The implication is that it is irrational. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Concern about global warming is based on scientific observation and the application of reason to evidence. In science, contending explanations are tested and abandoned if the evidence doesn't support them. Religion is a matter of faith, not evidence and rational inquiry. It is a different universe of discourse.

There are still some people who have difficulty in recognising the seriousness of global warming. Either they don't know the facts or they do, but can't face them. Head in the sand is not a good position to be in.

If the situation is as dire as scientists tell us, it makes sense to learn about the evidence and reasoning.

What is the basis for the warnings? Should we be taking action to prevent the projected disasters? How can we best adapt to the potential dangers?

Anyone who takes the trouble to learn the facts about climate change will be better able to think sensibly about what confronts us. Contrarian seems to have difficulty in sifting through the facts. S/he prefers to select the ones which appear to fit his/her preferred view of the world and ignore evidence which challenges that view.

Contrarian tries to show s/he is on the side of observation and rationality by pointing to climate variation in the past. Perhaps s/he thought the scientists who study climate had overlooked this.

S/he then concocts the wild assertion that in the 1960s "the academic orthodoxy was that a Third Ice Age would make the planet uninhabitable". In fact, there have been at least four major ice ages so the next would be the fifth. It is silly to imply scientists expected the whole land surface would be covered in ice. Humans had plenty of ice-free land to use during the last ice age.

Contrarian then raises the spectre of people being prevented from building houses in the countryside. It is more likely we will be encouraged to return to the land to produce food as our imports of food dry up. Here's the scenario.

World food supplies are likely to be severely threatened at a time when demand for food worldwide is increasing.

Could we feed ourselves in this country, if we had to? We only produce 71% of indigenous foods and are becoming more reliant on imports each year. We are getting close to the time when we would be hard pressed to re-energise farming if we had to be self-reliant again.

When the country wakes up to the food security problem there will have to be an acknowledgement we need to be more food self-reliant. This will require more people in the countryside to work the land.

I can see why Contrarian is too embarrassed to use his/her name.