Yep, I’m taking a break, but on my way out to the foyer, I’ll respond to the
latest reflexive downdinger, the quality and tone of whose response only proves my point about the nature of the debate here.

Building the entire infrastructure depends on the extent of climate change.
We know that GW will be drastic and that it human caused? Don’t think so.

Sceptical means doubtful about a proposed doctrine. Make up your own arbitrary definitions as you see fit.

Everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Anyone who knows even a little climate science knows that the impact of its addition depends on some very complicated science applied to a mass of data, include sensitivity of the climate and feedback effects, both positive and negative, and the impact of possibly overshadowing independent effects.

The 98% of climatologists figure is an invention, as indicated by the link I provided to a list of 500 articles that are sceptical. It might be that a majority of articles to date favor the IPCC “consensus” I haven’t done the analysis, but even if that is so, minority opinion is sometimes right - and there are fresh reasons to question the majority opinion, e.g., the admission of some significant errors in the sourcing of some of the material in UN reports.

Read the Jones interview in the BBC, note that the late 20th century climate change by his own data is similar (though not identical) to a number of earlier patterns, note the uncertainty in the data that Jones acknowledges, note the uncertainty about whether the MWP was as warm or warmer, note Jone’s own general acknowledgment of uncertainties (although he still thinks his story is probably true).

I never said “massive” climate change is beneficial.

For anyone with a tolerance and complexity, there are issues about how one causal factor - one of many greenhouse gases - interacts with other factors, or is overshadowed by them; the extent of global warming, and whether it is a matter of a few degrees or many; the appropriate mix of policies to deal with the various scenarios, including ones in which the dire predictions turn out to be correct

The quality of the latest razzing by the usual automatic downdingers unintentionally proves my point from my perspective - others can judge for themselves - about the nature of the debate at this site on this issue at this time. I accept that sites have the right to maintain their own culture, so I am simply making my observation, right or wrong, about how I see it operating on this particular issue, it is not one that I see as congenial to a good-natured and informative debate in this regard. Charles has made some brilliant contributions to public debate, but on this point I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the discussion; as I understand it, his perspective is that expressions of climate scepticsm are presumptively part of a larger skein of unscientific, anti-scientific or theologically based irrationalism. My view is that there are very solid grounds in evidence and rational analysis to be doubtful on a number of counts. Which doesn’t mean we do nothing, but rather than the uncertainty is factored into the public policy analysis.

I continue to wish everyone here the best, regardless of whether the feeling is reciprocal, and I’ll check in from time to time on this issue and see whether the climate has change.