Dear Mr Castles,

re [abridged]:
"I apologise for not addressing your questions.
... I am, as my opinion stated, concerned about the reduction of the complexities and uncertainties of climate change to a singular, unquestionable, unverifiable truth (fundamentalism), and the censorship of those, particularly eminent people in the field, who maintain a sceptical view."

And my apologies for not acknowledging your reply in my previous post.

But which "particularly eminent people in the field, who maintain a sceptical view", are being censored?
Who would you say is censoring them?

ronnie: "Why can't we just be ordinary folks who look around and see the smog getting thicker; the dams getting emptier; the weather getting more extreme; the sun burning harder on our skin and so on and think gee whizz: " Something needs to be done"

The thing is, ronnie, the perceptions of us ordinary folks are notoriously unreliable and easily tricked. There are thousands of psychology experiments that demonstrate this. I, personally, don't see the smog getting thicker or the weather getting more extreme, but that's not sufficient - whose perceptions should we trust. The point of science is to get out there with the measuring sticks and get the facts.

Sir Vivor,

I refer you to Brendan O'Neill's piece - linked from my opinion - which describes cases of censorship, or encouragement thereof, and some of the more radical suggestions on how to deal with those scientists who 'just don't get it'.

I also object to the immediate assumption that any person with any links to industry - ie. producing something of value to the community - are instantly dismissed and demonised as corrupted, as if environmentalists don't earn their own 'green'.

Yes Mr Castles

We have got "out there with the measuring sticks and we have got the facts". Scientific, analytical facts, Mr Castles - facts measured by accredited Australian laboratories!

And most of us refrain from making claims which we cannot substantiate.

Get out into the real world, Sir, ask for emissions reports from Departments of Environment, for large industries which pollute the planet, contaminate the ecology and get off scott free whilst leaving the masses to ingest chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polycyclic *aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, mercury, *benzene, hydrogen chloride, particulates, chromium 111 and V1, and the remainder of the 250 or so of VOCs and NOx. Understand that CO elevates methane and ozone in the atmosphere before converting to CO2 and so on.

One should actually research ones subject, Mr Castles, prior to banging ones gums! Understand the catalytic effects of these chemicals in the troposphere and stratosphere! Only then will one begin to comprehend the diabolical contributions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to an already heated planet! You will then perhaps better understand the difference between fundamentalists and realists!

Thank you Richard, for your lesson in TRUTH and FALSEHOOD. As a moral relativist I am happy agree with you..........that these are your opinions (subject to the usual caveats regarding the unreliability of language, the difficulty of electronic communication etc etc), but you will naturally understand my inability to share your opinions. This is all contingent on the existence of "Richard Castles", of which I have no objective proof (beyond the posts on this blog which could have been written by anyone). Please don't rush to reassure me of your existence, as this is a matter of no moment to me.

So I BELIEVE that for "Richard Castles" the whole issue is simply a stick to beat ideological foes with.

Happy now?

Dear RichardC,

O’Neill names Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth UK, among others:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_juniper/2006/11/post_572.html

"Climate change is taking place, so broadcasters should think twice before giving airtime to those who say otherwise."
Tony Juniper
November 3, 2006

Which in part says (but do read it all):

“ … a number of well-known climate change sceptics targeted this committee [House of Lords economic affairs select committee]. They included Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg and Julian Morris. The first three do not even live in the UK and why they would want to devote time from their intensely busy schedules to feed into an obscure House of Lords Committee beats me. Unless, that is, there was a coordinated effort to get something on the official record in the country that is moving fastest on climate change (politically speaking) to the effect that the need for action was at best uncertain. Once that was published they could then endlessly repeat these "official" doubts. That is what Lord Lawson is now doing.”

“The sceptics appear to be moving into a new phase, however. Perhaps aware that scientific uncertainty cannot be nurtured for much longer, they are now seeking to portray those who urge immediate action on climate change are some kind of religious fundamentalists. Lord Lawson said this week in a lecture about climate change to the Centre for Policy Studies that he feared the dangers of "eco-fundamentalism" and went on to link this alleged new hazard with "the threat we face from the supreme intolerance of Islamic fundamentalism". ”

“Lord Lawson's new line of thinking has already been picked up. Peter Hitchens, mild-mannered columnist at the Mail on Sunday, drew attention to this same "eco-fundamentalist" threat the next day on the BBC's Question Time. As he ranted and raved about society's mistaken emphasis on climate change, he spurted out the usual duff statistics and half-truths, including the claim that each time China opens a new power station more carbon dioxide is released than by the entire UK. This is complete and utter rubbish. But it still got broadcast.”