EN, my point is that I don't think you should consider yourself special for having politicians not address your every concern. You seem to have some funny ideas about politics and democracy. And, perhaps you could explain to us how your comments are more relevant to this article on US climate.

rpg

<< Which part of that sentence are you having trouble with? >>

"Adapting does not mean continuing to pollute ..."

Ergo – adapting does mean not continuing to pollute.

My point (if you can follow the above) is that “not continuing to pollute” is not adaptation, it is mitigation (against excessive GHG emissions, for example).

Thanks, I realise there is a distinction between ‘sceptics’ and polluters, as you have pointed out. Your last sentence is ad hom.

______

Eclipse

I think the world will be unable to limit [CO2] to 450 ppm, let alone 350 – particularly since it will take centuries to sequester atmospheric CO2. This is why it is extremely important to minimise humanity’s contribution (to atmospheric CO2) by developing more sustainable energy and land-use management practices.

Jim Hansen (like you) is very passionate and motivated about AGW – I do understand why. However, Jim is an extremist, some say alarmist. Likewise, there are extremists on the other side of the so called “debate” as you are quite aware of.

The vast majority (by far) of scientists do believe in AGW – there is consensus about the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect ‘theory’. However, there is real debate (in the scientific community) about attribution and climate sensitivity (you know what these terms mean).

Nevertheless, most people don’t have an issue with developing and growing in a more environmentally sustainable way. In my opinion, the problem is how (not why) we are going to do this.

My advice to the most ardent extremists (on either side) is to focus on the UNFCCC’s tasks. After all, solving the “how” will be left up to politicians and economists – not so much the scientists.

Q&A we were saying the same thing, you from the believers POV and me from the skeptics POV.

You made the point that skeptics think adapting and mitigating are mutually exclusive. I disagree.

I was making the point to EN that he sees adapting and mitigating are exactly the same - so to talk about AGW is the same as pollution, alternative energy sources and any other eco/greenie current idea.

Sorry about the ad hom, but you do get a really lecturing, looking down your nose tone when you go into correction mode. Maybe you could reread your posts and see if it passes the "tone" test and perhaps stop trying to rub folks the wrong way - it seems deliberate, perhaps it is unintended. I'll only take so much criticism which is pedantic only, rather than knowledgeable. I'm happy to be corrected or taught something new or novel, but not sneered at.

Ok, I take your point rpg - it's the nature of the beast and it's certainly not intended. Pedantic maybe, such is the way we work. I apologise if that offends.

I would be the first to admit scientists (in general) don't make good conversationalists - we can be damn boring dinner guests, sometimes.

So, how should we get the message out there?
A lot of 'sceptics' don't like what the IPCC says (and most haven't even read the IPCC reports or technical papers - even though they are voluminous).