It seems to me that the CO2 problem is one of how much CO2 can be "recycled" each year (by natural processes) vs how much is dumped into the atmosphere, by natural and manmade processes. If the two are in balance, it is a stable situation. If there is more CO2 produced than can be recycled, warming will occur and a positive feedback loop established. It appears that more is being dumped into the atmosphere than can be recycled.

Here is a link to a short (about 6 min.) September 2014 You Tube video that discusses several of the global warming/climate change issues. Note that in the video description, sources for its statements are cited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

No question that a constant 4% bias above equilibrium over time would have an adverse impact. However, such a small percentage contribution by one source type is easily overtaken by typical variances in the output of other, much larger source types. For instance, a large forest fire, or a volcanic eruption, or some other such occurrence on an annual basis would provide similar bias. Since climate change resulting in global warming is not an immediate crisis, and there is no viable solution to reverse the current trend claimed by popular science given the political lack of cooperation of other industrialized nations, it would seem prudent to focus my attentions on more pressing matters for now. If the situation changes, it would warrant reconsideration. I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about such things; just to keep it in perspective with all the other possible threats leaning on us today.

It is wise to consider all possibilities; to evaluate, to classify, and to plan for. Keeping oneself appraised of the latest data and the current impressions of the experts is prudent practice, and we must all exercise diligence in staying well informed and ready for action. On that, I think we can all agree wholeheartedly, even if our personal conclusions vary.

The scientific deception may be even worse than even I have thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367...al-warming.html

Am Fear, these Telegraph-articles are hogwash. I suggest you invest some time finding more credible sources of information.

AFLM,
Just to amplify MostlyHarmless's point, it is always worthwhile to check on the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the authors of articles one cites.

A few moments use of Google shows that Christopher Booker apparently has no significant training in science, but rather was a history major. Among other dubious beliefs he claims that asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health.

Not exactly a guy that most people are inclined to take seriously about climate, or much else.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

A give away is that this chap almost had a breakdown from the abuse he received about his climate denial. If they had been telling him he was too foolish to realise the world was flat, do you think he would really be hurt by it?
Like the people who claim to believe that O'Bama shouldn't be president because he's a Kenyan and only natural born americans can hold the post, yet none of them take the obvious solution to this self solving problem; call the cops!
He knows himself he's in the wrong.
qjs

There's an explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA. Briefly, the data is from weather stations, which are only interested in short-term predictions. Hence they didn't bother to recalibrate when they upgraded their instruments. The raw data should not be used for long-range climate predictions. It needs to be adjusted; in effect, to calibrate it retrospectively. There's no deception or fraud going on here.

The video demonstrates nicely how the Human Global Warming proponents beliefs have become almost a religious belief. Retrospectively temperature increase bias re calibration on temperature data sets always under the assumption that 'Its got to be wrong, it can't be getting cooler, its got to be getting warmer, there's HGW'

Are any of the other urban Weather Stations adjusted downwards (cooler) for heat island effects that have built up around those weather stations over time? I suspect not!

AFLM,

If direct temperature data were the primary data used for global warming information, you might be correct. However, that is the least useful data set (for calibration issues as well as many other reasons) available. Lots of good "proxy" data is used to show real warming over the last 18,000 years or so. Global Warming is REAL. There are multiple causes. Man is most certainly one of them. Not the first time in history either that an organism has changed the earth's environment. The science is there and it does not depend on thermometers.

Respectfully,

Jerry