Read the full response of Hattie Hartman, Sustainability Editor of the Architects’ Journal at:

http://blog.emap.com/footprint/

I’m a born again skeptic but skepticism is about evidence and reasoned arguments. Amanda made some very misleading statements that will doubtless be picked up by the conspiracy theorists and Daily Mail hacks.

The problem for me is that it is an opinion about fact (that there is a growing wealth of scientific evidence . . . ) and made in what is supposed to be a respectable journal.

Is someone wants to voice the opinion that we are all going to die anyway so lets party, I would not be the least outraged. It is when opinion is presented as fact that I get narked because it is misleading.

The C4 Global warming swindle was a good case in point as I’m sure plenty more people heard the ‘climate change is a swindle’ message than followed the tedious but necessary point by point dismantling of the programme’s errors.

So I’m with Colm and Will

Well in terms of climate change, that time has clearly come. Dealing with climate change is absolutely about preventing “harm” to some of the worlds poorest and most disenfranchised peoples, as it is they who cannot afford to ‘adapt’ as western nations might be able to afford to do.

Scepticism, I agree, is a healthy democratic quality. The problem here is as much to do with the scientists as anybody else. They have not been able to get their message across about scientific consensus, about notions of risk, probability and doubt in a media that is obsessed with creating bipolar political debate over climate change. They give voices for and against equal air time in some false nod to journalistic balance. Thus it leads to the view of those who don’t trawl scientific journals that substantial doubt exists where it does not.

This doubt gets picked up particularly by baby boom and older libertarians who have been scarred by the previous errors in the declaration of scientific ‘fact’ as occurred in the second half of the 20th century in the same way they became disillusioned with politics.

The ultimate result is the delay of action that can no longer be delayed as political will amongst the people and their representatives fades as election deadlines loom. 2050 is a mere eye blink away in the context of climate history and that is all the time we have left.