Funnily enough I was thinking exactly the opposite about 'anthropogenic climate change' when I was writing that comment. To me, it is a technocratic phrase with

Funnily enough I was thinking exactly the opposite about 'anthropogenic climate change' when I was writing that comment. To me, it is a technocratic phrase with little political or emotional resonance. I used it just to be clear what point I was making, and would much rather get rid of the jargon if I could maintain clarity. I strongly disagree that whether or not climate change is human-caused is unimportant. How can you have a consensus on the solution without consensus on the problem? A lot people who don't think humans are responsible will take the position that change is natural, therefore okay. Or, they will attribute change to other factors which would call for other solutions. If you don't think climate change is driven by the human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations which we have seen, why would you try to tackle natural climate change through altering the concentrations of those gases?