It's a simple matter of doing the math.

The one thing we know for certain is that our population is going to increase. It would also be fair to assume that within that growth, only a selected few will be contributing in the form of net taxes, the stuff that pays the bills. In Australia anyway and I suspect most are places are similar, if not worse.

So there will be more mouths to feed, with less money yet some still think we can achieve this, and accommodate these extras without increasing CO2 emmisioms, not to mention cutting them.

All I can say is dream on, because unless we are willing to wind back our standards of living, it's simply not achievable. Evidence being in the huon crys made when Tony Abbott introduced his tough budget into the mix

Yes, spindoc...most entertaining...

But you still haven't explained why you think the veracity of climate science is demonstrated by the rate of action or inaction of governments.

Using your reasoning, Thabo Mbeki's denialism that HIV caused AIDS, was fair and reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism_in_South_Africa

"In South Africa, HIV/AIDS denialism had a significant, and entirely negative, impact during the presidency of Thabo Mbeki from 1999 to 2008. Mbeki criticized the scientific consensus that HIV does cause AIDS beginning shortly after his election to the presidency. In 2000, he organized a Presidential Advisory Panel regarding HIV/AIDS including several scientists who denied that HIV caused AIDS. In the following eight years of his presidency, Mbeki continued to express sympathy for HIV/AIDS denialism, and instituted policies denying antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients.[1] Instead of providing these drugs, which he described as "poisons",[2] shortly after he was elected to the presidency, he appointed Manto Tshabalala-Msimang as the country's health minister, who promoted the use of unproven herbal remedies such as ubhejane, garlic, beetroot, and lemon juice to treat AIDS,[3][4] which led to her acquiring the nickname "Dr. Beetroot."[5] These policies have been blamed for the preventable deaths of between 343,000 and 365,000 people from AIDS"

So a govt refused to act - therefore HIV did not cause AIDS?

Global warming is a discursive fetish, putting deniers in precisely the same 'warmist' camp as those they despise.
Warming is only one anthropogenic effect, and given the 'glacial' pace of it, apropos our paltry human spans, and its necessarily equivocal nature in the geological scheme of things, it's a topic that excites existential and reactionary sensibilities alike--one millenarian and the other indifferent.
This at least accounts for the popular debate, over whether we are warming the planet or not. There are of course sensible people on both sides for whom the equivocation is properly 'academic'. The science of AGW, a discrete symptom, should be left to dedicated experts who are at least trying to be objective.
For such people the question of warming, cooling, or its causes and effects, has no bearing on anthropogenic effects generally.
The populists equivocate because they can, because the science of climate change is prodigious and uncertain--though growing less so.
There's no question but that our oceans grow more acidic, nor that the effects will be dire. There's no denying the rate of species extinction, or the loss of bio-diversity, and all that that entails. We can measure desertification and the loss of topsoil, while anticipating the looming crisis of fertility and observing the concomitant effects of chemical run-off on our waterways and coastlines. We know that natural resources are becoming less accessible and running out.
Given the changeable nature of the earth's climate, in geological terms, and the vagaries of the weather in human terms, indeed given the immensity of the climate system apropos one puny species, its no wonder the disease seems aymptomatic and the denialist conceit prospers.
But look at the big picture; it's taken hundreds of years of unrelenting growth and destruction, fed by fossil fuels, to effect global climate, but the other symptoms have also been accumulating and there's no denying their provenance.
Yes we should ditch the 2 degree target, or any target based on business as usual. The problem demands radical action; we have to rethink the whole human enterprise; that's the real challenge.

"With an 18-year pause"
Don't fool yourself. There are reasons for the APPARENT slow down in temp rise.

"Comparisons of direct measurements with satellite data and climate models suggest that the oceans of the southern hemisphere have been sucking up more than twice as much of the heat trapped by our excess greenhouse gases than previously calculated. This means we may have underestimated the extent to which our world has been warming."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26317-the-world-is-warming-faster-than-we-thought.html

Time will tell who is right about this but if you deniers are wrong there will be no time to do anything.
With an attitude like yours I hope that you have cancelled your house insurance?

Oh do grow up & do a bit of reading Squeers, there is no way our oceans can go acidic, they are sitting in a bed of limestone.

You waffle on about a "looming crisis of fertility" while complaining about our efforts to increase it by bringing the CO2 balance back up to something more normal in terms of geological time.

If you are truly looking for some reason to justify your miserable existence, consider this is your answer. The human species was developed to recycle some of the CO2 lost to the flora of the earth, mostly by precipitation to the ocean floor.

Fact is we have only just started correcting that balance soon enough for the good of all life. Burning long unavailable carbon will help restore what was a fading ecosystem, headed for extinction.

Now cheer up & go for a long drive, it's time you started pulling your weight.

Hasbeen,
I don't know what to say to that; we're "correcting the balance" etc.
astonishing.