Dear editor, can you publish few comments on the said subject.

The intention of these comments is not to trivialise Warren Senders expressed views on climate change but to obtain better understanding, discussion and informed decision making regarding the subject.

1. It seem palpable, a given almost, in Warren's assertion's that the 'juggernaut of climate change' and 'global warming' are one or the same thing. Even without furnishing of detailed content, it is obvious to rational comprehension there is a huge gulf of difference between these two concepts. 'Climate change' embraces a general discourse to the specificity of 'global warming'. i.e. climate change implies an encompassment of both global cooling and warming. My personal view is that it is precisely this ambiguity (intended, others think) in definition is one of the reasons for non-productive debates on the issue globally. There was a time the climate gospel was preached as 'global warming'. Over the years it had mutated into climate change and repeatedly fornicated to mean the same beast.

2. One is also to religiously assume from Warren that climate change is to be solely associated with human's disastrous actions, or man made. I think it is rather more equally pious to also establish what constitute natural climate change. If there is undeniable truth in global warming, what is the significant evidence to prove the harmful contribution of human's as opposed to naturally occurring events such as volcanoes etc.

3. Is there conclusive historical evidence to eliminate, among other natural phenomenons, plate tectonics as one of the better reasons for geographical changes observed in some of the climate-challenged regions of the globe?

I beg to differ and suggest the claim that, clarity and objective discussion of such questions, among others, will certainly reveal Ban Ki-moon has little more to do than incurring a mild sweat from lifting glasses of champagne.