It's odd that climate change sceptics like to use the example of stomach ulcers to demonstrate unthinking adherence to scientific trends.

Ulcer research was stymied for so long because pharmaceutical giants preferred to sell ulcer sufferers a lifetime of symptom-reducing drugs rather than a one-off cure. It was a classic case of big business versus the dastardly scientists who would rob them of revenue by increasing human knowledge and improving mankind's lot.

When it comes to climate change, I admire the fossil fuel Goliath's attempt to portray itself as David, but it just ain't working.

And Runner, when you post comments against evolution, are you aware how palpable your fear is?

Relax, mate! Evolution doesn't deny god, just a literal interpretation of the bible. The man upstairs didn't give you eyes just so you could walk around with them shut.

It is hard to imagine why no-one has mentioned the Precautionary Principle which underwrites all of the climate change arguments.

This principle holds that it is irrelevant whether climate change is man-made or not, it is even irrelevant whether or not it is actually happening, what is relevant is that the impacts of climate change are potentially so immense that if there is even a small chance that we can, by cutting C02 emissions etc, mitigate these effects significantly then that is a precaution we are obliged to take, notwithstanding the fact that there is no proof these measures will make a jot of difference.

re:
“It is astounding that on an issue of such alleged urgency, leaders such as [Kofi] Annan are unable to see the value that a sceptical eye can bring to any debate.”

What puzzles me is that many of the same people who demand such a high standard of scepticism with respect to Global Warming are happy to implicitly accept the models for “economic development” and/or “sustainable energy” which underlie proposals for more nuclear electricity, for geosequestration, for shipping more and more Australian coal to China.

Global economic development is increasing at an increasing rate. Global Population is increasing at an increasing rate. Global industrial production is increasing at an increasing rate, and consequently, global pollution is increasing at an increasing rate.

These phenomena show same pattern as the growth of compound interest in the bank.

Find me an expert that can convince me that human population growth and/or economic growth (thought to be linked to money in banks) is not exponential in nature.

I’m asking here for an expert, not Maggie Thatcher’s old and logically consummate scientific factotum, Chris Monckton, who might easily convince us all with his brilliant logic,erudition and eloquence that bumblebees are aerodynamically incapable of flight.

If Chris can talk me out of my concerns about exponential growth of population, production and pollutants, I congratulate him in advance

Because Blind Freddy can see that products and processes created by monetary wealth generate more products and processes, money and pollution (ie CO2) in the same pattern of compounding “interest”.

And just like Scrooge McDuck’s treasury can only hold so many coins, our world can only tolerate a limited amount of population, production and pollution.

I am not talking here about absolutism or relativism, I am talking about year 11 maths and its application to our world.

My guess is that the CO2 from our Chinese and Indian coal exports will come back to us with a vengeance, just like Bob Menzies’ pig-iron did, 65 years ago. The question is, when, and that’s just a matter of the “interest rates”.

Johnj: "Perhaps Richard Castles might care to explain why his article is not "fundamentalism" of exactly the sort he decries in environmentalists."

Thank you for your question. I think there are many differences, but one relevant one is that I am not demanding that you be shut out of this discussion simply for asking that question.

Bennie: "Perhaps we should all view climate change with the same detached interest we give to stomach bugs.

Or perhaps we shouldn’t"

Or perhaps we should.

Rob513264: "This [Precautionary] principle holds that it is irrelevant whether climate change is man-made or not, it is even irrelevant whether or not it is actually happening..."

I put an apple on my head every full moon to prevent martian attacks. You may laugh but it's working so far - it's your precautionary principle in action.

I found this a thought provoking article, but I wonder if I'm read the same article as everyone else...

In any area of human endeavour, sceptics should not only be welcomed but recognised as crucial to our understanding of the world. There now appears to be evidence that points towards human responsibility for climate change. But lets be honest, overwhelming as that evidence may seem at the moment there is still a chance it may be wrong. By shutting sceptics and doubters out of the debate we risk ignorance - by allowing them we at worst risk being corrected.

In terms of the arguements against eco-fundamentalism, as with any absolutionist view (whether religious, economic, scientific or political), I can only agree with the author that the tendacy to shout down the doubters or deniers is wrong.

In my eyes, Richards main point about the lack of what I think of as "civl discourse" on climate change is right on the money. Doubters do seem to be shouted down in almost religious terms. In my opinion it is due to a decline in standards of public debate, most evident on the left but importantly not limited to it, over the last 50 years. I'm just not sure who or what is to blame...

*Just in case anyone is wondering, not a member of the IPA or any other part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, but a humble member of the Greens.

Martians don’t attack when it’s full moon, you silly. They wait until it’s dark.