I’ve just read a story in which a man with an unpalatable past sacrifices himself in the most painful way to save someone he hardly knows.

Such an act of redemption is one which appeals very much to what is human in us. We see redemption as something almost tangibly beautiful.

You might argue that this stems from, or is interwoven with, The Great Story of redemption – the self-sacrificial act that redeems us all. Maybe this is at the centre of our existence, and we are therefore moved by it. Or you might not think that at all.

Whatever you think, redemption as a possibility is something vital to us. And that’s why the kind of journalism that begins its stories “Shamed vicar…” or “Shamed celebrity…” is one that is inhuman.

Why? Because it condemns us to remaining the same. It condemns us to hopelessness. It claims that whatever we’ve done, however great or small, it will for ever taint our memory. Nothing we can do will change it.

If this is true, we might as well give up. But in truth redemption is always possible, just as unforgiveness is always self-harming.

To have a concrete, unforgiving attitude to anyone – those of a certain political or religious persuasion, for instance – does us no good at all. It blinds us to the possibility of change, and to the depths of humanity that lie within the most unpromising of us. It blinds us, in the end, to reality.

If we want to understand each other, redemption is a good place to start.

I have a special affinity for St Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. Over many years of writing for a newspaper, and later for this website, I seem to have homed in on issues that to me seem clear, logical and irrefutable – only to find most people think they can be supported only by someone considerably to the right of Attila the Hun and without his mitigating qualities.

How can this be? I don’t regard myself as right-wing at all. And I have strong doubts about the usefulness of such labels. Politics is circular: if you go far enough to the left, you suddenly pop out on the extreme and very angry right.

I see myself somewhere near the middle, bouncing up and down. I love people (well, most people), which is why I am suspicious about the desire to control them, especially if it’s for their own good. The sort of thing Oscar Wilde was thinking about when he said that “selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live”.

Hence wind turbines, road humps and 20mph limits.

“There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.”  So said the philosopher Bertrand Russell, and while was probably not thinking about carbon emissions and speed limits, he might as well have been.

Wind turbines are ugly and inefficient; so the Government subsidises them.

Slow speed limits are not only unhelpful but dangerous, especially when they are camera-enforced. They induce complacency (I can’t possibly do any harm, because I’m going so slowly), and they encourage people to look at their speedometers instead of at the road.

A recent fatal crash was caused by a woman braking sharply when she saw a speed camera, though this was hardly mentioned in reports of the court case, which zeroed in on her use of a mobile phone shortly beforehand.

I do not wish to distract attention from the mobile phone use, because I think using a mobile phone – especially texting – while driving is so idiotic that it borders on the criminally insane. But the fact remains that if the camera was not there, that particular accident would probably not have happened.

And road humps are just ridiculous. They cause pain to elderly (and not so elderly) bus passengers, they damage vehicles and are dangerous for cyclists – among other things.

Totally crazy. I’m against them all, and a great deal more too. But I’m giving it all up and leaving it to St Jude. I have nothing more to say about them. It has all been said, and nothing changes. I give up. Future comments on this site will be in a very different vein.

A dramatic increase in the number of wild and sometimes accurate stories about global warming is predicted during the coming decade, reaching danger level by at the latest 2025, according to the latest research.

Those living on the edge of knowledge are in most danger of hot-air inundation and would be crazy not to move, government figures reveal.

Low-lying Miami has recently been swamped by an article written by the science editor of The Observer, its local paper, which claims that the city – and south Florida generally – will be “swallowed as sea levels rise”. The problem, it continues, “is that the city is run by climate change deniers”.

I’m sorry, but that is not the problem. It’s not even true.

Almost no-one denies climate change. It is quite obvious that climate change is happening, has happened repeatedly in the past and will continue to happen. What is in dispute is the cause of climate change.

So what is the problem? It is the emotive use of such ludicrous phrases as “climate change denial” – the object being to present those holding such views as ridiculous. But the phrase itself is ridiculous, and those who use it should share the ridicule.

The article in question tells a horrific story of the effect on Miami of sea level rises, and I have no reason to doubt what it says about that. But what is the cause? Carbon emissions? Some think so (many of them with no knowledge at all of the science), and they are the ones the article is aimed at.

Look at the way quotations are twisted to put certain people in a bad light.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, about whom I know next to nothing, is quoted as saying: I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.”

The next paragraph of the article continues: “ Not surprisingly, Rubio’s insistence that his state is in no danger from climate change has brought him into conflict with local people.”

But Rubio has just been quoted as affirming “these dramatic changes to our climate”. How does that make him a climate change denier, which is how he is described?

The real challenge for Miami – as for many areas in the world – is to combat the effects of climate change. We can argue about the causes, but name-calling and deliberate distortion only put a fence between those who would otherwise work together in an attempt to ensure people’s safety.

We have to stop these damaging journalistic emissions before the effect on the atmosphere is irreversible. Oh, sorry. It already is.

