One of the new “climate change experts” recently identified by the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (think: Not Really Science People) seems vaguely conflicted about his own climatic conclusions.

In this Short Primer on Climate Change and the Greenhouse Issue, Dr. Garth Paltridge, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tasmania, concludes that it would be worth spending money to address climate change on the following grounds:

• To preserve the current environment for future generations;
• As a precaution against “disastrous change of climate which might basically alter the structure and economic well-being of human society;”
• To protect against “significant risks for the smaller and less economically diverse countries;”
• To recognize that many of the recommended expenditures (improving efficiency, saving energy) have “no regrets.”

It’s not clear to me how Dr. Paltridge can then set these conclusions aside and dismiss climate change as “a symbol – almost a religious symbol – of all that is bad or profligate about human society.” Then again, I’m not an NRSP scientist.