Ok, here's what I think.
Your argument of C02 not being a cause of climate change at all, is flawed to say the less. Let say for argument sake we take "800 year lag" at its face value. You can not just dismiss that C02 being a potential cause of climate change, just because it didn't initially cause the temperature to rise. Its like saying, car accidents has been happening since the beginning of automotive transportation. Drinking and driving didn't create car accidents, therefore it doesn't change the amount of car accidents.
You also said "people, media... they're dead wrong" but it is recognized by 18 different scientific association and societies, including NASA. Researches have been done and cross -examined by peer reviews. So you're saying that hundreds or thousands of scientist are all wrong and are all part of this thing a politician create for his purpose.
On top of the fact that if you google the 800 year lag, you will find the NY times article regarding the research paper of Fr?d?ric Parrenin. Stating that there are discoveries that the lag is actually much shorter, and that the the previous may not be accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/s...maller-gap-in-warming-and-carbon-dioxide.html
also NASA's dedicated site to Climate Change displaying their studies.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Yes, we should take everything with a grain of salt. Lets say for argument sake they're all wrong. That its only a slight chance that C02 is part of the problem are you willing to bet on it not causing an irreversible effects? Is it not more irresponsible, to tell people its not a problem. To ignore this and continue doing whatever we want and just let happen without conclusive evidence.
No I don't think we should do whatever we want. Have also learned that people who feel strongly about this aren't going to recognize any conflicting info or facts. Sorta like religious freaks. But I will give it a try and maybe if not you, someone will learn something they didn't know before. I have no interests in oil or any fossil fuels for that matter. Believe we are screwing up the planet to the point of self destruction, and I'm also about as liberal as they come. If that helps you to digest anything I'm going to share here.
We are currently in an ice age. The Holocene ice age. Within this Holocene we are enjoying an interglacial period. Throughout this Holocene glacial periods have lasted around 100,000 years. Interglacials last around 11,500 years. Our current interglacial started around 11,500 years ago. This is controlled by the earth orbit and tilt, has nothing to do with us.
Don't believe me look it up. Milankovitch cycle shows and proves it, and he figured it out a century ago. This is not a hoax or fake science. There are some debatable aspects, mostly because of other planets gravitational pull and other slight variables. But this is pretty much rock solid science, completely provable thou all sorts of corresponding data, and completely excepted by everyone. Unlike the c02 is going to drive the climate for the first time ever. Even thou c02 has been way higher than it is now and didn't have that effect.
C02 is not a deadly killer. We need it to live, and plants need it to grow. People spend their entire career working in greenhouses that pump up the c02 to 1,200 ppm, instead of the omg 400 ppm we are at now, with no ill effects.
The atmosphere, air, is made up of 3% c02. Man's input is 3% into that 3% total.
So .03 x .03 = .0009. That's, man's input out of 100.00% of the atmosphere, as far as c02 is .0009
Then add to that that the earth's oceans can absorb or release 50 times more c02 than everything above them. Including,...Air, trees, dirt, cars, houses, upper atmosphere, you get the point, everything.
So man's input to c02 in our atmosphere is .0009 on one fiftieth the equation. Exaggerate the #s to .04 and it's still a ridiculously low percentage/impact.
Just in this interglacial there have been periods that were much warmer, and warmer for longer than it is now. Way before people started using fossil fuels. Don't believe me, look it up. Which brings up the 800 year lag. The medieval warm period was winding down 800 years ago. So the oceans which control the climate in a big way, and release c02 when warmer, should be where they are now.
To comment on your nyt article/theory... The warmer it gets the harder it is to get warmer. Same thing with cold. This is simple physics. The 800 year lag has been widely expected to be more like 500-800, but again the warmer it gets, the longer it takes for the oceans to respond.
People do better when the climate is warmer. You can clearly follow historical events throughout human existence and see prosperity when warmer, and decline when colder.
If you look back 100, 130 years you can see that climate has gone up along with c02. If you look back a lil longer, like 4 or 500 years you see that's not the case. If you look back much further, like throu this entire interglacial, you see that we are on a cooling trend.
All the climate models have been wrong. Way, dead wrong.
In closing I can say that I've been around long enough to remember in the late 70s when all the "scientists" we're warning of the coming ice age. Because we were at the end of a cool phase of the Pacific. Now at the end of a warm phase and it's global warming. Which has since had a name change, to climate change, after a 15 pause in rising temps, while c02 continued to climb. Have always been interested in the climate/weather and ironically after researching to know more, and what I was talking about when trying to support the gw craze that was happening, had my mind changed by reality, history, and facts.
This gw, people can control the climate nonsense will go down in history, with things like... The sun goes around earth, the earth is flat, bleeding people as a cure, burning witches, saying trump can't/won't get elected.....
