In response to:
I don't have an education in the sciences, but I follow your prognosis well enough. What I don't understand is why no one has expounded on the most sound and economical way to counter the so called "climate change." My grammar school science explained that plants need CO2 to survive and that after using as much as they need, they "exhale" oxygen. As we need oxygen to survive (and exhale CO2) we compliment each other. So why don't we plant lots of trees, shrubs, grass, flowers and maybe a lot of gardens which will keep the cycle going. What I worry about, is that no one appears to be thinking of this. I don't trust government or scientists to know the correct amount of CO2 they can "cap" out of the system and leave us enough oxygen to
New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tends to now show that ice melt estimates previously calculated for Greenland have not significantly accelerated- as has been previously postulated- nor has the melt contributed in a meaningful way to the rise of sea levels.
Recently, much of the destruction on the east coast as a consequence of Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore was blamed on the rise in sea-levels, which have been blamed on…drum roll…global warming.
The newest revelation, amongst many in the last several years that have muffled the global warming chants of “settled science, settled...
More food to feed people because of longer growing seasons!
More land to grow food and to house people on.
Just goes to show how dishonest the ClimateNazis are that they only talk about bad things.
The last time CO2 levels were higher than they are today for an extended period was 32 Million Years ago. That time is referred to as the Mid-Eocine Climactic Optimum. A great many modern large mammal species originated during that period.