The "immediacy" comes from the viewpoint that we cannot solve the problem instantly.

The longer we wait, the less time we will have to solve the problem.

So it's mostly a matter of time.

Someone sets an arbitrary target, like, let's not let levels of CO2 increase to more than 500 ppm, to avoid too much melting of the ice sheets and too much rise of sea level.

At a rate of increase of 2 ppm/year, that gives us 50 years to solve the problem.

And 10 years is a lot on such a timescale.

So instead of saying "what's the solution", perhaps you should indicate what levels of CO2 you think are acceptable, and why.

(Think about temperatures, climate shift, sea level rise... what kind of levels do you think are acceptable) ?

Where do you get that from?

It's possible to predict storms pretty well a few days into the future. I think the models are pretty awesome.

Certainly they are a lot better than 20 years ago.

Did I mention this is just bullshit?

Do you not see the problem here?  We have 50 years to solve a problem based on scientists' predictions.  Those same scientists can barely predict storms a few days into the future (which is pretty awesome).  

If they don't understand the variables that make the system function well enough to do more than make accurate predictions a few days into the future why on earth should we alter the global economy based on their 50 year predictions?  

Their predictions on what will happen is a complete crap shoot once you get out passed a few days.  Even allowing for some randomness, how you extrapolate that into an ability to predict accurately what is going to happen on a global scale 50 or 100 years from now?  It's ludicrous. 

We simply don't know enough.  Or, in denier terms, the science ISN'T settled yet. 

That's OK.  Didn't expect you to get it.

As opposed to "Because Mann"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

I have avoided this thread, because, well, it is so frustrating to deal with denialists.  But, FYI, there is a difference between "weather" and "climate".  Weather deals with immediate weather conditions. "Climate" deals with weather pattern over time.  The fact that immediate weather is not as predictable as we like does not mean that statistical modeling over time is useless.

And, sure, it is certainly conceivably possible that new information could come along to call into question AGW.  But, the reasonable thing to do is to go with the preponderance of evidence that you have to work with.  There is a clear preponderance of evidence that AGW is real, and thus the only reasonable, rational thing to do is to accept it at least until some point in the future that evidence causes a change in where the preponderance of evidence points.

Even if your a denialist, someone that has doubts of AGW, I can't for the life of me figure out any rational basis for just pretending there is nothing to AGW while staring at massive preponderance of evidence in favor of its existence. Surely, even if one has some doubt over AGW, the rational thing to do would be to err on the side of caution.

The facts are pretty clear.  Earth has been warming.  CO2 and other greenhouse gases act as heat insulators.  World ice levels have been decreasing.  Oceans have been getting warmer and more acidic.  Previous periods of high temperatures on earth have been strongly linked to CO2 levels. No alternative hypothesis such as sun energy output, volcano activity, etc have supporting evidence.

These are plain, simple facts.  Denialists have nothing to offer but simply denials of demonstrated evidence.  Period.

Very wise of you, and it's also addictive. I've tried to stop but I just couldn't.

What kind of CO2 level do you think is acceptable?

(To be honest I think 400 ppm is already the limit, because it's similar to a period of much higher sea level and a 600 ppm level will be disastrous. I'm afraid my country will flood in the (far) future. http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx)

Well, I am right, in so far as what I said is measurable facts.

But, you are right that an actual solution is difficult.  Sure, I have added insulation in my home.  But, I still like to live in comfort.  I live in Houston and use A/C.  When I bought my A/C unit 13 years ago, the efficiency rating of 13 was good, but, not that high by today's standards.

So, yes, I am part of the problem and I don't have a real solution.

I for one am NOT opposed to nuclear power. It has issues, no doubt.  And it has a carbon footprint due to construction and maintenance.  But, next generation units, including thorium, could potentially improve efficiency and decrease carbon footprint. So, I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear.

But, still not a complete solution.  I agree with you there.

A 'massive amount of evidence' which has failed to account for or explain reality can be as massive as it wants.  Furthermore, whether one accepts or is skeptical of that 'massive amount of evidence' it has more to do with choosing who gets to piss in the AGW ocean than 'science'.  Lots of charlatans, a la Al Whore, lining up for a shot at aiming their cocks at the beach.  For a tidy sum of course, paid by us unwashed denialists, whether we like it or not.

So you are not thinking the data has been altered in favour of Global warming by the governments? Someone here likes to say this.. I forgot who.

EDIT: and by the way data is objective, and so are the trendlines you can put on them. This is not "making shit up" putting trendlines on temperature values..

Then what are we talking about? If the data has really been faked, then we will never know who is right, and noone can prove anything.. Though I still think this faking data thing is a kind of conspiracy theory and I don't really like those, as these can never be proven by anything unquestionable.

There is no coordinated conspiracy in the criminal sense, although the Mann/East Anglia business came close.  Just a shared ideology and willingness to shade the truth, if convenient, in its furtherance.  And to ignore or suppress non-conforming reality.