Despite the thread drift from my original post, I will weigh in on the climate change comments.

Using perjorative terms for climate change proponents or skeptics convinces no-one. Yes, some proponents can be evangelical in their zeal and many skeptics may well have a hidden agenda linked to the fossil-fuel industry. Calling them names is unhelpful.

I have been gently skeptical of some climate change claims, especially those that are based on unverified models, some of which rely on speculative feedback mechanisms. In my view, there are just too many variables in weather and climate systems to enable accurate predictions to be made far ahead. Some of these variables may have positive feedback on warming, some negative, and some we don’t understand them very well at all. Melting polar ice, for example, could interrupt present-day ocean currents, which could be very interesting, especially for Western Europe.

Also, while atmospheric temperature rise has tracked carbon dioxide levels, correlation alone does not prove causation. It is not impossible that some third variable could be involved. This could also be linked to industrial activity, but what if it is methane emissions or deforestation, for example, rather than carbon dioxide? The fix might be quite different from those most currently popular.

In any event , we humans have not been good stewards of the planet and I am sure we will never agree on any unified action to clear up the mess we have made.

Mike