The most pathetic part of the climate fetishists routine is the continual claim that to doubt the validity of the extreme projections is to also doubt the very presence of any form of man induced warming. It is as if these plodders need a new religion where any departure from the IPCC orthodoxy is seen as heresy. But when all this religious ferver is combined with a modern, economic form of blood sacrifice or bleeding, to rid us of our supposed capitalist humours, they expose the poverty of their boorish conformity.

The latest version of that classic painting, "American Gothic" has a dour couple of climate salvationists, purged of mirth, purged of emissions, and able to leach the economic joy out of just about any gathering they attend. How ironic that one of their latest champions goes by the name of Stern.

The world was told in 1992 in a document signed by 1,600 scientists half of which were Nobel Prize winners in the respective fields, what would happen if no action was taken, we are beginning to witness it now.

In more recent times is was confirmed by the British Stein Report, and reconfirmed with this latest report, if action is not taken immediately we won't have an economy to protect.

Do we heed the warning of eminent scientists, or think we know best as the globe deteriorates it is a personal decision I know who I place my trust in.

I'm confused. On the one hand we have major reports released by the most authoritative international sources available, that indicate that global warming is real, is exacerbated by anthropogenic activities, and will have dire consequences on societies and the environment worldwide within decades. These reports include the Stern report and that of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released yesterday (see http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/world-wakes-to-climate-calamity/2007/02/02/1169919530831.html ).

On the other hand, we have a minority of mostly non-scientists who are promoted by some pretty obvious interest groups to present a countervailing view, which typically amounts to introducing some degree of doubt about the interpretation of semantic aspects of some report or article, and thus claiming that the overall theory is unproven.

Leaving aside for the moment the motivations of those who argue against the reality of anythropogenic global warming in the face of ever-mounting evidence of its existence, it's clear that this forum is generally biased in that direction - in the material that it publishes on the subject, in the quixotic battle by its chief editor to try and debunk evidence of global warming, and in the increasingly shrill comments posted here.

C.J. Morgan is on the money with his recent post. It is a mystery to me, the extent of support such misanathropic dogmatism gets, as it does on this forum - which seems to be striving to parallel the situation in the USA. There, the Bush administration is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to suppress or obfuscate information about climate change.

Interesting that this lengthy article was ready to go on the very day the IPCC report on global warming is released ! Also interesting that the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald (3 . 2 . 07)contains a report of large bribes being offered to commentators and scientists to cast doubt on, and undermine, the UN climate change report. We can expect lots more of this then. A pity humanity is so cussed that we can't just get on with some helpful action instead of this kind of effort to shoot the messenger. We can go to war with each other at the drop of a hat, but when it comes to embarking on productive efforts for the sake of our kids, all we can do is whinge and mutter and drag our feet.

I am so looking forward to Andrew Bolt’s refutation.