The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series
Part 8 of 8:
Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change
Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science
Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg
Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington
Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine
Part 8 of 8: Solutions
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 31, 2014
*All individuals and organizations receive 3 full days of pre-publication notice.
*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one. In Part 3 I explain why I'm a climate denier and not a climate skeptic.
*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).
This article is the final instalment of an ongoing series of articles to unpackage the entire man-made CO2 climate change cult.
In a rational and logical world scientists would present evidence for a phenomenon and a democratic government would implement policies to prevent any kind of ecological disaster. Climate scientists would like nothing better than this to defeat the scourge of man-made CO2 climate change. But applying this scenario to the past, it would most likely lead to the death of billions through Western-Europe's eugenics policies beginning in the US in the 1900s at the hands of scholars, scientists, economists and government legislators.
Luckily, the modern world isn't a logical cut-throat place. It's full of ideological beliefs that can push individuals into various paths. While many CO2 cult believers still place their bet on US President Barack Obama to veto the Keystone XL pipeline, an "acceptable" global solution to man-made CO2 climate change is still non-existent.
Many CO2 cult believers point their fingers squarely at climate deniers (uneducated, stupid and self-interested ideological individuals). I prefer to use a line from the 2006 film, V for Vendetta:
Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. 
The main reason why climate deniers (not the same as climate skeptics), continue to be a chronic thorn in the side of the CO2 cult is because most have hatred towards the CO2 cult. Personally, I'm merely annoyed by their supposedly self-righteous actions.
But I don't mean simple anger towards them. I mean "vitriol semi-hatred." I see anger as a low-medium level of hatred, while complete hatred occurs when both parties flip the coins and reverse polarities (love at first, now hatred).
The reason why most climate deniers have such vitriol semi-hatred towards the CO2 cult is because CO2 cult believers continue to radicalize them:
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public's understanding of scientific consensus. 
The BBC has the right idea, instructing its reporters to improve accuracy by giving less air time to people with anti-science views, including climate change deniers. 
We know who the active denialists are - not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let's start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let's make them pay. Let's let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. 
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy. 
Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of climate change deniers continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. However, these individuals are generally not climate scientists, and their arguments have been discredited by the scientific community at large. The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real; it is now time to act to solve the problem. 
Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. 
While these statements are only the result of a handful of CO2 cult believers, the fact that the larger CO2 cult doesn't say anything against it implies "tacit approval."
Dr. Michael E. Mann's defamation lawsuit against a blog by Rand Simberg,  is only burying the CO2 cult further. While Mann doesn't necessarily represent the CO2 cult, if most CO2 cult believers don't say anything, they're tacitly approving his action.
Since the issue concerns blogging and journalism, in an email request for comment I ask numerous environmental journalists:
George Monbiot - Guardian
Damian Carrington - Guardian
Suzanne Goldenberg - Guardian
Adam Vaughan - Guardian
John Vidal - Guardian
Fred Pearce - Guardian
Justin Gillis - New York Times
Andrew C. Revkin - New York Times
...whether they support Mann's defamation lawsuit, taking into account that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (the publisher of the blog), has removed the last quotation.
None of them respond.
To be fair, Simberg's statements are neither polite nor professional by any standard:
Among them were Michael Mann, Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, whom the emails revealed had been engaging in data manipulation to keep the blade on his famous hockey-stick graph, which had become an icon for those determined to reduce human carbon emissions by any means necessary.
Should we suppose, in light of what we know, they [Penn State] would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct with so much at stake?
Mann has become the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber.
Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and the planet. 
The last paragraph is a low blow. Illegal hit, below the belt.
Mann is also suing Mark Steyn for republishing the last quotation. 
Republishing a quotation is defamation?
The fact that the lawsuit has been filed publicly (stating the defamation quotations), will hopefully be enough to protect me from a potential lawsuit.
But the defamation suit is completely nonsensical. I highly doubt that Simberg's words will have any impact on Mann's ability to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
As I mention above, CO2 cult believers are radicalizing climate skeptics and deniers through their actions; hence, climate deniers have vitriol semi-hatred towards CO2 cult believers and the CO2 cult as a whole. A defamation lawsuit will only radicalize more individuals and give more ammunition to climate deniers about the suppression of free speech.
The low blow from climate deniers is a norm that CO2 cult believers have to deal with on a regular basis (hence, their frustration and stress).
In February 2014 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a prominent climate skeptic, calls CO2 cult believers "global warming Nazis."  Such claims are definitely going overboard. There's no need for climate skeptics or deniers to lower themselves to the level of CO2 cult believers.
Yes, the New York Times publishes a comic about stabbing climate change deniers with icicles in February 2014.  But again, there's no need for climate skeptics and deniers to lower themselves by playing the victim card. I recommend that they take the underdog position from the fictional Rocky Balboa's point of view:
...it ain't about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winnin' is done. 
