Edit: Wait. What? You said you are someone "who think[s] that there is little that can be done to prevent climate change"

What makes you think that? Since humans are a leading cause of the existing change, almost by definition we are capable of working to prevent further damage. Sure, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult and near-impossible, but we can do it. Why would you think otherwise?

Assume you buy that human emissions are driving enough of climate change that if we removed that driver things would stay "cool enough". China has already markedly surpassed the U.S. as the largest total CO2 emitter, and they're not even close to the U.S.'s per capita emissions. Even if they can manage to continue to industrialize while only emitting per capita as much as the nuclear-heavy French, you're still looking at an increase of 15-20%, and I think that's optimistic. AFAIK, the Chinese are building coal fired power plants as fast as they can.

And that's just China. India and Africa would like to enjoy a Western quality of life as well.

I am extremely skeptical that CO2 emissions can be substantially curtailed, short of a world economic collapse that would make 2007-2009 look like a walk in the park.

But I am more than willing to be convinced. I think it would help the alarmed AGW folks immensely if they would unify around a politically impractical "if we ruled the world" plan. One sufficiently detailed that it could be analyzed for its climatic, economic and social effects, as well as publicized, criticized and modified until it becomes practical. A starting point might be, "Tax fossil fuel extraction at the source at levels sufficient to reduce emissions the necessary N%". But then you have to figure out what to do about the facts that this sort of plan would likely never be accepted by Russia or China, and that it's a massively regressive tax on the world's poor. There are solutions to these issues. Figure them out, add them to the plan, lather, rinse, repeat. If something like this already exists, I haven't seen it.

Bring something similar to the low-end market. Bring it at a competitive price. Make it more desirable than the existing stuff and people will switch because they desire it. Not because some law says they have to.

Do the same for everything else. Invent better cheaper and more eco friendly housing, energy, food production, transportation. Like the Tesla it must be more desirable and better in nearly every way then its competition.

IMO that's the only way forward. As you pointed out there's no way to get the entire world to follow some eco laws. Especially when most of the world is wants a better quality of life. If we give them that quality of life or better but with affordable and better eco-tech / eco-design we'll solve the problems.

I don't see why that follows at all. I understand that if everybody thought and acted as you and I probably do, and would build nuclear plants, maybe the effects of GW can be mitigated, but that obviously is not the case.

I'd argue the other way around: the best evidence that there is little that can be done is that there is little that is being done. The Chinese don't even care if you can't see your own hand before your eyes in Peking today, what hope do I have that they care about remote places in 50 years?

Doing something individually against GW is at the far far far bottom of my TODO list. Because it is not an effective use of my time. Maybe the most effective would be working for a Geoengieering company if I had the opportunity.

How much did the glacier retreat 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period? And how much did it grow back 400-500 years ago during the Little Ice Age?

100 years of data is not enough to understand what's really going on.

This is not a direct response to you, but it's a fact that few people seem to realize when discussing ocean levels and global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

edit to fix link