disagreeing on the existence or magnitude of a perceived threat is not the same thing as apathy. apathy means blithely ignoring a threat you agree is present in a magnitude that merits action. also, one can agree on the existence of a threat and disagree on the best course of action without being apathetic.

That's a fair point.

But the larger issue remains - since most people don't view climate change as a serious threat (or peak oil, since most people still don't even seem to know what it means), the result has been inaction and we've arrived at the point where horrible consequences can no longer be avoided.

thanks for anthropomorphising the climate. it contributes meaningfully to your argument. clearly "the climate" is on your side. ( / sarcasm)

I have not anthropomorphized the climate - all I did was use a clever phrase to try to make a point - one which seems not to have been understood.

So let me rephrase. Just because you *feel* that it's hubristic to think humans can have an impact on climate means is irrelevant. Either we do or we don't. The physical world doesn't respond to your thoughts and emotions. It simply obeys the laws of physics.

And the physics is clear - our CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are indeed warming the planet.

What I claim is that the climate will change anyways even if we aren't contributing to it at all. Given that, and our inability to accurately model the other influences on climate or predict the occurrence of many varieties of those influences (volcanoes, solar events, etc) our efforts would be far better spent developing ways to roll with the punches rather than preventing all change. I view your rigidity in the same vein as those who buy beach property expecting that the ocean will never reclaim it through beach erosion or make it no longer beachfront by piling up sand in front of it for miles.

This is wrong. Climate models are pretty good, and getting better all the time. The precautionary principle applies here in spades, especially since we are aware of positive feedback loops that may lead to runaway warming, but do not know the trigger points. "Rolling with the punches" is akin to playing Russian roulette.

you assume too much.

I don't think so.

disagreement doesn't automagically mean your counterpart is ignorant.

No, it doesn't.

But so far I've not seen an argument from you that would explain the current warming trend, either a reason for it's existence or an explanation of it's magnitude.

So, I'll give you a hearing. Why is the planet warming right now? And what explains not just the direction of temperature change, but also the magnitude?

And please don't respond with "natural variability". That's just too amorphous to do anyone any good - it's so generic it explains nothing. I want an explanation with some meat on the bones.

I wish I'd seen your response before typing mine. I would have saved myself a lot of time.

Actually, zero, it's your response that showed that you haven't seriously studied the issue. Libertarian was pretty much dead on.

Like most myopic who think they don't need glasses and assume they know something because of what others tell them, you assume that all vision must be as your's, else it is faulty. When someone doesn't actually see what you think you see, you assume they need glasses.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I can't refute your argument for because you failed to make one. This is just name calling and wild accusation.

Why is it that people are so resistant to accepting the results of the climate scientists? The only reason I can think of is that they don't like the conclusions of the research.

Unfortunately, that is not a good reason to reject those conclusions.

The whole thing (warming) has shifted focus from pollution and toxicity.

Good point.

It might be, except that CO2 emissions ARE pollution (it warms the planet), and ARE toxic (it acidifies the ocean, killing coral reefs and shellfish). Concern over climate is concern over pollution and toxicity.

I get this crap from my own niece, who's a climatologist. Oh look, she says in a recent email, September was the warmest globally since 1880! Oh my, such a massive frame of time, sort of reminds of Tommy's idea of an 'age'. Of course, not a peep about the fact that it still wasn't as warm as the Medieval Warm Period that preceded the mini-ice age. Funny, we don't hear much about that these days. Didn't you ever wonder why Greenland is called "Greenland", since it's covered with ice?

You should listen to your niece.

The Medieval Warm Period has been discussed many times in many places - go check out RealClimate.

As for the naming of Greenland example, it doesn't do any credit to your argument.

Here is a link:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060921133110AA6CrU3

And that's why I think y'all might be much better off discussing climate change or collapsing towers, than what causes Terrorism!

I'd just like to say:

1) Glenn did open the door in Update II

2) talking about what causes terrorism is much less interesting. Besides, Glenn provided the answer in his post! US policy in the middle east, i.e. invasions, bombing, and otherwise interfering in Muslim countries leads to terrorist blowback.

All that's left is to smackdown the lame protestations of the neocon commenters.

At least climate change is a problem with serious consequences. I wouldn't put terrorism in that category.