And despite what Suzuki says,  climate deniers aren't desperate. They're angry that CO2 cult believers are indoctrinating entire generations with environmental ideological science in the name of protecting the Earth.
To be clear, I don't condone hate mail/email, especially death threats. Climate skeptics and deniers that are currently sending such things need to stop. Why give the CO2 cult more ammunition to appear as a victim and garner the empathy from the global general public? I recommend that such individuals stick to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for drafts, emails and data.
While some CO2 cult believer scientists decry such actions,  it's the best legal avenue for transparency. And yes, CO2 cult believers are inundated with such requests. But these individuals are claiming the end of the world unless we put an end to potentially all CO2 emissions.
That's a pretty big claim.
Hence, evidence is necessary to justify it. And draft reports and all means of scientific data should be transparent to the global general public. While Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Norse believes that FOIA requests are a form of intimidation,  they're not.
But even if climate scientists believe that this is a form of intimidation, they're in the wrong scientific field. Most environmental journalists (who are CO2 cult believers), know that a thick skin is necessary to enter the field of man-man CO2 climate change.
I recommend that all climate scientists develop a FOIA request process that assumes thousands of climate skeptics and deniers will be asking for information.
I'll present a number of current and future solutions from the CO2 cult and then one of my own solutions.
Solution # 1 - The Scientific Consensus Claim
The claim that there's 97% scientific consensus about man-made CO2 climate change is meaningless. A majority in numbers usually results in correct actions, but not always.
One problem is the defensive mechanism of the CO2 cult. When a climate skeptic talks about their skepticism the CO2 cult claims that they're not a climate scientist. Fair enough.
But it goes both ways.
By that logic all non-climate scientists aren't credible either. This means that Dr. David Suzuki (a zoologist) and Bill Nye (an engineer) aren't credible to speak about man-made CO2 climate change.
The inability for the CO2 cult to recognize this illogical fallacy is laughable.
Personally, I believe that non-climate scientists (like Suzuki and Nye) are credible enough to talk about man-made CO2 climate change. The fact that Nye is open to a debate with anyone about man-made CO2 climate change is a credit to his character. Al Gore won't debate climate skeptics or deniers. But in the eyes of both he has zero credibility.
I'm hard-pressed to know if Gore even has any credibility in the CO2 cult movement.
But how bad is the man-made CO2 climate change debate? It's so bad that CO2 cult believers won't acknowledge that a debate exists. In the interest of creating a solution I recommend that CO2 cult believers listen carefully to the next set of words.
If CO2 cult believers continue to deny climate skeptics/deniers a debate on the issue of man-made CO2 climate change they're only digging their hole deeper and losing the battle. It doesn't matter if 97% or 99% of mainstream scientists around the world are CO2 cult believers. Their solution to cry wolf (an environmental apocalypse) is their downfall. Even if an environmental apocalypse does occur no one will credit them because they're crying wolf too many times.
It's just like regular conspiracy theorists constantly claiming an attack on American soil by Sunni Muslim extremists prior to 9/11. Just because it happens doesn't mean that they deserve any credit for crying wolf.
Due to the radicalization from CO2 cult believers, climate deniers have absolutely no problem spending their entire life (decades if necessary) in "battle" with CO2 cult believers.
Climate deniers are willing to go "all in," with every ounce of their passionate consciousness. If CO2 cult believers are unwilling to go all in then they'll continue to lose the battle.
However, there's no need for this battle-like ideology to continue. My solution (# 17) will put an end to this battle.
Solution # 2 - Getting the Message Out
Many CO2 cult believers (scientists, scholars and journalists) go on mainstream media (MM) outlets or write books about the "science being settled," and belittling the arguments of climate deniers.
This is not a successful solution. CO2 cult believers can write all the books they want and appear on hundreds of MM outlets and get a pat on the back from their peers, but it won't lead to a successful solution.
On the other hand, climate skeptics and deniers that write books against the man-made CO2 climate change cult will be successful in drawing more people to their camp. The reason is because climate skeptics and deniers have the underdog position, the little guy vs. big government. Generally speaking, the global general public likes to support the underdog.
While there's definitely a connection between the conspiracy theory movement and climate skeptics and deniers, it's foolhardy to explain it in this series. In early 2015 I'll begin a series about the conspiracy theory movement. I'll be sure to include the connection with climate skepticism and denial.
Solution # 3 - The Claim of Overwhelming Evidence
In this solution CO2 cult believers tell climate skeptics and deniers to shut up and become a CO2 cult believer due to the "overwhelming evidence."
The problem with this solution is its potential cataclysmic failure.
If governments of the largest economies on the planet agree and implement protocols to keep CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, will that action guarantee that extreme weather events won't happen? Because if extreme weather events still occurs and kills many individuals, the retribution from all of the global participants will turn very ugly.
But CO2 cult believers have another option. They can argue that the warming occurs over a roughly 40 year period, so it'll take about the same time for extreme weather events to subside. Or they can go back to the industrial revolution period and argue that it'll take about 200 years for extreme weather events to subside.
