good for dinosaurs, This is the age of mammals.

[Eriku]

Fears we've got coming out of out ears. I was after evidence. You're stacking one fear on top of another there. The truth is that we should act on evidence, not speculation.
CO2 has been much higher in history, that has been proved. As have global temperatures. Neither has led to calamity or any kind of runaway effect.
.

20 million years ago. And warm was good for dinosaurs, This is the age of mammals.

Yup... Supporting what we would now consider extraordinary flora and fauna... I wonder if we'd fare well in those circumstances... what about the other non-tool-making friends?

Normal my arse.

[Animavore]

Did you watch the videos?
They deal with the evidence, all referenced.

[mistermack]

But I'm not questioning if CO2 is higher due to man. What I do question is that it has any but the tiniest effect on global temperatures. I want to see the evidence, and if it's not there, I want to know why.

What kind of evidence are you expecting? Are computer models of future warming good enough for you? How about ice cores, sediments, etc. for past records? Or are you purely relying on current CO2 levels and current temperature records?

Computer models are not evidence of anything. You can make them do whatever you want. Ice cores, sediments etc. are hard evidence, but they DON'T show CO2 causing global warming at any time in history. Surely that's a clue?
CO2 levels have been MUCH higher at times. But they have NEVER been shown to be followed by a temperature rise.
It's always been the reverse. Temperature rise followed by CO2 rise. That's entirely logical, as seawater will absorb less CO2, if it warms.
We are expected to believe that raised CO2 levels have warmed the climate in the incredibly short period of fifty years, when it has never had that effect before, according to the hard evidence of the cores etc.

And they are asking us to completely ignore the fact that the climate warmed the same amount, before the CO2 levels rose.
Surely whatever caused the first bit of warming should be the first candidate for whatever has caused the second half.
.

[Eriku]

On part two of Animavore's film... refuting some self-regulating mechanism that Lindzen was pinning his hopes on... If I recall correctly, Lindzen is a bit of a contrarian and also argued against second hand smoke being dangerous?

I'm tellin' ya... there are certain tells that unmistakeably give away the side that's looking to cock up research and public understanding of it. Plus the funding that's behind most of the "skeptics".

[Pappa]

It's always been the reverse. Temperature rise followed by CO2 rise.

Where is your evidence of this?

[mistermack]

Did you watch the videos?
They deal with the evidence, all referenced.

I've watched it, and seen it before. Can you not see the sheer speculation goin on there? I saw no evidence for CO2 being the cause, no reference to what caused climate swings in the past. That video is full of speculation. And the point about 'most scientists agree' is the most pathetic of all. Scientists can't afford not to agree. It's like a religion.
.

[Animavore]

Did you watch the videos?
They deal with the evidence, all referenced.

I've watched it, and seen it before. Can you not see the sheer speculation goin on there? I saw no evidence for CO2 being the cause, no reference to what caused climate swings in the past. That video is full of speculation. And the point about 'most scientists agree' is the most pathetic of all. Scientists can't afford not to agree. It's like a religion.
.

Well then I can't help you. You've obviously made up your mind.

[Eriku]

It's like a religion.

Jesus... you hear this shit when the ID proponents have a go at scientists believing chance can provide the changes needed for us to get to where we are now.

[mistermack]

It's always been the reverse. Temperature rise followed by CO2 rise.

Where is your evidence of this?

Golly, you haven't seen that? Even the proponents have to admit, CO2 rises automatically, after temp rise, with an 800 year lag. This is put down to the time the oceans take to warm. Look again at the film that is linked.
The famous graph in an inconvenient truth has been ridiculed for hiding the fact that CO2 levels FOLLOW global temperatures, they don't lead it.

Surely if CO2 causes fluctuations, it would HAVE to be the other way around?
And exactly to order, CO2 levels are high now, 800 years after the medieval warm period. Surprise surprise. Just like the graph said they should be.
.

[Tero]

Why did you not say all that in the beginning?
Obvious denialist.
Case dismissed, no point debating.

[mistermack]

Did you watch the videos?
They deal with the evidence, all referenced.

I've watched it, and seen it before. Can you not see the sheer speculation goin on there? I saw no evidence for CO2 being the cause, no reference to what caused climate swings in the past. That video is full of speculation. And the point about 'most scientists agree' is the most pathetic of all. Scientists can't afford not to agree. It's like a religion.
.

Well then I can't help you. You've obviously made up your mind.

No, you could help me, by pointing to evidence, and I have only made up my mind to require evidence, and reject speculation.

If the climate of the world had been steady down through history, I would be far more inclined to give weight to speculation, but the fact is it's been up and down like a jack-in-the-box. Even over the last 2000 years, we've had very warm periods and mini ice ages. Why the hell should we be amazed at a half degree rise, and assume all sorts of calamities will follow?
.
.

[Animavore]

Did you watch the videos?
They deal with the evidence, all referenced.

I've watched it, and seen it before. Can you not see the sheer speculation goin on there? I saw no evidence for CO2 being the cause, no reference to what caused climate swings in the past. That video is full of speculation. And the point about 'most scientists agree' is the most pathetic of all. Scientists can't afford not to agree. It's like a religion.
.

Well then I can't help you. You've obviously made up your mind.

No, you could help me, by pointing to evidence, and I have only made up my mind to require evidence, and reject speculation.

If the climate of the world had been steady down through history, I would be far more inclined to give weight to speculation, but the fact is it's been up and down like a jack-in-the-box. Even over the last 2000 years, we've had very warm periods and mini ice ages. Why the hell should we be amazed at a half degree rise, and assume all sorts of calamities will follow?
.
.

That's exactly what I did. Each one of those videos has links to relevant papers.
Now if you don't want to look at scientific papers on the subject then I can't do much else for you.