No. For the past eighteen months or so it has been cooling. Warming and cooling happen all the time and occur naturally as 'climate change', a better term than global warming which suggests the planet only ever heats up.
About half a degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) over the last 100 years. Even this isn't likely to be the true figure, as a significant portion — up to half of this claimed rise — will be due to 'urban warming'. This is where urban sprawl leads to heat retention around measuring sites on the ground, which then get a false high reading due to the 'urban heat island effect' and NOT any global temperature change. Satellite data confirms this; there is very poor correlation between surface temperature data from the ground and from satellite in recent decades.
No. Planet Earth has warmed up by around 10 degrees Celsius within the space of a human lifetime on many occasions in the recent geological past (and cooled down again in the same timescale) without any help from mankind. Emissions from industrial activity and mechanised transport have been around for less than 200 years.
There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide plays a role in it, but that's as far as it goes. There is only 0.037% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by volume, and of total global emissions of carbon dioxide each year only 0.6% comes from cars — this is an insignificant contribution. Greens 'forget' that 96.5% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources so mankind can have but little effect. Also the equilibria, or balance processes, at work in parts of the short-term carbon cycle mean that if we do succeed (we won't) in reducing carbon dioxide levels 'artificially', then nature will boost them again!
As carbon dioxide levels change in response to temperature changes, rather than cause them, and as carbon dioxide is by no means the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas, attempts to influence climate change by reducing mankind's emissions represent a laughable King Canute strategy, so much so that there has to be another motive (read on). This 'precautionary principle' is an abuse of guilt and fear. It should work both ways — as there is overwhelming evidence that the Sun causes climate change on the timescale we are worrying about, politicians should take this possibility on board too, but they just want the carbon taxes and do little or nothing else.
This statement about current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nonsense. There has been up to 20 times more carbon dioxide in the Earth's past, and levels have fallen and risen naturally. Also, climate change does NOT correlate with carbon dioxide levels or emissions in the way that it does with solar activity.
There are several mechanisms which operate over different timescales. Some are regular, others not. They are:
a) the varying output of the Sun
b) the varying axial tilt of our planet
c) the varying orbital eccentricity of Earth as it orbits the Sun
d) interaction with the interplanetary and interstellar medium
e) tectonic activity e.g. volcanism
f) sporadic catastrophes e.g. impacts from space (comets, asteroids)
There is overwhelming evidence that natural forces are at work in climate change. For example, the last mini ice age (1645–1715) occurred at the same time as a prolonged period of very low activity in the Sun. Of course, this was no coincidence. Now, as solar activity builds to very high levels, we have seen modest warming during the last century. Evidence from space and from observatories show a direct link between solar activity and climate for nearly 500 years. Over longer timescales, hot and cold periods where climate change has occurred to a larger degree are coincident with periods when the astronomical factors (known together as the Milankovitch cycles) can explain them precisely.
This question has been answered by Dr Moore, co-founder of greenpeace, and many other political activists whose quotes are to be found on the ABD website. Moore stated last year — publicly — that he was very concerned about the organisation he helped to found, that in the mid-eighties it was taken over by extremists and ultra-leftists and now operates from political ideology rather than objective science. There is no better way to secure a high tax (on enterprise) and high control (on mobility and freedom of the individual) than to scare people so much that they are willing to endure punitively high taxes on energy and transport in order to "save the planet". Of course the planet doesn't need saving, it's in no danger whereas we cannot save ourselves from the planet; ironic.
See above (scare stories) and note that it is governments which appoint these 'experts'. "He who pays the piper" may be at work. Also, note that there is a petition signed by over 17000 scientists — including more than 2000 leading climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric scientists from across the world, called the OREGON PETITION, which has the following statement at its heart:
"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate"Predictions of Armageddon are scaremongering. Computer models used to make dire predictions are notoriously unreliable — they use far too large an element size to model atmospheric physics and chemistry adequately, and the computing power to do so properly is estimated to be at least 5 years away as at 2000.