Global warming, facts pls

[Mister Agenda]

So some background.

About 5-6 months ago I was a firm believer in the traditional climate change story.

I was a climate change skeptic at first, and it took years to change my mind, but the mounting evidence convinced me.

But I was in an environmental class (because every civil engineering student is required to take classes on environmental science, atmospheric chemistry, and water quality. Why I do not know). I also had to go to lectures from environmental PhDs. One of the lectures stated that the science was still out. He stated that some empirical models showed cooling and that data from the past few years didn't fit with the traditional warming model. My other professor wouldn't comment on temperature, as he was more concerned about changes in water pH as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The science is out on cigarettes being bad for you, too. It's possible that the link between smoking and lung cancer is coincidental or that other variables cause both smoking and lung cancer. The science is rarely completely in on anything.

So I did a bit of research and found that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the total greenhouse effect, and human activity accounts for less than 25% of that.

That's interesting. But isn't the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and what percentage of that is anthropogenic what you really need to know? Don't you think it would tell you more if you found out that CO2 was responsible for less than 22% of the total greenhouse effect fifty years ago and human activity accounts for 60% of the 3% increase? A snap shot isn't going to tell you much.

I found that current temperatures are still no higher than those during the "medieval warm period."

Do you have a good reason to think temperatures will stop rising before they're higher than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period?

I'm currently reading a book on atmospheric chemistry. So I'm wondering what the actual facts are on this.

With your education, you should be able to understand primary sources. If you're really interested, that's the way to go.

On a related note I endorse efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability. And this has promoted that. So, if it was true that climate change is somewhat overblown, is it still ok to exaggerate if it gets people motivated and acting in a more sustainable manner?

No, it's not okay to exaggerate it, doing so undermines confidence in science. The GOP is not entirely to blame for people's distrust of climate science, sensationalistic stories about it have been a contributing factor as well.