So we can work towards removing the $4 billion in annual subsidies to oil companies?

I really hope you're not one of those hypocrites that bitch and whine when the price of gas increases afterwards.

Yes, I think the evidence is in favour of anthropogenic climate change.

I don't think it is too serious though, millions of people/species will die but humanity itself or the ecosystem is not under threat.

Nuclear fusion is the only viable way can see of solving it, as well as fuel security and increased prices as oil/gas run out. CO2 trading or hoping that nations implement agreements is too slow and not effective enough. All the current renewables have serious issues. Fusion is completely safe and completely scalable, it just needs investment.

absolutely. especially if we remove all the restrictions keeping them from using our own oil. you know gas prices wouldnt go up, if we were allowed to have a free market.

and power kilowat/hr of energy produced, "alternative" energy is subsidize significantly more.

Come back to me when total accumulated subsidies for green energy finally overtake oils, and we can have a proper discussion.

how exactly ? Climate chage is natural occurrence, that has happened millions times before humans even existed on this planet

and God can't fail, otherwise he wouldn't be a God :)

get back to me when green energy, holds a candle to the amount of energy oil and coal produces. also get back to me when comparably coal and oil start getting even close to the same amount of subsidies as green energy. also get back to me when we start letting there be a free market, instead of are policy where "energy costs would necessarly go up". get back to me when i want any form of subsidy for energy. then get back to me.

In a purely free market the environment would be continuously raped by huge numbers of companies.

You really should not spin the word "produce". Tell me, if a bank was robbed, would you say that those thieves "produced" that money? 

This is the main fallacy of your argument. Oil and coal industries don't PRODUCE energy. They tap into reserves that have absorbed solar energy for millions of years. So, it's all well and dandy while the fossil fuels are still there, but what about once they're gone? Do you think business will be looking for a smooth transition towards an alternative, or will we be seeing them stick with the cheap option until it's completely exhausted?

If you think of fossil fuel reserves like a form of currency, you should be able to see that we are living WELL beyond our energy means, always dipping in to the "bank" to get more. So why aren't you libertarians as adamant about this as you are the national debt? 

Yes, climate change is a naturally occurring cycle that happens at many periods on Earth. Humans aren't the ones who are causing climate change, rather we are accelerating the process at a rate that higher than natural. There have always been natural amounts of greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth's atmosphere (after all, without them we would all freeze), but with our pollution and dependency on fossil fuels, we are exposing the atmosphere to amounts that are unnatural. This is causing more of the sun's radiation to "bounce back" and stay in our atmosphere (among other things), thus it is accelerating the process of climate change.

Are we at a high risk level yet? No. But if we continue at the rate we're currently in, then we could influence climate change at a severe level. This could be detrimental to us, but more so to the plant and animal species who depend on the natural cycle to pollinate, migrate, mate, etc. This rate is also too fast for evolutionary changes to occur that could possibly help these species cope with climate change.

your right, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. now arent we smart.