Hacker News Reader

Well, suppose climate change wasn't thought to be anthropogenic, but it was happening the same way, i.e., warming up from being about the coldest it ever gets. So, it's not humans' fault, but it's inconvenient for humans. Would you still want to try to stop it? If so, would it be fair to call your stance nature obstructionism or something like that?

View on HN

Yes, of course we'd still want to stop it. It would be much riskier though, as the consequences would be harder to know - messing with the environment is always risky. This is also why geo-engineering solutions to climate change are suspect - stopping CO2 production is just going back to a state of the world that we know worked. Seeding the ocean with iron or changing the color of the sky are radically different from any previous state of the Earth, so their impact is unknown.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com