Paranoid about temperature rise  

Dear Sir, — My letter to the Chronicle, (13th February) has come under scrutiny by our editor, who is on form as usual in his footnote. Perhaps I can validate my comments?
My remark concerning Co2 levels in the past were based on an interview by Dr William Happer, entitled Carbon Drought. At the beginning of the piece, the interviewer himself quotes, 500m years ago Co2 levels were at 4,000 parts per million. (I presume he was briefed). If this was the case, we can hardly blame humans. The editor’s figure of 33ppm wouldn’t have supported plant life, not much life at all actually. 
Dr Happer himself says “That we need more Co2 not less”, as it is essential to all living things on Earth.
In another interview, by Freeman Dyson, “Making the World Greener” he quotes, “Co2 is so essential we would be crazy to try to reduce it”.
Most scientists use the rule that says doubling Co2 increases temperatures by 1°C. So in the unlikely event that levels were to reach 3,200ppm, temperatures would only rise by 3°C.
The global warming hysteria was encouraged by the scientist Michael Mann. His predictions were based on computer models that have since been found to be inaccurate, indicating temperature increases three times more than what has actually happened. 
He was also wrong with his predictions for Mt Kilimanjaro and Florida. He has also been criticized for using “scare tactics” to shock the public. 
His work impressed the politician, Al Gore, who then made the film, An Inconvenient Truth, which was followed by a book covering the same material. 
Both the film and the book have been criticized for exaggerating the facts and making false statements. 
For example, when calculating the effect of greenhouse gasses Mann completely left out water vapour, which is by far the main ingredient. In the book, there is a satellite picture of the Earth’s surface which has been airbrushed to fake the cloud formations above the Earth.
Perhaps we are all searching for what we hope to find to prove our theories. 
Though I have noticed that climate sceptics on YouTube get thousands of “likes” to a few hundred “dislikes”. 
Perhaps the message is getting through, despite an almost total ban on mainstream media. 
Personally, I’m a pragmatist, and will not get excited about a temperature increase of less than 1°C over 140 years. This averages 057°C per year, a gnat’s whisker, as we used to say. If this had gone the other way, would we be hysterical about another ice-age looming? 
It’s hard to believe that so many people are so gullible and can’t think for themselves. 
It reminds me of a certain religious group who predicted the end of the world, eight times between 1914 and 1984, and yet they still have followers. 
There is nothing happening that hasn’t happened before in the Earth’s history of 4.5bn years, long before greenhouse gasses. We are living on a moving, spinning, unpredictable, volatile mass, in a vast void which we know little about. Yet we’ve survived tropical conditions, ice ages, floods, droughts, fires, hurricanes, plagues and wars. Over and over again.
Yet we get paranoid about a 1°C rise in temperatures. Time we all got a grip. There now seems to be an armageddon mentality. Humans are evil and are wrecking the planet. We must punish ourselves. Which we will do if we reduce Co2. We might as well say, let’s reduce oxygen. In any case, our brief moment in time has little consequence in the overall scheme of things. Oh! Finally, I don’t believe that the Earth is flat. — Yours faithfully,

MR SJ HYDE
Congleton.
Factcheck.
First, oops — the 330ppm mentioned last week lost a zero, so 33pm was clearly a mistake. Carbon dioxide has fluctuated between 300ppm and about 160ppm over the last 800,000 years and never went above that until modern times. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age.
Michael Mann developed the famous hockey stick graph for global temperature, a long-term decline followed by an abrupt rise. This has been disputed over the years but more than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods, have broadly supported the consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, which is now used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Studies including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores have confirmed the original hockey stick conclusion.