Yeah, the scary part is if it ISN'T man made.  The amount of money going to external changes vs internal ones is peanuts.

Stuff like breading seaweed that will absorb carbon dioxide including natural carbon dioxide is largely ignored.  If Climate change is naturally, we're screwed, and we don't need to be.

Good thing I don't want kids.

Of course I do. I can see the aliens seeing how we react when they change the climate control on earth.

a) Nonsense. Solar irradiation data is available for basically every quare inch of the world. The USA has enough desert area to generate solar power for the entire world (and yes, I know that the sun does not shine at night - except at the opposite side of the world). Again, a fraction of the money the USA wasted in Iraq would have built/jumpstarted enough solar power plants for the entire USA. And price is a function of mass manufacturing..

b) Again, a fraction of the money the USA wasted in Iraq would have built enough solar power plants for the USA. Individual back to grid solar cells on your roof is not a good idea (unless you live in a desert and have the money to replace the phase sensitive rectifier every few years.

c) That is way there is extensive solar irradiation data available for every sqzuare inch of the world. And no, nobody saves excess solar energy in batteries during the day.

Again, science nowadways knows how,where, how big and why to build efficient solar power plants (there is a large project in its infancy stages to power parts of Europe from solar plants located in the Sahara desert). It is up to the politicians to make the bold move. But as long as we get these stupid "drill baby, drill" ladies and tea party oil millionaires, I have no hopes.

Oh Yeah Carbon Taxes!

Let's stop the development of third world countries! They should pay too for all the climate changes. There is no problem if they have no money. They only have to sell their country.

I wanna now how the oil corporations are against this thing. This is a lie. Oil Corporations are in fact SUPPORTING the idea of the climate change. Here in Brazil, Petrobras(the second biggest corporation in the world) makes a lot of propaganda about the climate change and how they are helping to save the planet. Sadly, Brazil is already a puppet for Rockfellas.

I think it's 99% natural and 1% us, or somewhere around there.

Where did I say the western world shouldn't work on changing their dependance on fossil fuel? A few posts earlier, I was ripping Numonex for being unreasonable and disregarding the potential of nuclear as a stop-gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy, which should be explored through geothermal, solar, and wind on local levels.

Next time you rebut my point, you should make sure it's one I'm trying to make.

And Iraq has nothing to do with any of this. That money is spent and gone.

How can we deforest half the planet and spews tons upon tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and expect it will have no impact?  How can a rational person not think this will impact the overall climate?

My favorite sites on the subject are

http://www.realclimate.org
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

They mainly present scientific data/information without the politics.

As for remedies, Cap & Trade is a boondoggle and should not pass.  It should be a straight Carbon tax that increases steadily for serial offenders.

While all that sounds fine and dandy (though I fail to see why you keep bringing up Iraq and all the lost money there, we all know about that already), you're proposing something that will not happen within ten or even twenty years and maybe not even our lifetimes.

Part of the problem with energy debates is that few will stand back and approach it reasonably, preferring to fall back on billions/trillions spent pursuing a pipe dream that no tax payer or politician will support. I prefer to base myself in reality and say this:

short term: Drill. I only support this if loads of money is going toward nuclear plant construction and multiple forms of renewable energy:

mid term: Boost the nuclear capabilities of the US while phasing out ancient coal plants. Alongside this, a higher percentage of power from renewable resources should be created every year.

goal: phasing out nuclear plants and relying almost entirely on renewable resources. This may not happen for forty or fifty years but without an intelligent (and reasonable) plan put in place NOW, the only change we'll see will be forced, brutal, and very ugly for the population.

Psst, I let you in in a cool secret: Nuclear resources are even more limited than oil... so building nuclear power plants is an immensely dumb idea (and let's not even talk about nuclear waste). The myth that nuclear power is clean and "freely available" is just that: a myth. (And, as a sidenote, as every engineer will tell you: fission energy is the future! Always was, and always will be..)

The key point in the discussion is what you wrote: "This may not happen for...". As long as every politicians' only goal is to get reelected every few years, we won't see a solution to the energy problem. We get these silly excuses "it is too expensive...", "it takes too much time..", "it will cost jobs..", "blablabla..".

I know that Petrobras is one of the few big oil companies that are actually "on the good side" (I was in a project with Petrobras as a customer for few years).

But back to the topic of climate change: It is very real and can be EASILY observed in Switzerland if you know what to look for (I'm not talking about glaciers although thy are a clear indication).

You do realize nothing you said actually disprove any of my points.  Building a plant doesn't really have jack to do with the day to day costs of getting energy to you.  Solar energy costs much more to the consumer then Hydro, Oil or Coal.

Also, yes people do store excess solar energy in batteries during the day, and night.  It's kinda how Solar power plants power things at night.  Usually via salt... which has been proven to be likely the best method.