I am a bit disturbed as to where all the opinions re- climate change are coming from. The only branch of science, I think, that really has to cope with 'time' is geology. Past climatic events leave evidence of their acts in sedimentary rocks and I think this sort of awareness is necessary in order to make judgements about climate change, and just how much Homo sapiens is involved in it.
Some 'facts' to the best of our knowledge-------
'Life' on this planet made the current atmosphere. Life has always influenced the climate and atmosphere, but so have many forces and influences that we have nothing to do with nor any control over eg the procession of the equinoxes, plate movements, solar disturbances, and many others all considered by the researcher Milankovich when he tried to account for the 'ice ages'. About 2,000,000,000 years ago a type of algae first started releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, and animals evolved that could use it for respiration,
I would find it 'exceptional' if the climate was not changing. It has always changed all throughout geological time.
Humans make up (best estimates) 0.3% of CO2 generating biomass on this planet.
All oxygen-using life produces CO2 in respiration, yes, even plants, although plants use it to again in making tissue when growing.
What about the other 99.7% of CO2 producing life? It just goes on------and on.
Data shows that 'life' on this planet, and life diversity, is currently at a maximum and I think the temperature rise could well be due to this and this alone. It's beem a long while since the last 'great extinction' and it could well be that there is a 'natural temperature/climate balance' that 'calls' for the next extinction. Fiddling with CO2 will have only slightly delay the inevitable.
Also CO2 is really a pretty minor greenhouse gas. Methane is ten times more potent, Water vapour even more so yet it is not even considered as an 'enemy' for obvious reasons.
If asked 'what is the chance that human actions in reducing CO2 output will stop global warming?'
l'd have to say one in several million, ie next to none. To reduce global warming? Almost certainly, but is that enough? We'd still have to cope with warming but on a longer time scale.
What should the government do re- this?
Ans. Take a very low profile, do nothing drastic. The northern hemisphere may choose to react because it's there the problem is perhaps being generated. Our total CO2 discharge annually is only about equal to the increase in CO2 produced by China annually. Per Capita figures are meaningless as we are so few in such a huge area. We are really a 'nothing'.
I'd far rather see nations prepare for what I think is an inevitable change-----inevitable and 'natural' and address world population concerns (ie relocation concerns) as far as possible.
I just hope the government has the wisdom to start planning for long-term climate change and to realise it's probably inevitable and beyond our control.