Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

The Guardian and the  Independent both report today that a new study by the Global Carbon Project , led by Professor Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, has found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008. This, writes the Independent,

means an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent over the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy.

And it means a far higher increas in global temperatures than predicted by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast just two years ago. The study argues that we could be on course for a 6C rise in temperatures by 2100. If in doubt about the implications of such a rise, i.e. the combustion of the rainforests, the acidification of the oceans and the consequences of irreversable tipping points, I suggest you read Mark Lynas' book "Six Degrees. Our Future on a Hotter Planet", a detailed description of a truely apocalyptic future.

Yet there are still people around who do not accept the human factor in climate change. Thomas Friedman, the voice of choice for mainstream liberal America, rebukes these incorrigible deniers in his column in the New York Times today - from a purely American perspective and for pure self-interest ( and, yes, there could be worse reasons for campaigning for a change of America's energy policy).

So, as I said, you don't believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I'll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. But if you also don't believe the world is getting more crowded with more aspiring Americans — and that ignoring that will play to the strength of our worst enemies, while responding to it with clean energy will play to the strength of our best technologies — then you’re willfully blind, and you're hurting America’s future to boot.

And the world's, I might add.

Christopher Furlong / Getty Images

Christopher Furlong/Getty Imag

An English High Court judge, Justice Michael Burton, has just ruled that green beliefs deserve the same protection in the workplace as religious convictions, reports the Economist in its weekly online column green.view, quoting Mr Burton:

“A belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperatives is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.”

The plaintiff in this case was Tim Nicholson, a former “head of sustainability” for a residential-property firm. He was laid off in 2008 and sued the company for unfair dismissal on the grounds of his eco-minded beliefs. Under Britain's six-year-old Religion and Belief Regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.

Some now fear the consequences this ruling might have, writes Time.com, quoting an employment specialistthat the decision will

"result in a tidal wave of philosophical-related litigation to employment tribunals."

Nor surprisingly, this ruling is seen as the beginning of a witch hunt by not only one of the innumerable blogs with a, let's say, denialist attitude towards man-made climate change:

So when can we expect "denier" to be replaced by "infidel"?

Well, Justice Burton seems to be a judge who likes to be precise. Two years ago, he reprimed Al Gore and his film "An Inconvenient Truth" for nine scientific errors, in a much publicised case brough to court by a British climate change denier. Not that Justice Burton had a problem with the central thesis that climate change was happening and that it was being driven by emissions from humans. Quite the contrary. But nine statements in the film, the judge said, were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

This time he has laid out some tests to prevent frivolous claims:

the belief must be genuinely held; it must be held for a long period of time; it must relate to something of grave importance to humanity; it must reach a certain level of cogency and seriousness; and it must not trample on existing ideas of human rights. By way of example, he said belief in the supremacy of the Jedi knights of “Star Wars” fame would be excluded, but he conceded that allegiance to the doctrines of Marxism or communism might not.

Question is, on which side will the deniers end up? Could those five points hold for them as they hold for the plaintiff?