Of course, your obligation is to engage in and encourage the debate. That's what democracy is all about. It's just possible that neither side in the current contretemps is fully correct. Indeed, I think that's likely to be the case. It's also possible that the extreme predictions on both sides - of ferocious warming or destructive cooling - will not eventuate.

Therefore, all of us, no matter what our political or ideological positions must keep an open mind and seek as many undisputed facts as we can find. That's not easy in the current environment, as you so clearly point out but it's what needs to be done, otherwise we get lost in the political spin and make poor decisions.

“The issue has lapsed into a cognitive dissonance shemozzle. Apathy, intolerance, denialism and close mindedness reign supreme.
In all but Ms. Tranter, I presume.

“Derogatory labels - “radical”, “greenie”, “lefty”, “lunatic”, “alarmist” are applied to people on one side, and at the same time assumptions and accusations are made about the seedy ulterior motives of the other.”

She is right about that, because that is the language of politics, and that’s what this what climate change is all about; not common sense; not history; not science. It’s all about politics.

There is no need for debate. *I* have done computer predictions. It is true that they can't even predict the present day. Still I declare that we are all going to freeze to death unless "we" urgently "tackle" the problem of global cooling and *therefore* governmental action is not merely indicated, but is required, and should be forced on anyone who disagrees whether they like it or not.
Not only that, anyone who disagrees is a heretic. But despite their sins, for a small (large) consideration, I will negotiate easy entry to Heaven where we will all live in a blissful paradise in which all problems of natural scarcity have been permanently solved (sustainability). All I ask is the power to dictate who else should be able to live, reproduce or consume, when, where, how and on what terms. Anyone who disagrees is simply incapable of understanding how very morally superior I truly am.

'What are our human obligations?'

If there is no God I have no human obligations full stop. Kellie's quote from the American philosophy is a fine example of how stupid humanist philosophy is. Thinking that 2 human beings could agree on what is just and fair is fanciful at best. God's 'foolishness' is far wiser than any philosopher of today or yesterday.

Our human obligations are monumental indeed since we are capable of a moral perspective on the ramifications of our actions. But what we can do as individuals will have no impact on the problem, or probably any big problem. The environmental impact of modern human societies is such that only action taken en masse can be effective. And there's no point bashing the politicians; many of them no doubt enter the political sphere with idealistic notions about making a difference--Peter Garret no doubt. But two main things beset the reformist politician; one is the sheer erosion of ideals--palliated by the concomitant building up of self-importance, or hubris. But the other, assuming a politician is above this common human weakness, is the nature of our political system, which is designed to fail. Policy is driven by the vast conservative majority (many a professed radical goes weak at the knees when a material sacrifice has to be made), and no idealistic government will be elected unless their feel-good agenda can be canvassed as an affordable luxury. The only time a party can afford to take drastic measures is when the mandate is clear, or when they're far enough out from the next election to repair the damage. Look at the complaining over Anna Bligh's scrapping of fuel excise. She did this because she had to, not because she likes taking a political hit. I'd like to see fuel and registration costs quadruple and make cars unaffordable--and this is the kind of "small" sacrifice we rich westerners are going to have to make, which we have a moral obligation to make! if we're going to tackle environmental issues. So how do we get the community to vote for politicians who will strip us of the unsustainable trappings of wealth?

"My instincts tell me that the regularity of the seasons has changed and that the frequency of natural disasters is increasing."

Then your 'instincts' are wrong. Try evidence: for instance

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0518-hurricanes.html

http://plancktime.blogspot.com/2006/07/no-increase-in-hurricanes.html

Seriously, if you think that one person living in one small area of one smallish continent can rely on their 'instincts' to tell them what global climate is doing, then you are a danger to society.