I'm saying that they hid the decline of temperature from 1961 onwards and replaced it with data to their choosing. Even still, the temperature rises AND THEN the CO2 rises, not the other way around as the eco prophet Al Gore states.
Rubbish.
Increased temperature will in general result in reduced levels of CO2. With higher temperatures, the metabolic pathways in chorophyllated plants speed up; the result is an increased rate of intake of CO2 and a resulting increased output of oxygen. Thus the result of global warming will, when only the plant pathway is considered, result in actually lower levels of CO2, not increased ones.
And before you claim it's "just theory", this has been demonstrated in the lab, and in the field.
This is one of the checks on global warming: increased CO2 yields greater plant growth, which absorbs the CO2, storing carbon; that's a self-reinforcing cycle up to where a plant reaches its maximum size, as well as on a microbial level where unicellular plants reproduce more quickly under higher temperatures and with more CO2. It also serves to absorb a tiny, tiny fraction of insolation, bending it to drive chemical processes and thus storing the energy (this is not really significant, but to be thorough, I included it).
OTOH, when an increase in plant metabolisms results in the spread of jungle and forest, or even grassland, in place of arid regions or desert, the earth's albedo is reduced and less solar radiation gets reflected upwards. That means that more heat remains here (OTOOH, the ground gets shaded, and....).
Anyway: that increased levels of CO2 result in and directly cause higher retention of heat is an established fact; it has been done in the lab, as well as in the field.
These are not disputable; they are facts observed repeatedly, some of which can be duplicated by university sophomores (like me, when I was one) with just basic equipment.
So, in general, Al Gore is correct.
OTOH, you also have a point: there are processes whereby heat brings increased levels of CO2. In the field of geology, it is known that many types of rock weather faster under increased temperatures, which releases trapped gasses. Depending on when the rocks were formed and under what conditions, this can yield a higher CO2 concentration than is found in the atmosphere in general. Also in the field of geology, it's been found that there are lakes which have vast amounts of CO2 (and methane) trapped in ancient bottom layers, which begin to be re-absorbed by the lake with warming, and thus released into the atmosphere. In some cases this release can occur catastrophically; there are places where animals died in vast numbers because the sudden release of literally thousands of tons of CO2 left them with no normal atmosphere to breathe, and thus no oxygen -- they suffocated. In botany, there are some organisms -- not in the plant kingdom, technically -- which also release more CO2 when the temperature rises.
I'm sure there are also others, but those make the point: there are indeed processes which drive the cycle the way you say.
And yet these processes are minuscule compared to those going the other direction. Further, they feed the warming process because the CO2 they generate adds to the atmospheric percentage, which traps more heat.
Now: plainly, it isn't possible to put a dome over an entire bioregion, to demonstrate this on a large scale. Domes a kilometer across have been proposed (not just to study this, BTW), but they remain on the wish list, not in the cart, so to speak. On a smaller scale, though, areas of an acre have frequently been enclosed (except for the soil), and the CO2 --> warming process demonstrated. The process has also been demonstrated in open areas, where the average temperature is noted.
But every piece of the process has been demonstrated in the lab, so there is no doubt: CO2 increase yields temperature increase, and in those processes where the reverse happens to be true, it only feeds the greater cycle.
Finally, when one looks at global average temperatures and the CO2 level, the temperature level follows the CO2 increase, not the other way around. Sure, due to the chaotic (in the mathematical sense) nature of these cycles, it's possible to find years where the reverse appears to be true, but they are hardly representative.
