Interesting history, warmair. I do hold out some hope that a 90% reduction in HGHGs by 2020 will give us a chance to not completely cross those Arctic tipping points. We do have the technology for Gen IV reactors, solar, wind, tidal, and wave generators among others. It is just a matter of the will to use them enough and in time, which, although there is hope, is doubtful.
My own knowledge was more on overpopulation starting in 1967. I didn't get into AGW until reading a 1992 book. Later, I read "Thermageddon", and thought that surely people would not allow such things to happen. After all, they had stopped the use of freon to save the ozone layer, somewhat.
I knew the quickest way to reduce emissions was to reduce population, which I had earlier hoped people would just naturally do, to avoid the horrors of the mid century crash. The point was passed at the turn of the century where even world wide one child families would prevent it. There was still hope to reduce emissions enough with global efforts, to stop the methane turnover to AETM and ELE worse than the K-T "event".
I remember the 2006 TV Special where Hansen said we had a decade to reduce fossil fuel use 90%, or unstoppable consequences would occur. Then there is the 30% of HGHGs from agriculture, mostly slash and burn. The Post-Carbon Institute had their pgf last year where their group estimated we had a 50% chance of not crossing those tipping points if there was an 80% reduction in all HGHGs by 2020. Then you have guys like Amory Lovins trying for that reduction by 2050, far too late. Others like 350.org trying for a hold to 2*C of warming. Still past the methane turnover point. http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp
It is like many in the AGW field have their heads in the sand about it. They encourage a more slow reduction than actually required to prevent ecocide. Some divert attention to the good things like longer growing seasons up north and some plants that are good growing faster. They overlook the bad things like some noxious plants also growing faster or the population crash, or the forest fires, droughts, floods and eventual hostile environment of the biosphere for a very long time. Some have called for a mobilization of action similar to WWII, highly resisted by corporate entities.
I had one child at 39 in 1988 and went totally solar 1998, and hoped to lead by example and walk the talk. There have only been few nearby who have gone solar. Letters have been answered with form letters, two to the editor published and others not, emails answered by robot, and a few with form letters, same with numerous faxes. On line, I have convinced a few to have one or no children and to go solar/wind independent, but not nearly enough. It won't work if only 1 in 4000 do what I did.
The thing I got wrong about climate change is the hope that people in general would be wise enough to change their ways in time.http://news.yahoo.com/carbon-pollution- ... 29689.html