Thanks for your comment. It points to the little appreciated but terribly important fact that the IPCC and Climate Convention mean different things when each says “climate change.” The former uses the phrase as you have, but the latter restrict the definition quite narrowly. For a discussion, see this paper: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-486-2004.09.pdf

“…even under a scenario of aggressive mitigation most experts expect climate change.”

What were they expecting before? Whatever gave them the notion that climate was static before man, or before agriculture, or before the Industrial Revolution, or before the internal combustion engine, or before the Hummer?

(Hint: the answer is at http://www.climateaudit.org )

Think about it, if someone came to you and said, “even with the most aggressive mitigation, most experts expect changes in weather”, what would you say (other than “Officer, take this person away”)?

Roger Pielke Jr. just posted this must-read on Prometheus, which is a reliably reliable source of critical thinking on climate change. There are two very useful references in Roger’s post, his own 1998 paper "Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in C…

The conclusion of another post, Half Baked, that political approaches to climate change using current technologies are empty exercises for the benefit of ideologues and bureaucrats, is similar to Roger Pielke’s take. Science magazine has published two…