GM's Bob Lutz: "I don't believe in the CO2 theory"

That sucks, I hope it won't slow them down in making more electric cars.

I wasn't gonna buy a Volt anyway.

they can put their volts up their rear ends... GM is an evil corporation and this is proof of it. They dont even try to be consistent with their message. Look at their track record and see what their real intentions are:
- they killed the electric car originally (EV1)
- they claim they are "developing a new electric car" WHAT ARE YOU DEVELOPING?!?! YOU ALREADY HAVE THE MEANS TO MAKE IT TODAY!!!!
- They make hybrid mammoth SUVs!?!? come on!
- they pretty much created the demand for ethano (flexfuel) which is now killing the whole corn economy and making tortillas unaffordable
- THEY DONT BELIEVE IN CO2?!

THEY LIE!!!!!!! i dont believe any of this and they should be ashamed. Watch the Volt come out in limited quantities, then produce some safety scandal, then they recall it dont make it again or some crap like that. Please GM, close business and make all of us a favor. Or at least stop the lies and dedicate your time to making 550hp corvettes...

I saw this interview last night and was amazed enough to post something on my own blog (later today).

He seems to not want to sell any Volts, basically saying that electric cars are slow and only for hippies. I didn't go to business school, but I don't think marginalizing your potential market is how you move product.

That's not all. He apparently has a problem with environmentally aware women.

I've never had a GM, and knowing what I know about this guy and the company, I probably won't anytime in the near future.

FAIL.

Also offensive in this interview, at least for me a feminist and an environmentalist:

COLBERT: Is it sexy? Will it get me laid?
LUTZ: I think so... you might have, um--
COLBERT: It might change the type of woman I'm attracting, maybe, exactly--
LUTZ: You're gonna get a lot of very nice, no make-up, environmentally--
COLBERT: A little crunchier, a little crunchier, maybe a little hair on the legs...

Other potential explanations:

1.)Needs to believe that to protect himself from slipping into guilt.

2.) Knows that many big stockholders agree with his incorrect statement: wants to avoid alienating them.

3.) Lawyers told him to say it to fend off potential future liabilities relative to a future climate crisis. If you know anything about "Community Standards" in legal theory then you know exactly why he would create a public record in reasonable doubt casting mode.

4.) So busy he has not kept up with the serious literature: relies on business news papers which espouse guess what?

Yes, I was dismayed at his answers and gullibility in falling into Stephen's traps that were so deftly laid. Stephen basically got Mr. Lutz to antagonize the very demographic he is trying to sell the Volt to.

I'm still cautiously hopeful that the Volt will be legit and there will be no conspiracies (or recalls...), but his backwards views on the environment that sustains him taints the entire thing.

GM is importing re-badged Opels, many of which are very good cars. This guy is obviously one of the Detroit dinosaurs. Hint to the 12th floor, just hand the keys over to the European bureau. You guys are toast.

He was joking around. Big Deal.

I'm a GREENIE like know other. Eco conscious in my life style, purchasing, business. I gave up my 550 Benz and now I ride a recycled electric (hub) bike or walk. I don't eat meat...etc Home: solar thermal, solar volt 30%, and Ground source heat pump(just a few credentials if you will) in the City of I'll Kill your brother (Philly).

He might be a polluter to the Nth degree, however, after reviewing multiple studies, I Believe in Global warming. I just think Human CO2 being 0.0224% of the Greenhouse effect doesn't account for the phenomena. It doesn't lessen our cause to consider that some of what has been made popular isn't 100% exacting as we would like it to be.

Consumerism is bad, wastefulness of our society should stop, harming our environment is STUPID. We need to be CO2 neutral, yes. We need to be earth neutral in our living and manufacturing. But it's a far stretch to say that we are 'causing' it through CO2.

Some of us are viewing the CO2 caused Global warming THEORY and becoming like religious zealots that cannot maintain and objective mind. Just ask yourself "what if it's wrong? How could it be wrong? and How have I compared different schools of though about this that are not part of the mainstream?" Question everything 60x in 60 ways before you rest so easily on 'truth'. I'm willing to say I COULD be wrong. However, as the facts are weighed in it seems probable that that fat cat might be right for the wrong reasons.