Does each year of warming equate to one year to undo it?
The difficult part is to "find" peer-reviewed science that backs up this argument.
The dangerous part is to "create" peer-reviewed science that backs it up.
Solution # 4 - Polls
MM outlets, environmental journalists and environmental non-profits are some of the worst abusers for using polls to sway the global general public to become a CO2 cult believer. In the past and continuing in the present, CO2 cult believers constantly utilize this overt manipulation tactic to push the global general public to fall into line. Unfortunately, due to the political, educational and economic conditioning, this manipulation tactic is (more or less) successful against the global general public.
However, the global general public is quite capable of going beyond their conditioning and realizing that polls hold absolutely zero truth.
The idea that a certain amount of people can represent the majority of a social, religious, economic, racial and political demographic is absolutely nonsensical. And the worst part is that MM outlets don't usually say the total number of participants in the poll that they're using for credibility.
In a rational world MM outlets would be required to post the number of individuals polled in their articles. In a more rational world polls would forever be banned as giving individuals "accurate information."
Solution # 5 - Censorship
A mainstream solution that CO2 cult believers use is censorship. And yes, there is censorship despite what William D. Nordhaus says in the New York Times:
I can speak personally for the lively debate about climate change policy. There are controversies about many details of climate science and economics. While some claim that skeptics cannot get their papers published, working papers and the Internet are open to all. I believe the opposite of what the sixteen claim to be true: dissident voices and new theories are encouraged because they are critical to sharpening our analysis. The idea that climate science and economics are being suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction. 
Nordhaus is definitely living in his own environmental ideological world. Working papers and the internet isn't the same as peer-reviewed journals. While I'm sure that prominent climate skeptics can still get their papers into peer-reviewed journals, the newcomers have no chance because the peer-reviewed process is definitely skewed toward being a CO2 cult believer.
And Suzuki's anti-science label on skeptics,  isn't helping the situation. Such actions will only continue to radicalize climate skeptics to become deniers. And while the denier category has a broad range of levels, the actions of deniers are quite distinct from skeptics.
Solution # 6 - Hollywood
Using Hollywood celebrities to transform the global general public into CO2 cult believers is highly manipulative, but largely effective. The reason why it's effective is due to the generational conditioning process of the global general public, but more so, it's due to gullibility.
Many individuals in the global general public place a higher value on information that a celebrity says (relative to any other method of learning). While this is beyond disturbing for a philosopher, it's a reality in the 21st century.
However, there's a weakness to this type of manipulation.
If celebrity status equals a higher level of credibility then CO2 cult believers are nothing more than gullible idiots who can't imagine their life without the entertainment industry and Hollywood stars telling them what to do.
This issue becomes a greater laughing stock because most of the Hollywood CO2 cult believers are highly educated liberals who believe that they're better than all of the non-educated idiots.
Despite the short term success of this solution, in the long run, most Hollywood gullible individuals will re-examine their life and realize their error in letting themselves be socially and politically conditioned.
Solution # 7 - Carbon taxes and/or Cap and Trade System
This solution dismisses the notion of a debate and forcefully implements taxes or a price on carbon emissions.
The cap and trade system for carbon emissions is largely a failure in the US and the European Union (EU). While the EU's third incarnation of its cap and trade system looks promising, it's too early to see if it'll having a significant impact on reducing carbon emissions.
The idea of a carbon tax is something that many environmentalists would love. If it ever becomes policy at the federal level by the US or Canadian government it will herald a new baby boom by global environmentalists celebrating a "new hope for the future."
The David Suzuki Foundation recommends both options in tandem.  But such a policy is dependent on a government. Currently, Obama is incapable of passing any environmental legislation through Congress. If the Democrats lose the Senate in the November 2014 mid-term elections very little environmental hope will exist in the US.
In Canada the situation is more interesting. With the 2015 federal election looming, the incumbent and challengers couldn't be more diverse. If Canadians toss out the incumbent Conservative party and replace it with a Liberal majority, the environmentalist baby boom will be in sight. The Liberals would eventually advocate a federal carbon tax and cap and trade system.
But Canadians, like their American brethrens, are leery about more taxes. While the EU public puts up with high levels of taxation, Canadians and Americans won't.
The US mid-term elections, the Keystone XL pipeline and the Canadian 2015 election will be decisive moments for global environmentalists.
However, the fact that the Canadian government ratifies the Canada-China FIPA agreement in September 2014 (which lasts for 31 years),  doesn't bode well for Canadian environmentalism.
Solution # 8 - Religious Backing
One of the easiest ways for the CO2 cult to flip the battle from losing to winning without a debate is to get the majority of the US protestant community (Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists and Presbyterians) on-board.
Oddly enough, it's not that difficult to accomplish.
