First off, my intention was never to be rude. I challenged what seemed like an assertion by 'Tude that things are inevitable and we are powerless to mitigate warming. I think that is fair since she seemed to be making an assertion of certainty in an area where there is no certainty among experts. I feel like she responded reasonably and all was fine. If I did indeed come off too challenging perhaps it is because I have dealt with too many members of the Denial Lobby, including some who turned out to be connected to the coal industry. I may have a hair trigger. I apologize to 'Tude if I came off too abrupt and challenging.

As to my responses to you, I directly responded to things you said in your comment to me that seemed out of date or overly stated. Again, if I came off too hard I apologize. But you did seem to be mixing claims of supporting the conensus view with claims that were outdated that challenge the consensus view. And you seemed to imply that I (and, for that matter, most scientists in the field) were ignoring the complexities like initial growth of ice sheets prior to shrinkage. I feel mostly I directly addressed things you said in your comments, separate from the initial diary.

Notice that my initial comment indicated disagreement among experts on the inevitability and the degree of natural components. I also throughout agreed that adaption is something to be considered AS WELL AS mitigation. Most of what I have said was addressing the seeming claim that came up in the comments (and you stab at that same point in another diary) that mitigation is worthless and we should merely adapt. I am sure your real views are more nuanced than that, but that isn't the impression I got from your writing.