The first step is accept that AGW is a fact (the ones who deny it are doing it because of money/political reasons).
If, as a society, we reach that step, then we can start making the steps necessary for changing.
JimSouCal wrote:The elephant in the room is: the biggest driver of climate change is a growing population of folks whose lives are interwoven with an oil and gas intensive lifestyle. I wouldn't exactly expect to see a line of volunteers to reduce the problem in short order.
In sentiment, I agree with what you conclude. However, just like other scientific theories and frameworks, such as classical physics and gravity, or relativity, the thermodynamic relationships involved in seeking to understand the Earth's climate are theories, and not facts per se, and therein lies the rub.
So if we take the view that the climate of the Earth is a complex heat engine, energized by the Sun, and affected by other forces such as the Coriolis effect, then the most very likely outcome is that added CO2, brought about by using the atmosphere as a sewer for carbon fuel combustion, will increase the retention of energy, and "force" the processes of climate; the added CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans will acidify the oceans, and probably impede the calcification of plankton shells, other events.
So the net the outcome might not be "warming", but rather increased potential energy (extrema of temperature), and greater kinetic energy (wind). In the framework of thermodynamic theory, that is possible, meaning the resulting convection will indeed tend to keep temps in check.
However, the stakes are very high, and the most likely outcome, based on evidence, warming or Hurricanes, or whatever, is that a massive disruption of the Earth's biogeochemical processes will result from this influence of pumping, lifting, and burning fossil fuels. The most dangerous aspect of all of these changes is that we will commit to them long before the damage is obvious in simple Human observational terms.
You point that some folks ideology seems to blind them to this evidence, or leads to a PR process to distort or mischaracterize what is at hand, that I wholly agree with. The basis for the science go back to the 1800's, doesn't it?