In message , Gianna
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
The following cut and pasted to the top, to make an apology before
addressing other points

That is equivalent to acting as if we were ignorant of the cause, and
is a flawed position, for reasons that I've given above. That is not
the same as accusing you of ignorance.

I quote "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."

Perhaps the 'you' referred to was someone else, even though you were
replying to my post.

Those words weren't intended to mean what you think they mean. In
hindsight I could have expressed myself better. I apologise for any
offence caused.



If you insist that you don't know the causes of global warming then
you have no grounds for adopting energy conservation, energy
substitution, carbon sequestration, no-till cultivation,
reafforestation, etc. as strategies to respond to it.

It is my view that current climate change may be partly, or entirely, a
result of natural cycles. So, I do not insist that I 'do not know'.

Sorry. I was offended by "There are more important things than their
egos." in your original post. I saw that as an unwarranted slur on
people who are concerned about anthropogenic contributions to climate
change, and that got in the way of me expressing myself clearly on your
other point.

Let me try again. You wrote the cause "in fact does not matter". I
disagree. If you adopt the position that the cause does not matter you
are implicitly committing yourself to acting as if you did not know the
cause, and this places an unnecessary and detrimental limitation on your
ability to respond.

My disagreement with you on this point is independent of my disagreement
with you on the causes of global warming. Even if the causes are natural
knowing the causes would be helpful.

BTW, the view that current climate change is partly the result of
natural cycles is the mainstream climatological position. I don't have
the numbers to hand, but I seem to recall that 30-50% of the warming of
7the last 50 years is of natural origin.

Quite the reverse, I have formed that opinion, as is perfectly
reasonable.

I have very good grounds for not wishing to pollute the planet on which
I live. It is elementary good housekeeping as practised by most
species. Only a fool soils their own habitat. I have held these
beliefs since my mid-teens (a long time) and that pre-dates talk of
climate change.

There is also, as previously stated, the possibility that I might be
wrong in my assessment of the cause of the current changes. My opinion
is my opinion, but I do not state it as though it were the only
possible opinion.

I really do not mind that some people disagree with me - a range of
opinions is a good thing, especially in science. I do mind that others
mind that I (and others) disagree with them - it makes me wonder why
they would.

It so happens that I also do not mind that some people disagree with me.
I do mind when they use ad-hominem arguments, such as "There are more
important things than their egos." That you incorporated that sentence
in your post makes it look as if you do mind that people disagree with
you.


Why do you completely overlook the change that *will continue* to
happen even if all 'problem' emissions cease completely right now
(assuming AGW)?
To quote you, "Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like
that? Never!". There is some change in the pipeline, as the oceans
and ice-cover adjust to the warmer atmosphere. That still doesn't
mean that we don't want to minimise future climate change.


As previously questioned, how do you propose to do that in the face of
politics and economics? It is my firm belief that regardless of the
cause of the changes, it is not within our gift to minimise future
changes in a meaningful way. As this thread began by suggesting, it is
better to use our resources in dealing with it.

If the current warming is anthropogenic it will continue, and it will
eventually become so clear that politics will cease to become an
obstacle. I don't believe that economics, as opposed to sectional
self-interest, is yet an obstacle.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley