dickie, could you please help me by pointing out the "lies and misinformation" in my opinion.

Richard, having concluded your article with the quote from Baron Lawson of Blaby, I can only suppose you agree with it. Otherwise, why include it without any qualification? To then argue that it is not your opinion is pure sophistry. Especially when in your previous paragraph you said "a society that resists debate and demonises .... paves the way for its demise." If I read that correctly, it suggests that environmentalism (an environmentalist mindset?) will lead to the destruction of Western Civilization. And then you accuse others of extremism....

Open debate in a pluralist society is healthy, but all debaters bring their own values to the debate. Where is your proof that environmentalists are "fundamentalists", where Nigel Lawson is not? Are you suggesting that Lawson's "values" are more maleable than (some un-named) environmentalist? Or is it merely that Lawson's values equate more closely with your own?

I avoid meeting insurance executives if I can, the tinfoil hat keeps them away. It also keeps "fundamentalist" greenies away too; I haven't met one yet.

Scepticism is a handy thing, when used in moderation, following actual investigation. Mr Castles throws moderation out the window by characterising all greens as shouting down all scepticism, making no reference to decades of science that support anthropogenic climate change preceeding the Stern Report, and ignoring the economic fundamentalist elephant in the living room (that is sacrosanct from scepticism in the eyes of PBL, NewsCorp, Fairfax, and even Crikey).

As Rumsfeld (and now Costello too!) says, we don't know what we don't know - if only retired Tories and wannabe commentators who cite them knew how little they knew.

But hey folks, at least they've moved on from plain old ridicule of greenies, as the flood of "reasonable" CC sceptics on OLO lately shows. They no longer call us all dole bludging commie faggots, and the repeated use of terms like "alarmism" seems poor literacy rather than ridicule.

Where ignorance cannot be pleaded is in Mr Castles more sly confabulations:
"A society that resists debate and demonises those who would question dominant ideas is in an unhealthy state, and paves the way for its demise."

How is acceptance of anthropogenic climate change in any way a dominant idea? In science, sure, the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields accept ACC, even as they debate, measure, model and wonder how it is happening. Check out realclimate.org if interested in how the grownups are discussing this stuff.

But outside science, in politics, economics, and mediated culture, ACC is nowhere and nothing. A few govt departments are passing around papers, a few corporations have included paragraphs in their purely-for-display purposes social responsibility charters, some newspapers are filling a few columns with fancy pictures and climate porn.

But the 'growth is good' economy continues to push the pedal to the floor - suburbs sprawl and public transport crumbles, local manufacturing is exported to no-standards countries, superannuation funds and the overpaid pursue ever greater returns in the stockmarket, and Howards Coal-ition govt is pretending nukes & 20yrs-maybe geosequestration are the answer.

...cont.
How exactly is ACC a dominant idea, except in the outraged minds of those accustomed (no, Entitled!) to mega-dividends and share profits from amoral mining and energy corporations?

So Mr Castles, if you want to be a moderating voice, don't start by smearing one set of views, don't flat ignore all of the science and most of the relevant cultural factors, and don't portray one report (by an economist of all things!) as pivotal.

Of course you then wont get published in the newspaper, but at least you'll have a shred of credibility and might survive the inevitable pogroms when our kids cotton on to what we've done to them.

Well I was about to Mr Castles. However, Johnj and Liam have saved me the trouble where they too have (with much accuracy) raised the issue of your bias and misinformation.

Labelling environmentalists as "psychopathological", then committing the deadly sin of failing to support your colourful assertions with documented evidence, evokes a strong desire for one to thoroughly scrutinise your motives.

Since you have failed the "open and transparent" test, I suspect your motives are similar to those firmly entrenched in the minds of the IPA and CCI executives and its industry members, where agendas are strictly fiscal and it's profits at all costs!

Reading over all these posts, Richard, you critics could not have done a better job of highlighting the very fundamentalism and intolerance of contrary opinion that you refer to.

It seems there is nothing like a measured, reasonable statement on attributes of the climate debate for flushing out the drop kicks and the gonzo diatribes. The only thing missing from some of them was the spittle but even that may have hit the odd PC screen.

So my advice is to save this trail of posts for any situation where you need to explain to ordinary, reasonable folk why global warming is the new religion of the lumpen scheiser.

And this, from another non-paid, non-member of the IPA.