3) Seriously? Big oil doesn't even have to try. People just plain aren't willing to make insane sacrifices for something not only far off, but also so horribly imprecise. Do you need to just convert everything to solar? Sequester carbon underground? Live like a Neanderthal? Will there be a 6 in. rise in the oceans in the next 50 years? 12 in.? 18 in.? Precision and accuracy matter.
1) I agree with you somewhat here. The alarmists are certainly making a bigger deal out of it than needs to be made, but according to most more current research it will likely reach a point where we would no longer be able to cope with the situation, if we continue at our current rate. How long this will be, and whether we will be able to cope in different ways by that time however, are indeed unsure, and I guess kind of mitigate that.
2) I don't think cutting greenhouse emissions really is as seriously doomed as people have been led to believe. Their is little political will to do so in North America, since the United States is one of the worst total producers of Greenhouse gasses, and Canada one of the worst per person producers, with little reduction planning in sight, but it is certainly very plausible, and not ridiculously expensive.
I completely agree on the environmentalism to an almost religious degree though. In some cases it is quite an obstacle, although what I have noticed is that generally it follows the trends of religion as well, with a small minority of incredibly loud, outspoken radicals within a majority of more moderate and quite people.
As for Nuclear Power, while I realize it is highly effective, and efficient, and produces relatively little waste, and may even end up being absolutely necessary, I still have qualms about switching to it in entirety. Nuclear Waste is nearly permanent and incredibly difficult to get rid of. The policy of burying it works in the short term, but eventually it may outlast its container, and will have to be dug up and recontained. If it piles up, then it could very easily become a greater problem than Global Warming itself.
However, in theory, most people only propose it for use until solar or wind energy become efficient enough to provide for more of our power needs. My fear however is that nuclear power will become what fossil fuels are now. I fear that people won't want to switch off of them. But really, my fears probably aren't great enough for me to raise too much of a fuss.
3) I don't quite think that people need to make insane sacrifices. As long as we can control and lower our emissions, we should be fine. There is (theoretically, although I believe that is theoretically as in "we definitely know it exists, we just don't know the exact level yet") a level of emission that will not continue to cause the problem to worsen, and anything lower than that will actually allow it to begin to revert.
EDIT: In reviewing my post, I realized that I was pretty much doing exactly what you were pointing out in your first paragraph, given how many times I used words such as "theoretically" "probably" and whatnot, so I guess disregard that I suck cocks? I dunno.