@ Curmudgeon, do you have a problem with the author's link to wikipedia?

A policy response to adaptation/mitigation of global warming should be discussed/debated.

The scientists themselves can discuss/debate the nuances of global warming well enough.

However, just about every 'Tom, Dick and Harry' layperson considers themselves experts in the whole range of the 'climate sciences'.

.

@ JohnBennetts, as you appreciate, ideologues have "politicised" the issues, not the scientists.

I am convinced that one has to have a unique sensibility set to be an AGW believer.

For example, Bonmot complains <<I was howled down on another thread for linking to Wikipedia>>

This is that HOWL DOWN ! <<Where's the science? You're now resorting to Wiki?>>

But what makes it particularly amusing is that that *howl down* complaint comes from one who is fond of referring to his opponents as <<precious petal>>

Yep! AGW believers are a funny bunch

on dear another article by a flat earther. Tim must be taking a break from curing cancer. To let all the climate scientist know they are doing it wrong.
The smoke compaines were always able to find doctors who would say that it hasn't been proven that smoking causes cancer, good days eh Tim.

Have a bex and a lie down flat earthers.

What was interesting about Tim's essay was, that unlike most/all of those who propose that global warming and climate change are either not real and/or caused by human activity, Tim admits that ever-expanding business as usual is not an option.
By contrast most/all of the usual suspects more or less propose that every thing, including human population should keep on expanding for forever and a day.
Which of course just aint possible.

"I am convinced one has to have a unique sensibility set to be an AGW believer."

It's not a matter of "believing", SPQR.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/climate-change-believe-in-it

"Which brings me to the question, should you believe in climate change? The first point to make is that it's not something you should believe in or not believe in - this is a matter of science and therefore of evidence - and there's plenty out there..."

Vicky Pope - senior scientist at the British Met Office.

I too read Robert Manne's essay in The Monthly and felt moved to write a rejoinder. You can read it on my website: www.donaitkin.com

Manne proposes that because he doesn't understand the science and must therefore believe somebody, we must all follow his example, and follow what he understands to be a consensus (though he doesn't profess to understand the science on which such a consensus might be based).

Somehow that doesn't strike me as convincing.