Since I'm on it: CAP and Trade is a terrible idea! Private corporations will clean up but it will eventually become and oppressive issue for the everyday folk. A lot of you won't understand this for quite a while...but remember you had been warned! Please do more research on BOTH sides of the issue and look for the SCIENCE. Not just claims and lying statistics like Gore used. An argument to fear and authority doesn't make it correct. Lying with numbers that most don't understand or check is morally bankrupt. Yes he DOES stand to make money. That can be good and bad....do your research and stop towing the line. Dissension is patriotic. Thinking and critical analysis/comparative analysis is a Great thing.

Dee:

But what if we are not wrong? Is that risk worth it? Is the risk to future generations worth it?

If there is only a 1% chance that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming that will result in the catastrophic effects being predicted can we say that is not enough of a risk? At what point would you be persuaded to do something about it? 5%, 10% chance?

Does proactively trying to curb carbon emissions carry more risk to our generation and future generations than the possible risk of not doing anything?

And please provide some basis to your notion that cap and trade is ill-advised. Cap and trade rules are one of the great regulatory success stories of recent time. They have been responsible for a great reduction in acid-rain causing pollution from our power plants. I don't think anyone got rich of this system, but the environment has been protected and industry seems to have done all right. So what are you basing your rant on?

That bumbling idiot, and idiots like him, drove gm into the ground. And they took that much of America's reputation with them. Way to jump on the environmental bandwagon (and talk down to it at the same time). I was pleased to see Colbert not go easy on him. Animals like him should be drawn and quartered.

1st off...Rachel Said - "Also offensive in this interview, at least for me a feminist and an environmentalist"

the problem is that colbert is an offensive prik, i say this Every time treehugger writes about him. i honestly dont see why people like him

SECONDLY - i never had any intentions on buying a GM product and this seals the deal for me, I NEVER will

"the problem is that colbert is an offensive prik, i say this Every time treehugger writes about him. i honestly dont see why people like him"

Probably because they get the joke. Colbert a lot of the time says exactly the opposite of what he really thinks.

Yeah, it's SATIRE. That is why people like him.

Chris:

Obviously you're not a It-Getter:

http://www.wikiality.com/It-getter

Dee,

I was afraid to say it myself because everybody else is sooo hyped on what they hear from others, and soooo scared from fear mongering non-science they just don't question and get in line! I used to think that 'Greenies' as you say were ahead of the curve and more challenging of the status quo. Maybe a little less caught up in slick PR campaigns...NOT.

I watched on Google: "The Great Global Warming Conspiracy" and thought it made some good points albeit I'm not prone to any one view. I also watched the video attempting to debunk it using semantics but think it had a few points too. They both inspired me to dig deeper and read much more material pro and con. For future generations this will be like the fluoride/vaccine arguments, religion of populist opinion versus suppressed studies and big money.

I think you are right about the carbon tax and I don't quite understand why they just can't do a direct tax on every damn barrel of oil instead of trying to hide it in a carbon tax which will just end up crushing the consumer. Also it will have the unforeseen effect of creating a deeper gap between rich and poor concerning mobility as the tax rises and the caps strengthen.

(Presently gas is @$16 in excise taxes)
[1]ADD a 1-2% or greater flat tax on each barrel of oil and that would be .98-1.86 on 20M BPD=$7.3 Billion-15.6Billion/year by law earmarked on renewable energy systems development and deployment ONLY, for the next 10 years, dispensed by a citizens & scientists commission (30) randomly drawn in alternating years of registered voters and academia for a one year term, no interest groups. Acceptance of energy industry kickbacks/jobs/etc in any form being a crime. After the first 15 years optionally renew for another 15 years or convert funds to pollution remediation and renewable energy R&D
[2] A 6 year tax holiday on the PURCHASE (local & federal) of renewable energy systems (solar, thermal, geo, waste, etc but non auto; deal with that differently) on both systems and installation
[3] A 15 year Corporation level tax rate reduction of 25% on domestic companies solely involved in the DOMESTIC manufacture of renewable/sustainable energy systems and related items (excepting FOOD Crops). NONE of these breaks if any of the company is structured to exists offshore.
[4] A stock dividend tax holiday on the same companies would promote investment in viable business models.
[5] Sliding Auto Industry tax rate and dividend tax rate reduction for next 10 years on earnings made from sales of environment friendly cars (electric/biodiesel/non food crop) and regular cars where the earnings break kicks in after every Mile Per Gallon ABOVE 50, zeroing out at 150mpg (verified MPG not the crap you see now)
[6] Separate tax rate reduction on capital gains and dividend from the ownership or sale of renewable energy bonds, stocks (of companies above). Make the capital gains tax on non short sale gains 5% for the next 10 years.
[7] We spend subsidize oil in Iraq & Afghanistan through military spending now of 70Billion. We need to find the money to almost equally subsidize renewable energy systems or government projects for the benefit of the public (such as building/public works or educational grants for renewable related but completed/degreed educational study).
[Lastly: CITIZEN working group oversight commission: 1 year terms (no job to industry after) and veto/supeoana power of government and industry).

