Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

This debate is about the link between Carbon dioxide catastrophic heating. Catastrophic heating being defined as that which will cause significant destruction as a result of the increase The reasons carbon dioxide cannot be causing catastrophic heating are as follows: - Carbon dioxide accounts for less than 10% of the total net greenhouse effect. -The wavelength bans which are absorbed by CO2 are near saturation meaning that eventually the addition of more CO2 to the atmosphere will have no effect on temperature. -Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is one of the most essential gases life. Without it plants could not grow and life on Earth as it currently is would not be. -The relationship between CO2 and the temperature is logarithmic so obtaining a 6ï¿½C rise in temperature by 2100 due to the doubling of CO2 levels is impossible. -The popular greenhouse effect theory does not account for feedback particularly negative feedback which helps to reduce the effects of CO2. For example increasing CO2 levels also cause a rise in aerosols which act to lower the temperature hence reducing the heating effects of CO2. -The sun and cosmic rays play an important role in the climate. -The plant's temperature is not stable it changes often and sometimes abruptly. -The hockey stick graph which was once so popular has been abandoned since it's been shown to be completely inaccurate. -Most people who are propagating {{global warming are not climatologist}} they are; celebrities, politicians, or political activist, but not many qualified climatologist. -There are many more factors which affect the climate other than CO2 -The estimated rise in temperature is about 0.6 ï¿½C and the margin of error for measuring temperature is 0.7 ï¿½C. -There is no magic temperature for the planet. Throughout history the climate has changed and consequently species have gone extinct to be replaced by another…in fact had it not been for these changes humans would likely not be the dominant species. Essentially the most the planet can warm due to the doubling of the current CO2 levels can at most create a temperature increase of 2ï¿½C. An increase which will not cause any real catastrophic effects. To prove this point I will address a three of the more popular claims of alarmist. -Hurricanes will increase in intensity and number. The past two hurricane seasons disprove this. Though temperature does affect hurricanes higher temperatures are likely to decrease the strength of hurricanes. -Forest fires. Forest fires have indeed grown more intense over the years. However this hasn't anything to do with the temperature it is due to the build up of underbrush, the fuel of the fire. Forest fires are an important part of the natural cycle, without them some trees wouldn't be able to reproduce…but some time ago people didn't know this and a vicious campaign to eliminate forest fires began. The campaign was successful and fires were suppressed for sometime. And because of the campaign's success there is now so much underbrush that when a fires start they become very intense very quickly. The high costs of natural disasters that have been seen recently are not due to new weather phoneme but increased human activity in high risk areas. Is the Earth warming? Most likely it is… Is carbon dioxide the sole or primary factor? No. There is no question fossil fuels emit pollution, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Yes humans should stop using fossil fuels (specifically oil) for economical, environmental and political reasons however global warming is not one of those reasons. Most of the supposed effects of global warming are simply natural events which are hyped by the media while others are occurrences with other explanations. The greatest problem with global warming is that it is causing people to ignore other more significant and addressable problems, such as disease, famine, and real pollution. In fact global warming alarmist are helping to compound the current food crisis due to the production of ethanol from corn. The greatest proof that global warming isn't really being driven by the evil elixir of life carbon dioxide comes from the man with the oversized ego, himself, Al Gore. If "An inconvenient truth" is such an important movie that everyone should see why is it not available for free from its creators? I already do most of the nine things (I have decided that the tenth does not count) you're supposed to do to reduce your impact (not because I believe Gore I was doing these things before his movie) and yet even if everyone was to do the same, there would be no real impact on temperature yet Gore and pals continue to pretend that their list of things to do can have any real impact…when the only way to really have an impact (assuming for a second global warming is real…) would be to halt almost all fossil fuel use and devise a means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, adjusting it to it's ideal level…which is unknown by the way. Gore's plan is simply he intends to make everyone adapt these nominal changes and when the ice doesn't melt and Florida doesn't sink he will claim victory…in the same manner Bush claims success in his "war on terror" even though nothing he's done has had any real impact…allow me to rephrase that "no positive impact". If carbon dioxide was such a threat why then do so many proponents not practice what they preach? Why are they still building homes on the coasts, flying in private jets, eating meat, using cars, using washing machines, dryers, hair gel, and products made in foreign countries which have to be shipped in large cargo ships which not only burn fuel but interrupt whale communication. Why do so many activist not make the sacrifices they want others to? The answer: they don't really care about the planet and most of them know what they're preaching isn't true. Take Gore for example he didn't make his home "carbon neutral" until recently after his electricity usage was made public. Really how can global warming be real when some of it's major proponents act apparent hypocrisy like those who opposed the construction of a wind farm in Cape Cod because it would lower property values. They either don't take global warming seriously or are just hypocrites who care more about themselves than the greater good of the environment and humanity. I think it's a grand combination of both.