Have you heard of Kyoto Protocol? Carbon trading (REDD+)?  etc.

All of this, were formulated because of concern in climate change.

http://www.carbonplanet.com/REDD

This is really a good question. It is true that there are concerns about the harmful  climate changes. There are certain discussions and proposals also regarding the steps to reduce the harms. But, I think there are not much sincere efforts to implement the most required  actions. For this, strong political will all over the world is required. Some steps must be taken to neglect the regional and vested interests. The whole world unanimously proceed through this direction. Otherwise, there will be no fruitful results.

Yes, the concerns of climate change really makes a different. Only issues of concern can be address and it is time we address the challenges of climate change before CLIMATE CHANGE changes us.

In fact, climate change is the biggest challenge because a number of global challenges are directly associated with the global climate. Food and water crisis which are essential for the existance of life are mainly based on our climatic conditions like global warming, global cooling, floods, cyclones etc. Other challenges which are also associated with the climate are poor public health, decline in agriculture, melting of glaciers, biodiversity and many others which stimulated the global society to take serious concern about climate change that can  bring a significant difference.

Its amazing everyone seems to talk about climate change being a problem or a crisis but few seem to realize that what the World actually needs is a proactive adaptation strategy  tailored to region-specific conditions. When was the climate ever stable? If anyone should provide an answer to this question, then they can talk about a 'crisis' and what ought to be done about it...

This is what I propose:

- Every region and nation within ought to give its scientists the task of ascertaining with a high degree of certainty how possible changes in temperature both ways (rising or decreasing) will affect their specific climatic conditions (especially rainfall)

- Issue specific adaptation measures ought to be prioritized based on results of the previous step.

-Should the current issue be found to be the greater likelihood of floods, flood adaptation, mitigations and vulnerability remediation measures should be designed and mainstreamed into national and community development plans.

-Should the issue identified be that of drought, there must be an immediate switch to drought mitigation and adaptation measures. 

- Some regions are naturally prone to hurricanes and volcanic eruptions; these hazards will happen irrespective of what humans do. It is the responsibility of the national governments and other organizations of good-will to build up vulnerability remediation and shielding mechanisms in the most 'at risk areas'. We all know that hurricanes and other major natural catastrophes seem to have a particular preference for the poor, their lives and property. The question is why? we all know the answer but few seem to want to provide or even suggest obvious solutions: poverty alleviation.

I am simply weary of everyone talking about 'the problem' and no one mentioning solutions; immediate and long term. Carbon trading as mentioned by someone is good for the stock market but will not reduce vulnerability to climate-induced hazards or alleviate poverty..; it is a means of emissions transfer and not reduction. Basic economic thought suggests that, it will instead increase the wealth for the wealthy stock brokers.

Only in scientific community but in real world there is no difference.

Regards

Kenneth is absolutely right but I am a bit concerned with the point on humans getting a handle on population growth. The problem in my opinion is not population growth. The Whole world's population of about 7 billion could conveniently fit in Africa alone (surface area of about 30.3 million km 2) more than twice with much more excess land and resources available for agiculture and other livelihood and economic activities. China was on the brink of starvation when its population was in millions...Today, with about 1.4 billion people, more food (including fish and agricultural products) is wasted everyday than is eaten. Africa on the otherhand, with a smaller population of about 1.2 billion, with more arable land, an extensive coasline, huge freshwater resources, is on the brink of starvation in the 21st Century. This has nothing to do with climate or population growth; it has everything to do with Inovation, Sustainability,  Political and Economic Efficacy, Scientific progress and Foresight, within the continent, and the state of the relationship between the continent and the rest of the World. I think this analysis applies  to the entire World.

For scientific yes and later for Society but for governments it doesn't matter.

Kenneth

You have made some very convincing points on the claim that CO2 and climate change are not correlated but here, you want me to understand that because there is a strong possitive correlation between humans and CO2, therefore population growth is a problem. Correct me if I have misrepresented your claim in any way. Co2 is a natural bi-product of respiration not only limited to humans. With regards to Co2 emmited from fuel combustion and other activities, a small population of industrialized nations will emmit more CO2 than the rest of the less industrialized world; that is a fact. Let me reiterate: population growth is not a problem. Nature has a way of regulating population; thats why people seldom live past a century. Therefore, the issue of population carrying capacity cannot be explained by linear statistical extrapolations but by logical and critical analysis. Failure to do this, we risk fallng into the Malthussial trap, and follow in the footsteps of people like Paul Erlich and currenly Guy Macpherson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqIt93dDG1M). The danger with this is that it creates an activist faction that seeks to play 'god' and bent on unilateral eugenics to exterminate large chunks of the World's population.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMgamzziQMM ;   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjIMoaUBHB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjIMoaUBHB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMgamzziQMM

Planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and in this long time there had been periods that were much, much warmer than it is today (e.g. during the tinme dinosaurs lived on our planet) and also periods that were far colder (ice ages). In other words: it would be strange when the climate would be the same indefinately. This never has been the case. There were also period when CO2 concnetration was much higher than today. Indeed there was a time when no O2 was in the atmosphere... Climate change is something that bothers us, because we are effected, because we are there to be bothered. It does not effect Planet Earth in any meaningful way as the planet will be there even if Human aren't anymore (although also Planet Earth won't be eternal). Among many other challenges the scientific mainstream believes that the generation of special gases through the burning of fossil fuels is the driving force for climate change. A few, however, see human contribution little in global warming and some even talk of global cooling. In RG there have been many contributions that put global warming and global cooling as two different processes. What is different is the outcome of very complex processes. The outcome is either warming or cooling, and to make it even more complex both can happen - in different places.... or at differnt times (a specific place can have warmer summers and colder winters....,). How much of this change is contributed by human activies we can discuss and do research about, but it would be strange if only humans have contributed to these changes, or if they would be entirely caused by natural processes - both is very unlikely the case.

Sometimes people think that IPCC does investigate into global warming, but indeed it looks into climate change. The expression global warming is out since many years as it is acknowldeged that it is much more than around temperature change. Global cooling, if it exists is also climate change. In Germany we can have temperatures in winter of minus 20 degrees Celsius. That is winter and we call this winter weather. Some years winters are mild, other years very harsh, long and very cold. Weather and climate are different things, and the weather is never the same. It changes and also if the sun energy received on January 1 at a particular place would be the same every year (which is not the case as the sender (sun) sends not always the same) it still would result in different weather as the energy received is only one from many, many factors that makes the weather.

In the discussion above some has mentioned that the food crisi is the result of climate change. I doubt that this is correct. Today we produce considerable more food per capita than a few decades ago. When people are starving then it is usual the impacts of wars, civil wars, ethnic tensions, or just because of poverty, but not necessarily because of climate change, at least not so directly as often assumed. Here in the Pacific Island countries the talk of climate change and its impact on food security has been rather dominant, despite this part of the world does not know widespread undernutrition and when we look at malnutrition than we discover that the biggest concern is obesity, and when we would anlyze the causes then we would not find climate change, but MacDonalds and other fast food outlets. I think that the cooling effect due to reduced sun activity (if it exists) moderates anthropogenic warming impacts, the same other natural impacts on the climate would such as volcanic eruptions etc. We should realise that something as complex as climate has many contributing factors that lead to change. To assume that everything is caused by humans or everything by natural causes is far too simplistic. For that reason it is rather difficult to make any precise predictions of the future. So both (processes that contribute to warming and such contributing to cooling) not only can happen, but they do, and they always did. What now is sold as new ideas and change to previous scientific knowledge is actually nothing really new other than that one aspect from an extremely complex process is taken out and displayed as the whole truth.