shadyminister,

That's good.

So you support what the scientific community is saying that the adverse current climate change is the result of anthropogenic global warming which is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

Swamp Donkey,

And there I was thinking that you were completely illiterate.

shadyminister,

What do you think of the AGW / climate deniers?

Swamp donkey

Pretty much the same as I think of Climate change alarmists

shadyminister,

My research focuses principally on what scientists and scholars are saying about AGW / climate change and I can tell you that they are alarmed about the situation and the adverse effects on the environment (and of course the impact on humans).

It sounds like you represent those that do not think.

Which is pretty much what I would expect from an engineer.

Mr Opinion

So how do you work out whether any given climate policy is justified, as against the downsides?

If a given climate policy were otherwise meritorious, but would involve a cost of 6 million human lives, could you CATEGORICALLY DENY that it might still be justified?

Yes, and you are dragged kicking and screaming to admit that you need, and lack, some rational way to take human values into account, and therefore lose the whole policy argument for that reason?

Or no, and you admit the ethical incoherence and bankruptcy of your entire argument, or rather, brainwashed assumptions?

Which?

The fact is, you are way out of your depth, and have failed to understand what you're talking about.

The problem can't be solved by mere temperature data, as you have cluelessly assumed.

Your failure to reply, or any reply by your usual method of shrieking "Nazi!" proves that you agree you cannot defend or understand your own argument, and are, in short, a just a babbler.

You too, SR. Answer the question.