Iain, I’m curious: even if we’re unable to stop 2 degrees of warming, shouldn’t we try to stop 3 or 4?

Iain, your entire comment is hogwash.

“We both know that when it comes to the science that you actually have a great deal of trouble just enunciating the fundamentals of the scientific method ”

We both know that? Really?

Yes we do, but you are in denial of that most pertinent fact.

LOL, way to (you) run your sentences through the Microsoft Word thesaurus. You are completely wrong here. The “proposed panacea to the perceived problem” is just another right-wing meme from denialists who have embarrassed themselves again and again in global warming threads, and want to throw the disucssion(sic) off on another tangent. It is a legitimite(sic) discussion, but not one for this thread.

I have no idea how to even access “Microsoft Word thesaurus” But then I don’t need to, because I have a very good command of English and I can write sentences that are clear and cogent. The first one that I quote above is yet another example of your inability to do likewise. (suggested correction in brackets)
Strangely for all of your sound and fury about those you claim have “embarrassed themselves again and again” it is their message that is taking the shine of the hyperbole that passes fro AGW advocacy and religious fanatics like your own good self just can’t stand that.

“My default position on this issue is that even if the climate is warming[,] that we will have to adapt in any case so that focusing to[o] much on futile efforts to “stop” climate change is just a very silly waste of money and effort[.] when really we need more of this approach to the planet[’]s climate[.]”

Is this your attempt to try to redeem your credentials as a master of English language? Now I’ll concede the “too” and my unfortunate habit of adding a space in front of punctuation marks (which is of no consequence at all) But you missed my failing to capitalise “When” and you wrongly cite my using the possessive case for “planet’s” as an error. If you insist on making a big deal about my very minor typos then please proof read your own writing more thoroughly to avoid embarrassing yourself as you do in teh previous passage that I quote above .

Of course that’s your argument! You get to hedge your bets either way! But what if it is human activity(that) is the cause? What if the planet does get too hot for humans to survive on? Of course, it will go back to normal eventually. Last time it took a speedy 60,000 years.

Just where did you get the figure of 60,000 years? As far as I am aware all AGW enthusiasts claim that the current warming is “unprecedented” and last time I looked “unprecedented” means that it has never happened before. So please cite your source for that figure and just when the “last time” actually was.

“We both know that when it comes to the science that you actually have a great deal of trouble just enunciating the fundamentals of the scientific method ”

We both know that? Really?

“As such opinions about the viability of the proposed panacea to the perceived problem is as much a legitimate direction for the debate as the considering the veracity of the science is.”

LOL, way to run your sentences through the Microsoft Word thesaurus. You are completely wrong here. The “proposed panacea to the perceived problem” is just another right-wing meme from denialists who have embarrassed themselves again and again in global warming threads, and want to throw the disucssion off on another tangent. It is a legitimite discussion, but not one for this thread.

“My default position on this issue is that even if the climate is warming[,] that we will have to adapt in any case so that focusing to[o] much on futile efforts to “stop” climate change is just a very silly waste of money and effort[.] when really we need more of this approach to the planet[']s climate[.]”

Of course that’s your argument! You get to hedge your bets either way! But what if it is human activity is the cause? What if the planet does get too hot for humans to survive on? Of course, it will go back to normal eventually. Last time it took a speedy 60,000 years.

Being your classic denialist, Iain is so incompetent at arguing the science he instead diverts it to issues he thinks he can score a win with, the ETS being one of those issues.
We both know that when it comes to the science that you actually have a great deal of trouble just enunciating the fundamentals of the scientific method Even so this post is not about the fundamentals of the science it is about response to the issue from the right side of politics. As such opinions about the viability of the proposed panacea to the perceived problem is as much a legitimate direction for the debate as the considering the veracity of the science is.

As Tim Lambert wrote: If your roof was leaking, but you couldn’t afford to fix it, would that mean you could pretend your roof wasn’t leaking? No. Pretending global warming doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
This is a rather poor analogy actually, because even I don’t deny that climate change is happening. The climate of our planet is dynamic, chaotic and ever changing. The real questions are all about whether we can prove that human activity is the cause of that change and if it is, can human activities be altered enough to deliberately modify the climate towards some thing that is more beneficial to humanity.
My default position on this issue is that even if the climate is warming that we will have to adapt in any case so that focusing to much on futile efforts to “stop” climate change is just a very silly waste of money and effort when really we need more of this approach to the planets climate,

As Tim Lambert wrote: If your roof was leaking, but you couldn’t afford to fix it, would that mean you could pretend your roof wasn’t leaking? No. Pretending global warming doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.

While these things exist they are in long term decline, at least in regard to the proportion of the population affected. The decline started round about the time the UN and EU were founded. The fact they haven’t solved the problem instantly doesn’t mean these institutions have not contributed to massive declines. The same will be the case with Global Warming, the question being whether we act quickly enough to avoid the most severe effects.