You see in only black and white. You don't consider the alternatives. We need to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. That can be done by reducing the introduction of carbon through the burning of fossil fuels, or through the removal of carbon, or from a combination of the two. Because your blanket assertions are being challenged you automatically assume, either from stupidity or manipulative debating technique, that your challengers do no think there are problems. I believe all of them do, they just don't think the consequences are as you predict. The world is a more complex place than your simplistic model takes account of. 1. You guess wind is good. That would be about the size of it. Guessing. Let's consider Scotland's renewable energy figures for 2011 as a percent of total energy use: Hydroelectricity - 13%. Wind, wave and tidal - 17 1/2% Landfill gas and other biofuels - 3 1/2% So 30%, in 2011, of Scotland's energy needs are not directly putting carbon into the environment. The goal is to meet the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's electicity demand from renewable resources by 2020. In what way are the alternatives, added together, not enough to avert collapse? Are you suggesting that Scotland is unique among countries, or part of a tiny minority who are taking few steps in that direction? Perhaps because you seem incapable of change yourself, you attribute that fixity of behaviour to the rest of humanity. It just ain't so.