We're told global warming is a serious problem caused by our CO2 emissions, that action must be taken immediately to reduce our emissions by 80%, and that we have 10 years. (Mind you, we've been told that for more than 20 years now, making it the longest decade in the history of time.)
So how have all those efforts to cut emissions worked so far, what are the actual results of all those $billions spent on "saving the planet"? What I've seen thus far is more in the line of wealth redistribution rather than emission reductions.
Feel free to suggest any method by which governments, corporations, organizations and individuals can achieve that goal.
Please do not use this thread to argue for or against AGW, or whether the globe is warming or cooling, we have enough threads for that already.
Please don't use this thread to argue about Global Warming? :-?
Considering you admitted already one of the main flaws in the argument right off the bat, ie: we've been told we're all going to die in 10 years for the last 20-30 years..... and you want us to ignore this little nugget and to continue discussing how to get everybody on board with reducing our pollution in order to stop this horrible Global Warming......
..... Based on what?
If you want a solution to a problem of this scale, then you need to get everybody on board that this is indeed a problem that needs to be solved.... you don't do that by starting the argument as you did by showing one of the major flaws of this GW argument.
If you say we need to do something about our pollution ASAP or in 10 years we're all going to suffer greatly, then make the remark that this 10 year deadline is virtually baseless.... what incentive is there for anybody to take this "Problem" seriously or bother to find a solution when they don't believe a problem exists in the first place, or certainly doesn't exist to the extent some make it out to be?
The moment Global Warming supporters stop treating those who question their beliefs as idiots and as soon as they stop contradicting their own reports & studies with baseless imaginary deadlines..... will be the moment more people will take this problem seriously and address the issue at hand to find a logical and sound solution..... that's the first step..... and you can't even get to the next step of taking worthwhile action without taking this first step.... First.... otherwise all your efforts will be futile.
I'm not here trying to debate or question the existence of Global Warming, I'm here questioning your approach on trying to address the possible problem of Global Warming, where you shoot yourself in the foot before you even begin.
When you say something like "Ok Global Warming Exists, we're not here to debate if it does or doesn't exist, it just does.... now what are we going to do about it?"
You already begun an exercise in completely wasting time.
It's a waste of time, because if you only have, say 50% of the global population behind you, reducing their pollution and such, trying to save the planet..... you still have the other 50% of the global population continuing on with their lives like they always did, thus counteracting any of your attempts in reducing the pollution. While you do indeed have 50% of the population reducing their pollution, thus better then 100% of the global population carrying on as they always did..... you're only delaying the inevitable & you are not solving the problem.
Step #1 is getting everybody on board that there is indeed a problem.... you can not find logical solutions and take the next step until this occurs.
So how do you get everybody on board?
Simple.... stop tossing out these various concepts and divisions of Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, etc..... too many people are taking one side, another side, or the third side, or people are just fed up with all the various confusion and thus take no side at all.
Everybody can agree that the climate is changing in various parts of the globe, either cooling or warming, getting wetter, getting drier.
It's been too long now that the terms "Global Warming/Cooling" have been used, that some people are stuck on it either not existing, blown out of proportion, or hyped beyond reality.... the terms have a stigma attached to them..... but nobody can dispute the climate changing, which covers any possible aspect of environmental/climate fluctuation...... man made or naturally occurring or both.
With the terms "Global Warming/Cooling" people are stuck on arguing the finer points...... is it man made, is it naturally occurring, how bad is it, does it even exist, can we even do anything about it...... thus there's so many aspects people keep getting stuck in arguing over, that nothing ever gets done.
But if people approach the problem like "The climate is changing from what we once were accustomed to.... these various changes are occurring which most won't like...... these are the possible reasons for these changes are occurring..... what's the solution?"
^ You can ignore all the petty subjective opinions and titles of what may or may not be occurring and you can focus on each smaller problem individually, which can collectively solve the overall larger problem in the long run.