Another avenue of lulling the public to sleep: Technology can save us!

For example, from Eric Berger of the Houston Chroncicle:

Benford has a proposal that possesses the advantages of being both one of the simplest planet-cooling technologies so far suggested and being initially testable in a local context. He suggests suspension of tiny, harmless particles (sized at one-third of a micron) at about 80,000 feet up in the stratosphere. These particles could be composed of diatomaceous earth.

And the argument:

Why don't we just do something about it, instead? Yes, long-term, doing a lot of the strategies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions -- such as ending fossil fuel use and living sustainable lifestyles -- will be very good, environmentally, for the planet. And in my view, that's a very good thing both for nature, animals and humans. But those kinds of changes are going to happen slowly. And the effect on cooling the planet will take a long, long time.

Shorter term solutions will require more radical engineering. And they may not win any Greenpeace awards because temporarily solving the problem by putting small particles into the atmosphere will encourage many people to continue their business-as-usual energy practices. But these engineering solutions probably could address the problem a lot more quickly.

My personal view is that a number of skeptics see global warming both through a political lens, and as an effort by environmental organizations to force their views down the throats of everyone. If the skeptics are right, then you would expect environmental organizations to oppose practical solutions that don't improve the overall environmental condition of the planet.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/02/is_global_warmi.html#comm...

Reducing carbon emissions, evidently, is out of the question. So we have no choice except to radically modify the atmosphere.

Needless to say, the solution offered above is extremely energy- and resource-intensive and could not possibly continue forever. Humankind's prospects become dimmer with each passing day.

If humans will not stop polluting, Nature will stop humankind.

Perhaps it is already too late.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

HeIsSoFly:

More importantly, who owns Anna Nicole's body? Or, as put forth by Inhofe during the global warming hearings, what we really need to worry about is the impact of fighting global warming on those small oil men who own stripper wells. It is alleged that taxes on carbon will ruin the small oilmen of this country. First, does this ring true? Second, if it is true, which is more important, the future of the planet or the marginal oil producers of this country.

But I guess I digress. According to your post, it is way too late to do anything about global warming. True, but now we are not talking about preventing warming, we are talking about just mitigating it. Somehow, I think that the concept of mitigation will fail to capture the imagination of the American and the rest of the world's people.

Perhaps people are still using the word "if", because the use of the more correct word "when" would plunge us into an even deeper level of despair and/or apathy.

You must have THE computer model. We understand warming will continue regardless additions/reductions of CO2, but saying that reductions in consumption now are worthless, is indeed worthless.

Well said. Die-off is on the way for sure.

You're probably right about the fact that much of the warming we are and will be seeing is the product of emmissions past; already in the pipeline. And it may be that even if we could magically stop all emmissions now, we'd still have hundreds of millions of climate refugees, etc.

But the reason - the point - in people being comparatively optimisitic by discussing climate change as if we can now do something about it, is because (1) if it is inevitable, where does that lead us? Not empowering. And if you want to be defeatist go ahead but (2), what we do now will affect the ultimate severity of climate upheaval 100 years out. It may not be a total lost cause 100 years down the road, though without mitigation and a sense of defeat you can be sure it will be then.