Environmentalism, right or wrong? Options

[Kontroll]

Now, when I say environmentalism, I'm dealing with the rainforest and what not. How do you guys feel about it? What's your stance on this topic?

If there has already been a thread about this, then whatever.

[*mipadi*]

I like to do what I can to protect the environment. The environment is something I care a lot about. I think it'd be great if we, as humans, could do more to have less of an environmental impact: not drive so much, not use so many fossil fuels, replant trees, use renewable resources, that sort of thing. Not keeping ourselves in check are going to cause a lot of problems down the road, such as in resource management, pollution, global warming, and so forth.

A lot of conflicts now arise due to resource management issues (oil in the Middle East, for example). And our economy is strongly tied to resource use. Controlling our use of resources and abuse of the environment will only become more and more important.

[Kontroll]

Okay, about the trees. When people cut them down they replant about 90 percent worth. I know that's not everybody, but mostly that's how it goes. The rainforest has only been 10 percent of the way harvested. Most trees are harvested from farms.

Also, forests need to be cut down because if they are not there will be an overgrowth of bacteria. When they are cut down it cleans out.

I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong. Don't cows give off more methane than cars do?

People aren't as bad as they are portrayed. The environmentalists have put ridiculous amounts of regulations on everything, therefore even the slightest mishap can ruin your reputation.

[Spirited Away]

The consequences of hurting forests and and rainforests (burning or deforestation) are great, including but not limited to changes in weather, increase of drought, and decrease in carbon dioxide clearing houses. And believe it or not, there are people (tribal) who still live off of the land. Forests that are being cleared for farming have high risk of flood and erosion, and though I don't know much about them, bacteria, fungi, and protists are necessary for growth in rainforests.

And FYI, once a rainforest is gone, it cannot be regenerated; just planting new trees isn't going to cut it. In other words, it would be gone forever.

Though I can't really agree with some of the things environmentalists do to support their cause, I do understand the need to protect the planet as best as we can. There is what Supply Chain Operations folks call a "Bullwhip effect" that I think apply pretty well here. It is simply that demand variations can and will expand exponentially up as it flows up the supply chain, like the effects of a Bullwhip. For our purposes, what we see as cutting down an insignificant number of trees now will become quite a significant number in the future.

If environmentalists do not continue to raise awareness and go the extra mile to do what they can to help, who else would? Actually, coporate responsibility originated with environmental activists dealing with corporations all around the nation. Without those efforts, would these businesses care at all about being green? This is just an example of the good that environmentalists do.

[Kontroll]

Absolutely. The planet is a precious thing. I think that most people would do so in a much better fashion if there weren't ridiculous laws and stuff.

[*mipadi*]

Okay, about the trees. When people cut them down they replant about 90 percent worth. I know that's not everybody, but mostly that's how it goes. The rainforest has only been 10 percent of the way harvested. Most trees are harvested from farms.

Also, forests need to be cut down because if they are not there will be an overgrowth of bacteria. When they are cut down it cleans out.

I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong. Don't cows give off more methane than cars do?

People aren't as bad as they are portrayed. The environmentalists have put ridiculous amounts of regulations on everything, therefore even the slightest mishap can ruin your reputation.

Do you have sources for those claims?

[*Ox_Su`Zie*]

I think its good to a certain point. Like its not cool to obsess over anything you know i mean yea its pretty ok that you want to save trees and what not but if its a matter of something stupid like going to the streets with a broom and what not thats weird...

[demolished]

Yes. We should preserved rainforest just like preserving endangers animals. Once they're gone, it's gone. Too bad, it's not going to ... replicated itself. Rainforest isn’t really THAT bad. It does consist of many unknown plants & species that might amuse some tourist, travelers, wanders, nature-lovers, and doctors as well. Maybe, rainforest can make a big difference in our lives such as special herbs, cure, and medicines. Eventually, "clone-method" might be necessary to duplicated certain species. Why cant people just leave the forest alone? Leave it alone. Something good will happen.

[yummy_delight]

Of course, it's right.

