Where the hell have you been? Climate is getting warmer both continently and in the seas, causing ecological shifts resulting in droughts like the one in the American southeast and the big one now occurring in the middle east. Extreme weather events are increasing. The glaciers are disappearing along with the great polar ice sheets. Sea level is rising and oceans are becoming more acidic.

So talk about the other primary drivers if you think they are significant! All I have done is challenge your response. So back it up with something. CO2 is the primary human-caused factor and it is significant. Prove that wrong, if you can. The fact that other things besides CO2 drive the climate is irrelevant to the fact that AGW (something we can affect) is an increasingly significant factor.

You clearly don't pay much attention to the media. There are thousands of papers and popular articles regarding the consequences of climate change. The media has been all over it. Google it and be surprised.

The plan? Whose plan? Extreme AGW deniers want to do nothing, they will be dead before it gets really bad, so who cares. Extremist environmentalists want to stop all use of fossil fuels, exchanging an impending environmental crisis into an immediate and severe economic and social crisis. Pragmatists advocate three things:

1. Immediately do the obviously cheap and easy solutions that researchers and engineers are working on, like increasing the efficiency of power production, using better stack scrubbers, reforesting vast deforested areas, enhancing recycling, developing non-carbon power sources, encouraging energy conservation and in many cases mandating it.

2. Never do the impossible dreams, impractical ideas, and ecological fantasies of the dreamers. We can't go back to the 18th century.

3. Start addressing practical concerns with pragmatic solutions. Implement technical strategies with new greener research and development projects and advanced technologies like zero-point energy involving gravity and magnetics. Implement economic strategies like cap & trade, which worked like a charm to rid us of acid rain. It can work for carbon like it did for sulphur. It allows companies with new, efficient plants to sell tax credits to companies with older, polluting plants to give them more time to upgrade without stifling profits, which makes them more competitive and profitable in the long run, and reducing million of tons of carbon into the atmosphere at the same time.​

Ice cores are very accurate measurements of global temperature going back 800 millennia. We have historical records of extreme weather events going back 2 millennia.

No argument there. The problem with AGW is the rate of change. Natural phenomenon change gradually and there is time for ecosystems to adjust. The human-made global warming is happening at a very quick pace, an unnatural pace that adaptation cannot keep up with.

I think you are conflating issues. One issue is the acceptance that AGW is real and poses threats to the human future. I argue here about science denial and political rhetoric masquerading as logic. You seem to realize that AGW is real. If you can accept this scientific reality and stop denying its existence, then we can move on to the other issue.

An entirely separate issue is what we and the world decide to do about AGW. Any response must eventually be global to be globally effective. But it must start with some leaders. The state of affairs on this planet is that China and India have populations six time our size with resources that are a fraction of ours and geographic and demographic trends that do not bode well for their future. It is difficult for Americans to imagine just how close to the edge these countries and many in the third world are. A major crisis will put them into severe economic and social disorder. They have to exploit everything they have to get by on a daily basis. They are so far behind America and The West that addressing long-term problems will never be a priority for them. They live in a short-term world, politically and economically.

That does not mean that addressing AGW can't be a higher priority for The West. We must live in this world with the rest and we control enough of it to make a difference. We do not have to do all the heavy lifting and expect the third world to do nothing. But we must be practical and accept that just as in finance, military power, political acumen, and economics we will always be able to out-perform them in addressing long-term global issues. We have a Superpower, some Great Powers aligned with the Superpower, some independent Great Powers, and over a hundred third World Countries. As a Superpower we must be the leader in this as in all other things. We must do superior things. The Great Powers will do some great things and the Third World will get by the best they can. This is the way of international geopolitics. There will be a tiering of players, a tiering of accomplishments, and a tiering of resulting benefits in the effort to control AGW.