Textkorrektur

The following essay deals with the theory of the man-made greenhouse effect. This theory exists since the 80's and is even more skeptical than the string theory in physics. Hence I want to point out the different positions about this theory. On the one hand they are the representatives of the man-made greenhouse effect, especially Al Gore, who suggest that CO2 is the cause earth getting warmer since 100 years. The main argument of this group is that, the temperature curve and the CO2 emission curve fit together, at least particullary. On the other hand there is a group, that deny the previously shown theory. The main representative of this theory was the american government during the presidential term of George W. Bush. This group argues with the fact, that the CO2 emission curve and the temperature curve particullary disagree. Also CO2 couldn't cause a warming like currently noticeable, since it recognizes only a few parts per million of our atmosphere. Further core drillings in the Arctic Zone indicate, that the natural CO2 curve just follows the tempearture curve with a relatively short delay of 500 years. That would be an explanation for the high CO2 content in the atmosphere during longer warm periods in the past. This theory involves that the current warming and the increasing CO2 level in atmosphere are independent progresses. During the theory of the man-made greenhouse effect says, that the man has to reduce all CO2 emissions for saving climate. The antithesis don't need that engagement.
All in all the second thesis is more plausible than the first, because of mor arguments. Furthermore it don't asks humanity to take action, while the first theory consist just of one argument, but wants to start difficult and expensive changes of our society.