You want clean energy and a clean planet, well THIS is what it's going to take without presently destroying industry or citizens through Wall St. type tax credits and cap and trade. It is a MORAL hazard. Secondly, if it's built off of a possible fallacy (CO2=Global warming) it's just plain evil. CO2 most likely isn't our problem, OIL economy, Oil dependence, and the pollution/contamination/destruction of our natural environment are from unsustainable processes IS.

Caveat: I think we should be Carbon Neutral Also, however, [cloro] fluorocarbons and methane emissions need to be drastically curtailed directly. Not because of global warming but the myriad of problems these things cause in the environment and in our bodies. With these gases we are beating natures production hands down.

I don't know people but you guys have a point about the lack of critical thinking. For me the jury is still out. I'll keep reading and reducing my negative footprint in the meantime. I'm not sure if I'd like to see that carbon tax myself but understand it could have benefits.

bridgekid77,

If you stretched that logic we would run in circles on everything! It's a much greater chance that the lowly protected spent fuel nuclear facility in ?Georgia* will melt down and contaminate the east coast making Chernobyl look as radioactive as glow in the dark kiddie ceiling tape!

Dee,

That was a breath of fresh air!

Colbert haters...it's called IRONY! He's intentionally ironic and 'evil'. I think you might have switched him off too quickly when you heard him saying something so awful ;)

Darin,

Your comments are BOLD BOLD BOLD! I'll have to give that some deep thinking. Why can't our government come up with those kind of ideas? I'm forwarding this one far and wide. Start a blog fella!

I googled "carbon tax bad idea", "Global warming fraud" etc. Not sure if I believe since there has been a short warming trend but overall maybe. I'll certainly check out those video.
excerpt bellow:

Below is an interview in a Spanish Magazine 'La Contra' with a Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, please read.
Then I’ll find you some more for you, as this won’t appear in the mainstream without caveats.

Monday, June 9, 2008
Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting

“I am 71 years old and continue researching at the Wharton School. I have two children and two grandchildren. I am one of the founders of the science of forecasting: the climatic change is pure fiction. Politicians invent and utilize chimeras to increase their power.”

(Title) “There is no global warming: in fact, the Earth is getting colder”

(Title2) The glaciers are melting? The North Pole is melting? The global temperature is rising due to CO2 and the greenhouse effect…?

(Question)We spend millions on preventing it.

Well it’s false. A falseness with ulterior motives, because thousands of bureaucrats and politicians make a living on convincing us that the world is in danger and that we need them and their salaries to save us. Only you say it‟s false. Check it: no solid evidence exists that the Earth is getting hotter. In reality, the planet’s temperature has been getting colder since 1998, as has been demonstrated by the scientist Robert Carter and endorsed by Christopher Monckton and other skeptics. They are only two opinions against the planetary consensus: that of the UN, the EU, and science. In the declaration of Manhattan there were more than 500 scientists that rejected the public hysteria regarding the climate, which lacks solid evidence on which to support itself, and Arthur Robinson has already obtained 31,000 signatures of other scientists and technicians who doubt the so well-talked-about warming.

(Question)It’s another point of view, simply.

I’ll give you proven facts: in Antarctica there is more ice now than there was in the last century, the CO2, does not exceed in the atmosphere, and I’ve proven for the government of Alaska that the population of polar bears is, in reality…increasing!

(Question)I’ve climbed the Aneto and the glacier is disappearing, like those in the Alps.

They are regional phenomena. There are cycles in a particular region of the world in which the temperatures rise and simultaneously, in other regions, another cycle occurs in which they are falling, which is exactly what is happening right now in Antarctica: colder these past years than ever. That’s all.

