In the long term, the argument is probably academic since "global warming", paradoxically, leads to "global cooling". The climate we have enjoyed for the last 13,000 is not historically typical. We have evolved with the climate and, had the climate taken a different course, we would most likely have evolved differently.

So, whether it is a warming or a cooling is only relevant in the short-to-medium term. That is not to say that it is unimportant, since we have to live through that period and need to know what is happening in the foreseeable future so that we can plan for it.

Even more indicative is the sea temperature, since it is evident that bleaching is happening in coral reefs around Australia and the Caribbean. This is indicative that there is a warming of sea temperatures which could (and probably would ) lead to release of billions of tons of methane stored at the bottom of the sea for millions of years.

In such a situation, "global warming" would definitely increase but that would lead to an eventual global cooling. Methane is something like 20 times as efficient as a "greenhouse gas" as carbon dioxide and is damaging the ozone layer because it destroys ozone more effectively.

Whether we call it "climate change", "global warming" or "global cooling", whether we believe it is cyclic or man-made, it is happening and we need to be prepared for changes. An increase in ocean depth of 17 centimetres may seem significant to us with our limited existence but in actual fact is probably insignificant in the lifespan of the earth.

Our task, if we want to survive, is to work within the climate we live. Moaning, lamentation and blame is irrelevant. Working with all viewpoints, rather than promoting some at the expense of others is not a viable option. We have identified that pollution is at the very least contributing to climate change (I use that term as a neutral between warming and cooling, not as a denial of either) so we need to tackle what we can.

We will probably not be able to continue with our wasteful lives in the west without savings and sacrifices in some areas. Cutting down rain forests, burning huge amounts of non-renewable fossil fuels and wasting the energy we produce from it is not a sensible thing to do.

In my opinion, much of the cause for people in "prosperous" countries wanting more and more at any cost is due to the media, in particular placing burdens on people to conform, join the rat race and "keep up with the Jones's". Much of what we take for granted is very costly in environmental terms and these need to be either made more environmentally friendly or abandoned. Education in this area is almost undetectable. Businesses want to sell their wares, governments want more businesses for "economic growth", people want consumer goods, these all have a significant impact on climate.

It is interesting, though, looking at both sides of the theory - warming and cooling - that both come to the same conclusion. That we have to change our ways if we want to survive. Global Cooling advocates are not "climate change deniers". They are not ignorant idiots. The ignorant ones are those who seem to think that if we have two theories - cooling and warming - that balance each other out and so we don't really need to do anything. No. Both theories lead to the same conclusion; we are damaging the environment in which we live at an unsustainable level. Further, if we do not take heed, we could speed up climate change to a level where we don't have time to adapt. We can't stop it but we don't need to help it along.