FACT jimgov -- CO2 increase LAGS temperature increase THEREFORE can not cause it. FACT.

do some research.

I know you won't research -- your climate religion *prevents* you from seeking facts or even considering that you might be wrong, based upon facts. If I present FACTS that contradict your belief, you ignore them. THAT is religion!

Please, this is not a religious belief of mine, my friend. It's just my experience and common sense. I experienced that drought in the Midwest. I've also experienced a plethora of increasing volatile weather conditions here. Check with the Dept of Agriculture and see how much more they have had to subside crop failures for farmers in the last decade. Why are their more crop failures? More extreme, unpredictable weather.

And yes, plants do "eat" carbon. And they know that in this planet's past when CO2 levels were higher, there was more plant productivity. But guess what, humans don't eat carbon. Atmospheric levels of gases change very slowly over time. We are digging up carbon in the forms of petrol and coal which has been buried in the planet's crust for millions of years and just burning that stuff and releasing it into the atmosphere, way faster than it would be released otherwise. Everything living on this planet evolved very slowly over thousands and millions of years. Life exists within and equilibrium. You upset the balance too fast and there is going to be reactions to that.

Everyone can spout "facts." The question is, where are you getting your facts from?

@Bohonk - +1

@krellin - Once again, still waiting for your "facts." Because:

FACTS > OPINION

And, as an aside, this is the most fun that I've had on this forum in a long time.

And here's one viable option for the short term until we can develop our renewable energy technologies(wind, solar, geothermal) to an appropriate level: nuclear energy. It can absolutely be done safely and effectively if done right. Problem is there has been a moratorium on nuclear power plants in this country since the 1970s. Countries such as France have continued to develop their nuclear plants and can now recycle 99% of previous nuclear waste. The next generation of plants will be able to recycle 99.9% of the waste, and so on.

Krellin, I suspect you misunderstand 'CO2 lag'.

I'll readily admit my very amateurish understanding of climate science (but boy are we always blessed with so many experts on this forum!) but my understanding is that natural events do increase global CO2 levels. In fact, as you said, naturally increasing global temperatures releases CO2 from the oceans. However, the increased levels of CO2 also contributes to global warming. It's a bit of a two way effect. Now, nobody with remotest understanding of global warming will suggest that it never happens naturally. The concern is the added anthropomorphic effects that we can avoid by being more responsible with our technologies and development.

Bohonk, they've lifted the moratorium on new reactors in te states.

Midterm is done, time to start trolling again:

According to 'scientists', the increase in the CO2 over the last 200 years has been caused by modern technology.

6,000 years ago (when the world began) CO2 was 190 ppm, today 200 years ago (before the industrial revolution) it was 280 ppm. If CO2 is caused by industrialization, down how come the rise in CO2 started BEFORE the industrial revolution.

Global warming alarmists claim that their is a consensus among scientists, but over the past 20 years there have been 24 peer reviewed studies rejected global warming.

Fasces, your first three were thousands of times better.

Yeah. That was weak. Doesn't deserve any response.

Al Gore claims that as ocean temperatures rise the number of hurricanes per year will rise with it.

# of hurricanes in 2005: 15
# of hurricanes in 2012: 10

The "not sure if serious" element is definitely gone. The moral is to don't go to a midterm if you have a good troll run, lest you'll lose the edge.

"Fasces, your first three were thousands of times better."
Yeah, I used my best ones first.

"The "not sure if serious" element is definitely gone. The moral is to don't go to a midterm if you have a good troll run, lest you'll lose the edge."
I'll take that the heart next time

Ecology warns us of climate change, yet evolutionary biology tells us that evolution is about adapting to your changing environment.

Ecologists need to learn about evolution.

This is more fun when someone actually believes their own insanity.

Yeah, but there aren't many irrational people on thy site

I'm rational.

Best troll yet! Go me!

abge,

"Most people believe whatever they want to believe irregardless of facts. That isn't a knock against climate change, it just means people are stupid."

Leaving aside (as requested in the OP) whether global warming is real or not, perhaps what's interesting in this question is *why* the people who *want* to believe in global warming -- that is, those who believe in it for poor reasons -- do, in fact, want to believe in it.

@semck

I can think of several types of people who would believe in Global Warming without any actual evidence:

People who are naturally inclined to care more about the environment than the average person

People who believe in what their friends/role models believe

People who take a stand against anything that conservatives believe.

@semck - I don't understand what you mean by those who believe in it for poor reasons"

@jim

Just because you believe in something that happens to be correct doesn't mean you believe it for the proper reasons.

abge,

I agree, although obviously not everybody in class 1 would be subject to such (which I'm sure you didn't mean to imply they were).

I do think there's another class we could add, though, which may touch a little on krellin's article (or the part you quoted from it -- I didn't read the article): people who are naturally suspicious of corporations and industry, and believe they are evil and killing us in various ways. While, again, not all of these people would necessarily believe in something for bad reasons, a lot of them would find it very natural to believe a narrative in which industrial activity led to large-scale destruction and demise; and there might indeed be a strong motivation to believe it, to the extent that the belief could justify severely regulating the entities they hate.

So while I doubt there was anything like a large-scale caclculation of the "Communism is dead, so we need global warming" type, I do think one can posit a possible natural connection between left-leaning beliefs and belief in global warming. Actually, the opposite is absolutely true as well: a great many conservatives disbelieve in global warming because of the regulatory consequences it might have.

So I think that, at least possibly, a lot of people on both sides believe what they believe about it *more* because of their economic preferences than anything that would actually resemble warrant.

@semck

Yes, that's certainly possible.

krellin, I was reading the forum on my phone today, realized that you had actually been a positive contributor to the community over the past few days, and resolved to congratulate you on finally manning up when I got back to a computer. Then I came home and read this thread. Nice job.