Since humans are the dominant species on this planet, it's easy for most of us to forget that we aren't the only people living on Earth. Although it seems like we rule the world as a species, we're really interdependent with all the other living things on this planet and we DO have limited resources. Of course, I'm not an environmental extremist. I don't condone sacrificing human life to save a few animals or plants or strapping yourself to a tree to stop deforestation. It's all about how you go about it. We should just try to be a little more conscientious about taking care of this Earth for future generations. It might not seem like it, but our resources ARE limited. We should try to preserve as much as we can so that, in the future, the species will continue to survive.

In regards to the rainforest, it really is important to save it. You can't just wipe out an ecosystem like that and expect it to grow back in 50 years. It's an important habitat for millions of plant and animal species. If that doesn't convince you, there are tribal people who still live there and depend on that rainforest for survival, as Statues/Shadows previously stated.

[Paradox of Life]

And what argument could someone possibly have to say that environmentalism is wrong?

[sadolakced acid]

michael, have you read "state of fear" by michael chriton?

[*mipadi*]

I have not read it. In fact, this is the first I have heard of it.

[sadolakced acid]

it provides a different view of enviromentalism. Although it is fiction, the facts used are cited.

an interesting point it raises is that enviroments can't be preserved- in nature they are constantly changing.

for instance,
smokey the bear ruined forests that became overgrown and weren't allowed to progress through thier natural cycles of rebirth through destruction.

[Smoogrish]

Okay, about the trees. When people cut them down they replant about 90 percent worth. I know that's not everybody, but mostly that's how it goes. The rainforest has only been 10 percent of the way harvested. Most trees are harvested from farms.

Yes, but how long does it take for those trees to mature to the point where they are the same size as the ones cut down? Decades.

[sadolakced acid]

when the glaciers from the last ice age receeded, did giant redwood forests just pop up behind them, like moles at the whack-a-mole?

think about it a second.

old growth forests suck. they block light from the forest floor and prevent all but weeds from growing there. they are part of a cycle- one that is continued by forest fires.

however, the lack of forest fires is causing a problem. Giant redwood seeds do not disperse untill after a fire, for good reason. the seeds can't grow in the shade of old growths.

evironmentalism, like the preservation of yellowstone?

the preservation of yellowstone caused many many problems.

[*mipadi*]

it provides a different view of enviromentalism. Although it is fiction, the facts used are cited.

an interesting point it raises is that enviroments can't be preserved- in nature they are constantly changing.

for instance,
smokey the bear ruined forests that became overgrown and weren't allowed to progress through thier natural cycles of rebirth through destruction.

That's not good reasoning for why environmentalism is a bad thing. Allowing natural forest fires, and trying to cut pollution, are not the same issue. It is a good thing for forests to burn from time to time; it's also a good thing to limit CO2 emissions, for example.

[sadolakced acid]

but what exactly are the effects of global warming?

there is no concrete proof for the existance of global warming.

[*mipadi*]

but what exactly are the effects of global warming?

there is no concrete proof for the existance of global warming.

There's definitely proof that the surface temperatures have risen since the beginning of industrialization. The debate is over the cause—natural or human-influenced. A lot of evidence does point to the influence of humans, however.

As I noted before, even if global warming is not caused by humans, it's not a bad thing to cut pollution, find alternative energy sources (we'll need them someday, no matter what), ensure a clean water supply, and so forth.

[sadolakced acid]

surface tempuratures.

here's the catch.

global warming is the theory that excess carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere will cause a heating of the world due to the greenhouse effect. the upper atmosphere will heat up, like the air in a greenhouse.

high level satalites measure no such increase.

now; there's an interesting effect. the city heat effect. the concentration of so many engines and blacktops and such in dense population centers causes a rise in the heat of an area. the bigger the population, the bigger the rise.

the thermometers that are measuring these increases, where are they located?

new york?
pittsburg?

now, let's assume that all these weather stations measuring an increase a located far away from city areas.

for the period of 1800- 1950s, how was the temperature recorded?

a guy going out and measuring the temperature from a thermometer, right? Now, the temperature at noon and in the morning is usually different. so this guy in this really isolated weather station goes and measures the tempurature at the same time every day, right?

now what if he was late a few hours. what would he do? he'd probably just right down whatever was on the thermometer.

and what if there was a storm. maybe he could skip that day, and just copy the last day's.

global warming is far from proven.

and global warming will in fact be beneficial to a lot of countries by increasing the length of their growing season, allowing the more agricultural 3rd world countries to make more money, and maybe get more developed.

