Still asking the wrong questions.
Is "Climate Change" a bad thing?
If "bad", is it bad because of the inconvenience of possible relocation and the necessity to adapt, or is it an exisistential threat to the species? IOW, could relocation of coastal cities to new coastal areas formed by sea level rise (or fall) be done rather than tinkering with nature in order to try to maintain a demonstrably dynamic system in stasis?
Is "Climate change" significantly anthropogenic? Or is it a natural process, as geological history would suggest (considering the climate has always changed, according to data we have, and did so long before (hundreds of millions of years before) humans were a significant presence on the planet).
Can humans do anything short of apocalyptic "solutions" that will make any significant difference in natural climate shifts?
If the answer is no to that last question, we should retain as many possible tools as possible to enable our species to adapt to the inevitable fluctuations in climate, otherwise, failure to adapt will lead us down the road to extinction.
The obvious and fundamental questions are not raised, but instead we proceed as if the answers are axiomatic and fundamental assumptions. We do so at the behest of computer models and politicians and poster children, but is the alleged scientific basis solid? Shouting down those who disagree is not "science". Addressing the concerns with full disclosure of unadulterated data is.
We really need to question those fundamental assumptions before we engage in activities which may actually bring about our demise rather than 'save' us, otherwise the cure may prove far more deadly than the disease.
