The Final Countdown?

A paper on the likely evolution of the 'greenhouse gas' emissions saga was given in Exeter University (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change) with its author (climate scientist Kevin Anderson) allegedly half hoping, as a human, that he could be proved wrong. His basic conclusion (uncontested at the conference) was that things are worse than recently thought and that our chances of limiting average temperature rises to less than 4 degrees Celsius (never mind, the 2 degrees the politicians claim to be aiming for) are virtually zero. This rise would exacerbate accessing drinking water, generating sufficient food and flooding as well as increasing human deaths from heat stroke. Interestingly, it has been separately claimed that Science may result in oil producers and others being successfully sued for some of the damage they help generate(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/oil-business-climate-change-flooding). George Monbiot concurrently notes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/climate-change-science-environment) that most commentators in the blogosphere express doubts (in various ways) about the reality of global warming. He clearly feels they have been 'brainwashed' by people paid by hydrocarbon industries to cast doubt on actuality. They say, for example, "scientists can't even agree among themselves" without understanding that Science, especially when concerned with complex issues, generally generates a variety of views- the prevailing theory is the consensus view! Monbiot may or may not be right but, it seems to me, that other processes may be at work. Most modern Westerners have grown up in Societies that have preached that they are owed a free, happy (and enjoyable) existence that should not be curtailed by disease, a short life, poverty or limited activities. This is very different from as little as 2 generations ago in Europe when child and adult mortality's were much higher and most people had little 'freedom' from toil. Citizens of other parts of the world (where this was not formerly true) often now aspire to something similar. As more people are currently alive on the planet than have lived in the whole of prior history, one can see the 'size' of the problem. Further, many on our planet clearly believe that Technology and/or their God will always come up with solutions, meaning they don't have to take personal responsibility for environmental problems. We are always told that a 'can do' philosophy is highly desirable whereas pessimists are 'a pain'. People in the UK now generally seem to regard their current lifestyle as a 'right' and many resent being notionally criminalised for some of its inevitable consequences (such as a component of the air they breath out, emissions from their car or land fill use). It is hardly remarkable that it is difficult (politically) to 'sell' any move to rapidly change our lifestyles when a) restrictions don't appear to apply to everyone (we are competitive creatures), b) it seems less 'cool' (literally?) to go down this route than to live life 'to the full' and c) other generations seem to have got away without such considerations (this is a rather 'rosy' view of the past).