> Anyhow, if you expect 7 billion people to do anything in regards to climate change, don't hold your breath.

Except that China is halting construction on 20+ coal plants. And deploying renewables faster than any other country. And putting in place heavy subsidies for electric vehicles. Chinese citizens overwhelmingly support renewables and the cost associated with it:

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/29/china-cities-overwhelmi...

Americans? One presidential candidate wants more fracking, the other one thinks China invented climate change, and everyone else is oblivious in their SUV on their way to Starbucks.

One might argue its easier for China to evolve to a non-carbon economy because their citizens haven't tasted the decadence Americans have of a carbon-intensive lifestyle; regardless, China is going above and beyond what the US has ever considered for climate change policy, and drag us Americans along for the ride. Thanks China?

China are also in the situation where their depedence on coal and their poor current record in cleaning up industrial output makes the negative effects of the status quo much more noticeable.

When the West reached that stage, renewable power was less of a consideration and option, and so we opted for emissions standards and similar than brought the noticeable effects down to tolerable levels, and we are paying for it now in weaker support for putting in place a proper fix.

Fracking has actually been beneficial in reducing climate change because the carbon footprint of natural gas is far lower than coal. Most O&G companies are currently pushing for a carbon tax.

That is like saying a ball peen hammer is beneficial in reducing damage to the skull compared to a sledge hammer.

And one saying which is relevant is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

> Or that that whole thing was just a ploy by leftists to seize power.

Well that's a particularly ridiculous theory.

> ... just a ploy ...

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/

On the right hand side of that chart, it says he gets his data from both reconstructions and modern temperature measurements. How on earth are you supposed to compare those two? This is essentially just another hockey-stick graph.

Usually I like xkcd, but that one is wrong at the end. The data actually matches the "best case scenario" surprisingly well. I was really amazed at how that model has performed when I first saw it, it is really interesting. https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/gwpf_nasa-hansen_...

I get all my scientific knowledge from comics on the Internet too.

The comic has citations. Why won't you address them, instead? Or is there any particular conclusion it draws from them that is incorrect?