A) Being a mathematician and mathematical physicist, I think I know how research works better than you do. And more money for scientific research will accelerate the process of actual research, because right now, there's a severe lack of funding for research of all sorts, due in part to the GFC and countries going on austerity binges (if you don't mind the minor contradiction in that phrase).

B) I didn't say that the results of the research would drive the economy. I said that spending money on the research would, itself, stimulate the economy. As in, during the research stage, not the application stage.

C) You assume that it would rely on such tech. In fact, there's a hell of a lot of research already being done on things like improving efficiency on solar cells (my PhD supervisor's first PhD student worked on mathematical modelling of solar cells to that end, in fact), improving efficiency of batteries (my supervisor's own work had to do with battery cathodes), addressing the concerns of nuclear waste (my own PhD was related to this, although it didn't involve the nuclear waste stage at all), and many other things that would help. But as I said, there's an issue of lack of funding at the moment, and there are many ideas that haven't had the benefit of dedicated research. And that's before you factor in the research into improving energy efficiency of other things (such as, for instance, air conditioning of office buildings - I've seen a job opening for mathematical modelling of that sort of thing).

On a related point, even with just ideas, some of these sorts of things are being addressed... like this.

D) I wasn't just talking about improving power generation (although that's certainly a major concern). Power consumption is just as important. And research into climate itself is also part of the work that needs to be done. I can tell you right now, Climate modellers are crying for more research money so that they can employ more researchers, at least here in Australia. Just being able to get a more accurate model of the climate itself would enable them to better test ideas for stopping the positive feedback problem. Carbon capture, as another example, needs more research.

E) Hence the need for results to be patent-free, so that they may be implemented throughout the world. Even if some countries would see the resulting technology as too expensive for them, it's likely that other organisations would help to implement them, if there were concrete demonstration that doing so would help to save the world.

Note that I'm not an American - I'm Australian. You mention what impact the US ceasing all hydrocarbon emissions would have. I'm concerned about the entire world. And for the entire world to address the problem, the "rich" nations need to put money into research. We need to find ways to enable the "poor" nations to grow without further destroying our world, and we need to find ways to reduce the destruction caused by our own activities. America, in particular, needs to stop passing the buck by going "but such-and-such a country isn't doing it, so why should we?". The answer to the question, by the way, is because you're always claiming to be world leaders, and you're obscenely wealthy compared to the other countries that haven't signed on to the various protocols. Australia under John Howard also refused - thankfully, we now have more reasonable leaders that have made a major push towards reducing our emissions. That's right - a country that produces far less than America is doing everything it can.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a fabrication at all. That is a complete failing of understanding the science behind it (have you read any of it?).
The science indicates that the rise in CO2 is certainly anthropogenic with the increase in carbon-13. Whether this has caused global warming, we do not know, because the vast amount of systems involved is simply too complex to simulate. That 20X higher is complete psudeo-science. Yes it may have been higher during the creation of the planet, but that's entirely irrelevant as we don't live on such a planet. We can specifically see that humans have had an effect on the atmospheric composistion due to isotope ratios. 

The problem is that you may be thinking that you are doing everyone a great favour by enlightening them with the "truth" with regard to global warming, but your notion of it is no more warped then the beliefs of the followers of the Peoples Temple. Best advice I can give you is don't trust anyone until you do the research yourself - as in go to the sources (peer reviewed papers etc), not wiki or other bs.

There is not a 1-1 link between CO2 and global average temperature. I suggest you look at the papers and report yourself, I can provide PDFs from most journals if you need access. If you find a contradiction or weakness in their paper you can publish a paper of your own refuting or fixing it, that's the great thing about science.

CO2 was indeed higher (not 20x higher, not while life existed). But at that time, the planet was mostly rainforest, very hot and inhospitable to most modern species. We would see mass extinction with a return to those natural levels, and billions of humans would still suffer. The Earth was once entirely covered in lava too, is that natural?

Self-contradiction isn't a good way to counter my argument. The largest contributor to greenhouse effect is water vapor, with minimal contribution from CO2, Methane, and NOS.

29 gigatons of CO2 (Humans)  / 750 Gigatons (Nature) = 3.9% contribution to total CO2 from humans. 

Let's say 10% contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. 0.39% human contribution to the greenhouse effect. 

To address you nonseniscal rebuttal of my 20x higher claim, here you go:

"Scientists have blended NASA images with geography and climate reconstructions to create an animation of the Earth as it would have appeared from space 500 million years ago. This animation, released on April 22, 2011 to celebrate Earth Day, is part of the Visible Paleo-Earth (VPE) project of Planetary Habitability Laboratory (PHL) at the University of Puerto Rico. It’s fun to compare the Earth of 500 million years ago with today’s Earth by clicking “play” on the two videos below simultaneously.

