Global Warming

First of all I want to touch on your rebuttal that carbon levels have not increased drastically over the course of earths existence. Although it is true that earth had much more carbon dioxide several million years ago this was counteracted by massive amounts of plant life that photosynthesized to create the air you breath today and the oil you put in your car. thus the massive amount of Co2 drops that range from super volcano explosions from Yosemite national park or other cataclysmic events that caused the death of millions of plants and thus a spike in Co2 levels. It would be nice to imagine that this is natural but it is not. For as you see in his very first graph Co2 levels are going up at a faster rate than any other time period besides the late Cambrian period. Yet this increase is not due to any natural cataclysmic but instead a self made increase in Co2 which has increased by a factor of five in a mere 200 years. This time zone is a speck in your million year graph but is increasing at a exponential rate and has yet to slow. I would also like to answer your rhetorical question that you posed on how we survived such"absurd levels of Co2 and temperature on Earth" and the fact is we didn't have to because the Co2 fluctuation that you are describing happened hundreds of millions of years in the past were the earth would have not been able to support human life as we know it. http://www.epa.gov... In your third graph you once again use data from hundreds of millions of years ago to set a standard for earths temperature. The two temperature shifts happened for very different reasons one being asteroid induced Apocalypse and the current Co2 increase due to human activity. In relation to your arguments that global temperature readings are going down NASA would beg to differ as they have recorded a gradual increase in temperature http://climate.nasa.gov... I am also curious when you are saying my opponents graphs or I disagree with both Al Gore and the IPCC on their global warming estimates but you continue to use a straw man argument and putting words in my mouth that I never said. I also have problems with your hockey stick graph which does not have its y axis labeled and the line of best fit that was drawn on the graph after that because it is not accurate to NASA climate readings and thus I can only assume are based on land based climate measurement stations that can be quoted by both believers and skeptics of global warming due to their chronic irritability. You have also miss quoted my statement on arctic ice which i did not say was melting but rather I said that the ozone layer is weakening above it. Although this hole is slowly repairing itself it is still weak to fluctuation and thus we are very lucky that it is repairing itself after decades of damage by CFC's.Scientists also have no clue as to why arctic ice is thickening and do not know how long it will last. Thus I o not believe that the melting of arctic ice will lead to a increase in sea level know due to the still unexplained thickening of arctic ice but if we do not do something this unexplained blessing may revert back to its original melting stage that will cause cities like New York and Boston to be more susceptible to flooding. In relation to your data on storms I miss wrote my opinion for you are correct that their have currently been less storms than in the past. However, the storms that do get created have been far more devastating and have shown up in places that almost never receive a hurricane the most prominent example being New York and even further back hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Tornadoes have become less common due to reasons that scientists do not understand because we still do not fully understand how tornado are created. I also noticed how you left out my argument on droughts due to the definitive proof that the number of droughts have increased around the world from the Midwest to India these drought swill only get worse and slowly rising temperatures will only exasperate the problem Finally I would ask that you research your graphs a little bit more for the Co2 graphs you found that spanned millions of years had almost nothing to do with global warming as well as not discounting a phenomena just because the scientific community does not fully understand it. Good luck in our counter argument