Steel,

'I always find it amusing when the layman in public questions the work of thousands of scientists across the world'
I think you have too much 'faith' in scientists. There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind like I have. You know why? Because science evolves, who knows what the same scientists may be saying in 20 years, and the publication and publicity of findings is also influenced by the political environment of the time.

Foxy,

'Do you really believe that for an individual to try to reduce the chance of climate change is a narcissistic thing to do? '

No. It's the bragging and big noting oneself that illustrates the narcisim. Listing your professed efforts to limit your effect on the environment to attempt to illustrate you are somehow 'better' than the average Joe. It's easy to say you use public transport, or ride your bike to protect the environment if you live in paddington, a bit harder when you live in Castle Hill. It's easier to afford organic food or pay for a new car or whatever when you have higher expendable income.

With regards to your list, yes they are all good things to do, but not all are things as easy for all to achieve, and some are a lot to do with how people run their personal life. That's another parallel with religion, the preaching about how people should live their life.

dickie,

I haven't mentioned any conspiracy. Maybe when environmentalists like yourself describe themselves as 'more enlightened', they leave themselves open to being described as narcissistic.

To all,

Notice how some of the poists have proved my point. It's maybe not quite as bad as the many who seem to equate climate change denial with holocaust denial as I described in my post. But I have stated I am fairly neutral, and favour avoiding polution where possible, yet people have 'jumped on' this with fervour, like a religious fundamentalist reacting to someone questioning the existance of god.

Moderation in all things is a good motto.

The oft heard quote of thousands of scientists is itself a bit suss.
There is a significant rethink going on in scientific circles by some
hundreds of scientist who have reservations about the IPCC process.
A few of them were associated with the original IPCC work.

I don't have all the answers but it is not proper to critisise those that
express counter thoughts and worries.
The cost of the IPCC being wrong would in a few years time send us all
stoney broke. So just be thankful that someone is checking their work.
Those compact fluo lamps are not all that good. I bought the highest
powered ones I could find but I had to put the old ones back in because of eye strain.

Whats that trumpeting I hear in the corner ?

Oh dear it is peak oil elephant, perhaps we had better worry about that first.

"Guilt, resentment and apocalypse. Prophets have since the dawn of history recognised the power they can unleash by linking these three.
Elijah told of earthquake, wind and fire; Jeremiah of disasters unnumbered. Ignatius Loyola, Luther, Calvin, the Wesleys, Moses, Mohammad...and countless other seers, ayatollahs and divines, have called upon us to bail out of whatever version of Sodom and Gomorrah it has pleased them to paint, before those cities burn. The prophets of climate change are their inheritors, reclothing new belief in the metaphor of the old, reconnecting it to those ancient drives. So there you have it. The Friends of the Earth are Elijah's latest recruits. Eco-apocalypticism is the new religion."

In the article above, you learn that Dr. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, informs everyone that they will go to hell if they won't fight against "climate change." What you won't learn is that almost 30% of assets of his church are ExxonMobil stocks.

All this was taken from "Eco-Apocalypticism Is The New Religion,"
Matthew Parris, The Times, 1 April 2006.

The website - if you want to read more is:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/climate-apocalypse-is-new-religion.html

Excellent list Foxy. Science is never improved by an addiction to received wisdom and a hostility to dissent.

This opinion piece by IPCC member and dissenter John R Christy is must-read: http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

A quote:
"My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit 'global warming.'"

Here's an older article by an Australian writer:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-garden-of-good-and-evil/2007/06/16/1181414606757.html?page=fullpage

Sorry Usual Suspect

I misunderstood you. However, you say you are "pretty neutral" in your opinion on global warming and that those who "preach" and make a "noise" are not adding to "sensible" debate. So what do you mean? Should people allow you to gag them, revert to "pretty neutral" or should they continue with debate even if their handy hints make you "angry?"

"Maybe when environmentalists like yourself describe themselves as 'more enlightened', they leave themselves open to being described as narcissistic." (Usual Suspect)

Thanks for that Usual Suspect. Actually you mention "global warming" in your opening. You will find that I do not debate the science on global warming. I do not understand it and I leave that to the more knowledgeable where I endeavour to digest their knowledge.

However, I do debate the state of our environment in Australia and beyond including the state of our seriously threatened eco-systems. Forgive my immodesty here, but I believe I am "enlightened" on those specific issues.

One cannot be "pretty neutral" on hard scientific evidence and others who are not interested, cannot be "enlightened."

Therefore to the unenlightened, I ask: "Please refrain from your anger, as I leave you excerpts of a "preach" from a wise one - long gone to meet his ancestors":

"The whites too shall pass -- Perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

"When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires.

"Where is the eagle? Gone. Where is the buffalo? Gone.

"Humankind has not woven the web of life. They are but one thread within it. Whatever they do to the web, they do to themselves. All things are bound together. All things connect." (Chief Seattle to US President Pierce 1855)

"I think you have too much 'faith' in scientists. There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind like I have. You know why? Because science evolves, who knows what the same scientists may be saying in 20 years, and the publication and publicity of findings is also influenced by the political environment of the time."

I don't think you do understand science. Faith resides in those who question the scientists, not the other way around. And political views change on a whim, not scientists opinions. There is little faith required when you realise what scientists do to make a claim. On the political influences, they are made by politicians. If you look beyond the prominent speakers you see the vast amounts of research going into it. Making an unsubstantiated jdugement when you know NOTHING -ie, you are 100% ignorant, is absolutely priceless.

Science does change, but it changes far less than people's ignorant, layman opinions. It's truly laughable for someone to question the science without any basis.

"Notice how some of the poists have proved my point. It's maybe not quite as bad as the many who seem to equate climate change denial with holocaust denial as I described in my post. But I have stated I am fairly neutral, and favour avoiding polution where possible, yet people have 'jumped on' this with fervour, like a religious fundamentalist reacting to someone questioning the existance of god."

Your post is not neutral, since you so easily dismiss the research of scientists. GOing so far as to call it narcissism. Now with a view like that, there wil be angry responses, because you are just another speculating layman who knows absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Rather, perhaps you should note the scorn of others replying when they talk of environmentalism.

I would say, ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISM IS THE RELIGION. And to substantiate that claim, it's because anti-environmentalism is based on faith. Faith that the environment and "ecosystem" are fabrications. There is no scientific basis for such a view, only a socio-economic perspective.