579,

"The world is on course for the remedy, or the best remedy that can be ascertained. Get off fossil fuels. The worst part is going to be the twenty year delay since the problem was identified. The era of saying there is no problem or we can’t fix the problem has expired."

Sory, but that is just silly nonsense. It religion, not science and not objective analysis. It is fools like you that are blocking progress. You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about, just silly emotional nonsense - just like the gullible fools who follow extremist cult leaders - like this "Jim Jones was best known as the cult leader of the Peoples Temple who led more than 900 followers in a mass suicide via cyanide-laced punch known as the Jonestown Massacre" http://www.biography.com/people/jim-jones-10367607 .

Have you ever considered the consequences of "getting off fossil fuels" without an economically viable alternative? Or don't you care about that.

The consequences of getting off fossil fuels is far less Co2 omitting into the atmosphere. So who would let that be a worry, only those with vested interests. Alternatives will only happen now that the world has a direction to lead. Sea level rise and an increases in our atmospheric temperature are the major concerns.
Ice caps have been stable for thousands of years, and now there is a dramatic shift taking place, this has been attributed to the sudden rise in Co2 causing higher global temperatures allowing sea water to heat up. It will remain to be seen if a reversal can take place.
The earths climate has shifted numerous times in the past, and always with a cause. A very predominately cause is volcanic action which was vastly more active in years previous. This time we have a man made culprit, Co2 which has replicated the effects of volcanic action.
Unfamiliar climate happenings are going to challenge us as is without anymore additions

579,

"The consequences of getting off fossil fuels is far less Co2 omitting into the atmosphere. "

Nonsense. Total rubbish. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. As I said you are a fool who believes what your cult leaders tell you without question. Cult followers simply believe - they don't think for themselves - like those who followed Jim Jones. Getting off fossil fuels would cause billions to die.

We do not need cult leaders preaching impossible dreams to unfortunate persons. We have level headed educated people with consensus to take charge and do the world a favor of pollution clean up.
Climate change and its consequences are known for thousands of years. Ice cores dating back 200 thousand years reveal times and Co2 levels at the time of changes in atmosphere. The same land based time can cross check to tell what the earth was going through in those exact times.
The build up of land will not diminish, but the build up of ice is melting at an increasing rate. Since industrealisation the build up of atmospheric co2 has been steadily increasing, then from 1950 onwards atmospheric concentrations of Co2 have increased dramatically. We can no longer afford to uncontrollably burn fossil fuels.
Power companies were investing in renewable power sources, until they found a friend in parliament. Together with the shutting down of various other renewable projects. We went backwards, both in innovative ideas and projects.
Time is here to do, arguments are over so is procrastinating about what if.
PS: Billions will die the way China is going, the longer term effects will catch up with them

579,

“We have level headed educated people with consensus to take charge and do the world a favor of pollution clean up.”

Ah! And what consensus would that be? The total BS consensus by John Cook. Don’t you research objectively? Do you believe any drivel that suits you? Typical cult follower.

Cooks friends and those who write article for his alarmist web site, Skeptical Science, read 12000 abstracts. They dishonestly manipulated the results to spin and highly disingenuous story. The truth is that the only ‘consensus’, which almost everyone accepts, is that humans are having an effect on the climate, including with human caused GHG emissions. The magnitude is unknown and the consequences are unknown. Less than 0.5% of the abstracts stated that human caused GHG emissions are responsible for more than half the warming. So you don’t miss it – less than 0.5% of the 12,000 abstracts, not 97% of climate scientists. http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/

Richard Tol, 2013, ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis’

“Abstract

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

As I’ve said three times, 579, you are a gullible, ignorant, fool.

Dear Peter Lang,

What is your area of expertise?