The climate debate seems to have nobody but freaks participate. Example:
The Summary of Policymakers in IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I said “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.” More relevant to attempts to control CO2 emissions, chapter 10 said “more than half of the observed increase in GMST {global mean surface temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG {greenhouse gas} concentrations.”
This obsession with who caused it is nothing short of deranged. As if the corals won’t die and glaciers won’t melt as soon as you decide who or what’s to blame.
The house is on fire, and they stand there doing nothing except engage in a vapid discussion as to who started it.
Clarissa's Blog 
In defense of my field and colleagues, we get told that if it isn’t human-caused, then there’s no reason to fight it, because it’s just the planet’s “natural variability”. So we work hard to show that the rising temperatures and global change is anthropogenic, because if we don’t, then no one in policy will do anything about it. And as scientists, we recognize that our own expertise is not in policy, but is in interpreting data. So we are a bit stuck in a lot of ways, because we can’t do anything except try to get as much data to show people who can do things as possible.
LikeLike
It makes no sense to complicate one’s own task. It’s hard enough to convince anybody to do anything as it is. Adding a second leg to the task and instead of convincing people of X trying to convince them first of Y and then of X adds complexity to the task.
The result is what we are seeing.
LikeLike
I don’t get this. If there was a chance that we didn’t cause it, that would change our response. If the climate was changing on it’s own with no influence from human activity, there would be no reason to change our behavior except to find ways to deal with climate change. If it is being caused by us, then we do need to change the behavior that is causing it.
LikeLike
Why, why should it change our response? The corals are dying. It’s a fact of objective reality. If it isn’t human activity that it’s causing it, so what? We still need to reduce emissions to compensate for whatever it is. How does it make sense to let the glaciers melt if the humans didn’t cause it? The melting is still a catastrophe.
I say, let’s concentrate on reducing emissions first and assign blame after its done.
LikeLike
But there are people arguing that emissions have no significant effect and reducing them won’t do anything.
LikeLike
Does anybody seriously think that wasting time on the debate about the percentage of human input with them will help eventually to convince them about emissions? Why complicate things when it’s already hard to make the argument about reducing emissions?
LikeLike
The reason people won’t reduce emissions to save corals if corals are dying for some other reason is “God’s will,” although I do see your point.
LikeLike
“Emissions” and “human activity” are almost entirely the same thing in this specific context. From a cause-and-effect standpoint, if the thing isn’t causing the problem you’re trying to fix, there’s no reason to fiddle with it. This is why the science people spend so much time proving that it in fact is.
From a rhetoric perspective, yes, going, “We need to reduce human activity and I have proof” is probably not a winning strategy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not true. The heater being turned off doesn’t cause me to feel cold. The winter weather does that. But I still turn it on and feel warmer.
The absence of medication isn’t making us sick. Yet we take medication when we get sick.
LikeLike
If the warming is caused by changes in the sun’s activity, how does it follow that cutting emissions will reduce the warming?
LikeLike
I never suggested we accept the idea that the climate change is caused by sun activity. I suggest we don’t waste time on rehashing these theories at all. Because for every one there will be a hundred more.
LikeLike
No, not a hundred more. There’s a broad scientific conscensus on causes of global warming. These aren’t just random people imagining things or “theorizing” in that way
LikeLike
These random people are the ones who vote and make climate change impossible to address on the level of policy.
LikeLike
The ones who don’t believe in science, yes
LikeLike
Everybody who is smart enough to understand or at least accept science is already with us. Now it’s about convincing the rest. And they are the majority.
LikeLike