@layman,
layman wrote:
[Yeah, George. I made an earlier post which addressed the (lagging) relationship of CO2 to surface temperatures over the last 850,000 years. I don't know if you saw it or not.
...
No one denies that the climate is changing. No one denies that more greenhouse gases will have some warming effect (which could be more than offset by other relevant factors). But the question remains--so what? Many scientists have claimed that increased CO2 levels, within reason, would be a great benefit to humanity.
Quote:IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”
I did see your comment about the lag evident in the geological history of our planet.
I believe AGW is likely real, but that the contemporary propaganda is deceptively alarmist; focuses exclusively on adverse consequences, while ignoring positive ones and wrongfully emphasizes continued exponential growth in a world that typically damps such excursions .(That was the late Michael Crichton's point in his best selling novel "The Andromeda Strain " a generation ago).
More importantly, there's not much in it (for us) if we "save the planet" but sacrifice humanity in doing so. Moreover, the political forces able to enforce the technological follies of the AGW zealots would be able and sufficient to do terrible harm to humanity in many other areas as well. History demonstrates this amply. The tale of the Tower of Babel is not unique to the Abrahamic Bible: it's also in the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh which predates it by over a millennium - and it might have been old even then.
Are you familiar with the work of the Dane, Bjorn Lomborg in this area? He wrote an interesting Book "The skeptical Environmentalist" a little over a decade ago addressing these and related issues. His central theme is the adverse and usually unanticipated side effects of the remedies favored by the AGW zealots, and their very odd and contradictory opposition to far more effective solutions from nuclear power and other new technologies.
I have a number of friends in the Physics Dept. of nearby Cal Berkeley, all of whom see things pretty much the same way (one is a former Sec. Of Energy). However most despair of, or avoid, speaking about it publically and directly.