I agree that the Tory leadership is at odds with its grass-roots supporters. However, you are engaging in a shoddy attempt to damn the tory leadership for adopting the kinds of measures that (from what I have seen on this site) you would want to see (similar to the ‘nasty party’ campaign in which Labour castigated Michael Howard for talking about immigration during the election campaign, and then promptly stole his clothes after the election was won and introduced ‘tough’ immigration measures).

You quote Stern as saying “Those who say that climate change doesn’t exist “; very few people on the denier/sceptical side of the argument actually say this. What is disputed is 1) the link between man-made emissions and any increase in the global average temperature 2) the causal relationship between rises in CO2 and rises in temperature.

You then try to link this with the spectator’s commentary pieces attacking the ‘consensus’ and the strength of the evidence in support of man-made global warming.

However, take a look at the Independent and the Guardian, and even the BBC who have in the last few days, all acknowledged the crack in the mirror of AGW science. How long before Liberal Conspiracy follows their lead?

So perhaps the Spectator is not wrong after all? It is possible that they were merely leading where mainstream commentators lacked the courage to tread. Promoting scepticism is no bad thing – encouraging intellectual rigour, and giving air time to those with whom you do not agree should all be commended, not condemned. There is a long and glorious tradition of scepticism in science. I doubt that many of the readers of this site realise that Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry, wrote a treatise entitled The Sceptical Chemist; readers could perhaps research the ‘electron transport chain’ vs the ‘high energy intermediate’ in biochemistry for another example of a lone sceptic holding out against the ‘consensus’. Science is founded upon scepticism.

I would guess that ‘science’ is something of a dark art to most readers here. I trained as a scientist, and when working in a research department I saw behaviour similar to that demonstrated by leading IPCC authors who have been exposed for breaking FOI laws, relying upon unpublished papers, conspiring to corrupt the peer-review process, making fraudulent claims about their research, citing a student dissertation etc.

It is regrettable that the Tories have chosen to jump on the AGW bandwagon just when the wheels are getting so shaky, but it is also regrettable that people such as this column, and Milliband Jr were so keen to jump on it in the first place – the worse offence of the latter being their failure to heed the warnings that have been expressed.

The peer review process has also been strongly attacked by those engaged in stem cell research – the cronyism that these biologists complain about has been demonstrated in the climate science field for some years now. Peer review is not the holy grail, precisely because it is used as the basis for allocation of funding, the award of gongs and prestige within the field.

I got to this item by clicking on a photo of some demonstrators who were claiming “we are armed only with peer-reviewed science”. You may care to reconsider the use of that particular photo, in the light of the last few months’ reporting!

That gases contribute to the retention of heat by our atmosphere was disovered in the 18th Century by scientists such as Tyndall and Arrhenius. They even made inroads into discovering how much each individual gas contributed and speculated on the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Did the conspiracy start with them?

In the 1960s a report to the Johnson government in America expressed concerns about the effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate. It was never acted upon. Signs of a real conspiracy or simply realpolitik?

There may be a few problems with some of the science, that is normal. It is also unscientific not to be sceptical. To dismiss all the science pointing to human-induced climate change on this basis is wilful and foolish.

What if all the science is wrong? Its possible, but unlikely. If we act by reducing our use of fossil fuels and reduce our impact on the environment we’ll have finally done something we should have done ages ago and probably made the world a better place to live.

What if the deniers are wrong? Resource wars and a degraded environment unable to support our civilisation?

I do not think it is some love of truth behind so-called climate scepticism, but a selfish, I’m Alright Jack kind of attitude from people who care more about maintaining their lifestyles than investing in a future for all our children.

19th Century! Argh!