I said it was you trying to invalidate my points without having to address them by pretending to be the only one concerned about cold hard logical reality
I'm happy to address your points but until this post of yours you didn't have any points to address from our exchange other than trying to imply or suggest what I and/or others thought about a single storm season.
Likewise, the IPCC is a political arm of the most highly politicized and corrupt international body going.
It isn't a political arm of anything. It's the scientific arm of various political bodies though. You writing off its scientific conclusions because you feel various political bodies are corrupt is facile. The IPCC doesn't do the research - it reports on the findings of all the peer reviewed and published research. Calling it corrupt is just an ad hominem so you can try and brush off and not address the actual findings.
the science isn't settled
Science is rarely "settled". It's inherently skeptical and self-correcting over time. The IPCC conclusions are the current best working understanding of the situation.
I'm suspicious of anything who's chief argument is a call to get in line with the consensus, as if consensus is its own supporting argument.
Consensus or appeal to authority is not a good argument I agree. That's not what people are saying though. They are saying there is massive amount of evidence supporting AGW - thus the international scientific consensus.
There are NEVER concrete plans to solve it.
Even if this were true, it's completely irrelevant to whether AGW is real or not. Why would you put this out there as an objection to AGW? I have noticed that many people's objections to the science stem from their distaste over some of the economic/political consequences of various proposals though. It's pointless to discuss "what to do" if people do not agree AGW is real though. It's a huge separate topic from the science/evidence but some methods/ideas have already been discussed in this thread a little bit though.
Generally speaking, it's everyone's responsibility. It's ridiculous to blame oil and gas companies. We are responsible as the consumers of their products as well. It's an interesting challenge. It's a case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons on an unprecedented scale. In game theory, the countries of the world need to find a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium but they can't even keep agreements or sit at the same table to talk in many cases. We are facing a global issue that requires cooperation and synchronization. Even if one country has some genius entrepreneurial breakthroughs in energy, coupled with government support and citizen acceptance and lifestyle changes, etc. it will be meaningless if most other countries don't follow suit. You can see us flailing about still with this tribal mindset trying to come to grips (and denying its a problem is one way of coping) with a uniquely global problem. I think it's because most people in the world do not yet experience it as a problem. If this were an alien invasion, suddenly our tribal mindset and inertia globally would evaporate. But it isn't. It's more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
Personally I don't feel alarmist about it either because I don't live on a little Pacific atoll that is sinking or in the path of super storms or as a polar bear in the Arctic. It's still just an intellectual reality to me. But I have no doubt AGW is real and that given enough time - maybe not until a couple future generations from now - a lot more people will experience it as real. I can vote for a politician who accepts it is real. I can drive less and bike more. I can fly less for vacations. I can try to counter denialist fallacies. I can speak with friends and family about their thoughts/actions on it. I can purchase foods and consumer goods made and grown locally. I can invest in companies that are exploring alternate fuel and power options. But it's still going to require a more systemic approach. Governments will have to be involved at some level. I don't think it will be all bad necessarily. The opening up of the NorthWest passage in the Arctic has potential for good things for both trade and wildlife. But acidification of the ocean in general kinda sucks...
Edit: naming/editing the links failed but you get the idea...