Your view of CO2

Vote now in our poll, below

If humanity influences the climate, then the mechanism involves carbon dioxide. There’s nothing else we do that scientists have said might affect the temperature or any other feature of the weather.

But could carbon dioxide dominate the climate? It certainly affects the climate, through raising the temperature a bit — that much is non-controversial. Measuring the temperature increase as it’s introduced to the atmosphere is problematic, but it appears as though the first 120 ppmv has the most effect, about 2.3°C; the next 267 ppmv (more than doubling it) adds less than 0.5°C.

Calculations show that doubling CO2 again, to about 800 ppmv, would add another 0.5°C, but at the current rate of increase it won’t get to that level until 2255.

Some people say the greenhouse effect of CO2 is too small to dominate the climate (it has much less influence than water vapour), while others say that, like a poison in the body, you don’t need much to have a catastrophic effect.

What do you think? Does CO2 dominate the climate?

Vote here

If the voting buttons are absent, you have already voted (or someone on that machine has).

To comment on the poll, post a comment below.

What now?

Oppose the madness! Spread word of this poll—we’d appreciate your help with that; please tell people you know and email them this link to the poll to come here to vote.

If you have a web site, please consider using this link to our poll. If you have any questions about handling these links, flick me an email to convenor [at]

Any of that will make a difference. And you’ll be a blimmin’ hero!



12 Thoughts on “Your view of CO2

  1. David du Toit on February 12, 2010 at 8:03 pm said:

    Ha ha ha!

    Your poll only registers NO votes – maybe it even registers YES votes as NO votes!

    What a flippen disgrace – fabricating/manipulating evidence to serve your ideology.

  2. Hi David,

    You’re quick to make assumptions, but you are wrong. We have no ideology but truth.

    I can assure there’s no trickery involved, as we don’t host the poll, it’s done offsite by a third party. We have no control over it.

    There is a “no” vote registered now. It is the first one. Perhaps that is your vote. Have another look. When you reload the page the updated voting results will be visible.

    If you’re still unhappy, please leave another comment.

    Thank you for visiting. Perhaps you can record your opinions on one of the articles.

    Richard Treadgold.

  3. G/S. Williams on February 24, 2010 at 8:46 am said:

    Hi, Richard,

    Regarding your polls, referring to the iceberg one, what about naming a group of icebergs as “a melt of icebergs”; after all, once they have broken off whatever they will have started to melt.

    Keep up the good work.

  4. Hi G/S,

    Yes, I agree it’s a good candidate. “Melt” is one of the options in our poll, go ahead and vote for it if you wish.


  5. Barry Brill on February 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm said:

    Richard – a small challenge on one point. You say that CO2 atmospheric concentration will reach 800ppm by 2255 “at the current rate of increase”.

    But the current rate won’t continue. It’s quite closely correlated with global population – which demographers tell us will reach a maximum of nearly 9 billion by about 2050, then reduce to 7.5 billion by 2100. So, on this basis alone, the rate of increase will reduce in 40 years and keep going down thereafter.

    Then the second greatest contributor to the rate increase is “carbon intensity”. China says they will reduce theirs by at least 45% within 10 years, and India is expecting to do almost as well. These are the 2 largest future emitters.

    The G20 and others have stated that they don’t want the current level of 285ppm to rise above 350ppm during the next century. On any reasonable set of forecasts, the world will meet that target very comfortably.

  6. Excellent news, Barry, thank you! I am pleased to be corrected on these figures, since they were causing some anxiety — distant, but anxiety nonetheless.

  7. FijiDave on March 18, 2010 at 1:26 pm said:

    Barry Brill: “… current level of 285ppm to rise above 350ppm ”

    Shouldn’t that be 385 (or 388) and 450 ppm respectively?

    Just asking.

  8. Good point, FijiDave. Now that you draw my attention to it, I think you could be right. Current level is 388 and the number 450 is a popular one.

  9. Maurice@TheMount on September 16, 2011 at 7:06 pm said:

    One day we will bring all the Carbon Clowns to reality.
    Atmospheric CO2 (Plant Food) is a necessity for all life on earth, and currently earths
    atmosphere is CO2 (Plant Food) impoverished, all life on earth would benefit with more of it.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2011 at 9:28 am said:

    David du Toit, poll results at this comment date/time

    NO: 128
    YES: 9

    Ha ha ha!

    And your ideology is?

  11. Manfred on May 30, 2012 at 4:08 pm said:

    Great web site – keep up the excellent work. People are slowly coming to realise that this is the biggest single ‘have’ of all time – a ‘have’ worth $300Billion or more in the carbon exchange. Al Gourdo is reaping the rewards of from the gullible, with the assistance of the bureaucrats and the grant driven (see PBRF – Tertiary Education Commission) university research. Mention ‘climate change’ or ‘ocean acidification’ somewhere in the grant application and the chances of funding are raised considerably. Posit a null relationship between these two and quite likely watch the grant sources evaporate.

    Without plentiful and cheap power, life in the 21st century is as life was – a hard, short lived drudge, in which most of one’s time is spent undertaking simple tasks performed by appliances be they washing machines or computers. The increasing cost of power and its association with the carbon dioxide tax are ways in which massively expensive renewable energy generation gets to look like an ‘investment’ against the far cheaper more reliable alternatives and the UN gains its cut from the carbon exchange to pursue its global governance agenda. The basis is spurious. Green house gases are vital for our survival. The increased fraction of approx 100ppm (about 30%) equates to a third of 0.001% atmospheric composition. There is no evidence that climate sensitivity (currently unknown) is acutely responsive to such minute changes in gaseous (CO2) atmospheric composition (except in the IPCC models where sensitivity is high) and there is mounting observational evidence to suggest that other mechanisms may play a critical role. What is clear, is that global temps. have been considerably higher than at present – in the past – in the absence of higher levels of CO2, and very much lower, in the presence of high concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

    CAGW remains the spurious policy driven politically correct hypothesis and the putative solution, the primitivisation of society, is nothing more than a toxic political agenda rivaling those of other despotic groups that litter the dustbin of history and the cemeteries of the world.

  12. Wolfgang Haumann on February 11, 2016 at 4:58 am said:

    Votes are nice, but facts are more important.

    If anyone can explain to me how a small amount of carbon-dioxid gas in the air can achieve a heat radiation back to earth that ends in a permanent warming i will probably accept AGW.
    There should be real measurements everywhere in the atmosphere to proof the CO2 effect or falsify it.
    Anything else is ideology, not science.

    Has anyone followed the way CO2 takes from our cars or powerplants up there in the atmosphere.
    Remember it has significantly higher weight than ‘normal’ air.

    Sorry for my english, i’m from rainy and cold Germany.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *