What is Plan B....since there is ZERO chance of CO2 reduction.....?

Bob, you are making a little too much sense here. Expect broad based attacks from both angles. The religious zealots can not lay down their mantra, and will be offended by the notion of a can't win scenario. Deniers will plainly explain that AGW is false.

But I agree with you. There is zero chance of us putting down fossil fuels. Entirely too much money and power is wrapped up in it.

Electric cars are fashionable, but will never replace gasoline as long as it is available.

Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, nuclear, etc. all have their own crippling limitations.

So until one of these big-brained internet-scientists gets on with it, and does something useful, like invents cold fusion, we will continue to burn dinosaurs for energy.

CO2 emission would be forced to decrease when we run out of oil (which isn't far off.) So there's more than a zero chance of CO2 emissions reduction by some means. There isn't a lot that people are going to be willing to do to reduce their personal emissions, but cutting off fossil fuels would certainly affect that.

Mitigation is only half the picture. Adaptation is the other half. (I won't consider geo-engineering here, I personally think it needs much more research before being considered). Mitigation is preventing the uncontrollable. Adaptation is controlling the unpreventable. If we adapt without mitigating, then the adaptation will never end, and potentially everything is suddenly unpreventable. At the same time we can't be so naive that we think we can change the way the world works, so there are things even for the most optimistic that are unpreventable. So adaptation is required.

Both cost money. Both will be expensive. I suppose it would come down to combining them as much as they could be combined in order to reduce the cost. Adaptation is much shorter-term, while mitigation might not have an impact for decades. It's often hard to justify to people projects with benefits that won't be seen by this generation... so it's all tricky.

We're going to have to spend the money to deal with the consequences, period.

Meanwhile, we can work on technologies to outcompete fossil fuels in spite of government biases in their favor. We can work on more energy-efficient ways of doing things. And, eventually, we're going to have to come up with a way of scrubbing out the excess we've already put into the air and ocean.

Real energy efficiency policy - that was plan a, 30 years ago.

Decent governmental policies towards carbon emissions, as started by Kyoto, were plans b through about f.

Depending on technology miracles, even ones you're working actively on, to solve a problem that shouldn't have arisen in the first place, is definitely around plan z.

Plan B is adaptation. There will be enormous costs to rebuild infrastructures, move people etc. But adaptation can be done by individual countries without the need for very thorny international treaties.

Then there is Plan C: geo-engineering. That is a thorny political issue too. Who has the authority to decide what steps will be taken to alter the environment, whether through global dimming, massive installation of scrubbers, or iron salting the oceans.

So the analogy of that logic would be

We should not fix the crack in the dam, but wait and see if the dam breaks and the then rebuild the town. Except of course in the case of 'the town' in relation to AGW it is thousands of town around the world.

Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations stand at 390 ppm (not 386) the rate of increase has climbed to ~2ppm per year. http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#Ca...

No, This marks the situation with the greeners looking to "instruct" folks. They don't seem to be looking to instruct folks, however scare them into doing what they consider demands to be performed. CO2 is a situation, however even the over-expected expand in temps given by means of so much scientists quantity to not anything greater than a three measure upward push as visible within the IPCC document. A three measure upward push will rationale issues, however won't finish humanity in this earth. Even so, the various pc units were overestimating the difference in temps induced by means of CO2. They accomplish that due to the fact that they faux just like the Earth is an risky atmosphere that's conveniently converted, so that they placed constructive feedbacks to make a one million measure difference in CO2 truthfully rationale a complete 7 and even 12 measure difference. This is simply foolish. The Earth has been hit by means of huge meteors and controlled to come back again into steadiness. That isn't the signal of an unbalanced Earth. If we paintings toward one of the vital technological know-how that we have already got, like nuclear, electrical vehicles and geothermal, we will decrease our have an effect on and be well stewards of our atmosphere. Overall although, the have an effect on of CO2 isn't one so that they can smash humanity. We have visible a a few complete expand of zero.seventy four levels over the final one hundred years, with part of that coming earlier than 1950. The proposal of runaway international warming presently stand as not anything greater than a speculation, now not even a concept. Paul, You do not like being known as a Nazi, however you're so like a Nazi as good. Misuse a few well technology (like they did with evolution) to justify a totalitarian executive. Even your procedure of handling dissenters isn't so much one-of-a-kind then their preliminary ways. Ohh, do not like being known as a Nazi, despite the fact that I can factor to a few similarities? That is in most cases due to the fact that you're now not like Nazi's of their regular hatred of others. Neither are skeptics whatever like Holocaust deniers. Your argument that we're, is simply unhappy. Further Paul, Whether you become aware of it or now not, even many AGWers in this web site consider extra extremely of me (which isn't extremely in any respect) then they do of you. It is due to the fact that even as they make a tight argument that they only name us deniers, due to the fact that we "deny" technology, and not using a insinuation of the holocaust deniers, you're making them appear like fools for even making that argument. AGWers, inform me if I am mistaken approximately this.

Cold war style bunker with plenty of supplies, hydroponic garden, water filtration system, energy source (geothermal, solar or nuclear if you have connections ;] ) grow lights, member of the opposite gender willing to mate with you. But when I think about it that is for the apocalypse.

For global warming -> houseboats, learn to swim, get a wetsuit

To prevent global warming -> clone monkeys and give them bazookas.

If things get serious, there's no amount of money that will put a dent in the outcome. Methinks most people are just going to go blindly full tilt with their insane lifestyle until nature kicks their teeth in, or worse.

No, there is still chance to stop Co2 levels being too high to make it near impossible to live on earth.

What we need to do is STOP using so many CO2 producing products, start recycling everything we can, and stop cutting down all the trees, as they are the only thing stopping us choking on lack of oxygen, and toomuch co2.

I think a more likely scenerio would be to spend money on lessening our emissions, dealing with the consequences that arise as the result of not doing it soon enough and attempting to absorb what we have alreayd emitted via such things as vast plankton farms, Basically all of the above.

No we must reduce our world population through a humane birthrate check and reduction in the numbers of people born to this world.

http://www.thecircleforhumanity.net/index.php?opti...