Well I dunno if this CO2 thesis is enough (sorry I haven't seen those videos because I haven't much time today), it should be 50% of the greenhouse gases.
When I have read what St. Hellen did, empeaching many theories like slow coal creation (there are no hair roots in coal, but it doesn't mean coal can be recreated quickly) when many trees ended in the lake looking like they could grow there and partially changed to coal. Large cannyons looking like those from G Cannyon have been created by one erruption. And 6 times more CO2 has been spread to atmosphere than CO2 produced by people for whole human history! On the other side each erruption produces SOx and fly ash which can reduce temperature blocking sun light by clouds in the stratosphere (! there are no other clouds in such level!). I doubt CO2 could be absorbed due this cold period. Only supervolcano can create ice age so fast.
The fact is man produces too much gook global warming could be enfasten. But when I include erruptions, which aren't unusuall for all the time and little cold age when Black Death stopped peasants from keeping their fields in large amounts because of dying. And temperature dropped till 18th century under normal levels.
But what if that calculation was wrong, most of the CO2 produced by a man comes from the industry, transportation and agriculture. And other main greenhouse gas is methane produced mainly by agriculture and it's in same amounts as CO2. So maybe the forest which are being destroyed (yes, we need more expensive wood from the black market, amazonian gold and diamonds and that Emmenthal forest, erm Amazon forest will be cleaned of the Earth surface, welcome Amazonian desert, sorry Banshee) cannot absorb so much CO2 and CH4 (which is harder to get off). In the conclusion most "human-made" CO2 have been made during 19th and 20th century while CH4 could be count like 4-5 x 20th century productions. And if vulcano SOx and ash fly in the stratosphere long enough (and drops down temperature so), it could be man's (bussinessmen frivolity) failure.
One argument of orthodox "anti-warmers" are also periods in the history of the Earth when the climate was more warm.
Another thing are theories (not only hypothesis) ice ages came on and off very quickly (few decades !) and there are also frozen mammoths or south-American Indians looking like they froze in one moment. (Mammy was eating when died.)
Climatologists made model where global warming progress and 400 years later the Scandinavia has frozen: The temperature drops in Europe, North America and north Asia (ice melted into arctic sea and salinity dropped down so in the result Golf Stream has ended in the Canary Islands) while temperature on the South hemisphere grows up for few centuries.
And if you say atomic power is communistic... Greenpeace experts are for clean, cheap (look in France) Atomic energy and reducing expenses (right-winger). Every party except few small and the Green party (still some actions for Tibet and nothing for Kurds, supporting nacionalistic Turks and Albanians (only nacionalists, communists and sometimes social democrats here are against this Turkish support)) is for the atomic energy (less radiation than in a coal, no CO2). Well maybe atomic energy could be communistic in the beginning, because it's an eysore of coal and oil barons. Atomic energy + hydrogen-burning motors in cars = almost no need of the oil and coal.
Communists, socialists and few others like most of the population are against those stupidities Green party and other similar organizations are engineering. Sun powerplant which produces only a little more energy than was needed on creation of it, similar situation is with wind energy (which is also dangerous to flying animals, cardiacs and frozen ice can hit someone badly, too), biomass contains plenty of the gook from chemical industry which gets to the air and it's not very economical, too (I was in one such PP on an excursion with school). Bio(m)ethanol mixes with petrol or diesel produces more unhealthy waste products than clear substances. Instead of assertion of atomic energy, filtering contraceptional and cure chemicals and other chemicals from the water and soil, the are supporting thin sort of bussinesmen. Food, transporting or living is more expensive not only because of inflation caused by fossil fuel decreasing. That's capitalism. So where do you see commanches here?
USA have partly socialistic economy (giving house to people they couldn't buy it with mortgages) and Bush did very socialistic act (900 G$ from the government to banks, nationalization of the banks), Chavez was true in this (even with that critization of him because of that partly nationalization of oil industry which is recommended by many European politics to keep money in goverment hands, even there isn't practically no economic competition, no competition in one small or medium country). On the other hand this is result of orthodox capitalism (no control of the government upon banks) which is bad like no planning (this happened mostly in this s70051d republik I live in).
So purely capitalistic economy (everyone lives on his own, no help to cr1pl3s, students, poor people and old people) is bad so much as purely socialistic economy (5 year plan successed on 150%, etc.). USA shouldn't be wasting on their BIG things (big cars, big cities, big richness, big poorness), but on the other side Greens should sh0t up uppon atomic energy and they should focus on real ecology (clean air, clean environment, saved animals, mushrooms and plants) instead of that lobby. Hippies are in the roots in some aspects similar to communists (love, no war = socialistic TEORETICAL thesis of side of the peace), but ideals are one thing, reality other, so that's why there was Cold war and it's victims on both sides (South Korean anti-worker detention camps or Greece dictature in 1950's, Pinochet in Chile, Panama invasion, East Timur dictator supported by western countries, Taliban and Al - Quaida created against soviets in Afghanistan x detention camps in the East Block, war in Afghanistan and some bloody deviations like Stalin(ists), Pol-Pot, chinese nationalistic maoistic communism).
People are dying in Africa on illnesses and hunger, but Greens wants biofuels which push prices of the food, no GMO (which is just quicker cultivating) food, and are against atomic energy. This is just right-wingeristic lobby (which means corruption in eyes of the people who voted them). GMO is like cloning, methods similar to cloning would safe western nations from degradetion (infertility, heritage illneses,...), but American puritans are against and what is America against isn't democratical (in modern meaning)...
