Dear Poirot,

Nothing is weak about farmers doing the good old and proper thing - that's ideal!

However, there are claims that a centralised, mass-produced industrial/technological scheme can ALSO be sustainable - and they could be credible on that account. What they argue is that technology could sustain even an increasing human population, indefinitely.

So if you tell them, "That's unsustainable", they would answer - "Yes it is, and will show you numbers and diagrams to prove that claim, including bringing energy and minerals from other planets and eventually reaching the stars.

What I wrote to you is therefore, "don't go that way". Even if centrally-planned sustainable growth is possible, it would produce a nightmare in which life is possible, but not worthwhile.

DavidK, were I to reply in kind, I'd say that you are denying the failure of the IPCC models as acknowledged by the IPCC.

But I won't because I don't like the use of the term 'denial' in the climate context, especially given its Holocaust connotation. It suggests dishonesty, as well as lack of moral judgement.

As for the psychological reference: is this how professors argue these days?

Readers may like to check out climate scientist Judith Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/02/how-urgent-is-urgent/

Au revoir.

byork,

"....I don't like the use of the term 'denial' in the climate context.... It suggests dishonesty, as well as lack of moral judgement."

Nice bit of hypocrisy that.

From the author of an article titled "It's official! Climate alarmists are now even more alarmed"

You apparently don't harbour a similar aversion to employing the words "alarm"..."alarmed"...."alarmism"...."alarmist" in reference to climate science and scientists - peppered no less than 11 times throughout your article (including the title).

And this...

http://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148

"US-China climate deal: at last, a real game-changer on emissions"

"Australia snookered

Nevertheless, this announcement means that laggard states like Australia can no longer hide behind the fiction that major developing economies like China are unprepared to make serious efforts to cut their emissions.

It further embarrasses Australia in its attempt to keep climate change off the agenda at the meeting of the G20 next week.

It increases the pressure on Australia to bring substantial target commitments to the table in Paris in 2015 – something the Abbott government is presently resisting vigorously.

And it strongly suggests that the Abbott government’s longed-for coal export boom will, as many have predicted, turn out to be an illusion."