CO2 cult believers (with their fancy academic degrees and superior intellectual prowess), believe that they're the opposite of the conservative Christian community (with their rejection of science relative to anything in the bible).
But the truth is that they're quite similar.
Both groups twist science to fit their ideological beliefs (be it religious, political, social or environmental).
Both groups believe in a form of apocalypse and end times if humanity doesn't change its "immoral ways."
Both groups will go to their graves believing that their apocalyptic scenario is "coming soon" or already happening.
While both groups may appear as enemies on the surface, it's quite easy for both to pay lip service to each other to be on the same page.
If the CO2 cult gets the US protestant community on board with CO2 man-made climate change and its apocalyptic scenarios, the US Congress will have to act. In theory, no amount of money from oil lobbyists should be able to stop a movement supported by the majority of the US public.
The problem comes after they win the battle against climate skeptic, deniers, politicians and traditional energy corporations. When the dust settles and regular debate and analysis becomes the norm, the divide won't just be apparent, it'll be significant.
Most CO2 cult believers in the US are liberal highly educated individuals who are either atheists or agnostic and believe in Darwin's evolutionary theory. And Darwin's evolutionary theory is 100% incompatible with the special existence that the Christian god gives to humans.
In the "war on carbon emissions," such differences are negligible. But after the war, it'll destroy the united movement and lead to a greater polarization of ideologies and even undo climate change actions that they worked hard to win.
The CO2 cult should always remember that an ideological belief in a paradise afterlife will always trump earthly issues.
Solution # 9 - A Social Consensus
Dr. Adam Corner, a research associate, advocates the social consensus option. He's quite aware that the 97% scientific consensus argument is useless, so he advocates a social solution:
One aspect of this debate that has received far less attention is whether a social consensus might offer a more powerful metric for conveying agreement than a scientific one. How many of us would stand firm in our belief 'X' if 97% of our friends, or those who we respected, thought 'Y'?
In fact, this idea gets to the heart of why debating the precise proportion of scientists who endorse the mainstream position on climate change is ultimately a distraction. The more pressing challenge is creating a massively expanded social reality for climate change - one in which the things that people love and wish to protect are clearly linked in their minds to policies for confronting climate change.
The challenge is not to find a non-political way of engaging people on climate change, but to embrace the fact that politics permeates the discourse on climate change, and face up to this by widening the group of people who are involved in the debate. 
Corner's solution is definitely out-of-the-box and refreshing, but unfortunately, it's still naive.
If the global general public moves forward with his solution and start excluding friends because of their beliefs on man-made CO2 climate change, it opens the door to extreme radicalization and practically the end of Western civilization. Allow me to explain.
The radicalization will occur because CO2 cult believer social groups will eventually become families, moving into like-minded CO2 cult believer neighborhoods/communities.
And where will the climate skeptics and deniers go socially? They'll create their own exclusionary circle of friends and exclude all CO2 cult believers.
Eventually, like CO2 cult believers, the deniers (most climate skeptics will be transformed into deniers by then), will be starting their own families and live in like-minded neighborhoods/communities.
Both sides will radicalize each other through opposition (blades sharpening blades), and the battle will continue at a much higher level (even more polarized than it is now) for decades if not centuries.
But this is only a small consequence of Corner's solution. The real consequence entails the destruction of Western-European society due to ideological beliefs.
In the 21st century the Western-European public is capable of co-existing with each other despite religious beliefs. I know many individuals who are of completely different religious beliefs that are not just friends with each other, but good friends with a solid foundation.
However, the idea to socially exclude individuals who aren't CO2 cult believers will eventually give rise to the idea to exclude individuals who don't share the same religious beliefs. Throughout time, religious believers will stick to their own communities/neighborhood in raising their families.
Eventually, the segregation of religious beliefs will give rise to the old idea of racial segregation. Though many scholars or journalists may see these consequences as whimsical, I assure them that it's not.
Many ideological beliefs and racial beliefs exist underneath the surface of every individual.
Currently, the Western-European public doesn't act/live based on their beliefs, but rather a politically/socially/economically correct version of their beliefs.
If the segregation of ideologies begins with man-made CO2 climate change, I'll bet $20.00 that it'll eventually snowball into religious segregation and then into racial segregation. And at that point, war will eventually occur because such segregated communities will no longer be able to tolerate each other.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard professor and former administrator of the White House Office of Information Regulatory Affairs, hits the nail on the head in his August 2013 article:
By contrast, climate change is difficult to associate with any particular tragedy or disaster. To be sure, many scientists think that climate change makes extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, substantially more likely. But it is hard to prove that climate change "caused" any particular event, and as a result, the association tends to be at best speculative in many people's minds.
Second, people tend to be especially focused on risks or hazards that have an identifiable perpetrator, and for that reason produce outrage. Warmer temperatures are a product not of any particular human being or group, but the interaction between nature and countless decisions by countless people. There are no obvious devils or demons -- no individuals who intend to create the harms associated with climate change. For terrorism, a "we-they" narrative fits the facts; in the context of climate change, those who are the solution might well also be, or seem to be, the problem. In these circumstances, public outrage is much harder to fuel. 
Both Corner and Sunstein are in the know about the psychology of the global general public. However, Sunstein's comment, "In these circumstances, public outrage is much harder to fuel,"  implies the "necessity" of a cataclysmic natural disaster that scientists can definitively blame carbon emissions as the cause.
If such an event occurs almost every single regular and hardcore conspiracy theorist will stop what they're doing and focus all of their efforts on exposing the CO2 cult as a full blown conspiracy. While some environmental journalists and scholars may "think" that this is already happening, I assure them that it's not.
All regular conspiracy theorists prioritize particular conspiracy theories.
Personally, the CO2 cult conspiracy is not exactly a high priority for me. I have much bigger fish to fry. Hence, I don't advocate it as hard as other regular conspiracy theorists do. While this may seem nonsensical to environmental journalists and liberals, I'll give them a piece of advice.
Don't underestimate the full force of regular and hardcore conspiracy theorists. Especially not after the Snowden leaks. Their impact on the global general public is much larger and much more dangerous then opponents may think.
Solution # 10 - Use Executive Power to Stop Coal Plant Expansion
In November 2013 Obama uses his executive powers to create a task force on climate change preparedness.  In April 2014 Washington State Governor Jay Inslee uses his executive powers to reduce carbon emissions. 
Many individuals in the US public are leery of the state or federal government using executive powers. It's akin to saying that, the constitutional legislative system isn't working, so we're going to do our own thing.
I recommend that CO2 cult believers not underestimate the potential damage that this can cause to the US constitutional democratic process.
Solution # 11 - Geo-engineering Earth's Atmosphere
Many scientists see geo-engineering as an immediate solution to climate change because it's already past the "tipping point." This solution ignores the debate and moves straight into carbon solutions.
The term geo-engineer usually engenders (rightly so) visualizations about bio-engineering, genetic-engineering, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and mad scientists thinking that they know what's best for humanity and the planet. Geo-engineering the climate involves spraying sulphur or aluminum aerosols into Earth's atmosphere to absorb the sun's radiation, thereby lowering the global temperature of the planet.
David Suzuki is sheepish on the issue. He wants to support it because he feels that something has to be done:
Scientists at the Berlin Social Science Research Centre suggest creating "a new international climate engineering agency to coordinate countries' efforts and manage research funding." Because some geo-engineering is likely unavoidable, that's a good idea. 
His assessment of the dangers is accurate, but he stops short:
Scientists have tested and used cloud and atmospheric seeding for weather modification and considered them as ways to slow global warming. With so many unknowns and possible unintended consequences, these practices have the potential to cause harm. 
A potential to cause harm (in regards to geo-engineering the climate), isn't enough for Suzuki to warrant the use of the precautionary principle (a staple of the environmental movement, which I agree with). It's interesting because Suzuki advocates the precautionary principle for other transhumanism activities:
Because we aren't certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful. 
Nanomaterials may well turn out to be a boon to humans, but we don't know enough about their long-term effects to be adding them so indiscriminately to our food systems and other products. If we've learned anything from past experience, it's that although we can speculate about the benefits of new technologies, reality doesn't always match speculation, and a lack of knowledge can lead to nasty surprises down the road.
As is often the case with such discoveries, widespread application could lead to unintended consequences. Scientists argue we should follow the precautionary principle, which states proponents must prove products or materials are safe before they're put into common use. Before letting loose such technology, we should also ask who benefits, whether it's necessary and what environmental consequences are possible. 
Another problem with geo-engineering is the whitening of the sky. No longer will such blue skies exist for those who love the natural beauty of nature.
But worse is the effect on the solar industry. Decreasing the sun's rays on the Earth will definitely destroy the solar industry. Unless of course, individuals and governments begin to think outside the box and implement solar innovations operating above Earth's atmosphere.
Solution # 12 - Air Travel Strike
Aside from cars and the coal, oil and natural gas industry, air travel is one of the largest contributors of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. Many airlines are attempting to curry favor with the CO2 cult by creating carbon offsets.    
I'm hard-pressed to know whether any CO2 cult believer actually believes in the value of these carbon offsets.
But CO2 cult believers that don't believe in carbon offsets will definitely like this solution. It's relatively simple.
All CO2 cult believers go on strike from air travel for at least 3 months in their first air travel strike (emergency air travel is an exception). The problem is that very few CO2 cult believers are willing to go on strike for that length of time. And only a complete strike will suffice because it'll have a significant financial, but more importantly, a social effect in uniting the CO2 cult. However, it's also capable of fracturing it more than it already is.
The idea to call for an air travel strike for 3 months to protest the lack of action on man-made CO2 climate change may embarrass the CO2 cult in showing a lack of support from its own believers.
Many CO2 cult believers "claim" that they support the climate change movement, but very few are willing to take drastic actions. This is problematic for die-hard CO2 cult believers such as Dr. Eric Holthaus.
Holthaus, a prominent meteorologist, finally comes out of the climate closet and accepts his alarmist label in August 2014.  Die-hard CO2 cult believers (and the entire CO2 cult for that matter) aren't interested in the "reduction" of carbon emissions. They're interested in the "complete elimination" of carbon emissions (except for biological CO2 output from humans and animals). The reason why they can't advocate for their true purpose is because it's currently nonsensical in the minds of the global general public.
But if the CO2 cult gets the majority of the global general public on-board, that's when they'll push for the complete elimination of carbon emissions. This means that current air, land and sea travel will be out of the question entirely.
In regards to travel options, I find that many CO2 cult believers play the victim card too hard. Many claim that they're a victim of big energy infrastructure with the deck stacked against them.
While it's true that the deck is stacked against renewable resource travel options/funding, the solution is to stop playing the victim card and innovate.
If a clean renewable energy mode of transportation doesn't yet exist, then bring it into existence.
If the CO2 cult wants to defeat traditional sources of energy and the Koch Brothers they'll have to invent a product/service of equal or greater performance to what currently exists. They can't wait for car manufacturers to create hydrogen electric cars. They need to build it themselves. The CO2 cult is a very highly educated bunch of individuals. I'm sure some brilliant engineers are waiting to show the world what they can do. This would be their time to shine.
But getting back to the air strike solution, while impractical as it is, its strength shouldn't be downplayed. If enough die-hard CO2 cult believers take this action, moderate ones will be influenced by it.
Some moderates may leave the CO2 cult, but others will be radicalized and go deeper. It's a fascinating opportunity for the CO2 cult to grow. I advise them to take it, with Holthaus leading the way. His character has weathered the storms on many fronts and is now ready to lead the CO2 cult.
My reason in helping the "other side," is merely for the growth of humanity in terms of concrete actions and getting off of the sidelines.
Solution # 13 - Challenge Climate Skeptics to Prove that the CO2 Cult is a Hoax
In June-July 2014 Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist, challenges climate skeptics and deniers to prove that man-made climate change isn't happening and will give anyone who can do it $30,000.  Not a bad ploy, but it's meaningless.
Just like James Randi's million dollar challenge for anyone who can demonstrate psychic phenomena,  the rules/conditions will always prevent the party from declaring a winner. Or in other words, the individual's ideologies will forever prevent them from paying out. And this is true of Keating. In his own words he says:
...I am sure I will never have to because it can't be proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise. 
In an email request for comment I ask Keating if believes this claims represents an environmental ideological belief. He says:
"This is not an ideological belief. It is a scientific conclusion reached by conducting extensive and exhaustive research on the scientific research and claims made by the contrarian community. As for what others think, I do not speak for others, but I would point out that it has been thoroughly demonstrated that climate scientists are nearly unanimous in the conclusion that manmade emissions are responsible for changing the climate."
Saying that "no one can prove otherwise," and that "it can't be proven,"  is representative of an individual's ideologies and has no place in objective impartial science.
Individuals such as Keating will go to their graves believing that their ideologies are representative of objective impartial science and that humanity is doomed because of carbon emissions. In the end, it's nothing more than fear mongering junk ideological science.
Solution # 14 - Dumping Traditional Energy Investments
In the last few years numerous universities, NGOs and pension funds are divesting their assets from traditional energy corporations.   While the financial effect is negligible, the organizations are banking on the political, economic and social stigma of holding onto traditional energy assets. Not a bad idea. But as long as modern society utilizes oil, natural gas and coal as its bread and butter it's merely a hollow and hypocritical action.
Solution # 15 - Wait For Climate Deniers to Die
Some CO2 cult believers believe in taking a more passive approach to climate deniers.
Just let them die off.
In his February 2012 article, environmental journalist David Roberts says:
Over time, I have come to disagree. I don't think the climate deniers will ever change their minds. What will happen is that they will, to put it bluntly, die off. We might wish it otherwise, but I fear that change on climate - real change, non-linear change - will not happen until the generational cohort in which climate denialism is concentrated begins passing into the sweet beyond. 
While this may be the greatest outcome for the CO2 cult, the reality is that the opposite will occur. CO2 cult believers constantly deal with climate skeptics, deniers and politicians that might or might not act on man-made CO2 climate change. And most importantly, they deal with the feeling of hopelessness in saving the Earth from the terror of carbon emissions.
On a chronic basis, this type of thinking will lead to depression, apathy and stress. And as we all know, stress is the # 1 killer. And the CO2 cult is full of chronically stressed out believers.
The reality is that the CO2 cult will perish long before the climate deniers pass away.
And for the protestant deniers, they have Jesus on their side.
What do CO2 cult believers have?
They have the corrupt Western-European medical industry, pharmaceutical drugs and GMO food.
I rest my case.
Solution # 16 - Create a Climate Change Political Party
Many organizations and individuals in the CO2 cult talk of a global consensus but very few are willing to bet on it politically. In the US, Canada and the UK there is no green party that's green enough to reflect the principles and values of the CO2 cult (especially US political parties).
I challenge the CO2 cult to create a political party in the US which will enable them (if they win), to stop whining and complaining (every single day for eternity) about carbon emissions.
While getting a new political party on the federal US ballot isn't exactly easy, if the CO2 cult claims that they are the proverbial "heartbeat of the world," they should be able to do it with ease. And if they succeed in this endeavor and win the oval office, they have permission to throw it in my face for as long as they're in office.
Solution # 17 - My Solution
This solution will enable environmental regulations on CO2 emissions, allow the CO2 cult to win the respect of climate skeptics and diminish the power of climate deniers.
The first step is to admit that the debate is open. This will be one of the most difficult actions for the CO2 cult to take because they currently believe that the debate is over. But regardless of their beliefs, the CO2 cult has to swallow its pride and state globally that the debate is open.
The negative consequence of this step will enable many climate deniers to use this admission as evidence that the climate science isn't settled. Deniers will ridicule the CO2 cult and claim to the global general public that they're right all along.
While this will be a difficult moment for CO2 cult believers, especially in holding their tongue, they needn't worry. The ridicule will be short lived. The reason is because of climate skeptics.
Oddly enough, the salvation of the CO2 cult movement rests with climate skeptics. It is they who hold the balance of power. The climate skeptics (in which many are scientists) will welcome the announcement without any ridicule. The reason why they can't ridicule the announcement is because it would present them as climate deniers. In the eyes of the global general public the CO2 cult is offering an olive branch to climate skeptics. It would be social and professional suicide not to accept it.
The next step for the CO2 cult will be to provide a grand stage mainstream forum for the debate between climate skeptic scientists (including all scientific disciplines) and CO2 cult believer scientists (including all scientific disciplines). The IPCC is the most likely platform. All of those useless IPCC reports need to come to an end as the forum debates create a new beginning.
The content of the debates have to be completely open. The topics have to include:
a massive analysis of current and potential sources of energy;
an analysis of current state and federal environmental government policies (domestic and international);
a massive amount of time devoted to talking about lifestyles based on the industrial revolution in the 21st century;
all variables that are capable of causing the average global temperature of the Earth to rise
...and much more.
The reason why all of these topics have to be included is because talking about rising global temperatures isn't meaningful enough to the global general public. They need concrete causal links and/or context to understand how everything is connected and the consequences of each solution.
The reason why the CO2 cult is currently losing the battle is because they believe that talking about rising temperatures is enough to mobilize action. It's odd to see so many CO2 cult believers highly educated yet still be completely clueless when it comes to understanding individuals and the global general public.
As grand as this solution is, it will most likely abhor academic scientists. Academic scientists prefer to keep scientific work in the tight confines of academic circles. The idea of throwing it into a mainstream grand stage public debate is repugnant to their perception of science.
But the reason why a mainstream grand stage public debate is necessary is because the issue is too big to fit into the confines of academia.
The real issue behind man-made CO2 climate change is energy. Once you boil down all the surface issues, the only one that's left is energy. Without energy (via electricity, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and geothermal) everything goes back to a pre-industrial revolution state.
While some environmental activists may advocate such a path, generally speaking, the global general public is not interested in going backwards.
In the past, scientific work is completely separate from the court of public opinion. In the past, scientists conduct experiments to understand a phenomenon and present their recommendations to government administrations. Government administrations then choose what solution they want/feel they can do. Administrations then tell their respective public about their policies and then implement it.
This process no longer exists.
In the 21st century, if a respective democratic public doesn't like a particular policy then they'll let their government know it through various actions (be it constructive or negative).
CO2 cult politicians and scientists that tell the global general public that they're "killing the planet" and all have to "make do with less," are digging their own grave.
Questioning the use of coal, natural gas and oil is the same as questioning the entire infrastructure of the modern 21st century. I'm not saying that CO2 cult believers are wrong to question such things, but rather that they need an alternative solution ready to go.
If an alternative solution will take 10-20 years then in the mind of the global general public it's not viable. If an alternative solution doesn't provide a greater level of efficiency/convenience/comfort for the global general public then it's not viable.
The inability for CO2 cult believers to understand this is beyond disturbing.
The frequency of the grand stage public debates will need to be at least once a month, with MM outlet debates complimenting it. The grand stage debates will need to push capacity to at least 100,000 individuals. After the grand stage debates, the audience/public will need to be able to ask/send in questions to the debaters without the venue (IPCC) claiming that "there just isn't enough time." The debate should take about half a day (lunch to evening, 3/4 for the debate, 1/4 for the questions).
The duration of how many years the grand stage debates will need is unknown. Unlike most scientific debates, the man-made CO2 climate change debate requires an agreed upon solution/actions.
While CO2 cult believer scientists may scoff at this entire solution, the ability to include the global general public and value their input is critical in creating a global climate change solution. Based on the current proposal I would say anywhere between 1-3 years.
After the first few debates, the strength of climate deniers will greatly diminish. As long as the debates are fair, the global general public will place a higher value on them relative to the blogs of climate deniers. Eventually, climate deniers will fade away, and regular conspiracy theorist climate deniers will "downgrade" climate change's priority relative to other conspiracy theories.
After solutions are agreed upon by both parties (in good faith), the solutions are then given to democratic governments for implementation. And the democratic government will implement them because it has the backing of the majority of their respective public. Billion dollar energy corporations won't even stand a chance against the global general public who believe in the agreed solutions.
While many see the Russian and Chinese government as major problems to man-made CO2 climate change solutions, they won't be. It's important to remember that the policies of the Russian and Chinese government doesn't necessarily reflect those of their respective public.
The pressure from the global general public and most democratic governments will be too much, even for the Russian and Chinese government. If they attempt to hold out from implementing the agreed upon solutions, massive dissent from the Russian and Chinese public will force their governments to change their mind. It's either that or they'll perish at the hands of their own public in a violent manner.
Or worse, they'll live in fear of them.
Collective actions empower the global general public emotionally, socially and spiritually/religiously more so than individual actions. Collectively, the global general public will become stronger in their united form (even if just for climate change) which will encourage global participation on other issues.
Thank you very much to all of the individuals and organizations who respond to my email request for comments for the entire CO2 Climate Change Cult series.
If you'd like to provide any feedback on anything in the CO2 Climate Change Cult series please click the Contact button.
 V for Vendetta. Warner Bros. Pictures. 2006.
 Torcello, Lawrence. Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? Conversation. March 13, 2014.
 Suzuki, David. Climate Change Deniers Are Getting Desperate (and Personal). Huffington Post. August 6, 2014.
 Zwick, Steve. A Tennessee Fireman's Solution to Climate Change. Forbes. April 19, 2012.
 Thornton, Paul. On letters from climate-change deniers. LA Times. October 8, 2013.
 What is climate change? David Suzuki Foundation.
 Gleick, Peter H., et al. Climate Change and the Integrity of Science. Science, Vol. 328, No. 5979, May 7, 2010. p. 689.
 Complaint. Mann v. National Review et al. Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division. October 22, 2012.
 Simberg, Rand. The Other Scandal In Unhappy Valley. Competitive Enterprise Institute. July 13, 2012.
 Roy, Spencer W. Time to push back against the global warming Nazis. drroyspencer.com. February 20, 2014.
 See Something Say Something. 7 of 8. New York Times. February 9, 2014.
 Rocky Balboa. MGM. 2006.
 The hate emails sent to climate scientists. Guardian. July 6, 2010.
 Shulman, Seth. Got Science? This Climate Smear Spurred a Hate Mail Barrage. Huffington Post. April 7, 2014.
 Jha, Alok. Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, says Nobel laureate. Guardian. May 25, 2011.
 Nordhaus, William D. Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong. New York Review of Books. March 22, 2012.
 Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? David Suzuki Foundation.
 Lunn, Susan. Canada-China investment treaty to come into force Oct. 1. CBC News. September 12, 2014.
 Corner, Adam. Who cares about climate change consensus? Guardian.
 Sunstein, Cass R. People Don't Fear Climate Change Enough. Bloomberg View. August 27, 2013.
 Obama takes control of climate change policies with executive order that will bypass Congress. Associated Press & Daily Mail. November 2, 2013.
 Wilson, Reid. Washington Governor wants state off coal-based electricity. Washington Post. April 30, 2014.
 Is geoengineering a silver bullet for climate change? David Suzuki Foundation.
 Conspiracies fuel climate change denial and belief in chemtrails. David Suzuki Foundation.
 More science needed on effects of genetically modifying food crops. David Suzuki Foundation.
 Nanoparticles: Panacea or Pandora's box? David Suzuki Foundation.
 Travel carbon neutral. Air Canada.
 A Greener Way to Fly. Delta.
 Carbon offset program FAQs. United Airlines.
 Caring for our environment. WestJet.
 Holthaus, Eric. Why I'm a Climate Alarmist. Slate. August 20, 2014.
 The $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge! dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca
 The Million Dollar Challenge. James Randi Educational Foundation.
 Carrington, Damian. Campaign against fossil fuels growing, says study. Guardian. October 8, 2013.
 Schwartz, John. Rockefellers, Heirs to an Oil Fortune, Will Divest Charity of Fossil Fuels. New York Times. September 21, 2014.
 Robert, David. 'Cohort replacement': Climate deniers won't change, but they will die. Grist. February 8, 2012.