To clarify the militant comment. I wasn’t suggesting that producing this website is militant as it plainly isn’t. I was more meaning that we’re going to do things like attend protests in the future and be a bit more shouty about our opinions.

I think a lot more shouting is needed if Ed Milliband’s interview at the recent transition conference is anything to go by.

You know what I think about your venture: massive quantities of respec’, and also a fair old sprinkling of jealousy, too.

I can only see this subjectively – and from that perspective, I don’t see how what you’re doing can be compared to the “in your faceness” of religious zealotry. The difference to me lies somewhere around the *informed* nature of what you’re doing. The naysayers about climate change are becoming fewer – trending to zero – in the face of massive, distributed, intelligent evidence. And, as you say, the value of Pascal’s Wager (which, ironically, was originally positioned as a reason for believing in God..), is still there even if you’re wrong. There is no downside to what you’re doing. And if it alienates people, well – frankly – tough.

I’d personally rather see *more* passionate conversations about religion, climate change AND politics. I’m pretty full of atheism, too, but I think floppy-armed (thanks, Eddie) – “oo, better keep quiet in case we upset someone” doesn’t do anyone any good at all.

This to me is more about passion, excitement and stepping outside of the norm. I don’t actually see it as “militant” (although I know what you’re getting at).

Frankly, if you start wearing socks and sandals, rock on. :-)