(Question)The inter governmental report about the climatic change (IPCC) of 2007, promoted by the UN, predicted rises in global temperatures during the next 92 years that would put the ecosystem in danger.

That is exactly what I can question with propriety, because I am in expert in forecasting. And I question the predictive rigor of that report. It is incorrect: it utilizes models of forecasting, adorned with gratuitous mathematics, which are mere conjectures. What’s really surprising are not the results, but rather that everyone seems to accept them without questioning them and that expensive and useless policies are working to stand up to them.

(Question)The UN says so: should I believe you?

In reality, in that report by the UN there are more politics than science. Think about the fact that the existence of this supposed threat gives power to the technocrats and politicians: power and budget and more taxes. Now take note: of the 50 references in chapter 8, none have competence in forecasting.

(Question)What is it based on?

I’ve been studying the science of forecasting for 48 years and I am the cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting. The scientific predictions of the report are as correct as those which anyone could make.

(Question)What is yours?

I bet 10,000 dollars with Al Gore – which we would donate to NGO selected by the winner – that I was predicting with better skill than him the temperatures for the next ten years.

(Question)What is his method?

To repeat the temperatures each year. If you don’t know the tendency, - and convince yourself that no one knows: who knows the temperature that Barcelona will have in ten years! - , the least risky thing to do is to repeat the temperature from the year before successively each year: the oscillation will be less than if you use the forecast of whichever model of forecasting.

(Question)What does Al Gore say?

He hasn’t answered me.

(Question)Have you seen his movie?

Pretentious, boring, narcissistic, and full of falsities. I only ask that no one accept mere conjectures as solid premises. The data that the 1,056 pages of the IPCC offer do not provide scientific certainties: we carefully audited the procedures of forecasting and the only thing we found were mere opinions…opinions from scientists adorned with gratuitous mathematics!

(Question)What’s new with the polar bears?

It’s another example of how the fanaticism and the interests created around the false environmentalism, which so many subsidies and excellent wages procure, have no scientific basis. The government of Alaska put me in charge with auditing the prediction about the evolution of the polar bear population …and in reality it has increased!

(Question)If the ice in which they live are melting….

Do you see it? Again you are predicting the unpredictable! Who knows whether or not the arctic ice will melt! I’ve already said to you that the fact at the present time is that the Antarctic is becoming colder year after year and that each year it is more frozen..and the planetary tendency towards warming does not exist!

(Question)What planetary tendency exists?

I don’t know, no one knows. It is impossible to predict it. In some regions like Antarctica the temperatures are getting colder and in others like the arctic they are getting hotter. That’s all.

(Question)Do you charge a fee to the oil companies?

There are other interests in addition to the oil companies. I’ve only collected 3,000 dollars from the Alaskan government for demonstrating that the polar bear population is high with respect to the historic average.

If Bob doesn't believe in global warming so what? He wants the car more to help ween American's off of foreign oil. That's enough for me. It's been through the leadership of executives LIKE him that have actually made the Volt a reality. I personally don't give a rat's ass what he believes, just build the car for the masses.

He probably thinks that the whole heliocentric theory is a hoax as well as the earth being round.

I love these comments because they sound like the Earth is flat - no it is round - no flat - round I say!

My take is talk to talk to those that open to a real discussion and spread the word through them. We can leave those that doubt the real effect we are having on this planet behind. Lend your copy of Heat (by Monbiot) to those that are open to learn and let the truth come out.

It's like trying to convince a Mac lover to use Vista - it just is not going to happen.

Cheers - Eric

The bottom line: buy a bicycle - don't buy a GM!

I have to say I have met the guy, and he is absolutely obsessed with bringing the volt out as fast as he can and sell as many as they can. He is closed-mouthed about some things (being in negotiation with battery suppliers) and opens it too much about others (like his personal opinion on climate change) but knows everything he needs to about peak oil and energy security and revitalizing Detroit. I may have drunk Bob Lutz Kool-aid, but this guy is serious and I think he can deliver. And for the first time in my life, I might buy an American car when it comes out. (if my 89 Miata isn't still holding together)

Sounds like most of your treehugger subscribers are hypocrites. On the one hands, you've got a company making a product that could seriously help curtail emissions and help solve a slew of political and economic problems, but because Lutz doesn't believe in a NON proven theory of global warming, they throw temper tantrums and promise not to buy the product. Just because he doesn't believe in global warming doesn't mean he doesn't believe that electric cars aren't the future. He knows that conservation is key for political and economic reasons. We have a major issue of political unrest. The more oil we consume, the more we power the unfriendly people that sell us the oil. It's a ticking time bomb. GM has a product that could potentially help reduce our security issues, and treehugger people vow not to buy the product? What next, if we don't vote for Obama, we are Nazis? How about freedom of speech and respecting people's opinions, even if they aren't the same as yours. Those that made comments of not buying the Volt aren'[t concerned about the environment, they want manipulate others while claiming smugness that the are better then everyone else. Treehuggers have made me lose respect for you. I'm ashamed of even looking at this web site now. Go back into your hole and scream for your mother. Hypocrites.

Global warming is a tax scam for poor countrys to take money from rich ones, for Al Gore to get rich because he owns the carbon credit coorporations, and for government to get more power through taxation and regulation. At least someone in this country has a brain and is willing to use it AND is willing to be honest about what they think!

One more reason not to buy a GM car. As if we needed another.

Sharon: Firstly, do you have to copy-paste these huge sections of text? What's the point? Just link to the resources you're citing, or at least limit actual quotations to the important points. I think it really interrupts the flow of threads in this format.

Anyway, I'd like to comment on critical thinking... I don't want to over-generalise in either direction - I agree there's a lot of knee-jerking in the green community. But some of the AGW skeptics could do with an extra dose of critical thinking. "Critical thinking" isn't "the mainstream believes it, so it must be wrong. ooh, I'm so clever", and it's not enough to "look at different sources and evaluate them" if a) the sources are all websites or Youtube clips made by random people of uncertain credentials, or b) the sources are research papers and you don't have the background knowledge to evaluate them. And I think it's quite legitimate to look at the people making particular claims - this easily gets shouted down as "ad hominem" but I think it's important. Who is the person making a particular claim (CO2 is/isn't changing the climate)? What are their scientific credentials that allow them to make this claim, or if they're not scientists, what are the sources they base the claim on? What's their background, their motivation for making the claim?
I think that's a better approach than demanding everyone read primary sources (i.e. research papers) - unless you're a climate scientist, I just don't think you're qualified to evaluate those; I explicitly include myself there. So what's left for the non-climate-experts among us is to evaluate the people behind the claims, and the non-scientific aspects of the claims. Such as claims of conspiracy or hoax - which I don't really want to get into, as I think they're ludicrous. Seriously, the pro-carbon side (oil companies, coal industry) have a MUCH bigger motivation to lie, confuse the issue etc., than the anti-carbon side. So yes, I have kept an open mind (I *was* skeptical until fairly recently) and looked at the issue *without* delusions of being an expert myself, and concluded that the experts who think that CO2 is causing climate change are orders of magnitude more credible.

The history of C02:

0.0284% by volume before the industrial revolution
0.0384% by volume presently

This is a rise of 0.01% of the total atmospheric concentration. But when placed in a graph, where these two numbers (284 ppm and 384 ppm) are the upper and lower bound of Y...it looks a lot scarier and meaningful, which in my opinion is misleading.

With this simple fact (look it up), I don't think its wrong to be skeptical that the warming we're experiencing is caused only by CO2.

Global warming could still be man-made. We're emitting more methane, cutting down more trees, expanding our cities (urban heat island). I think if anything, its a combination of that and solar activity.

But I definitely agree with one of the previous posters. Much of what we're doing to combat global warming will help us economically by moving towards renewable energy sources. In the end, higher energy prices will force us to change.

"0.0284% by volume before the industrial revolution
0.0384% by volume presently

This is a rise of 0.01% of the total atmospheric concentration."

You're looking at it all wrong.

From 0.0284% to 0.0384% is a 35.2% increase. If 0.0284% had X warming impact on the planet, a 35% increase will certainly have a significant impact.

But the fact is, climate science is very complex, and people can't just think about it for 10 minutes and think they know more than people who have been actually studying it for decades (just like you wouldn't start arguing with a chemist or a quantum physicist if you weren't part of that field).

Hi.

