Janic, you write:
While it may not be fully responsible for climate problems, it does make them worse.
No one has ever thought that human influence was the only cause, but only that it succeeded in superimposing on natural variations so that it upset a balance (fluctuating) by modifying a major climatic factor. It is easy to see that a small difference in the concentration of a gas in the atmosphere can exert a powerful leverage effect, insofar as it plays a role in the earth's thermal balance. Less than a sudden warming, what is at stake is a significant increase in the intensity of climatic and meteorological events due to this increased supply of the thermodynamic machine.
My position is known, I remind it however: on the RC or DR, as one likes, I have no scientific certainty, I just consider that the negationism in the matter goes too in the direction of the "business as usual" to discredit the work of the IPCC (it is only to think of this poor
blithe !). But, what appeals to me the most is that this threat must intervene in order for questions to arise about our operating modes, which, always in my opinion, reveals a profound ambiguity in the environmentalist approach (because we cannot unfortunately speak here of an ecological approach) which is only sensitive to what is likely to disturb an agreed vision of a certain prior comfort.
I believe that a judicious attitude would be to refrain from making judgments on a scientific debate which exceeds us,
since we would all have to assume
methodologically this climate change for reasons that have nothing to do with the climate.
Unfortunately, the crisis of capitalism, as a world system (if it were circumscribed [absurd assumption!], It would be negligible) implies an acceleration of the destruction of the conditions of life on earth, or to put it another way, a maximization of abstract value flows by energy dissipation ...