The first video depicts the era of the late Cambrian Period when desert land masses clustered in the southern hemisphere. With melted sea ice, shores remained flooded, the warm shallows creating ideal habitats for simple plants and animals to evolve."

500 million years ago there was life and the concentration of CO2 was 20x as high. 

Maybe you should seek your own advice and research this fallacy of anthropogenic global warming. The data is quite contradictory.

See above. Never did I say there was a 1-1 ratio of CO2:GAT. That's actually the point I was making as most people who tout anthropogenic warming is caused by CO2.

So yeah... in otherwords you've shifted this entire arguement completely off topic.  When originally it was "what can american polticians do about global warming".

In otherwords, my original question which was "Essentially nothing without a global dictatorship" is in fact... correct.

Again... the various protocols, have not stopped or slowed global warming in anyway.  Argueably they have made things worse, since it's allowed poorer nations access to more carbons giving them a bigger and more expanded carbon infostructure, while demand stays in the developed countries... just pent up due to regulations.

And yes... people are working on that tech... and it's far from even remotely close to being worth, anything.  Which again, my point.

No matter what you do... it's not going to be finished in time.

Also no... the research wouldn't stimulate the economy.  Not in any "true" way.  It might bump up the economy, then come crashing down after the research is done, but true economic growth is built only upon real demand.

Yeah, been investigated and CLEARED. Because it turns out that when you sift through hundreds of people's daily work emails some of it looks bad. Ever sent a joke round the office? There's no evidence climate scientists have any motive other than to have accurate data, so that their papers will recieve recognition when others confirm that data.

The anti-climate-change scientists tend to have very clear agendas and political affiliations.

There is not a 1-1 link between CO2 and global average temperature. I suggest you look at the papers and report yourself, I can provide PDFs from most journals if you need access. If you find a contradiction or weakness in their paper you can publish a paper of your own refuting or fixing it, that's the great thing about science.

CO2 was indeed higher (not 20x higher, not while life existed). But at that time, the planet was mostly rainforest, very hot and inhospitable to most modern species. We would see mass extinction with a return to those natural levels, and billions of humans would still suffer. The Earth was once entirely covered in lava too, is that natural?

L2Science. 
There is sound scientific proof to speculate that global warming is anthropogenic, hence the reason declaring it as a possible reason for global warming is entirely acceptable. Fact is we have no idea why global warming is happening and frankly may not know for hundreds of years due to the complexity of the systems involved. Therefore we have to conclude what hypothesise are valid, and stating anthropogenic causes is entirely acceptable. 

Stating water vapour as being a contributor to global warming doesn't alter the fact that humans have clearly increased CO2 content. Also you fail to understand that these gases effect global warming in varying degrees. Methane for example is much more harmful then watervapour on a like-for-like basis. 

If you want to even attempt to argue this, please give me some papers that support your nonsensical claims. I've talked to professors over this topic - where are you getting your figures from? Also comparing the complex ecosystem to that of the planet 500 million years ago is just flawed thinking. You may as well be saying "old building were made out of wood, therefore it would be fine if the Burj Khalifa was made out of wood". Congratulations on completely failing to address any one of the many different atmospheric and oceanic systems in the world. 

Stop talking about something you have no understanding of. Do some research first that constitues actual research, not hopping around pseudo-science sites. 

Also no... the research wouldn't stimulate the economy.  Not in any "true" way.  It might bump up the economy, then come crashing down after the research is done, but true economic growth is built only upon real demand.

Glad you admit that anthropogenic induced global warming is merely speculative. That's my entire point. The hypocrisy of the rest of your post is astounding really. You've cited no sources, yet request mine as if you are somehow more credible than I? I cited a direct quotation from NASA. You've cited your own nescience.

"What about the association of climate change with atmospheric greenhouse gases? On the time-scale of hundreds of millions of years, carbon dioxide has sharply declined; its concentration was as much as 20 times the present value at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, 600 million years ago [Berner, 1997].Yet the climate has not varied all that much and glaciations have occurred throughout geologic time even when CO2 concentrations were high. 

On a time-scale of decades and centuries, there seems to be an association between temperature and CO2 concentration, as judged by measurements of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. (The association is even better for the greenhouse gas methane.) Yet, the causal connection is not at all clear. Only recently has it been possible to obtain sufficient resolution to demonstrate that the increase in CO2 lags by about 600 years behind the rapid warming that signals deglaciation, the end of an ice age and the beginning of an interglacial warm period [Fischer et al., 1999]. "

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Questionable.pdf   [google scholar]