[*mipadi*]

I think your explanation is a bit simplistic, and makes a lot of assumptions. Few scientists agree with you; most do agree that the earth's surface temperatures have increased. Again, the issue is why. You might want to peruse Wikipedia's article on global warming for a start on some of the evidence for global warming. There's a lot more to it than just "We recorded some temperatures, and people in the past probably messed up when they took temperature samples."

The point of this thread, though, is environmentalism, not global warming. It's true there is no consensus on the issue of climate change, but I look at it this way: If we're wrong and human activity is not changing the climate, reducing CO2 levels and pollution will not have a disastrous effect; however, if we are wrong, and humans are influencing the climate, not reducing CO2 levels and pollution will have a disastrous effect.

[sadolakced acid]

i really suggest you read "state of fear"

it's a good read.

anyways;

do you not agree the the 'environmentalism' of the 'preservation of yellowstone', i.e., removal of wolves, etc. did more harm than good?

[*mipadi*]

There's two things I'm not understanding:

1. You're bringing up minor points not central to the issue of environmentalism. Okay, some actions by people in the name of environmentalism are not helpful or "good"; are you saying that this fact condemns all attempts to help the environment?
2. I'm not familiar with the removal of wolves from Yellowstone; in fact, from what I understand, grey wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. Could you provide some back information?

[sadolakced acid]

why did they have to be reintroduced?

because they were removed.

straight from wikipedia:

"Starting in 1918, in an effort to protect elk populations, the Director of the Park Service ordered “extermination of mountain lions and other predatory animals” in Yellowstone. Park Service hunters carried out these orders and by 1926 they had killed 122 wolves. By this time wolves were all but eliminated from Yellowstone."

the point of this is that, if they were wrong about the wolves, couldn't they be wrong about other environmental issues?
and on forest fire:

"Ecologists argued that fire is part of the Yellowstone ecosystem, and that not allowing the fires to run their course (as has been the practice in the past) will result in a choked, sick, and decaying forest. In fact, relatively few megafauna in the park were killed by the fires; and since the blaze, many saplings have sprung up on their own, old vistas are viewable once again, and many previously unknown archaeological and geological sites of interest were found and cataloged by scientists. The National Park Service now has a policy of lighting smaller, controlled "prescribed fires" to prevent another dangerous buildup of flammable materials."

also from the wikipedia on yellowstone.

so, smokey the bear is destorying the enviroment.



sure, carbon dioxide is bad. but what if the amount we're producing is more or less equal to what was produced by animal life before we killed a bunch of animals? The point is- we don't know.

we don't know that our 'environmentalism' is helping. we dont' even know if we're hurting the environment.

scientists can't even predict weather a week from now. how do they predict weather 10 years from now? how do they say "if we don't pass kyoto, global tempuratures will be 5 degrees higher" or something like that?

[*mipadi*]

why did they have to be reintroduced?

because they were removed.

straight from wikipedia:

"Starting in 1918, in an effort to protect elk populations, the Director of the Park Service ordered “extermination of mountain lions and other predatory animals” in Yellowstone. Park Service hunters carried out these orders and by 1926 they had killed 122 wolves. By this time wolves were all but eliminated from Yellowstone."

How is that tied to environmentalism? I have a feeling it was merely to get rid of pests, not due to any attempt at helping the environment.

the point of this is that, if they were wrong about the wolves, couldn't they be wrong about other environmental issues?
and on forest fire:

"Ecologists argued that fire is part of the Yellowstone ecosystem, and that not allowing the fires to run their course (as has been the practice in the past) will result in a choked, sick, and decaying forest. In fact, relatively few megafauna in the park were killed by the fires; and since the blaze, many saplings have sprung up on their own, old vistas are viewable once again, and many previously unknown archaeological and geological sites of interest were found and cataloged by scientists. The National Park Service now has a policy of lighting smaller, controlled "prescribed fires" to prevent another dangerous buildup of flammable materials."

