as soon as the EPA changes were announced I couldn't help but wonder why they weren't made a few years ago.

It's hard to see how that can be blamed on the repubs or the "Art of the politically possible".

To do something with any substance to correct global warming means our lifestyle would significantly change.

Do nothing and we can just go on living this way.

Go ahead, ask what 'living this way' entails, if you haven't a clue...

There are ways we can stem, and even reverse, climate change without the need to use less energy.

However, we must take drastic measures to do so. Measures that likely get get into the real of the need to drastically change our way of governance and perceived freedoms.

Hey! You almost get it.

It would take an enormous amount of energy to reverse climate change being that Geo-engineering or co2 removal would be the only way to reverse the changes coming.

The science is that the amount of co2 we presently are pumping into the atmosphere will continue to absorb heat for 40 years. That means that last years co2 will help heat the planet for 39 years. The 2012 co2 for 38 years. Etc.

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

changes we have been experiencing are primarily man-made, what they usually fail to state is that the other 3% of scientists work for RW think tanks or universities that are the recipients of large donations from the Kochs, American Petroleum Institute, oil companies, and last but certainly the worst, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There are no UN-biased scientists, or scientists without a clear conflict of interest who are denying climate change is man-made.
Unfortunately, our MSM is paid to sew confusion in this area and do not seem to care to point out that there is no one who is legitimate and credentialed that is denying climate change is man-made!

The climate change deniers' creation of their own reality extends to making up their own statistics. I saw one on an internet comments thread (I know, I know) who just kept repeating over and over again that "only 43% of REAL climatologists" believe that climate change is man-made. No, of course he never explained where he got that figure (his ass), or what a REAL climatologist is (if it's one from the Koch-funded think-tanks, then that figure actually seems kinda high).

The RW will scream, "Oh, angry black guy!"

Given their treatment of Bergdahl, I feel playing the race card isn't below them. Particularly during a mid term year where they're doing anything and everything to get their Banjostan droolers out to vote for them.

for not doing the right thing. Neither should Democratic voters who are not politicians.

BTW, if you are worried about the race card, maybe you should read Justice Earl Warren's autobiography for some of the racist things Ike to him after the SCOTUS school integration decision. And maybe also some articles about how Ike dragged his heels on enforcing that decision, until he felt he couldn't drag them any longer.

Our very existence is threatened by climate change , sometimes "going off" is part of being a leader.

Just too bad all that creating wound up killing our natural world. But, gotta look forward.