Here, read up, educate yourselves, have fun eradicating a bit of ignorance.
http://www.grist.org/article/historically-co2-never-caused-temperature-change/

Did you see my responce to you in the last thread about C02 not being a strong GHG?  I explained why it is actually the most important GHG for the AGW theory.  Even diehard AGW supporters will tell you C02 is the real threat, methane and other GHGs are such a miniscule part of our atmosphere (even compared to C02's miniscule amounts) that they pale in comparison to the collective radiative forcing of C02 despite its lower W/m^2.

Edit: Here I found the post, I'll just copy the relevant bits in:

@highwaystar,

On why other gases with more greenhouse potential are not talked about it is because they are such a negligible part of our atmosphere. Even C02 is miniscule, anyone can do the calculations with the ppm value.  At ~384ppm we just divide 384 by 1,000,000.  It comes out to 0.0384% of the atmosphere.  And C02 is the most abundant greenhouse gas, aside from water vapor, in the atmosphere.  After C02 it is methane at 1745ppb...thats parts per billion or 0.00017% of the atmosphere. Next is nitrous oxide at 0.0000314% of the atmosphere.

Of these gases, C02 has a radiative forcing of 1.46W/m² , methane is 0.48W/m², nitrous oxide is 0.15W/m² .  Radiative forcing, for the benefit of those not sure, is basically how much heat the gas is capable of trapping.  It's really net irradiance which can be positive and negative but for our purposes it is essentially trapped heat.

Beyond that we get into CFCs which are measured in parts per trillion and have radiative forcings ~0.05W/m² , with some exceptions peaking at 0.17W/m² .  But in total nothing comes close to the impact of carbon dioxide (excepting water vapor which is strictly more impactful) - which itself has an impact of debateable significance.

I won't disagree that we impact local enironments (thats blatantly obvious) but human activity is simply not effecting global temperatures in any significant way.

The problem with todays society is, unless something bad is going to happen or there are incredible benefits, nobody will try and improve things.

The global warming scare is the perfect example. Until recently, alternative fuel sources were a very VERY small thing that were experiments at a few tiny places. Now, with the fear that "oh my god polar caps are melting, we have to do something fast", technology is growing at a faster rate.

Whether it is true or not, i'm not getting into that debate, what I can tell you is that nothing bad has come from the scare, just a larger push for technology. IMO the sooner the fossil fuels run out the better, it will finally force people to devote time and money into new engines (every single method of propulsion, with the exception of a few electric vehicles and hydrogen cars, uses fossil fuels), which is currently THE only thing that is holding us back from the furthest reaches of space.

That guide is amusing, the first paragraph for the question you linked to is blown out of the water by the OP:

Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today? Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow from unprecedented events.

The problem is these events of C02 are not unprecedented...in fact that are less than 1/10th of what we've seen in the past.  So yes there is a legitimate argument to be made that historical precedent invalidates the theory.

Perhaps you should read up a bit yourself before you call others ignorant.

Edit: PS - The guide actually points out that C02 is driven by temperature and not the other way around as I stated above.  It then tries to assert that C02 drives climate....wth...?  The guy has the info he needs, he just concludes what he wants instead?

Hmm. . . I never saw the research on this, but I think I knew this already. However, like others have said, I don't want to see people say "Well, if CO2 don't cause the warmin', lets buy us another six SUV'S!" because there are myriad reasons to move from fossil fuels and work on renewables. I just like efficiency myself, and wasting oil on moving a giant truck when we could make a plastic container that will last for years is just not efficient use of our resources.

I don't like these kinds of threads either. I know you have good intentions on this Mafoo, although I don't know your feelings on global warming. But unless every part of emissions is shown conclusively to have no effect at all on the earth, we need to look at something else. And this kind of talk puts people in the mindset of "nothing is wrong, let's just keep a wastin'", which is counterproductive to development of new technologies.

We don't know for sure what causes global warming, or 100% conclusively IF there is global warming. But if there is a chance that it is true, and we can fairly easily do something about it, why would we not? Just to be obstinate and against the grain? That doesn't seem to be a good enough reason for me.

Not at all Slimebeast, even if it does turn out to be a myth think of what advances and positive changes in society have come about from climate change. I mean we have developed numerous alternative clean energy sources, this will be very valuable in the future. In 20 years we will have a less polluted Earth... Hopefully.

highwaystar pretty much nailed it with his first post

Haha, you went to a lot of effort there, I appreciate it. I actually recall that post now you mention it.

While I agree that a cleaner world is a better world, I think understanding the problem and impacts are important to know, before you determine the expenses, and sacrifices one needs to make.

For example, let’s say I told you that we can be off fosse fuels 100% in 300 years for the cost of $50 trillion dollars, or off them in 150 years for the cost of $400 trillion. Let’s also say we prove that using them has no negative side effects.

Before you can make a choice in what’s better, I would hope you would want the single most important variable in that equation. How long until we run out?

If the answer is 200 years, I would hope you have a different conclusion then if it’s 1,000 years.

We have a president that effectively wants to drastically change the way you live because he worries that if he doesn’t, the world is going to heat up to the point of destroying the planet.

If the real issue is “we are going to run out of energy in 400 years if we keep doing what we are doing”, and that’s really the only issue, I would hope the choices we make to achieve alternative options changes.

It is never a good idea, to solve the wrong problem, even if it’s for the right reasons.

Do you think when they put a man on the moon they said "we could do it in 2 years and it will cost $355m or we can do it over the next 100 years for $100m, let's go for the latter", of course not. Look sometimes we need a kick up arse to do the right thing, despite the costs. With the apollo program it was the cold war, with clean energy it is the threat of climate change.

Yeah it may cost more to solve the problem quickly, but the world isn't *just* about money, I want this world to be a clean and pleasant place for my children and my childrens children to grow up in, and that to me is worth more than anything.

And I don't care when fossil fuels run out, it could be tomorrow or it could be in a million years, quite frankly I don't give a shit because the sooner we become independent from them the better.