"It's not the increase in temperature that we have to worry about. Wheat and rice will grow fine if the temperature changes locally up or down a few degrees, as it does normally in the course of normal weather variations. It's the unforseen consequences of long-term widespread temperature changes that have potentially catastrophic results. A tiny temperature variation in the Eastern Pacific due to El Nino shuts down the hurrican factory in the Eastern Atlantic, a totally unexpected result which we still don't fully understand. The most likely effect of global warming will not be an immediate perception of higher temperatures, it will manifest itself as changes in established global weather patterns. Wheat and rice will survive the warmer winters and summers, but you can't grow either without rain."

You have been brainwashed.

I know that there is an effort to link changing climate patterns to "global warming"- there is no shortage of media that ties any change in climate or weather to "global warming", but there is no rational reason to link them. It's actually more logical to associate global cooling with dramatic changes in climate, but whether or not global temperatures are increasing or deceasing or remaining unchanged you will have changing weather and changing climate.

CO2 will reflect sunlight, an increase in CO2 will reduce the amount sunlight that reachs the surface [by very small amount], but the reason it's called a greenhouse gas is because it reflects radiant heat from radiating back into space. If there was a significant amount of CO2 in your atmosphere say 10% of the atmosphere, then the affect upon reducing incoming solar radiation would be noticable, but the main result of such a high concentration of CO2, would a much more significant increase in average temperature- your nite will be warmer.

The major factor in changing weather is water. And water is far greater factor in the greenhouse affect compared to the .04 % CO2 in the atmosphere. Even compared in terms of equal quantity, water is a more powerful greenhouse gas. But of course there is far more water on Earth than CO2. We have vast oceans of water, but just in terms of the atmosphere there is far more water gas than CO2 gas- and I'm not even including water vapor in the form of clouds- I'm talking about humidity: the degree of saturation of air with water. Cold dry air will have more water in it than CO2, and wet warm air of course has far more water it than CO2. And this pretty important if you realize that most to heat generation on planet Earth occurs in the tropical region which can generally classified having warm and wet air.

"In human prehistory, the Sahara was forests and grasslands, much like the American MidWest. It may become so again. But will the rain still fall on the American praries?

Can we predict what will happen? Of course not. We don't even know for sure anything will happen! But to ignore the possibility it might and to arrogantly dismiss those who are working on this problem as fools and Cassandras simply because it conflicts with our political superstitions and our investment portfolios is the very definition of avarice."

Whether there is prolonged drought on the American prairies has very little to do any human influence on global climate. Though of course humans can do things which can worsen or mitigate any drought conditions that may occur.

The whole "global warming" issue is mostly to do with the agenda of the Left- which is a totatarian "urge" to control people lives. Without this particular agenda, it just likely that the hairbrain idea of choice would be to increase the CO2 levels in order to mitigate potential droughts in the MidWest {one could argue that this might break this long term cycle of drought or at least make plants in general more capable of resisting drought by allowing them a more richer CO2 content. But energy production is current tied to CO2, and energy production increases wealth- whereas distruping energy production creates poverty.

Now, if you want to increase energy production and not increase CO2 levels, the only workable solution at this time is to build more nuclear power generators. If the Left were actually interested in reducing global CO2, rather than use it as way to control people lives, they now have an opportunity with their control of Congress to change the laws on the books which prevent nuclear generator from being built, and even do other things that would promote more nuclear power stations to be built.

Now, I would be happy if they just remove the laws which prevent nuclear powerplants from being built. But I would even accept a socialism model of giving subsidy to nuclear power and punishing coal production by taxation [though of course if they merely stopped any govt subsidies to coal production, that's fine with me without balance of govt increasing any subsidy to nuclear power generation].

Now, if your solution to the problem is the conservation of energy use, and you imagine that only through govt programs/laws this is possible {a really screwy idea, btw]. I think it it would best to first focus on government wasting of energy. One place I would start, is by reducing the amount of government employees that travel to and use government building- this should rather easy to do and not require more money but instead should save tax dollars. Now if you want to improve the efficency of govt worker so that you require less of them- of course I would favor that idea, and considering low unemployment, now would be a particularly good time.

Btw, the goverments of the world have currently wasted about 290 billion dollars "combatting global warming" and they produced no significant reduction in CO2 emission, nor has this effort added any significant knowledge to the causes of climate change. And one could very easily argue that govts spending 290 billions has produced more CO2 emission then had they choosen not to waste this money.
And I see no reason in the future to spend trillion of dollars pretending that we doing something when we aren't doing any other than make people poorer and imposing laws.