This was not some extreme article written for political purposes. And everything that comes from political bodies is not always done for a political purpose , there are some who do have the welfare of the human race as a concern.

The greenhouse gasses we emit are a fact, the question of whether they are responsible for climate change is of course more debatable, but in the opinion of the IPCC it is likely, and the statement that the impacts could be reduced for a reasonable cost seems to me to be taking a sensible view of the problem.

No matter where you stand on this subject, of all the possible scenarios and outcomes , we can recover from them, or our actions to counter them, eve...

This was not some extreme article written for political purposes. And everything that comes from political bodies is not always done for a political purpose , there are some who do have the welfare of the human race as a concern.

The greenhouse gasses we emit are a fact, the question of whether they are responsible for climate change is of course more debatable, but in the opinion of the IPCC it is likely, and the statement that the impacts could be reduced for a reasonable cost seems to me to be taking a sensible view of the problem.

No matter where you stand on this subject, of all the possible scenarios and outcomes , we can recover from them, or our actions to counter them, even if we were wrong, BUT the one scenario we may well not be able to recover from is to deny the problem and carry on as we are, if we are right then whoopee no damage done but if we were wrong ....

That is one huge gamble...