YOUR letters page on July 11 showed a familiar spectrum of the opposition to the climate change argument, from the 'it's natural' approach favoured by Trevor Farrer to the multiple doubts Clive Carroll tries to cast upon the extent of scientific consensus.

I do wonder why people are so exercised by this; climate change denial is a veritable cottage industry, and it cannot merely be because people object to paying a few bob extra on their fuel bills, or have a deep concern for scientific accuracy.

The determination with which certain sectors of the press push this agenda is particularly noteworthy.

Here's the thing though: fossil fuels are a finite resource. We can run out of them quickly or slowly; personally, I'd go with 'slowly'.

So even in the unlikely event that the deniers are right, there is still a problem, having the same answer. We can and should reduce the rate of resource depletion, and reduce pollution.

As a side benefit, just maybe, we might avoid providing the 'empirical evidence' that Clive Carroll worryingly demands before he'll accept that a 2 degree rise is a concern.

Focusing solely on climate change, to the exclusion of all other aspects of the matter, is a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Allan Miller