| Here's the thing about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It rests on the assumption that uniformitarianism (the doctrine that is the basis for the entire science of Geology) is false.
It does not attempt to prove this, it merely assumes it. Much like the Young Earth Creationists. All the CO2 currently sequestered in fossil fuels used to be part of our atmosphere. We know what the climate was like before this happened through fossils, changing sea levels, and evidence of glaciation, all recorded in the rock. The climate has followed a predictable and remarkably constant warming/cooling cycle as far back as we can reliably measure. If the sequestration of CO2 in fossil fuels had an impact, it's below our level of precision. Could the release of CO2 make a slight difference at the margins? Sure it could. The ice age we've got coming down the pike in a few thousand years could possibly be partially mitigated.
But the sackcloth, ashes, and cries of "The End is Nigh! Repent, Ye Sinners!" is stuff and nonsense. Many of the highest profile advocates of AGW are charlatans. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Let's take a look at the IPCC report that was so loudly praised by AGW supporters. There are any number of problems with it, but for argument's sake, we'll accept it at face value as the worst-case scenario. It concluded that over the course of several decades that the globe had warmed 0.8 degrees, and stated with 90% confidence that man's influence was responsible for (wait for it) less than one tenth of one degree.
That's not a sound basis for wailing and rending of clothes. Like it or not, CO2 is a trace gas that comprises significantly less than 0.1% of our atmosphere, and will remain so in any realistic projection. Ice cores have shown little or no correlation between CO2 and temperature. AGW proponents state that this will change soon. But this is a statement based upon faith, not one based on evidence. Of course, I could ramble on at more length about the difficulties in finding an extremely faint signal amongst mind-boggling amounts of noise. The pretense of a precision that does not exist. The claims of knowledge that is not actually known. And the perfidy of the vocal AGW proponents. (The last one is especially fun.) But I don't think I'd be adding much by doing so. All of that is easily addressed with simple search strings. |
That's an interesting assertion. I'm not a biologist, but I suspect quite a lot of the carbon in hydrocarbons was locked into other carbon compounds before being taken up by plants and animals.
Consider: the carbonaceous compounds in the shells of mollusks do not come from C02 but from other disolved carbon compounds in the water.
You could just as easily argue that all the carbon in limestone used to be in the atmosphere.