Mr Castle, I'm pleased to read your posts regarding the comments on your article.

A few questions:
(1) Which would you say you are more interested in the tension between fundamentalism and relativism, or the science and/or economics of climate change?

Re:

"Our most firmly established scientific theories undergo years of rigorous testing before they are welcomed into the category of accepted fact, and even then remain open to challenge. Yet reports such as Stern's are widely taken as gospel before they have been subjected to the intense scrutiny that the importance of the subject demands. There are already signs that major elements of the report will not survive such scrutiny."

(2) Can you be more precise about these signs? What are they? What elements of the report are invalidated, and by whom?

Here is an abridged set of points from the last page of the summary and conclusions of the Stern Report, under the subheading

“Climate change demands an international response, based on a shared
understanding of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks for action.”

“Key elements of future international frameworks should include:

Emissions trading:
“ … strong targets in rich countries could drive flows amounting to tens of billions of dollars each year to support the transition to low-carbon development paths.”

Technology cooperation:
“ ... International cooperation on product standards is a powerful way to boost energy efficiency. "

Action to reduce deforestation:
“ ... Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions; ..."

Adaptation:
“The poorest countries are most vulnerable to climate change. It is essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policy, and that rich countries honour their pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance ...”

(3) Do you disagree with any of the above opinions?
(4) Failing out-and-out disagreement on one or more, do you believe that inaction is justified on the grounds of their uncertainty or arguability?

If you aren’t really interested in global warming, its predicted consequences and recommended mitigation measures, then I'd say skip questions 2-4.

Stern Review:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/ stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

Here we go again ‘I think therefore I am therefore the universe is the way it is because I think it to be’. Philosophy and our pollution problems are anthropogenic. Pollution has real consequences one of which is climate change. Large amounts of gases in the atmosphere heat or cool the atmosphere, soil and waters.

Relativism or post modernism or political correctness or what ever it is called has no relevance on climate change, nor has it a place with science. Reality has real functions, consequences, actions, real cause and effects. The problem is we confused the doctors average statistic based guess that we have 2 months to live with actual hard science.

Anthropogenic caused climate change has been known for 25 years, we know the climate has been rapidly heating since the industrial revolution and the warming is now leaping at extreme rates. By 20 years ago there was no excuse for denying anthropogenic caused climate change. Those who deny climate change and its causes are only demonstrating ignorance, most of the time the so called denial is to serve other agendas. Yes some can not cope with reality and so resist truth. Inevitably most of the time denialists are pseudo-scientists who make a hobby out of science without knowing what science is.

To compare the search for tools to arrest climate change (which is arresting pollution) with philosophy and religion is itself nonsensical. Such argument is akin to arguing that bushfire risk and preparation is similar and as necessary as a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat. It is as if the argument is saying that building a fire track and clearing gutters is only the fire fighters fundamentalist dogma to be taken in the same regard as a pious widow should marry her brother in law lest she burn in the magical kingdom of hell.

We are stuck on arguing what started the fire and wether the bushfire that burns the night before fire ban season is actually burning on fire season. Forget religion and philosophy let’s put out the fire

I put climate change sceptics in the same category as those who work for tobacco companies and say that it is inconclusive that smoking causes cancer. If Richard Castles thinks those people are valuable, then he is entitle to his opinion I guess... some people are useful to society and others are just a waste of oxygen.

"Time and again we read that the debate is over, “climate change just is”,"

This just complete rubbish.

Let me make my position clear. I am not a global warming skeptic, it is obvious that it is happening, and the historical records show a history of constant change in global climate; it is nothing new. What I am skeptical about is the insistence that 400ppm of CO2, caused by burning fossil fuels etc. since industrialisation is the reason, and that anyone who questions this "fundamental truth" is either a wannabe scientist, in the pay of the coal or oil lobby, or part of a right wing conspiracy to muddy a nice clean and PC position. Get Real. Get your head around this fact: 400ppm is 0.04% of the total greenhouse gas, by far the largest part is water vapour, and by far the largest influence on the world's climate is the sun's radiation, which fluctuates, like most other things in the Universe.

Here are a couple of other inconvenient pieces of evidence that you might like to check out, and perhaps horror of horrors, even Think about.

1. "Heat vent in Pacific cloud cover could diminish global warming" The study done by NASA and MIT proposes that "The tropical pacific ocean may be able to open a "vent" in its heat trapping cirrus cloud cover and release enough energy into space to significantly diminish the projected climate warming caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Needless to say this effect is not included in the current computer model of prediction: GIGO anyone? Any scientists out there been tracking this, who can update us? www.sciencedaily.com March 6 2001

2."Cloud research indicates a faster pace for stratospheric Ozone destruction" www.sciencedaily.com November 20 2006 Their lab experiment showed: "that the small ice particles in SVC clouds are not completely solid, as is usually believed, but rather coated with a sulphuric acid water overlayer" Their conclusion "The coating reduces the rate at which ice particles grow and remove water vapour-a key greenhouse gas-from the upper troposphere. This leaves more water vapour to contribute to the greenhouse effect."

Richard42

Sams in Canada asbestos companies are still debating wether asbestos is a health risk and continues to export asbestos to the developing world. In the U.S the Discovery Institute was created to use scientific discourse and language as propaganda to support polluting industry and creationism and to eventually undermine science altogether. There is a fifth world in existence at the moment where people choose myth to justify their own superstition and prejudice. This fifth world creates a duplicity where it is opposed to science and reason by attempts to use a pseudo-science and pseudo-reasoning to reinforce itself.

I agree Perseus. It would be impossible in this forum to respond to all the errors of fact, distortions, false assumptions, accusations, non sequiturs and unreason above. Indeed, it is an unquestioned assumption that I am not an environmentalist – the piece could quite conceivably be written by one. 'Green' Ben G above agreed. Where I said I "opposed" all these climate scientists, "all" Greens, I can't see - the article was about "fundamentalist" censorship of sceptics.

Endeavouring to return focus to the actual topic, I note the following from Johnj: “Open debate in a pluralist society is healthy, but all debaters bring their own values to the debate.” The relativist returns. The assertion that I must be with the IPA is demonstrably false, my denial demonstrably true – the latter statement, in my view, is therefore of more value. This process can be used widely. If all views are of equal value, then toward what purpose are the above commentators even debating with me? If, on the other hand, reason itself is “fundamentalist”, then please address the same question - without use of reason, mind you (Or perhaps that is what you are doing!)

Briefly, Johnj, it is not sophistry to correctly attribute a quote, it is an adherence to standards of truthfulness. Dickie, you accuse me of failing the "open and transparent" test? Was there something about me you wanted to know? I did not label environmentalists "psychopathological" - you might read the piece again and brush up on your comprehension. I am still unenlightened about the lies you accuse me of. That'll do for now.