Of course, your obligation is to engage in and encourage the debate. That's what democracy is all about. It's just possible that neither side in the current contretemps is fully correct. Indeed, I think that's likely to be the case. It's also possible that the extreme predictions on both sides - of ferocious warming or destructive cooling - will not eventuate.

Therefore, all of us, no matter what our political or ideological positions must keep an open mind and seek as many undisputed facts as we can find. That's not easy in the current environment, as you so clearly point out but it's what needs to be done, otherwise we get lost in the political spin and make poor decisions.

“The issue has lapsed into a cognitive dissonance shemozzle. Apathy, intolerance, denialism and close mindedness reign supreme.
In all but Ms. Tranter, I presume.

“Derogatory labels - “radical”, “greenie”, “lefty”, “lunatic”, “alarmist” are applied to people on one side, and at the same time assumptions and accusations are made about the seedy ulterior motives of the other.”

She is right about that, because that is the language of politics, and that’s what this what climate change is all about; not common sense; not history; not science. It’s all about politics.

There is no need for debate. *I* have done computer predictions. It is true that they can't even predict the present day. Still I declare that we are all going to freeze to death unless "we" urgently "tackle" the problem of global cooling and *therefore* governmental action is not merely indicated, but is required, and should be forced on anyone who disagrees whether they like it or not.
Not only that, anyone who disagrees is a heretic. But despite their sins, for a small (large) consideration, I will negotiate easy entry to Heaven where we will all live in a blissful paradise in which all problems of natural scarcity have been permanently solved (sustainability). All I ask is the power to dictate who else should be able to live, reproduce or consume, when, where, how and on what terms. Anyone who disagrees is simply incapable of understanding how very morally superior I truly am.

'What are our human obligations?'

If there is no God I have no human obligations full stop. Kellie's quote from the American philosophy is a fine example of how stupid humanist philosophy is. Thinking that 2 human beings could agree on what is just and fair is fanciful at best. God's 'foolishness' is far wiser than any philosopher of today or yesterday.

Our human obligations are monumental indeed since we are capable of a moral perspective on the ramifications of our actions. But what we can do as individuals will have no impact on the problem, or probably any big problem. The environmental impact of modern human societies is such that only action taken en masse can be effective. And there's no point bashing the politicians; many of them no doubt enter the political sphere with idealistic notions about making a difference--Peter Garret no doubt. But two main things beset the reformist politician; one is the sheer erosion of ideals--palliated by the concomitant building up of self-importance, or hubris. But the other, assuming a politician is above this common human weakness, is the nature of our political system, which is designed to fail. Policy is driven by the vast conservative majority (many a professed radical goes weak at the knees when a material sacrifice has to be made), and no idealistic government will be elected unless their feel-good agenda can be canvassed as an affordable luxury. The only time a party can afford to take drastic measures is when the mandate is clear, or when they're far enough out from the next election to repair the damage. Look at the complaining over Anna Bligh's scrapping of fuel excise. She did this because she had to, not because she likes taking a political hit. I'd like to see fuel and registration costs quadruple and make cars unaffordable--and this is the kind of "small" sacrifice we rich westerners are going to have to make, which we have a moral obligation to make! if we're going to tackle environmental issues. So how do we get the community to vote for politicians who will strip us of the unsustainable trappings of wealth?

"My instincts tell me that the regularity of the seasons has changed and that the frequency of natural disasters is increasing."

Then your 'instincts' are wrong. Try evidence: for instance

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0518-hurricanes.html

http://plancktime.blogspot.com/2006/07/no-increase-in-hurricanes.html

Seriously, if you think that one person living in one small area of one smallish continent can rely on their 'instincts' to tell them what global climate is doing, then you are a danger to society.

The climate change proposition was started by green ideologues who assert that global warming is man-induced. The IPCC was set up for the purpose of finding scientific evidence to support this assertion, and.it is staffed predominantly by scientists and others who unquestionably accept the assertion. After 20 years of searching, the IPCC has been unable to come up with any convincing evidence.
Kellie presumably is influenced by the IPCC’s alarmist climate change projections that are derived with the use of computer climate models and quoted widely in the media. She should be aware that none of these models has ever been validated. Consequently, its models cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and the projections can be regarded only as speculative. Further material that seriously questions the credibility and integrity of the IPCC's activities and claims may be found at http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm , which lists some 50 articles.

Therefore, it is not surprising that scientists with inquisitive minds have challenged the alarmists to table scientific evidence to prove their case. The alarmists have responded with name calling and everything but irrefutable evidence. They have conned many, including the media, politicians and lawyers, into believing that climate change is man-induced.
There is no scientific or economic justification for implementing the socalled carbon pollution reduction scheme policy. The policy is not in the national interest, as it is being driven on unfounded political grounds. The proponents have not even conducted any due diligence.
Global warming, if any, is due to natural processes, and consequently there is no valid rationale for proceeding with the implementation of a CPRS. It follows that the proper human obligation is to adopt a do-nothing policy and adapt to whatever global warming eventuates. To do otherwise would be an absolute waste of resources, and would cause irreparable economic damage in the process.

All we can do is defer to the experts in the matter of climate change, the vast majority of whom say that human induced global warming is a fact. I'm sceptical about carbon trading myself, but only because it evades responsibility. All scientists, as far as I know, acknowledge the uncertainties of climate change; the phenomena is way too complex for accurate modelling. But in any case, the far more compelling reason to act is the moral one. Presumably no one will argue that our natural resources are infinite, or that they are being rapidly depleted. That depletion is a direct result of the conspicuous consumption of wealthy nations, who have maintained their obscene disparity at an enormous cost to the environment--that is to all the other species with whom we ought to share this planet, which we treat as resources to be exploited mercelously, rather than husbanded.

What are our human obligations?
Our obligation is to get some understanding how nature works so that the babies of today will be able to survive and have the best possible life. This with a projected 9 billion people along with depletion of resources on top of a hotter climate and all that entails. To avoid that calamity we will be obliged to understand our world, ourselves and our place in nature. Unfortunately understanding is difficult for many people as most people, who do well, concentrate on knowing whether it’s about spirituality or nature and science. The reason that people don’t bother to understand is it’s easier to remember facts and is the best method of “improving” oneself. But the situation today requires understanding of the physical situation and of our nature as well as the present socioeconomic system.
Kellie Tranter wrote “Competing reports from both sides of the climate change divide confuse the psyche and public paralysis sets in. If everyone has a different view of the way forward, there is no way forward.”
Solving complex problems by partisan determent to win debating issues is bound to create confusion and that result is satisfactory when the intention is public and governmental paralysis.
Kellie also wrote “But even then scepticism and cynicism undoubtedly would find a way of taking hold!” This is the job that journalist do successfully when clarity of an issue would jeopardise their boss’s privileges.