Going by your example of co2 increase following warming, was an example of time I believe 800 years ago, during that time there was a natural release of CO2 and a lag time of reaction. This is nothing like what we are experiencing today.

There are many factors to carbon release. In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been able to remain fairly constant as the release was in balance with the uptake. Today, humans are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate.

This increased contribution is occurring too quickly for the environment to respond and absorb the excess. As a result, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing, causing accelerated warming.

https://climatechangeconnection.org/science/are-humans-the-cause/

Weather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location. Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.

Weather is what you see outside on any particular day. So, for example, it may be 75° degrees and sunny or it could be 20° degrees with heavy snow. That’s the weather. IOW, climate is the atmospheric conditions present over time that have a direct effect on weather.

If you really believe that AGW alarmism is not an ideologically driven s**m, that our world is truly in danger from catastrophic c*****e c****e, and you want us to get out of the way, so you can fix it, let's hear exactly what you intend to do to solve the problem.

If you really believe that AGW alarmism is not an ideologically driven s**m for the global redistribution of wealth, then why the demand for "Carbon taxes" and other means to punish people, states and nations financially for violations of environmental regulations? Where does all this money go? "G***n e****y"? That's a laugh.

Thus far two top UN c*****e c****e officials, Christiana Fugeres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on C*****e C****e, and Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e working group on Mitigation of C*****e C****e from 2008 to 2015, have admitted publically that c*****e c****e policies are de facto redistribution of the world's wealth.

Fraud: While the g****l w*****g alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Christiana Fugeres admitted that the goal of environmental activistism is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally t***sform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

If you really believe that total elimination of f****l f**l energy sources, as in a permanent shutdown of coal mines, petroleum and natural gas production is the primary solution, and that wind, solar, and nuclear production will fill the void, you are far more ignorant than you let on. So called alternative energy technology is no where near capable of meeting the global demands for energy production, not even close, moreover, it won't be capable of replacing f****l f**l energy production for a long time. If coal and petroleum production were completely shut down tomorrow, within 15 to 20 years, the world would be approaching another Dark Age.

I'll get out of your way, genius, so you and your socialist comrades can fix the problem.

I still doubt CO2 is a problem gas. However, according to the site you provided, there are plenty of gasses to go after. Just like we went after fluorocarbons to deal with the depleted ozone layer, perhaps the focus should be on these other gasses. We regulated freon. Let's regulate tennis ball gas.

http://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/

This site actually has many good practices that people may wish to follow. Like grow your own, shop local, etc. I'll still be eating beef but I do like vegi-meat. Small practices are good for individuals but meaningless to prevent g****l w*****g.

nwt, No one wants to be unrealistic, we're not saying get rid of f****l f**ls, what we are saying is to cut back on the exhaust, the manufacturers have to be responsible for the waste created by it, it is part of their cost. If they need incentives let's give them some. This was including cars for example, until now. They took the emissions compliance regulations away. So we're moving against trying to remedy our carbon effects.

Who knows, when we found gasoline, it was a by-product from making lamp oil.
Maybe we can collect the carbon, put it under pressure and make diamonds.