"Yet CO2 levels ARE rising"
depends on what baseline you select. And, so what if they are rising? Variation is a natural and ongoing part of the atmospheric process. Otherwise we might still be in the ice age.
"almost certainly due to human activity"
based upon what? The 2.5% of annual CO2 output that is attributed to human activity? What makes you think the other 97.5% of CO2 production arises from static phenomena? Why cant they be responsible for CO2 level variations? Does anyone think that natural C02 output worldwide is being accurately measured?
"and that might turn out to have real, bad, consequences."
or it might not. What is your basis for considering it something to be concerned about? Since the reltionship of global temperature to CO2 increases are known to be logarithmic it is far more likely it will have no consequences at all if CO2 continues to increase above the level at which its impact on global temperature is likely to plateau. (not much warmer than it is now) see:www.junkscience.com
Antrhopomorphic Global Warming is a non-scientific hoax cloaked in techncal jarjon by pretentious psuedo scientists and political con men like Al Gore. It is rubbish. Total B.S. Their con game, succeeds however any time a regular citizen is persuaded to start hedging his bets and thinking they should waste $20 on a light bulb that has a built in transformer and ballast to be discarded every time it burns out well short of the promised 10,000 hour life (if used less than 3 hrs at time a coating wears off due to the frequence of on/off cycles) or an underweight overpriced automobile that has both an internal combustion system and a battery electric drive system (a good diesel motor in a similiar weight car gets just as many miles per gallon)
Or, oh yeah, lets get on the inefficiency bandwagon (lead by the same folks that brought you MBTE) by paying more to burn more costly and less powerful alcohol based fuels (ethanol) all because of the Global Warming boogeyman and political mandates ordered by enthusiatic bureaucrats and legistlatures.
Great questions, that I would prefer to have answered by objective scientific studies than by envirolunatics or conservative political pundits. (And no, I do not expect to read such studies in the thoroughly politicized Scientific American.)
Antrhopomorphic Global Warming is a non-scientific hoax cloaked in techncal jarjon by pretentious psuedo scientists and political con men like Al Gore.
The rise in CO2 levels is not a non-scientific hoax, and humans really are producing a hell of a lot of CO2. I suppose that it is possible that the two are unrelated, but again, that is for science to answer, not politics.
Will the rise in CO2 have negative consequences or not? It is an important scientific question. It is worth keeping in mind that sometimes the wolf turns out to be real.
Yes, and ditto to your comment about hybrids. I can't believe how many of those stupid things I pass on the open highway on my way to work. They drive slower to maintain the pretense that they are saving gas because of their useless electric motor and batteries. But alas there's no traffic or red lights so they are forced to burn gas like the rest of us.