Yes, natural fires are a good thing. Point has been established. How does this tie into, say, pollution controls? The issue with your thinking is that you are taking specific points and trying to tie it to environmentalism as a whole.

sure, carbon dioxide is bad. but what if the amount we're producing is more or less equal to what was produced by animal life before we killed a bunch of animals? The point is- we don't know.

we don't know that our 'environmentalism' is helping. we dont' even know if we're hurting the environment.

scientists can't even predict weather a week from now. how do they predict weather 10 years from now? how do they say "if we don't pass kyoto, global tempuratures will be 5 degrees higher" or something like that?

I hardly think we are producing less carbon dioxide than before. A vague understanding of internal combustion answers that point. I also doubt that attempts to keep water and air clean are really hindering the environment in any way. How is having clean water and air a bad thing?

[sadolakced acid]

certainly attempts to limit pollution can cause no harm.

right?

but isn't that just an assumption?

sure, mercury is bad and such. these things aren't good, and should be limited and controlled.
but things like carbon dioxide? it's iffy

sure, i understand combustion.

but let's think for a second.

we're burning fossil fuels, right?

that's made from dead animals.

now, years and years of animals have been dying, and the carbon in them is getting stored in a massive carbon sink.

right?

and then we humans come along, and in the past 200 years, open up that carbon sink and start releasing the carbon as carbon dioxide.

now. let's think. this is carbon that was from the atmosphere- that's where it came from. then us pesky animals came and stored it away as fossil fuels.

so obviously, carbon avalible must have been declining, right?

and we are carbon based life forms, are we not?

and plants need carbon dioxide. so what happens when there's more carbon dioxide? more plants can grow, causing more oxygen to be produced.

it's logically sound.

look, the point is, we don't know what's good for the environment

sure we know what's bad for the environment, like CFCs, and heavy metals in the water.

but how do we do what's good for the environment if we dont' even know what it is?

[*mipadi*]

certainly attempts to limit pollution can cause no harm.

right?

but isn't that just an assumption?

sure, mercury is bad and such. these things aren't good, and should be limited and controlled.
but things like carbon dioxide? it's iffy

sure, i understand combustion.

but let's think for a second.

we're burning fossil fuels, right?

that's made from dead animals.

now, years and years of animals have been dying, and the carbon in them is getting stored in a massive carbon sink.

right?

and then we humans come along, and in the past 200 years, open up that carbon sink and start releasing the carbon as carbon dioxide.

now. let's think. this is carbon that was from the atmosphere- that's where it came from. then us pesky animals came and stored it away as fossil fuels.

so obviously, carbon avalible must have been declining, right?

and we are carbon based life forms, are we not?

and plants need carbon dioxide. so what happens when there's more carbon dioxide? more plants can grow, causing more oxygen to be produced.

it's logically sound.

It's not logically sound, because you made one very big mistake: You assumed that if a compound contains an element, it has all the properties of that element. But a cursory study of chemistry shows that is not true.

Take the element oxygen. Combine two oxygen atoms, and you get O2, a nice gas that keeps us alive. Combine three atoms of oxygen, and you get O3, commonly known as ozone: a gas that is helpful because it blocks out harmful UV rays—until it forms on the surface of the earth, in which case it causes major respiratory problems and even death in high enough concentrations.

Take hydrogen, a dangerous, highly flammable gas. Combine four atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen, and what do you get? Two molecules of H2O, commonly called water, the building block of life and necessary for our survival. Combine two atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen, and what do you get? H2O2, or hydrogen peroxide, a potentially dangerous compound that is a liquid at room temperature.

So let's get back to carbon. Carbon is normally not a gas; it's normally found in the forms of say, diamons and graphite. Combine it with oxygen, and you get CO2, a gas that is dangerous to humans, and has properties very different from it's two basic elements, carbon and oxygen.

So no, your argument makes no sense because you are ignoring basic principles of chemistry. The cycle of carbon dioxide production and use does not work as simply as described, and yes, a buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would have ill effects on the environment.

look, the point is, we don't know what's good for the environment

sure we know what's bad for the environment, like CFCs, and heavy metals in the water.

but how do we do what's good for the environment if we dont' even know what it is?

