Richard, my apologies for falsely linking you with the Institute for Public Aaffairs. My only excuse is that OLO post so much IPA-sponsored rubbish that I jumped to a (mistaken) conclusion.

That said, I still don't agree with your arguments. Your only links are to (a) an opinion piece by Brendan O'neill, which judging by the blog comments was not greeted with universal approbration and (b) a paper from the Centre for Policy Studies http://www.cps.org.uk by Nigella Lawson's dad. No link to any climate science, just opinion pieces by a contrarian journalist and a retired Tory politician. Then you have the temerity to complain about the "retreat from reason we see all around us today.”

I wear a tinfoil hat to ward off Martian attacks. I also insure my house against destruction. They're both precationary activities.

Whether right leaning environmentalism or left leaning fundamentalism, whether sceptics, doubters or deniers, whether man-made or not: climate change is happening while we are debating. Whatever there might be the reasons and causes, environment destruction cannot be healthy. So: stop it as soon and as far as possible!

Thank you Ben G. I am glad to read someone who has at least responded to the actual point of my piece. You sound like a Green I would be happy to have a civilised natter with, and not just because you agree with me on this one.

Thank you too Johnj for, I think, acknowledging a mistake. My piece did not focus on the climate science. I added the links for the interest of readers, Brendan's because it came out concurrently and talked of similar concerns. Perhaps, rather than judge by the blog comments, and make assumptions as you did about my affiliations, you should have a read. Also, I don't think being Nigella Lawson's dad necessarily disqualifies anybody from being reasonable. The words you accused me of having the temerity to say were actually his. Lastly, just out of interest, do you wear your tin foil hat when you're meeting with your insurance manager?

Richard,

Paragraphs 1 & 2 make valid points. Since your piece “did not focus on the climate science”, you’ve no reason to characterise the logical response as “climate alarmism”.

The rest is just leftie-baiting.

A bit odd that this article is listed under Environment instead of Religion.

I see the economic fundamentalists are again emerging from their burrows to stifle public debate as a result of their vested interests.

The author claims "Environmentalists are shrewd to label anyone who scrutinises the economics and science of climate modelling as "denialists" implying more than disagreement, but a psychopathological resistance to the fearful truth". What the..?

Are your ears/eyes glued on, Mr Castles? Those you oppose also obtain their hypotheses from scientific evidence, where they too form conclusions only after much scrutiny. Following are opinions from Australia's scientific community - no doubt whom you would describe as "Green Fundamentalists" and part of "a society that resists debate and demonises those who would question dominant ideas.......".

The following responses are from eminent Australian climate experts to the Age's request to provide a rating out of 5 for the film "An Inconvenient Truth":

Dr Penny Whetton CSIRO's head of climate change = 4.75. Dr Michael Couglin head of National Climate Centre = 4. Dr Kevin Hennessy principal research scientist, CSIRO = 4.5. Dr Graeme Pearman former CSIRO director of atmospheric research = 4. Dr David Jones head of climate analysis National Climate Centre = 4.9. Dr Barrie Pittock former CSIRO climate impact group leader = 5. Dr Kathy McInnes, principal research scientist CSIRO = 4.5.

Dr Pearman was quoted as stating: "It is not a doom-saying exercise because it is positive about what can be done".

So what are YOU going to do Mr Castles? Frankly, I don't believe you have the foggiest idea since you appear consumed with a blinkered obsession to halt debate by spreading lies and misinformation in the now well-established tradition of green polemics!