What a strange position to take. It makes me wonder if BD is simply taking a lesson from Rupert Murdoch's playbook... trying to capitalize by winning over the conservative architects.

She lost me from her first line:

As global temperatures fail to warm, is the heat going out of climate change?

which shows she's not interested in any actual understanding of the problem.

As to the question "Do you believe man-made climate change is real?" my answer is a fervent "It doesn't matter." As good designers (and as citizens of a small planet a long way from anywhere else) we need to act as if our activities DO have potentially negative effects on the environment and adjust those activities accordingly.

The bottom line is she doesn't really believe in an open-minded attitude, if that's what one wants to call it. That's just a pose. She really denies climate change. And I agree with you, lb. It shouldn't matter... But nonetheless, denying this is like denying that plate tectonics cause earthquakes. You might as well believe that they're caused by some god farting.

of course it matters. if we are making changes based on a platform of legitimate scientific information and that information is proved false (or even hinted to be) it becomes a reason to remove support for efforts at every level. So it does matter.

It matters because we are, as a society of peoples with all kinds of culture, always and everyday non-rational. That is a hallmark of our collective decision-making process from USA to Afghanistan to China. Science is intended to counter that.

She SHOULD question, but what pisses me off is that she doesn't say where her information comes from. She just denies and implies she has sources that are valid. As a reporter I would expect her to report, not just plonk down an opinion to bollocks things up. The inertia we face on this issue is so big that to have a journal representing our profession take this stance is scary. its like rush limbaugh wrote the bit for her or something.

Javier Arbona + LB,

You two really need to 'open you minds' as JA might advise others to do.

Global warming and the environmental movement are being used by every government as a beating stick of the populace.

It matters because each developed country are pouring billions of pounds in CARBON CREDITS to 'counter' something that is false.

Carbon taxes are being added to fuel, etc, increasing our bills over and above the already 'rip-off' levels.

Global warming is a movement to ultimately reduce the population.

And for anyone that believe the world is over populated, I advise you to be the first to jump off a cliff.

JA + LB, your semi-educated, snobbish, nice-guy attitudes fall right into the stereotypical middle class mindframe.

Derek

The only thing that surprises me about Amanda's column is that it was allowed to be published!

No doubt she will get a slap on the wrist for the cheek to question what is fast becoming a religion, with fanatical followers who are semi-educated and haven't really thought this movement through to its logical conclusion.

In 10 years time, the environmentalists and snobbish middle classes will be in for a shock when they discover that the tree at the bottom of their garden has more rights than themselves.

Im shocked that older people never fail to trust the government, yet time after time, throughout their lives they have been lied to and sniggered at.

Dereck

Global warming is a movement to ultimately reduce the population.

riiiiight. please back up ridiculous statements like these with some facts.

talk about semi-educated...

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

http://www.green-agenda.com/

By the way: it hit 70 degrees in the Midwestern US in November. By Amanda's logic, that's solid proof - undeniable! - that global warming is happening.

jump, I say "it doesn't matter" meaning that the question itself is political, not scientific, and it's a waste of energy to be debating it.

zoolander - you're totally making stuff up and assuming that I would say base my views on something as Malthusian and mistaken as the idea of "overpopulation". (Your quote: "And for anyone that believe the world is over populated, I advise you to be the first to jump off a cliff.")

My view is actually quite the opposite. Global warming is caused by the few, not the many. It's caused by privileged people like Dick Cheney--or Amanda Baillieu, or yourself perhaps (what are you, and Exxon exec?), who can curtail our RIGHTS to manage OUR environment in a social, sustainable way.

And by the way, if you think that my views fall squarely into the middle class, I could only hope!!! In fact, the research shows that many, many people--unfortunately-- disagree with me -- and agree with you, ironically!

It's actually a very strategic hoax on the part of (over-privileged) people like Amanda Baillieu, or yourself perhaps, to portray themselves as a persecuted fringe that needs the "space' to voice its denialism (disguised as "skepticism", as Ms Baillieu's Twitter feed shows above). It's a privilege to write what she writes and deny a voice to the millions and millions of people that most severely ALREADY suffer the consequences of global warming and other environmental calamities.

Look up CHEMTRAILS

I am consistently alarmed by the amount of vitriole on both sides of this ongoing debate. In my opinion the debate is not closed, because by definition, scientific endeavour and discovery is not by nature a debate - it only becomes that once politics enters.

I would also like to point out that terms like 'denier' and 'skeptic' are deliberately used for their negative connotations, and that both sides have vested interests in this debate - not just the skeptics.

I am reminded of a recent finding here in NZ about the Wellington region, colloquaially known as the the city most likely to be destroyed by earthquake [in the same way for example, that Chicago is known as the Windy City]. This is imprinted in the minds of most NZ'ers and indeed Wellington is frequently involved in minor shakes.

It was found out this year that the threat of a major earthquake in Wellington has been in fact overstated by 50%. In the meantime, any building in Wellington has been subject to above average seismic requirements for years and years, and existing buildings have been subject to seismic strengthening - at significant cost and time and insurance levies.

My point is that there should be consistent scientific study and analysis of these issues. Anyone who says that debate is over is wrong.

Meanwhile, those on the skeptics side, like Zoolander, do no favours to the cause of scientific endeavour by mentioning hoaxes like Chemtrails.