“I say we switch to a hemp-based economy, natural plastics, and the most efficient and cost effective sustainable and clean energy.”

I’m with you there.

I saw a show on tv in Canada where they interviewed a bunch of people who had perfected the art and science of organic plastic products. They were not only biodegradable, but harmless if ingested. To me, plastics are the most toxic substances polluting the environment; they (and pesticides) are probably THE cause of the insane increase in cancer over the last 50 years, not to mention the significant number of them that behave like estrogen, wreaking havoc on the natural order.

In the end, though, nothing is gained by applying labels to each other. What matters is the practical results of applying different policies arising from different views of the situation. This is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.

Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that AGW theory is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that’s not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. Also not bad.

Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics? Problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. Not good.

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on AGW. I’m sure Pascal would agree.