People and governments already are doing something about it. West Texas has thousands of wind mills. The city government where I live gives all types of incentives and tax breaks for reducing your carbon footprint. The only question remaining is will enough people, governments and businesses join in the work. I think one problem is that we are waiting for the somebody you mention in your question to do something. The sombody is us - by doing what we personally can and demanding our leaders, industries and businesses participation - WE can do something about it. President elect Obama, in his radio address this morning, promised that one of the thrusts of his economic recovery program will be to create jobs by recreating our infrastucture, including our energy systems in ways that will help with this problem. I have no idea if he can really succeed but at least he is thinking about it.

Quoting Titstorm: does anybody really believe that anyone's actually gonna do anything about global warming? I don't....

NO, I do not believe anyone will really do something about anthropogenic climate change. It makes for interesting discussions, and some politicians will sell themselves (either pro or con) in regards to this subject, but little positive will be accomplished. There is a very good reason for this, too. The energy stored in the carbon-hydrogen bonds is very valuable, and it is the exploitation of this energy that powers modern society. "Alternative" energy sources are niche sources, save for hydro, and that really shouldn't be called "alternative" as water mills and dams predate the age of coal/oil use. Nuclear is useful and expandable but it is not really CO2 neutral and the associated issues of nuclear makes it a tar baby. So, what do we do? We adapt. Will the future be horrible because of climate change? For some people - yes. For others - no. The hot topic, touched upon briefly in this diavlog, is resource competition. This is a tough problem and I suspect the outcome of resource competition to be bloody (literally.) Resource competition will trump the faux concerns about the environment so popular with today's

Great conversation to listen to. It's always good to see Carl. I was glad to hear Tyler speaking out against magic bullet technological fixes. Judging from some of the other attitudes expressed here in the comments, I think that might be one of the harder distractions to overcome as we try to get a handle on this problem.

Yes, we can't ever have too much Carl on bhTV! I enjoy Science Saturday with Horgan and Johnson as much as anyone on these Boards, but Carl should appear more often. Or, rotate Carl with George or John. InJapan talked about resource competition as a complicating factor in this debate. I would also mention population growth. If anyone recalls reading Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy in its full essay distillation, the prospect of population growth leading to violence caused me to question why modern states don't discourage people to live in substandard living zones, like mountain-tops prone earthquakes or coastal zones susceptible to flooding and storms. As a starter, insurance rates should be increased so that these inhabitants are protected. If Volk is right that natural processes are complex and interrelated, then the human aspects of the problems will also require complex political and economic solutions. I also finished reading Barbara Freese's Coal: A Human History where the author discusses the danger caused by sulfur dioxide, as well as carbon dioxide.

Quoting InJapan: NO, I do not believe anyone will really do something about anthropogenic climate change. It makes for interesting discussions, and some politicians will sell themselves (either pro or con) in regards to this subject, but little positive will be accomplished.

There is a very good reason for this, too. The energy stored in the carbon-hydrogen bonds is very valuable, and it is the exploitation of this energy that powers modern society.

"Alternative" energy sources are niche sources, save for hydro, and that really shouldn't be called "alternative" as water mills and dams predate the age of coal/oil use. Nuclear is useful and expandable but it is not really CO2 neutral and the associated issues of nuclear makes it a tar baby.

So, what do we do? We adapt. Will the future be horrible because of climate change? For some people - yes. For others - no.

The hot topic, touched upon briefly in this diavlog, is resource competition. This is a tough problem and I suspect the outcome of resource competition to be bloody (literally.) Resource competition will trump the faux concerns about the environment so popular with today's talking heads.

very good comment. a realist! wow, a very rare find on bheads. that makes two

...a realist!

Oh, golly! The single most abused poli sci term tossed out casually by laymen. Yet, its a whole lot less manipulative than the "really" in InJapan's "I do not believe anyone will really do something". Let's be real, really.

Quoting Baltimoron: Oh, golly! The single most abused poli sci term tossed out casually by laymen.

Yet, its a whole lot less manipulative than the "really" in InJapan's "I do not believe anyone will really do something". Let's be real, really.

how painfully condescending and nerdy only a dork would actually analyze a throwaway comment like that let alone try to imply they're "above it all." no one cares...

And, only a completely manipulative jackass would toss out words, or try to interpret an otherwise rigorous commenters' use of a term so irresponsibly, and then scurry like a rat when someone asks them to take responsibility for an argument. In conversation, populism equals stupidity. The people I know, not all of them college grads, are much smarter than you are and don't con people with slippery definitions. They talk straight and they have the facts to support their arguments. That's not "realism".

wtf are you talking about? you are the most worthless poster i've ever argued with. did i ask your worthless opinion? why are you even talking to me? wow, I change my name and look at how differently people treat me! i love it

Here's some advice: stop reading the people who ape your own arguments and start reading. Buy a dictionary and treat words seriously.

