The goal is really no longer preventing it; that’s not realistic. The goal is keeping it at ‘merely very bad’ rather than extinction level.

It’s not the cooperation that’s the issue. Every country can come together for the Olympics. It’s the cost. Green energy and co2 emissions reduction needs to have a cheaper price point to be globally adopted. If being green meant being more efficient and cost reduction it would be a no brainer. This is the challenge of green tech. We have to create the alternative. No one is willing to jump in a lifeboat made out of good intentions.

Also, I understand your frustration with this topic. The method of guilting people into changing makes me sick. I can’t think of a more counterproductive method of evangelism. We need to make real products that do the things that will give humanity a prosperous future. Politics isn’t how we will get out of this, imho. Science and engineering is the key.

I personally think the problem is not one of technological, but rather one of will.

There are many vested interested, motivation by greed who are working hard to fight any action, which is easy enough to understand.

What I fail to understand is the (voting majority of the) populous just don't seem to care.

Unfortunately, for these reasons I too find it hard to believe this is a problem that will be prevented.

Realistic. Everything else sounds like hopium. Sure, let's try and clean up our mess and change our energy sources but looking at how things have been and are going it wouldn't be realistic to think we will solve this or even mitigate it. What else are we going to do though?

I believe it only takes a few changes to make sufficient difference. Changes that are already in action.

Humans have cooperated plenty. Many universal or nearly- universal treaties have been signed by all nations. In fact humans already cooperated on an atmospheric pollution treaty when we prevented the destruction of the Ozone layer.

Or that:

1) Actual solutions to climate change are not taken seriously (nuclear power, natural gas)

2) Effect size is still unknown or small. 0.3C over decades is not much to write home about.

3) Solutions to climate change have to include developing / third world countries.

And most importantly:

4) Oil/gas with capitalism has lead to the greatest throughput of innovation known to mankind, lifting billions out of poverty, medical and scientific advances, and allows 7B people to live on earth. Removing and replacing this will have consequences that IMHO go beyond a 0.3C increase in temp and a few cm increase in water level. Just MHO.

That's definitely a step up from flat earther, more along the lines of "the moon landing was faked" levels of denialism.

We can do this right now. Sequestration of all human-driven carbon output at current costs and with current technology amounts to something like 1.5% of world GDP.

As for cooperation, that's a bad faith argument. Saying you won't do something because no one else will is just a sneaky way of saying you won't do it. Someone has to start. Someone has to be willing to start. If you aren't willing to start, you simply don't want to see the problem solved.

Just come out and give us the cynical argument if you really want to go there: the bulk of the human damage[1] from climate change will be felt in still developing equatorial nations and not in the temperate latitudes where you and your friends live (hell, Russia and Canada might well come out "ahead"!).

[1] The ecosystem damage and mass extinction event will be pervasive everywhere, but then I doubt you care about that either.

There are lots of people who can observe climate change in everyday life. Anyone who regularly spends time in mountains around glaciers can see this change with their eyes.

Or people in Houston who see 500 year floods yearly. Or Californians breathing wildfire smoke. Or Hondurans suffering from drought. Or people in Miami wading through floods on sunny days.

Totally agree. And you can still believe man is a contributor (though not the primary cause) and that the climate change doomsday that is pushed is completely oversold. The parent's comparison is not accurate at all.

I found the same documentary instructive. I think there's an insight there into human tribal instincts, demonstrating that our epistemologies can't help be be socially mediated. It was flabbergasting how deeply intelligent some of the true believers were, and it's a little too convenient to label and discard them as crazies or outliers. They might be a little more representative of the human animal than any of us want to admit.

What's most unsettling is, there's no reason to expect that the same psychosocial tribal mechanisms are not constantly active, even when the facts are on the side of one's tribal beliefs. This leads to any number of blind spots, not only in truth-seeking and self-correction, but in social dynamics (in-group vs. out-group). Our brains are exceptionally, insidiously good at working backwards, not just to convince others, but to convince ourselves. Those who can spin on a dime and update/discard ideas in the presence of new evidence are a truly rare breed.

Two of my favorite books on motivated reasoning and self-deception:

Strangers to Ourselves, by Timothy D. Wilson: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013827

The Elephant in the Brain, by Robin Hanson & Kevin Simler: http://elephantinthebrain.com/

It's all fun and games until someone falls off the edge.

I've watched quite a few of the flat earther videos found on youtube and at least to me, they seem to come across as genuine and sincere, yet very much misguided.

I would say this is also a good description for todays climate change deniers.

Erm... I feel like you're maybe projecting and/or arguing a strawman. Acknowledging that humans are causing the climate to change is quite a far cry from demanding actions from China's population.

It’s one thing saying “climate change is real, but we can’t realistically do much about it”. It’s delusional at this point to claim it isn’t a thing, tho.