I can understand why this is so frustrating, but don’t take it out on human nature. This is mainly a problem of political process. Humans are quite capable of adapting to almost anything if our survival is on the line. But that doesn’t mean we WANT TO. The hard macro decisions have to be made by politicians. We’ve got 2 major political parties in the US government and their main motivating factor is election and re-election. If by some freak accident, say, a president were to get committed to the cause of making the country more environmentally responsible, then it would immediately be opposed by the other party and they would use it as a tool to get elected. We’re quite good at adaptation, but not when we’re given a choice. It’s like trying to quit a drug habit when your dealer is throwing it in your face for free. So unfortunately, we’re probably not going to be pro-active at fixing this, but maybe technology can bail us out in time (ie – electric cars, better solar panels)…

30 years ago didn’t scientists think we were headed into another ice age?.. For that matter, if there was an ice age, doesn’t that mean that climate has been changing throughout history, even before we started burning hydrocarbons like crazy?

You’re right, the scientific method really isn’t up for debate. What’s up for debate is whether those that have studied this phenomena have used it correctly, and taken into account the appropriate variables.

For that matter, it shouldn’t be that hard to tell whether the climate has changed on average for the recent past. What isn’t as easy to determine (in my opinion) is the source of the change.

Sometimes I think we will only be moved to action if peoples are dropping dead gasping by the thousands in the streets and the water is slushing over the dikes globally forcing mass movements and chaos. I do hope we’re not passed the tipping point yet. On a high note; many young people I meet today are very interestested in sustainability and are turning away from meat, cars and big mansions. I hope a trend is set to ultimately reach top political decisions. On a low note, we can afford to be engaged, but we seem to be dwarved by the billions who are trying to merely survive and fight their way to something approaching a Western level of life. True support to speed up their struggle and simultaneous radical conversion in the West seems far away yet.

I’ve just read like 50 complicated or left vs. Right replies. Isn’t the real problem that there are far too many people in the world now? We are just competing more for space and resources and make more waste?
Why is that topic never one that wants to be discussed? Should a couple have 8 kids ? Expecially the ones that they cant even afford or bring up properly in a good healthy family setting.
All these problems in theory would go away if going forward people would voluntarily would have 3 or better still 2 kids if we want numbers to slowly decline.

there – problem solved – all the theoretical engineers can take a break from thinking now .

@ImaginaryNumber – We have deliberately chosen to live in the better (less adversely affected) areas of the US, specifically Chicago. We’re looking forward to the following impacts:
– More frequent storms/heavy rainfall will overload the old sewer systems causing backup. This is already happening about once a year. The solution costs around $7000/house.
– In the high emissions scenario, the average temperature in this area will increase by almost 20F (usually global averages are quoted and they don’t sound too bad, but inland temps will be much higher) by the end of the century. That’s about 2F/decade. Heat waves will become more brutal. They could possibly overload the electric grid. 125F with no A/C is tough, especially for old people. They die. The solution is part passive cooling measures and staying in shape and have a sufficiently strong cardiovascular system to deal with this.
– Global food production will decrease substantially because plants don’t grow as well over a certain temperature range. Food will become more expensive and erratic as droughts become more frequent. We already saw how cattle ranchers killed off their livestock in 2012 because feed became too expensive. There’s a limit to how far we can go with that. So I have stocked up on food and I plan to increase this to avoid rationing, shortages, …

So that’s about it for this area.

@ImaginaryNumber – These are society-altering levels of change, not mere inconveniences. Under current emissions and the goals that governments agree to agree on sometime in the future, the climate of San Francisco will look more like the climate of Los Angeles does today, except drier in the summer and wetter in the winter. Given the change in snow cover of the Sierras and the change in rainfall patterns, the frequency of droughts will increase so you can add water shortages to the Chicago impacts (but remove the sewer impacts). That is, you’d need to store water as well. Water for farmland is expected to decrease by 50% by 2050 and 90% by 2100. This means the Central Valley will no longer be viable as an agricultural area. CA will probably be importing food if people still want to live there several decades from now. I would not be completely surprised in the Southwest turns into the new rust belt.

I have not posted any supply lists as impacts vary widely by area. I just happen to know CA because I used to live there.

So the climate is warming due to burning fossil fuels but people live on the equator, no one lives on Antarctica and there are huge parts of northern Asia and Canada that are very sparsely populated because it is so cold. Further since the invention of air-conditioner people have been moving to warmer climates. There is also a small possibility that AGW will save us from another ice age.