Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Gianna
writes
Norman Lynagh wrote:
The following site is quite interesting
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best
spent on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes
rather than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find
ways of reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I
suppose that drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London
within the next 50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner
:-)


Very well said!

The issue of who or what is to blame seems to have more importance
than working out how to adapt to the consequences, when in fact it
does not matter.

If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming then you
are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes to taking
remedial action.

LOL! Thank you for making my point for me.
As the OP implied, the need is to *adapt*, not delude one's self about 'remedial
action'.


Those who favour the 'people did it' view automatically move along to
the 'then people will fix it' view, all the while missing the point
that if their view is correct, then it was always too late to try to
mend something by damaging it a bit less in future. There are more
important things than their egos.

But you would seem to have it that if we've damaged the climate, it's OK
for us to go ahead and damage it even more. The problem isn't so much
the change to the climate that as already happened as the change that we
can foresee happening if we carry on with "business as usual".

Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like that? Never!

Why do you completely overlook the change that *will continue* to happen even if
all 'problem' emissions cease completely right now (assuming AGW)?
In reality, global emissions will not cease, nor reduce significantly, in the
foreseeable future. If the UK ceases all emissions immediately, the effect on
the climate of the world will be zero.
What is 'right' or 'correct' has absolutely no relevance because what is
economically and politically viable for each country is what each country will
do. Why pretend otherwise?

Interestingly, I have done everything I can to reduce my emissions to the
minimum. I have done this as a believer in Natural Climate Change because there
is always the possibility that I might be wrong (and because it saves money).
I am also supporting the attempt to transform my local power station into the
first carbon capture station, in spite of the UK government attempts to
frustrate the plan.

Isn't it a shame that all those who believe that the change *is* their fault (as
members of the AGW causing human race) have not already done similarly. Isn't
it also a shame that they cannot conceive of the possibility that they might be
wrong - or is that why they resist using a smaller car, or changing their light
bulbs, or getting up off their bottoms to turn the TV off at night?

You can accuse me of ignorance if it makes you feel good, you can even claim to
cleverness too if it massages your ego, but what are you as an individual going
to do? Have you taken steps towards 'going green'? Have you done all you could
do? Are you ready for the new type of weather? Are you adapting?

Or are you just whining because someone disagrees with you?


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *