From Iain Climie, Whitchurch, Hampshire, UK

The simplest retort to climate change sceptics is that many actions that are vital if global warming is occurring make sense anyway (24 June, p 28). Restoring fish stocks, habitat conservation with careful exploitation, and alternatives to fossil fuels make sense regardless of the extent, nature and origin of climate change. Reducing waste may be the simplest approach of all.
The UK’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers reported in 2013 that at least 30 per cent of global production fails to reach markets or shops; and it is wasteful to use human food for livestock feed or biofuels. Can dealing with these obvious concerns really be seen as anti-business or even irreligious, even though the inability of conventional free markets to cope sensibly with gluts still has to be addressed?
A few years ago, a colleague queried whether human activities could really be so significant. I mentioned the points above and he replied “But that’s a win-win; I’m happy to support that.” (New Scientist, 15 July 2017)

These are good points, hard to oppose unless you are a paid-up sociopath.  All the same I do think the climate change deniers should be encouraged to answer the obvious question (which they duck or ignore, because there is no answer that doesn’t undermine their position):

“What, after 200 years of industrialisation and burning massive quantities of coal and oil, do you think happens to all the gunk we put into our thin atmosphere?  Does it just disappear by magic?  Has it gone to the Moon?” I haven’t seen a single answer to this question.  You don’t have to be a scientist to see that the spent particles must alter the composition of the air and the atmosphere. Meanwhile, we cut down the very forests that extract the carbon from the air.  Smart?