There seems to be some shift towards the acceptance of global warming as a causation factor in what many see as a decline in planet livability. But this acceptance seems to come with a "so what."
Thus the argument goes - yes there is global warming (the assumption is that is detrimental) caused by human activity but what can we do about it. The "we" is the US as if it is up to the US to solve world problems.
The alarmists? "The climate officials and environment ministers meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha will not come up with an answer to the global temperature rise that is already melting Arctic sea ice and permafrost, raising and acidifying the seas, and shifting rainfall patterns, which has an impact on floods and droughts." [U.N. Climate Talks: Will U.S. Take More Central Role After Bout Of Extreme Weather?].
I watched Stephen Colbert in a recent episode mock those that have a 'there is nothing we can do about it' attitude. While the lefty faux conservative and global warming advocates continue, and maybe rightfully so, to raise an alarm (some say false) - they offer virtually no solutions just hype.
E.g., China's pollution is on the rise and not seen to likely abate in any near future. The result is that efforts of other countries to curb global pollution (using the term inclusively) go for naught. Thus there are those that say what can we do about it?
But thus far the global warming Henny Pennys have failed even to raise the issue to any political level demanding discussion. No where in the last presidential campaign was the issue raised by anyone. The news media had plenty of opportunities but choked.
Take a look around - despite a claim of overwhelming evidence, there is no consensus on climate change claims. Sometimes it seems as though it is a fruitless effort to prove a negative. E.g., fires, storms and drought are not caused by global warming.
But it is no easier to prove that such disasters are caused by global warming even if one buys the argument that planet warming exists and is solely the result of human activity.
Take a run at this Forbes story The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims. The author notes that "the overall case for global warming alarmism is exceptionally flimsy."
President Obama had, better late than never, raised the issue in his inauguration speech using the spate of fires, storms and drought as examples of global warming. Of course the concept is that if we change our ways similar incidents will cease in the future.
The Forbes author sees Obama's concerns as scientifically flawed, but he goes on to pretend. "Let’s pretend that none of the overwhelming scientific evidence presented above [in his article] actually existed. Let’s pretend that science supported rather than contradicted President Obama’s assertions. The question is, what would Obama have us do to solve the problem?"
And that is the nub. Mockery may get laughs, but it doesn't raise the level of the conversation that ought to be going on. But the Forbes article leaves one very unsatisfied in that it offers no solution except to go forward ignoring the potential effects of human caused planet warming.
He is against "Obama’s solution [...] to impose still more economy-killing carbon dioxide restrictions on the U.S. economy." He is self-assured that the “overwhelming judgment of science” shows the asserted global warming crisis exists solely in the minds of global warming alarmists."
But, can we as a global community ignore even the obvious effects of pollution that affects the greenhouse? E.g., China's Beijing is getting attention because of its visible pollution. See this NY Tines story that notes that "at the time of writing it was merely the 21st most polluted city in the country [China] today."
But doesn't one wonder what a similar air pollution index might have read during our industrialization period. Or even that of London? See too the Great Smog. Arguably industrialization brings with it smog.
And does it make sense that the already industrialized countries now stand on the sidelines and criticize the industrializing countries like China?
Look at this list of developing countries. China is one among many. And consider this A Desperate Need for Electricity in China and Other Developing Countries Is Fueling Global Coal Use. No surprise this: "In addition to its direct role as an energy resource, coal plays a significant global role in sustainable development." [Sustainability, development].
However, the alarmists are against any efforts to obtain clean coal. And they are equally opposed to nuclear energy. They seemingly would have us live at pre-industrialization levels. And communal hippie living in high density apartments is the great society of the future. They are luddites.
The Henny Pennys have a long way to go to convince us that the sky is falling. But let's not pretend - let's assume that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the alarmists. So what is to be done?