Much of the criticism of my article comes from those who hold pre-Darwinian views of humanity’s dominance of Nature. It is unfortunately true that a large section of humanity still arrogantly or ignorantly cling to the view that humanity is somehow outside the rest of the natural world, both physical and biological, and not dependent on it. The hubris shown by those respondents who believe that humanity can, within the space of a few short years, take the level of CO2 in the atmosphere right outside those levels which obtained throughout the whole of human evolution and the co-evolution of all the other species with which we share the planet is frightening.
Their attitude reminds me of the American economist who, observing that agriculture only contributed 3% to US GDP, said that the investment would be better spent in other sectors. I’m also reminded of the politician who, when told that what he proposed was not possible because it ran counter to the second law of thermodynamics said, ‘Well, we’ll change the law’.
It’s certainly true that I’m not a climate scientist but I am a scientist who can draw irrefutable mathematically correct conclusions from a given set of facts. Thus, those who like me accept that CO2 in the atmosphere has risen due to human activity and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that warming of the atmosphere will lead to climate shifts, including more frequent and extreme events, that there are limits to the extent to which we can perturb CO2 levels without serious consequences for human and other life on the planet, will be forced to confront the inevitable conclusions.

See continued comment below

Continued from above
Some criticism has been personal rather than aimed at the argument in the article and some, such as the comment from Malcolm King wander into areas that are not dealt with in the article at all, such as population. Contrary to your assertion Malcolm, my article was not aimed at population reduction. Also contrary to your position on population Malcolm, I cannot think of a faster way of drastically reducing population than pursuing the ‘Business As Usual’ (BAU) course you extol. Come to think of it, I should be on your side urging BAU if I really wanted to see the global population down to perhaps one billion by the end of the century. But I would prefer to avoid, if possible, the intense and widespread suffering that this will entail.
But of your comments on my writings and the position of SPA more generally, I’m reminded of an excellent article by Nobel Prize winning biologist, George Wald, that appeared in the New York Times in 1976. Wald opposed the use of nuclear energy (yes, so do I) and at the height of the nuclear debate posed the question, ‘Who can the public believe?’ He pointed out that those who support nuclear energy are themselves supported by all the main centres of power in society. A few weeks before his article the NYT had carried a full page pro-nuclear advertisement signed by a number of scientists many of whom had strong connections to the nuclear industry. On the other side, opposition to nuclear energy brought those who opposed into conflict with these same centres of power and influence, frequently attracting criticism and abuse. Wald drew the conclusion that if putting an argument cost the person something in standing and prestige then it made their claim more believable than the claims of those who benefitted from their position.
Malcolm, you have identified yourself as a pen for hire. You trenchantly and persistently assert the BAU position. Will you reveal who your clients are?

Yes Malcolm. Reveal who your clients are. Property developers? Migration agents? Real estate agents? Gina Rinehart?

Pre-Darwinian? That would be Malthuse. Here's the inside news.

When ever you hear the SPA come out and talk about the global warming, dig deep because they have NO environmental credentials at all. This is the global population control movement at work and I will say more about them later.

I was twice a senior media adviser to Democrat leaders and the first time, the more progressive members of the party were at logger heads with JC and his anti-immigration faction. Now they have wandered off in to some post modernist apocalyptic future, which is where they always belonged.

I support the use of nuclear power.

As being a pen for hire, I'm hanging out my shingle now.

I was very disappointed to see Christiane Amanpour spouting similar one sided clap trap on CNN. She was essentially blaming Tony Abbott for the bushfires because he wants to scrap the carbon tax. Well Christian wake up, do your homework. Tony Abbott's whole campaign was based on scrapping the carbon tax and the people of Australia voted him in because we want it scrapped. Only 12.5% of all the carbon in the atmosphere is 'man-made'. Of the 12.5% Australia only produces 1.5% or 0.0001875. There is nothing anyone in Australia can do that will change the climate, even if you still believe the whole problem is manmade. Its not our job or responsibility to take the lead, but maybe that is exactly what we are doing and that scares the Believers.

Short of halting all industry and banning cars how to the Believers propose to reverse the trend? Oh I forgot the answer is to redistribute the wealth and squeeze the middle class out of existence. The so called climate experts are calling for extreme action but they never actually say what that entails because they don't actually have a workable or practical plan.

Did any of you Believers notice the part of the latest IPCC report that mentioned the warming increases are below the predicted forecast and that the increase is within the liveable range and will in fact contibute to increased food production in northern areas? Mankind has only flourished during the relatively brief warm spells on our planet.

SBR180 ". Tony Abbott's whole campaign was based on scrapping the carbon tax and the people of Australia voted him in because we want it scrapped."

Really?
I think the people of Australia voted the Libs in because they were slightly less awful than the other lot!

Most people don't want extra taxes like the carbon tax, which is fair enough.
But most intelligent people know that the majority of the scientific facts we have, point to a problem with carbon and climate change in our world today.

Hmmm...let me see. Do I believe the scientists, or do I believe the others who once supported a flat earth?

Tony has gone missing in action down at the bush fire front these last few days, when he should be doing his PM job and telling us exactly what his government ARE doing about problems caused by climate change (regardless of WHAT actually caused it!) instead of a carbon tax?