Given increasing Co2 levels are the undisputed cause of man made climate change; there's plenty we can do about it!

Firstly change from carbon causing coal to non carbon energy.

Large scale solar thermal does that and at comparable rollout costs to new coal fired projects.

Moreover, solar thermal has no ongoing and growing fuel costs, and given the latest technological advances, now competes with coal fired power for peak load applications.

Then there's cheaper than coal thorium, and given very local applications, for less than half the cost of coal fired power.

And we have the option of turning all our organic waste into storable methane then converting that into electrical energy via the Aussie invented super silent ceramic fuel cell.

And given an energy coefficient of 80% for the ceramic fuel cell, for quarter of the price of reticulated coal fired power.

Which by the way, comes, with around 11-16% transmission line losses and 64% distribution losses. All of which could be effectively prevented by very local applications.

Finally we could, given intelligent leadership, decide to grow algae as a very broad scale crop.

Some algae are up to 60 oil, which is child's play to extract.

Under optimised growing conditions, algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in atmospheric carbon.

Thus one million tons of purpose grown algae, grown in large clear plastic pipes on around 10 hectares of drought ravaged salinated land, will absorb 2,5 million ton of Co2.

And given those same optimised conditions, double that bodyweight and oil production and absorption capacity every 24 hours. 5-10-20-40million tons in just 5 days or if you will, in excess of 15 million tons of recoverable ready to use jet fuel or diesel in just five days.

There's absolutely nothing to fear in decarbing the economy, just the very opposite!

Profit graphs and profit growth being more important than a possible extinction event?

And yes, given timely adaptation and change, far bigger profits in view, for those willing to accept almost inevitable change.
Rhrosty.

Captain Col you continue to present yourself as a Runner avatar.

Curmudgeon there three points to this.

1) Are our activities causing global warming. Answer for main stream science is yes.

2) Can we do something about it, yes we can mitigate global warming by reducing CO2 emissions and we can capture CO2.

3) Are any of those mitigation viable? Answer yes, Solar, wind and nuclear power are all viable options and we should continue to support the R & D to improve these and developed more, as well as carbon capture systems.

Lastly can you please show me "You should find propaganda that isn't obviously wrong." stuff?

Meanwhile I find the very sobering perspectives on the state of the humanly created world, and the prospects for the survival and/or continuation of business-as-usual provided on this site to be more or less accurate http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com
Even the titles and subtitles of the authors several books are an education.
Start by reading the essay Down the Rat Holes of the Future.
Then go to the websites Nature Bats Last, and Club Orlov.

Cobber the Hound
Of course the answer from the mainstream is yes. Just as with the millennium bug and the cause of stomach ulcers, only a few mavericks oppose the orthodoxy. Glad we could agree.

Nuclear power is certainly viable as a means of reducing CO2 - solar and wind no - but will reducing CO2 do anything? Is there any clear, demonstrable link between CO2 levels and temperatures? As with many others I would be much happier with accepting such matter if climate science could demonstrate a successful forecasting track record. That's the point you have to establish and never mind the propaganda sites.

Rhosty
where does this nonsense on renewable power come from. Nuclear is viable, if not cost competitive with coal etc, but not even activists have tried to claim that solar plants are competitive with conventional power plants.. there have been claims that wind is competitive - although only on an output basis, not as part of a network - but not solar..

You really have to Laugh Out Loud when someone invokes the christian patriarchal "God" in there criticism of those who promote the very real phenomenon of humanly caused global warming, climate change and environmental destruction.
These 2 stark prophetic images could be titled applied patriarchal christian politics 101:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel21.html

The systematic destruction of the environment and simultaneous of humankind and all of the other living-breathing-feeling non-humans that live on this planet IS the INEVITABLE outcome of the destructive power-and-control-seeking syndrome of what is communicated in these two stark very prophetic images - and of the other images on this website too

Cobber, my name is Col and I'm a captain so if you want to confuse me with someone else, that's your problem. Are you afraid that there is more than one person who thinks you are wrong (on everything so far)?

Now some scientific answers to your questions.

"1) Are our activities causing global warming." Answer by Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who stated that “The claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a greenhouse effect, and that man’s activities have contributed to warming, are trivially true and essentially meaningless in terms of alarm.”

Google him. He's a world renowned CLIMATE scientist.

"2) Can we do something about it" Yes we can do lots of things including , but the question(s) should be "Should we do something about it? and If so, tell us the costs and benefits of action versus inaction? and What are the guarantees of success? and Is this the highest priority for action at the moment?"

"3) Are any of those mitigation viable?" Well I suppose it depends how much other people's money there is to flush down this particular toilet. See my answer to 2 above.