People may agree or disagree with climate change but the debate, if you can call it that, is definitely heating up. Bring it on is what I say.
The problem though is that facts and figures are no longer being bandied about as ways of getting to the truth. No it is the mud-slinging and name calling that both sides of the argument now use.
A quick look at the comments some newspaper articles attract on the internet shows how deep this division goes.
There are four sides to this argument:
- Those who believe that climate change is happening and that man is the cause.
- Those that believe climate change is happening but that man has no, or little, impact.
- Those that require more solid proof as to whether global warming is occurring and how much man is implicated in it.
- Those that do not believe climate change is happening.
As far as the more vociferous of the first group are concerned, anyone who holds an opinion that puts them in groups two to four should be ignored and shouted down. And until recently that was what effectively happened.
I am a climate change sceptic (the same as a fully fledged denier as far as the first group are concerned). The question I have is, if the case for climate change is so solid and so well supported, why did all the clever climate change scientists have to resort to misinformation to force their message through? Surely they should not have needed to do this. Surely proper evidence would have sufficed. If there was such overwhelming evidence of man’s involvement in climate change these scientists would not have had time to worry about using unpublished student essays and half truths in telephone conversations.
This leads me and many others to begin to question the validity of the science as well as the real depth of the evidence concerned.
The Independent ran an article today alleging that climate change deniers are funded by oil companies, whilst the Express ran with the story that the BBC is overtly pro climate change while struggling to fill a Â£2 billion hole in its ‘green’ pension scheme.
The message both sides should take, is that the science is not settled and it never will be while big money is at stake. Money to fund research is as much an attraction to scientists as bonuses are to bankers. Maybe the big step we could take forward in science is to sort out how we fund research and anything that falls outside of that cannot be used by public bodies in formulating policy and setting tax levels.