I should have linked to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's way worse than that. There's a video of someone asking astronomy graduates from an Ivy League university what causes the phases of the moon and the seasons, and most cannot answer. What most people do is choose a belief, then actively look only for confirmation of that belief, even if it's an obviously lame excuse to desperately cling to that belief -- they act with willful ignorance. The Doobie brothers say it best -- see my signature.

Actually, the big bang theory simply says that the universe started in a hot, dense state and expanded into a cold, sparse state. It doesn't even try to explain how the universe came to be in that hot, dense state. It is similar to how evolution does not even try to explain how life started, just how species evolve once they exist.

But also there's lots of misinformation on the Internet. Some people go around looking for evidence to back up what they already believe, and they can often find a BS argument or just downright lies that support their beliefs. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, the Internet can help with that, too. Look at the copious "evidence" of chemtrails or reptilians or that AGW is a conspiracy for example.

Two words: false dichotomy. Notice the difference between "I don't believe in God," and "I believe there is no God."

The article explains in detail that correlation does not imply causation. But you're saying that correlation implies non-causation, which is even more incorrect. Correlation is evidence of causation of some sort. For example, it may be that technological advancements caused both the decline in piracy and global warming. Watercraft powered by fossil fuels led to a decline in sailing vessels, which could have caused a decline in piracy. And burning fossil fuels led to an increase in greenhouse gases which cause warming.

Exactly! Just like how we're all using IPv6 so we don't have to deal with a limit of 4 billion IP addresses. Oh wait.

If you look at the latest IPCC report, I don't think you'll see a single instance of "we're all gonna die!" So nice strawman. You can see some of the highlights of the report here: http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/...

So you apparently have no problem with the government subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, or raising taxes to deal with the effects of global warming? As for the international authorities, I don't think that's an "obvious goal". For example, the US sanctions countries, without need for an international organization.

Yes, it will cost money to develop alternative energy sources. That doesn't mean there is some entity charging trillions of dollars. Yes, we have to agree and work together to reduce emissions. That doesn't mean there's an international authority that polices emissions.

Could you clarify?

we have to give you trillions of dollars, give total control of our industry to unelected international authorities

Where does this come from? I'm truly curious.

Using electricity is not the problem. It's burning fossil fuels to produce electricity that is the problem. Since I am not in the business of building or managing power plants, I don't have a direct say in where my electricity comes from. However, I can elect officials who are committed to alternative energy sources. I vote for them.

That would be true if the number of people of each age was the same. But there are many more children than elderly, since the population is still rising.

Maybe the equipment needed to generate electricity from fossil fuels costs 50 cents per watt, but then you also need to buy the fossil fuels. I would expect the cost of fossil fuels would be measured in cents per Joule. If solar cells can produce electricity for 10 cents per watt with no fuel costs, I think we should work on scaling this up as fast as we can. We can all have more energy for less money than ever before! Of course, we also need to work on how to store energy produced on sunny days for use during the night and cloudy days.