I read almost everithing and there are two comments if am correct that represent reallity and not the fairy tale that everybody is talking about. Like simon im also a vegetarian and try to keep things clean. But co2 theory is false, not cause i wanna say it or cause some of us who live our lives protecting our home earth ( i mean the dayly thing not go out with some crowd that is lead by some comunist and yell some political shit issue or trying to throw garbage to some corporation cause "we" believe they do nothing for the planet or careless about it) say it to, it`s cause of hundreds of studys that are been made from a long time. I recomend you to read more, investigate, see both side of the coin and then talk cause otherwise this will become some stupid world with stupid and easily controled people by politicians and i think that is not the idea of a better sociaty. Go and see the reality there is info out there of a lot of scients. And i want people to stop bother with co2 cause there are a lot more important issues t fight, for example the contamination of watersources, without the we will die for sure, or the particules that are emanate from industrial smoke that cause in people cancer, the uncontrolable destruction of the forests, the third world, thats an issue, like africa in there only the 3 % of the people have electricity have you think ever what would it be living without it?? there the people must make fire inside there huts to make food, cause fo the smoke of these fire their childrens and adults are dying. The chances for their childrens to pass the five years are less than 40% !!!!!!!!! thats horrible. And i say these cause all the co2 stuff is sucking resourses that could be spend in real problems not in fantastics issues that atracts political atention ( they make a convention in japan about these, but no one is talking about the people that is dying in africa or other polution problems that are a real). Before these attention Usa gov. spend 170 millions dollars on these.... now is more than 4 billions.... 4 BILLIONS ON A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!, i think that is too much of taxes going to financial political moves... i beliebe that politician must pay with theri own money their political campaings xD. well that is, im out time. later

Hi.

I read almost everithing and there are two comments if am correct that represent reallity and not the fairy tale that everybody is talking about. Like simon im also a vegetarian and try to keep things clean. But co2 theory is false, not cause i wanna say it or cause some of us who live our lives protecting our home earth ( i mean the dayly thing not go out with some crowd that is lead by some comunist and yell some political shit issue or trying to throw garbage to some corporation cause "we" believe they do nothing for the planet or careless about it) say it to, it`s cause of hundreds of studys that are been made from a long time. I recomend you to read more, investigate, see both side of the coin and then talk cause otherwise this will become some stupid world with stupid and easily controled people by politicians and i think that is not the idea of a better sociaty. Go and see the reality there is info out there of a lot of scients. And i want people to stop bother with co2 cause there are a lot more important issues t fight, for example the contamination of watersources, without the we will die for sure, or the particules that are emanate from industrial smoke that cause in people cancer, the uncontrolable destruction of the forests, the third world, thats an issue, like africa in there only the 3 % of the people have electricity have you think ever what would it be living without it?? there the people must make fire inside there huts to make food, cause fo the smoke of these fire their childrens and adults are dying. The chances for their childrens to pass the five years are less than 40% !!!!!!!!! thats horrible. And i say these cause all the co2 stuff is sucking resourses that could be spend in real problems not in fantastics issues that atracts political atention ( they make a convention in japan about these, but no one is talking about the people that is dying in africa or other polution problems that are a real). Before these attention Usa gov. spend 170 millions dollars on these.... now is more than 4 billions.... 4 BILLIONS ON A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!, i think that is too much of taxes going to financial political moves... i beliebe that politician must pay with theri own money their political campaings xD. well that is, im out time. later

Hey Nicolas:

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/05/25/o-rly/

Chad... you are getting it al wrong.....

if it doubles it will not care look at the real impact of humans in co2 ... is nothing, if you tell me that a 0.02% or 0.07% will be a impact on a 100% of co2 that the most part comes from the oceans =OO yes people the ocens produce and "eat" the co2 of the planet and the ciclus takes hundreds of years to afect it, the other big creator of co2 are the animals =OOO yes people animals breath :D. Then comes organic descomp. =O xDD. so and 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor =OOO so 5% is all the other gases wich one of them is co2 and from that minimum % of gas humans produced 0.02 xDDDDDDDDDª!!!!! hajajaja
besides the studys shows that when temps go up then the co2 follows and not the otherway or when temp goes down co2 falls and that cause of the oceans XD you people forget that we humans are tiny creatures, and the sun and oceans are big things. Global warming is cause the sun, increasi of solar storms and blablabla, search it if you are interested. later