The issue of climate change has exercised the minds of Toby Helm in the Guardian and Peter Hitchens in the Mail. The Guardian runs with the story that one of the fifteen EU Parliamentary representatives at next week’s climate change conference in Copenhagen will be Nick Griffin of the BNP. Whilst Peter Hitchens berates the one sided debate that is what he calls the modern climate change zealotry. By putting these two in the same article I am in no way saying they are to same politically.
Griffin, the leader of the BNP, has been chosen by the EU parliament. He will not be representing Britain or the UK government. He has come under intense fire for taking a very anti-climate change stance, openly calling climate change lobbyists ‘cranks’. He also claims that the whole climate change argument is based on ‘bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics’.
In response he has been branded as a climate change ‘denier’. Not least by the Guardian itself, that quoted many climate change lobbyists rounding on him. There also seemed to be language coupling the left wing to good climate changers and the right with bad climate change deniers.
Peter Hitchens, after showing his green credentials, brings our attention to a new book ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker. He puts up a strong argument that the climate change industry isn’t ‘settled science’ as Al Gore would have you believe. He goes on to point out that there are two sides to the argument and that, at the moment, one side is being disregarded and vilified.
As a climate change sceptic myself (not a ‘denier’, for me the climate change lobby have not made a strong enough case) I want to see both sides given an equal airing.
For me this highlights how unequal the debate has become. But having Nick Griffin speaking on any subject will automatically give the other side an unfair advantage. So having him ranting against the climate change lobby will boost their case astronomically.
Peter Hitchens, like him or loathe him, does make a very cogent case for more considered debate on the subject and one of the things he brings up puzzles me. Why has the population of polar bears increased in the recent past, not declined as the climate change lobby would have you believe should have happened?
The climate change side say that right or wrong we should act 'just in case'. But as the sceptics point out, this may divert time and energy away from the economic growth that would drag millions out of poverty and an early death.
You May also be interested in: