The issue, I would think, is to see if root causes can be addressed, BB. Surely, if carbon emissions are stimulating the vicious circle of warming, then backing off on carbon emissions is a praiseworthy concept.

Addressing the problem by trying to live with the symptoms is not wise, if the deteriorating condition underlying those symptoms continues unremedied, eh?

If you have hard data that the cycle of global warming, which is unprecedented over hundreds of thousands of years based on the permafrost record, is attributable to sunspots, I would like to see it.

If reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on global warming, then you must have some deeper wisdom about the causes of it. There's a lot of hard analytical science that implies emissions from human activity, (including methane from our cattle industry BTW)are a major contributing factor. If you think these conclusions are wrong, I'd like to see the math you are basing your conclusion on.

As for coping with consequences, and adjusting our lifestyle to new conditions, a lot of advances are being made in labs and research departments; among them are better insulating materials, cheaper photovoltaics, and better ways to store and distribute and acquire hydrogen. I notice, however, that New Orleans is (under Bush's cheerful rhetoric) being slated for replacement pretty much in the same place and the same way.

That's where Bush's last six (or 60) billion dollars should have gone instead of to the support of bloody invasions of foreign lands.

There are some interesting long-term consequences that are NOT being addressed, however, among them that the great breadbaskets of the temperate zone will follow the example of the Sahara Forest. (:>) )

A