Recently there also has begun a discussion about the NIWA's data and their "adjustment policy":

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_brie...-questions.html
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

Take a globe , if its diamter is 1 meter, the atmosphere is about 1 cm thick
look at the small circles , they are the main cities of the worlds : London, New York etc
These are the main centres of pollution on the earth which have been created by human beings
If the circles were in scale you could not even see them
The (invisible) circles emit an (invisible) smoke
Do you think that they can have a great impact on the content of C02 of the atmosphere ?

CO2 is maninly produced by the nature itself

i think it makes more sense to look at the amount of coal and oil being burned than how tiny cities are in comparison to the globe.

for example there still are at least 800 billion tons of coal that can be mined. the density of coal is a bit higher but lets say 1 ton = 1 m³. so you could make a 1 m layer with an area of 800000 km². that's almost 3 times the size of italy. i could imagine that burning it has some effect on the atmosphere. also imagine all the coal and oil that already has been burned.

When talking about CO2 it afaik would be wrong to think that it all would go into the atmosphere. I liked a comment from a farmer who said that before CO2 became a global warming nightmare it was just a gas that crawled on the ground and then was told to rise up a bit and rain down leading to soil acidification (or whatever it was)...

In my opinion and despite manmade global warming being true or not there also are things that should be considered too. I mean how many terrawatts or whatever the recent scale is do we set free in terms of electromagnetic waves? It's not like all of the waves just float around doing nothing - they most cerainly will lead to tiny heating phenomenoms. I don't know if that's a big deal or not though but I never even read of someone actually considering this seriously...

Well, it makes sense to match the CO2 emission rate and the CO2 recycle rate
The difference being the CO2 increase rate
However , I am not saying that % of the CO2 pollution due to human activities is negligible but for sure it is much lower than what people normaly assume , the main responsible being the nature itself

The yellowstone park fire, some years ago , produced more CO2 than the whole american industry in years

There are also Coal-mine-fires, especially in China
that produce more C02 than the whole traffic sector in Germany.

So instead of trying to reduce traffic with regulations,
it would be much more effective to spend the same
money into coal-fire extinguishment...

In the end, the climate is so complex, that I doubt any
projections about gloabal warming.
We simply cant know.
The projections are more or less founded guesses

yes, that's what the climate researchers do and it doesn't seem to be too difficult to me.

that the temperatures are rising and the poles and glaciers are melting is pretty much clear. i can see it myself here in the mountains. what subsequent effects this will have is uncertain. probably not that many in central europe.

Temperatures are constantly rising and falling (every winter
normally)
The question is, if there is a long term development (meaning decades and centuries), and more interestingly:
How high is the human influence on that really.

Until the end of the 19th century there was a cold-period for example
(littly ice age). Wich was deviating from the average.
So when its warmer than 100 years ago, its not clear
that this is a global warming, or simply temperatures
revolving back to the long term average.

But since we measure exact temperaturs only starting at that time, if course there was warming.

Here some medium teem temperature graph over milennia.
I cant veryfy these datas, but it looks like we had a lot
of terrible terrible global warmings before.

Even though it afaik didn't make it in the bigger media the "climategate" did lead to some results. Besides an investigation Phil Jones (afaik head of the CRU) did retire...

Some fun-facts as I didn't know CO2 is such an important factor for plants: