The problem with climate change is there's so much rubbish on both sides of the argument to wade through that the answer, assuming it's there, is lost in the noise somewhere. Which scientists aren't biased? Which ones don't have huge research grants from the government / oil companies, etc. hanging on them coming up with the "right answer"?
It's become a "religious" issue as far as I'm concerned. You either believe blindly, despite the absence of any concrete proof that is worthy of a second look, or you disbelieve, despite the fact that we're told the world is falling apart around us.
What concerns me more than the environment is that we currently have no security of energy supply, largely due to political ineptitude demonstrated in steering a course through all the environmental claptrap that has been spouted over the last decade and forming an energy policy based on which industry can invest when providing infrastructure.
That is going to cripple this country, and sooner then "climate change" will. Going away from fossil fuels IS the answer to that one. If it keeps the nut munchers happy as well, that's a bonus, except that nuclear power is the only sensible alternative for the time being, and they don't like that either.
There are 2 other options:
1) Admit that we can't live the lifestyle that we currently have and we can't use as much energy - we need to give up the things that cause energy consumption. Note that doesn't mean giving up "gas guzzlers", foreign holidays and putting windmills on our chimneys. It means giving up the real things in life that consume energy: living in warm homes, wearing clean clothes, showering regularly in warm water, eating a wide variety of fresh foods from all over the world, having a decent standard of sanitation and healthcare, etc... the list goes on.
2) Admit that we can't support as many people as we have living our current lifestyle. We need draconian controls on population worldwide.
Kevin