Growth is good: it is evidence of life, and we all need evidence of that sometimes.

Except, of course, that if you and I grow too much, we become obese, and that is bad. So in our particular case, growth should be reined back, so that we remain capable of moving about.

As far as house prices go, you can look at growth in various ways. Growth in the number of houses is widely accepted as good, because it will enable many people currently homeless to get a roof over their heads. On the other hand, it means that we lose many acres of countryside, which is bad.

So it becomes a question of the greater good. Do we sacrifice our green and pleasant land so that people have somewhere to live? Put like that, the answer is straightforward – until so much countryside is covered with concrete that it is hardly worth living at all. (This is also known as the wind farm paradox.)

Then there is the question of house prices. If they grow (as they are doing at the moment), you could argue that to a buyer it doesn’t matter, because the house you sell is worth more too. But what if you don’t have a house? Growth in house prices is clearly bad for you.

And yet the economy needs to grow, doesn’t it? Not necessarily: a stable economy works perfectly well.

You wouldn’t think so, of course, when you listen to the news. The people at Tesco are worried at the moment because the company is not growing. And to listen to political analysts, you would assume that if companies are not growing, they are doomed.

In fact, this is rubbish. How can it possibly be true? Say I shop at Tesco. (I don’t, but let’s overlook that for the moment.) I buy my groceries on a fairly regular basis; I need roughly the same amount each week. But for Tesco to be “successful”, I would have to increase my purchases on a regular basis. This would mean I have to eat more, and this would mean I would grow in a very personal way – which, if you remember, is bad.

So how can this constant search for growth be made to make sense? Well, Tesco could encourage immigration, which would not be popular in a country the size of ours. Or they could urge customers to switch from other supermarkets. What is the point in that?

It makes much more sense to maintain stability, and this goes for most companies. It  would be good for the poor, but it would be bad for rich investors, who are basically gamblers. I bet you know whose side I’m on.

To western democracies, growth is a kind of god. But it’s a false god.

At this stage someone usually pats me on the shoulder and says patronisingly: “Tim,” (they always use your name, as if you need reminding), “you don’t really understand.”

And they’re right. I don’t. Or maybe I wish I didn’t.

Some people go for sandbags; others prefer money. Possibly sandbags full of money would do it.

Is your home flooded? No problem. The Government has lots of money, so everything will be fine.

Whose fault is it anyway?   Perhaps the Environment Agency, who are so infatuated with wildlife that they don’t have time to dredge rivers. Perhaps the Government, who don’t live in Somerset and are in love with high-speed trains. Perhaps the planners, who are keen to build on flood plains. Perhaps local authorities. Perhaps the police. Perhaps the fairies.

Someone should have stopped it.

Remember King Canute, who tried to stop the tide coming in and couldn’t – presumably because he hadn’t allocated enough money – or sand. Haven’t we progressed any further than that?

Well, Canute was not quite that stupid. If you read the story carefully, you’ll find that he was not making foolhardy attempts to stop the sea coming in. He was demonstrating to his wrong-headed supporters and subjects that he wasn’t all-powerful, and some things cannot be stopped.

Of course he was right. He had a level-headed view of humanity’s limitations – a view that we seem to have jettisoned as life has got easier and easier.

We are used to being safe. We are insured. We take precautions. If something goes wrong, there is someone to put it right.

Except that no-one has yet mastered the sea, any more than they have mastered the rain or the wind. Or the climate. We like to think that we can, and it’s just a question of making the right decisions, using the right energy, making everything completely safe.

But this is a delusion. We happen to have been living in a very quiet period. In past centuries there have been huge sea floods of unknown origin. That story about Lyonesse – the land between Cornwall and the Scilly Isles that was lost during a “huge sea flood” – is usually described as a myth. Couldn’t happen, could it?

Or could it? We forget that in Roman times the coast of my home county, Norfolk, was very different, with the sea pushing much further inland. We forget the Fens – drained relatively recently. Stories of huge, destructive storms filter down the centuries.

The sea is not easy to push aside. The weather cannot always be easily handled.

Some say there is no such thing as bad weather, just inadequate clothing. I don’t think so.

There is nothing we can do to stop continuous rain, hurricane force winds or months of snow – any more than we can predict or defend against tsunamis and meteorites. Money won’t do it, and nor will sandbags.

The odds are against extreme weather – which simply means that it doesn’t happen very often. But it does happen, and it is just as likely to happen now as at any other time. We take the best precautions we can.

I took the precaution of not buying a house on a flood plain. But the hill on which I live is made of chalk, and there are tunnels in it. Even a small amount of snow and ice makes our steep road hard to use. There are large trees that could fall on us.

Nowhere is completely safe, and we have no right to complete safety. Many parts of the world are forced to be aware of this. Why not us?

What we do have is responsibility – to do the best we can, to protect each other, to have compassion and to recognise that we are not yet ready – nowhere near ready – to conquer the universe. That is not what the universe is for.