Sorry to be so long-winded.

You bunch of libs are uncommonly bright, and I felt I could contribute, in my own little way, to the discussion.

It angers me more than you know to see President Bush muzzle his scientists. Why the HELL this is a political decision is quite beyond me.

Write your Congress Critter, and bitch HARD about this.

We need to take several steps, IMHO.

CAFE standards need to be doubled, this time next year. If we have to subsidize GM, Chrysler and Ford to re-tool their factories, fine. Lets nationalize them, and build 'Merican cars. The fact that they AVERAGE 50 mpg on the highway would certainly help. Shoot, we wouldn't even need to have tariffs on Volvo's and Toyota's...MAKE THE CARS PEOPLE WANT, NOT THE URBAN ASSAULT VEHICLES THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST PER-VEHICLE PROFIT.

DAMN....are the GM execs stupid, or what?

The second step is to put air scrubbers on every damned polluting plant, everywhere. The Bush administration tried recently to GUT the Clean Air standards, just to help the industry make a few more dollars. Unreal, and totally indefensible.

There are tons of other actions to take...these are just a start.

.... now and then of 120 to 130 degrees.  That kills crops and livestock.
Storm surges make coastal cities un inhabitable.
Winter storms killing millions due to massive destruction of power supply and people freezing to death.
Food chain disrupted, due to acidification of the salt water seas, starting with the coastal nurseries that nourish the little fish food and the bird food, working its way up the food chain so commercial fishing is eventually destroyed.  

Life will go on, sorta, but maybe humans get knocked down to a few roving tribes of barbarians wandering from skeletal city to city in ruins.

What can we do? If we do nothing, life will go on. In 50 years, the wheat belts will have driven 150 miles farther north, the desertification of the planet will continue to increase, and we will have variables in the weather not currently seen. Stronger spring storms, and especially stronger hurricanes/typhoons.

Adjustments will be made, at enormous cost to our societies.

The worst-case scenarios ("a few roving tribes of barbarians wandering from skeletal city to city in ruins") that frequently get trotted out in response to climate change are just that: worst-case scenarios. They're possible, but not necessarily probable, let alone foregone conclusions. Focusing on them can get people to sit up and take notice, but they can also easily backfire in a multitude of ways.

One such way is unintentionally convincing people to assume that, simply because those worst-case scenarios don't pan out, there is no problem. Increased famines, large-scale agricultural relocation, and all of the other potentially costly adjustments are nothing to sneeze at, even if they don't mean the end of civilization, and avoidance and mitigation are essential. Intelligently tackling the subject means being as realistic about its effects in the long-term as the short term.

The other, and potentially even more dangerous side-effect is to convince the people who are already inclined to your side that things are hopeless. We should be driving people into action, not into despair. Scare-tactics are notoriously bad at this.