I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll). I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources.
For sources, you may want to start with say Wikipedia which links to some very good sources. Don't do what Carlin does and pick some contrarian websites. Given your comments below, I suspect you have not been looking a decent sources for a start.
Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree? (over the course of decades)
1) Please give references if you are going to claim figures like 0.04 degrees. Severe economic responses (Kyoto doesn't seem all that severe) would give more over the long run, but if you don't believe in GW, why believe the best model would only give a 0.04 decrease?
2) There does not have to be severe economic consequences to lower the temperature; one valid response to global warming is to do nothing, or very little. On the other hand the economic consequences of doing nothing could be much higher; I personally would pay for power from coal-powered stations vs renewal energy sources than deal with drought.
I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap). However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe. Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will.
GW is not a "fairy tale". 2 minutes reading the Wikipedia article (you have done that right?) would show the weight of evidence for GW. You can argue about how much is human generated, how much affect it will have and the best responses but to dismiss it as a story is to show a critical lack of understanding right up there with flat earth brigade.
Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so. Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.
I won't mod you down, I will spend a few minutes to answer your post, even though it reads as a troll. But will you actually take the time to read unbiased sources, or just spend your time complaining about being mod down?
To explain where you are wrong:
"Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will".
You think that climate scientists missed the big shiny thing in the sky every day? You would be wrong; huge amounts of research have gone into examining the amount of input from solar 'forcing' - and the result is simply that you are wrong. "Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend"
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html]
And carbon dioxide; you have a point to some extent in that it is just one of the most important factors and not the sole factor.. but "A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder". I personally think of it as being like a bath or basin filling with water; in the past over very long periods of time, the flow of water (heat) coming in is roughly balance by the amount of water flowing out the plug hole. But CO2 and other gases is like somebody dumping some tissues in water; but a big thing by themselves but enough to partial block the plug hole causing a overflow.
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html]