The answer to "so what?"...
Yes, temperatures have been both higher and lower in the past, however, at the time we did not have a human population of 7.1 billion to feed and we did not have a vast infrastructure of coastal cities; homes that needing heating or cooling; the insurance costs of extreme weather (hurricanes, wildfire, lack of rain for drinking water); and the migration patterns that result from that. So the answer as to why the temperature/climate today is the perfect one is that we built our entire civilization around the currently quality and quanity of weather, food, and freshwater. If those change, then our civilization will be forced to change with it. This will be expensive.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-ani ... arming.htm
If animals and plants can't adapt, can the humans who eat said plants and animals adapt?
How do we know whether solutions are proportional to the problem?
If we accept that the models are correct, then we can also check to see what would happen if we reduce CO2 emmissions. We can even say when we have emitted so much that we reach an inflection point from which it becomes impossible to go back.
We can also calculate the cost of these solutions (1% of GDP) and the projected expenses if nothing is done (higher). Now implementing such solutions will benefit some companies and hurt others. I understand there's politics associated with that. However, it's an incredibly long stretch to claim that science has been made up simply so that Al Gore can trade carbon credits.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lim ... ediate.htm
Termites are carbon neutral.
The natural carbon cycle itself vastly larger than the human contribution. The problem is that natural cycle takes as much CO2 out as it puts in. The human contribution puts CO2 (by burning underground carbon sources that were not part of the cycle) in but doesn't take it out.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm
Al Gore, Climategate, peer review, skeptics,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore ... errors.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic ... s-ipcc.htm
On religion getting ahead of science.
Science is what it is. Personal opinions in science are rooted out. The problem is that the loudest voices are not actually discussing the science but the consequences of what the science says. There are many possible solutions to climate change.
0) Preserve the status quo. React to problems as they occur. The current strategy.
1) Social change, as you mention.
2) Lifeboat strategy. Close off borders against mass migration. Secure food supply. Go to war to establish security in the places of the world where food can still be grown. Ditto for water. Kinda like the model used for the world's energy supplies now.
3) Market solution. Trying to price the cost of the externalities and make it tradeable.
4) Policy solution. Put limits of CO2 emissions by multilateral convention.
5) Technological solution. Good luck with that.
6) Crazy Ivan solution. Emit aerosols from high altitude planes or balloons to blanket out the upper atmosphere to prevent 100% of the sun coming through. Any nation that can launch a weather balloon can unilaterally decide to do that.
Based on human history, I predict 0 will be followed by attempts at 3 and 4. These will fail. Meanwhile, hippies will argue for 1. 5 will fail to materialize. The powerful countries will eventually go for 2. Less powerful countries will opt for 6 and be called rogue nations by the former.
)
