Doubly agreed.

Hydrocarbon usage is demonstrably unsustainable and it is foolish to continue without a transitional plan. 

I would be in support of any such plan that took a realistic approach to the transition.  By realistic I mean not overly harsh economically, but I also mean realistic in that its not so averse to ill-effects as to be worthless. A fine line to be sure.

The Cap'n'Trade bill we saw recently falls into a special brand of terrible however as it would have been both overly economically harsh but would have produced practically no benefit for the effort (this is something individual skeptics and alarmist both have actually agreed on - ironically enough).

I'm personally a proponent of a multi-pronged approach with nuclear power as the centerpeice - to me it represents the only realistic solution to the problem given how little time for transition we've given ourselves as well as being one of the cheaper solutions.  Although I fear if we move into these plans as the next subject of debate that we will be wildly off-topic so I'll leave it at that simple blurb.

I like reading people discuss topics they are educated in.

Great upside of the internet =D

Your second paragraph:

As you say, current geological trends certainly indicate that a substantial cooling period is due if the rise in CO2 ect. does not trigger warming. On that point, the more I read on the subject the less convinced I become about the effect of our emissions on temperature but still feel there is sufficient evidence to suggest it is possible. For example, the paper I mentioned suggests that CO2 had a 3-4 degree warming effect at the end of each glacial period and therefore may cause similar changes now. Although to be honest the paper is almost 20 years old and may be out of date with current predicitions.

Your third paragraph:

I agree that our emissions may not be a 'last straw' on their own but could cause slight temperature increases which could then have feedback effects, increasing the severity of the problem (i.e warmer oceans = more atmopsheric CO2 = warmer earth, less ice = less sunlight reflected = warmer earth). Again, this is only the subject of models and cannot be accurately predicted. In reference to the graph of CO2 and T. over geological time, it is very difficult to compare those values with the present. This is largely due to the position of the continents being different which affects ocean circulation, shore line coverage, vegetation ect., all of which play a key role in the climate. Also, the distribution of mountain ranges was vastly different and again these are very important in controlling the climate. Although I still agree with your last sentance.

I just read a Stephen Hawking quote on QuotimusMaximus that reminded me of this thread, I'll share it...

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can."

He's right, if it is happening then it's a good chance that we are doing self sustaining damage to the planet and we're, how shall I put this, royally fucked.

I couldn't care less if climate change is man made or not. Whats important is that replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources makes sense. I for one want to live in a cleaner world where mankinds impact is reduced as much as possible.

In terms of the fear mongering that is happening on both sides I always find it best to err on the side of caution in these scenarios. If we can do something that slows down climate change then thats all the better. Even if our attempts to change don't affect that aspect of our planet it'll still lead to a better healthier world regardless.

Its a win win situation. Whereas doing nothing means we lose even if our actions aren't affecting climate change.

While transitioning away from fossil fuels and reducing overall energy use is a policy (almost) everyone can agree with, there are serious problems with how science is being politicized and used to promote agendas unrelated to the reduction of fossil fuel use; and this could backfire and prevent the reduction of fossil fuels, and could hurt the trust of the public of threats presented by science in the future.

I disagree.

If economic is the only reason to change, it cost a lot more today to force the change, then say in 100-200 years when we need to change.

In fact, it would be by guess that in 200 years, we will not be using fossil fuels anyway, as advancements will some day make them more expensive then whatever it is we invent/discover.

The problem is we all need to take a hit on this. When free ETS permits are given out, arguably the energy industries want 100% coverage for this, then nobody actually uses less energy and nobody reduces their energy use which is the whole point of cutting emissions. Evidence of this problem has already occured in european countries where because of free permits there has been no reduction at all in emissions.

And i disagree that other energy is not as efficient or cost effective as Nuclear, although some scientists have clearly supported nuclear as a lesser evil to deal with the co2 issue as soon as possible. 20 - 30 years to build plants is only one of the problems though.

Since we are talking economics i refer you the global interest in renewable energy technology stocks, and the optimistic support from investors in their potential.

"In an Aug. 13 research note, UBS (UBS) analyst Robin Cheng said she expects photovoltaic electricity to be competitive with power from the grid by 2010 in those parts of Europe and the U.S. that get more regular sunshine, and by 2014 in regions that experience more cloud cover. "Until then, the industry is heavily dependent on government incentives," she writes."

(http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2009/pi20090813_981271.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)

It is doable and unlike nuclear it is cheaper, quicker and it is already garnering huge support from the global economy and manufacturing states. Germany's and Japan's experience is evidence of this, China's boom further solidifies the markets view.

Bolded is where this becomes important. While no data shows that we are beyond the upper theorized range, there is plent of data (Venus) and obvious abnormal amount of CO2 released to theorize with logic that we will push our global temps through the roof if we don't focus on the issue now vs later when it may be too late.

Example, my car is approaching 100,000 miles. It is running perfectly. However, I still plan on getting an oil change, various filters changed, timing belt changed, and a tune-up. why? It is not recording any malfunction of any kind? However, it is preventative maintenance and simply the smart thing to do to prevent myself from walking to work one day when it does break down due to simple laziness on my part.

Same issue. We should be smart and take the necessary steps to not create an environment that we fully believe created the end result of Venus.

There is no way you can argue that continuing our mass polluting ways is smart and helps maintain a healthy planet. The only option is to try to create change and that is always determined by expense.

If gas prices soar, people sell SUVs and buy hybrids.
If electical plants have to pay exorbrant fees on polution, they will invenst in capping technology that removes nearly all of their pollution.
If applaince / automakers are forced by legislation to meet certain MPG ratings, they will invest in technologies to do so efficiently.

I for one am for change. I want purely electric cars and pollution free electric plants. If I have to raise fear in people that they will die from extreme heat to make them understand its wrong to pollute, well then so be it.

I think a better analogy, using your car, is would you change the body parts?

There is no question, that every mile you drive, the wind erodes away more metal. One day that metal will be gone, you don't want that to happen while you're driving now do you?

in the case of a car, we know what to fix, because we have driven millions of cars 100,000 miles. If this was the first car ever driven, and it was driven 99,900 miles before you got into it, would you know what's going to fail in 100 miles of perfect driving?

No. We do know how ridicules it sounds to think the metal is going to ware off your car, because we have a huge amount of data that tells us we don't need to worry about it.

With respect to us polluting the earth, we don't know if it compares to the erosion of your cars body parts (virtually nothing), or the damage to your engine (the primary cause).

There is a chance that trying to get off fossil fuels right now, is as smart as replacing the body of your car every 100,000 miles, because you are worried they will disintegrate while you drive.