Replies

The question is whether or not we want to continue with the climate that has allowed human civilisation to emerge.

This makes several assumptions.

Perhaps the biggest, most laughable one is that we have the ability, the technology to control the climate. That is what we are really talking about. Once you start intentionally, artificially changing the climate you are taking it out of nature's hands. You are no-longer merely influencing it, you have to control it completely. Control the climate? LOL... Fine, make it rain in DC the next two days and be sunny in Seattle all week. If you presume to be able to control the climate globally, running the weather for a couple of days in a couple of cities should be childs play.
Even if we could control the climate, what is the "right" climate? Something a little warmer for the northern Europeans? Something cooler for relief in desert regions? If we can control climate, a lot of people are going to be unhappy that their climate isn't perfect. Of course with 7 billion people on the planet, there will be 11 billion different takes on what is "perfect."
Is climate stagnation a good thing? Large scale changes may not appear for thousands of years, but more modest and/or localized variations occur on much shorter timescales. What happens if/when we take that away? Nature has never remained stagnant.

...changes in the sun’s radiation can’t account for the increase in temperatures we’ve seen over the past decades.

The notion is impossible to defend scientifically.

So is your assertion that the sun's radiation is a non-factor. It is a factor, how large? Still being determined.

The IPCC report was produced by the unanimous agreement of every country signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That’s a lot of countries [197, to be precise].

Oh good. Science has never been about consensus. Science is about truth. Until a scientific discovery is made, the consensus is it doesn't exist. The consensus was once that the earth was flat. The consensus was once that electricity in the form of lighting bolts came from angry gods and electricity itself was an unknown. The consensus was once that nuclear power was non-existent. The consensus was once that viruses and bacteria didn't exist and that disease and sickness were from angry gods. Etc. etc. Consensus is never, NEVER a valid defense of a position.

So there’s very strong unanimity, which makes it difficult to accuse the IPCC of saying anything incorrect.

SMH - mafia tactics.

So it’s quite clear from the evidence we’re seeing today that the adaptation of species is not happening.

Wow, hundreds of millions of years of evolution have suddenly stopped in their tracks? I'd say we have a far larger issue than what the temperature is going to be tomorrow. When someone makes absurd assertions such as this it is impossible to take them seriously on any issue.