Justin, you act as though scientists are stupid, and no one is actually studying the environment, or effects on the environment, or anything of that nature. Yes, scientists disagree about some specifics of environmentalist policies (especially in global warming and natural forest fires), but scientists do understand how the environment works, and they do know a lot of things that are good and bad for it.

[sadolakced acid]

carbon is most prevalently found in carbon dioxide.

it makes its way into diamonds and graphite through plants.

i'm not ignoring basic chemestry- i'm assuming that there are living things on the earth, which form part of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide isn't locked up as such.

look, scientists can't even explan everything about cloud formation. the most powerful comptuers in teh world are weather simulators- and yet no one can create one that works. The can't even predict el nino- which is the most significate weather phenomenon that effects the world, as of now.

rather, it's specifics that scientists know. how clouds form, etc. things that can be tested.

but it's the big things and the things that involve the whole world- like global warming- that leave scientists puzzled.

why? you can't do experients. we've only got one earth.

all you can do is observe- except you don't know the initial conditions and you don't know the variables.

here's a mental excercise for you:

tell me what is definatively good for the enviroment.

and, if you care to try, tell me these general principles that govern weather. For instance- what causes el nino, and when's the next one coming?

[*mipadi*]

You're definitely in the minority if you're arguing that we don't need to limit—or can even increase—our CO2 emissions. There are not a significant number of scientists arguing that position.

Most of the "mistakes" in "environmentalism" you cited—extermination of wolves in Yellowstone, or preventation of forest fires—are also not done in the name of environmentalism. It's not environmentalists trying to stop forest fires to exterminate wolves in Yellowstone, so I'm not sure why you're using that as a reason to stop trying to maintain a healthy environment.

[sadolakced acid]

im not saying we dont' need a limit. i'm saying we need more research.

anyways, i noticed you didn't answer my question. please try.

[*mipadi*]

I'm not a meteorologist, Justin, and unlike most people in the Debate Forum, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in a field in which I am not. However, just because I don't know how El Niño works doesn't mean that no one has any idea; further, you're throwing up a straw man in order to detract from the real issue here. El Niño is a weather phenonemon, not a problem of environmentalism. I'm not seeing the connection you're trying to draw, other than making some point that makes no sense.

[sadolakced acid]

it's not a straw man.

el nino is part of the environment.

we don't understand el nino. sure, people research it. but according to wikipedia, there are six major theories, all viable.

the point i'm trying to make is:

how do you know what's good for the environment? You can't just assume- that's what they did with wolves and forest fires.

data is lacking. concrete evidence is lacking. theories are abundant. which one do you follow?

i'm not saying pollute away.

i'm saying, untill we understand the environment better, we should be wary of attempts to "save the environment". because the cure could be worse than the disease. we just don't know.

[demolished]

sadolakced acid, i wouldnt blame nature for global warming. people are using too much gas for resources.

sadly, there arent many rainforest out there. why would you want to abolish it? once it's abolish, it's gone. that's it. do you think it's going to grow back? No. Business people are going to use that property for $$$ and will cause more co2. it's going to hurt people who are so bonded so nature.

[*mipadi*]

it's not a straw man.

el nino is part of the environment.

we don't understand el nino. sure, people research it. but according to wikipedia, there are six major theories, all viable.

the point i'm trying to make is:

how do you know what's good for the environment? You can't just assume- that's what they did with wolves and forest fires.

data is lacking. concrete evidence is lacking. theories are abundant. which one do you follow?

i'm not saying pollute away.

i'm saying, untill we understand the environment better, we should be wary of attempts to "save the environment". because the cure could be worse than the disease. we just don't know.

Once again, I ask: How is reducing CO2 emissions going to hinder the environment? Just because scientists don't know how El Niño works, doesn't mean they don't understand how carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere. So I point out again: Cutting emissions isn't going to hurt the environment, but not cutting them might. I'd go with the safer bet.

[sadolakced acid]

and i ask:

how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions will help the environment?
how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions won't hurt the environment?

[*mipadi*]

and i ask:

how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions will help the environment?
how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions won't hurt the environment?

CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, creating a blanket that traps heat, like a greenhouse.

[marzipan]

and, if you care to try, tell me these general principles that govern weather. For instance- what causes el nino, and when's the next one coming?

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html

do some research or something if you want to learn more about it.