As I recall from science class, oil comes from dead dinasours,etc. by re-introducing this carbon into the biosphere, we get more living things and it may (though I'm not convinced) get warmer. how is this bad?

...it may (though I'm not convinced) get warmer. how is this bad?

Because ice melts and certain geographical areas would react differently with warmer climates than currently. It's not certain which areas would benefit and which would suffer - and some areas might experience both. And, since people moving around is hindered by borders and laws, some people might find themselves experiencing different conditions with no way of finding a better place to live.

Quoting Baltimoron: Here's some advice: stop reading the people who ape your own arguments and start reading. Buy a dictionary and treat words seriously.

ok, i will, thanks dad! but i'll need to know what to not read because i have no freakin' idea what argument you're disagreeing with because this argument is about nothing. your name fits you all too well. and man, i can really tell how smart you and your friends must be!...butting in on someone's conversation about some trivial bs and then acting condescending about it. yeah, where can i learn that? another socially awkward nerd.
or else you're a global warming fanatic who is delusional enough to think that we can doing something to stop it. congrats, you're the fastest and most disproportional spazz-out i've encountered since bheads started. thanks for the conversation, man, you've been amazing!

See this segment from Frontline

Kid, first, chill, it's a public forum, not your private club. And, if I did shove you out of the way, go get your older brother, so he can laugh at you. Second, learn the difference between connotation and denotation. Third, you seem intelligible. Don't pull the populist crap among intelligent people when you're f**cking clueless. Ask questions! There are no alternative and popular fuels. People for millennia have used whatever sources, i.e., wood, coal, animal oils, petroleum, nuclear energy, wind, water, solar, and biofuel, to name just a few. The only reason coal and petroleum became the major fuels was because intelligent people created the iron, the railroads, and other means to exploit it, which in turn made these fuels more valuable than others. Realism doesn't mean skepticism or cynicism. It means valuing facts to create arguments. I disagree with InJapan: animals adapt; humans criticize (ourselves), evaluate (ourselves), and (re-)create. Kid, you're just a groupie. Try social networking somewhere else

Quoting Baltimoron: Kid, first, chill, it's a public forum, not your private club. And, if I did shove you out of the way, go get your older brother, so he can laugh at you.

Second, learn the difference between connotation and denotation.

Third, you seem intelligible. Don't pull the populist crap among intelligent people when you're f**cking clueless. Ask questions!

There are no alternative and popular fuels. People for millennia have used whatever sources, i.e., wood, coal, animal oils, petroleum, nuclear energy, wind, water, solar, and biofuel, to name just a few. The only reason coal and petroleum became the major fuels was because intelligent people created the iron, the railroads, and other means to exploit it, which in turn made these fuels more valuable than others. Realism doesn't mean skepticism or cynicism. It means valuing facts to create arguments. I disagree with InJapan: animals adapt; humans criticize (ourselves), evaluate (ourselves), and (re-)create.

Kid, you're just a groupie. Try social networking somewhere else

yes, and "the facts" would be that global warming is unstoppable which is how i was using it in the first place anyway...
this is just so great to watch! I've been coming to bloggingheads since it started and it's so fun to bait people like you think they "know better." a laughably bad argument. i have no idea

Quoting Titstorm: ...anyway tell me more about how we're gonna solve this climate crisis, oh wise one....

Taking Volk's argument about considering emissions per capita instead of per country, eschewing magic fixes, like geo-engineering, or limiting consumption seriously, there's one direction to go.

President-elect Obama is now facing countless people who claim that subsidies for renewable energy and CO2 taxes are great ways to tackle global warming and forge a new green economy. Unfortunately, this is almost entirely incorrect. Taxes and subsidies are always expensive, and will likely impede growth. Moreover, if we really want to tackle global warming, we shouldn’t spend vast sums of money buying inefficient green technology – we should invest directly in R&D to make future green technology competitive.

Obama should seize the initiative and make the meeting in Copenhagen next year not about bloated subsidies for inefficient technologies, but about lean investments in future breakthroughs. That is the way to tackle global warming and support a genuinely vibrant economy.

Lomborg has consistently argued that it's more important to tackle economic problems in developing states than magic fixes. So, the answer to your question is, don't shove the debate on the four

those are very reasonable thoughts. i did like to watching lomborg hit the scene a few years ago. he really causes a stir. however, i'm not too sure g. warming initiatives will get any play at all for the next few years as long as the economy is the way it is. i'm gonna repost my thoughts from an old g. warming diavlog. basically, i think nobody will do anything unless they actually absolutely have to: ".....everyone's totally hysterical over this issue as if the apocalypse is near and if you say otherwise then it's blasphemy. it's not a good idea to make sweeping policy based on what might happen in 100 years. most importantly, no one can or will actually change their behavior that will have any significant impact on the climate. one person says "Big deal." and another says: "You're a horrible person for saying that." and then they both drive to work in their gas cars and then buy electronics, etc that weekend. even if we all stopped breathing and driving and living right now it'd still last for decades if not hundreds of years and also, it's