Rebuttal:
Volcanoes cause about 5% of ozone layer damage, 15-20 is caused by other natural sources, the rest by us. Most of the greenhouse gases emitted by volcanoes dissolve in water (rain) and do not get high enough into the atmosphere to damage the ozone layer.
Source:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_07_28.html and
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/volcano.htmlResponse to the Ice Core controversy: The lag between CO2 emissions and temperature increase is about 800 years over a 5000 year time scale. CO2 is not considered to be the primary instigator of global warming, but there is evidence that it can accelerate the process.
Source:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/Conspiracy Theory that this is an attempt by person or persons to make money: Note that we live in a world where everything is now disposable, and that we replace items such as air conditioners and cars pretty often anyways. Add to the fact that "green" products cost more and are thus harder to sell, plus all the money you have to dump into research to figure this stuff out, plus consumer resistance to change (for example, creating the idea of a conspiracy in order to justify not going green) and the possibility of making money out of global warming kind of goes out the window. Manufacturers generally prefer to maintain status quo rather than spend the money in R & D and run the risk of making themselves obsolete.
Conspiracy Theory that Scientists are behind it all: Environmental Scientists, Geologists, Meteorologists, and Climatologists all make around 50-75k a year. They're not hurting, but they're not getting rich off of it either. Physicists and Mathematicians (most of whom don't work on global warming) top out the scientific community at about 100k a year. Having spent a lot of time with scientists my personal impression is that they are much more interested in finding answers than in making money. If they were interested in making money they could easily turn their sharp minds to other endeavors that are much more lucrative. Granted, there has been an increase in positions available for environment-oriented scientists, but there has been no major pay increase.
The idea that so many scientists would support a false theory out of greed just doesn't ring true to me, especially when the process of research and publication requires a great deal of scrutiny and peer review. Is it possible that the theory of global warming is wrong? Certainly, and the scientist who proves it is wrong would probably win a ton of awards for his or her efforts. Most scientists I know spend a great deal of time trying to shoot down other people's theories...it's pretty much in their job description.
After doing the research I've found enough counter-arguments to suggest that the current criticism against global warming hasn't conclusively disproven the theory. That doesn't mean global warming is true, but even if it wasn't, would it really be so bad if we figured out a way to not use gasoline and coal?