[sadolakced acid]

^ that's how el nino forms.

but what triggers it?


michael; this blanket that traps heat, it means the upper atmosphere should be heating up, right?

from wikipedia:

"Global warming refers to the observed increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades."

but that's not what's happening:

from this site (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_glbave.html)







you can see, the upper atmosphere is cooling.

the lower atmosphere is indeed warming- but it's the opposite of what global warming predicts. global warming says that the upper heats up, becuase of the excess carbon dioxide in it, then the lower heats up.

[*mipadi*]

you can see, the upper atmosphere is cooling.

the lower atmosphere is indeed warming- but it's the opposite of what global warming predicts. global warming says that the upper heats up, becuase of the excess carbon dioxide in it, then the lower heats up.

Uh, no, I believe the lower layers would heat up first.

[sadolakced acid]

really now?

mayhaps you could site a source...

[*mipadi*]

really now?

mayhaps you could site a source...

Justin, if the CO2 traps heat, why would it heat up the upper atmosphere first?

Think about it for more than ten seconds.

[sadolakced acid]

you're assuming things.

CO2 doesn't trap heat.

it absorbs radiation. from the sun. in the upper atmosphere first.

[*mipadi*]

you're assuming things.

CO2 doesn't trap heat.

it absorbs radiation. from the sun. in the upper atmosphere first.

It essentially traps heat, because thermal radiation from the surface, caused by light from the sun, can't get back out.

Read up on the greenhouse effect and global warming, and then come back when you have a handle on how it works, please.

[sadolakced acid]

mayhaps you should do the same.

CO2 is not a blanket. it's not insulated the heat from escaping. it's allowing the earth to absorb more thermal radiation from the sun than without it.

or, how about this, you explain global warming and the greenhouse effect to me.

[*mipadi*]

In a nutshell, solar engine from the sun is able to penetrate the earth's atmosphere. It heats the earth's surface, which then radiates it back out as heat energy in the infrared range. The atmosphere, however, blocks infrared energy, creating a barrier that traps much of this radiated energy. CO2, along with a number of other gases, essentially aids this effect.

[sadolakced acid]

generally right, but your description of it as a barrier is misleading.

the atmosphere isn't keeping the earth warm, like a simple blanket.

the atmosphere itself is warming, like an electric blanket, which in turn warms the earth.

which is why it's not logical that the upper atmosphere is cooling.

[*mipadi*]

The atmosphere blocks thermal radiation, which has a great effect on keeping the surface of the earth warm. My description was not inaccurate or misleading.

[sadolakced acid]

blocks?

like, it reflects heat back like the frosted glass of a greenhouse?

[*mipadi*]

I wouldn't use the word "reflect", but yes, it does radiate heat back.

It's like a greenhouse in that it traps heat. It doesn't truly function in precisely the same manner.

[*mipadi*]

Global Temperature Highest in Millennia

The planet's temperature has climbed to levels not seen in thousands of years, warming that has begun to affect plants and animals, researchers report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Earth has been warming at a rate of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit per decade for the last 30 years, according to the research team led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

That brings the overall temperature to the warmest in the current interglacial period, which began about 12,000 years ago.

Read more…

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

and i ask:

how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions will help the environment?
how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions won't hurt the environment?

Were these questions answered yet? I have my own opinions to add to it.

Reducing it greatly will harm the environment, but the CO2 levels right now are dangerous. Reducing CO2 levels by a lot will make the global temperature drop steeply.
Reducing it slowly will probably help the record-breaking temperatures to cool down a bit.

CO2 production from increased industrial activity (fossil fuel burning) and other human activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation has increased the CO2concentrations in the atmosphere. Measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa observatory show that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J., Climatic Change, 68, 269, 2005 ISSN 0165-0009).

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature. There has been an observed global average temperature increase of about 0.5oC since 1960 (Science 308, 1431, 2005), . Quantitative understanding of climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration remains elusive due to uncertainties in a variety of feedbacks, especially those related to clouds, but there is little doubt that a substantial portion of the warming in the last half century was caused by the incresase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

This probably answers the second one.
Directly from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

And I suggest you go watch An Inconvenient Truth (or read it). I thought it was a great documentary.