Climate Change
03 Dec 2009It is time for the public to have a debate on what is arguably the biggest issue addressing our nation at the moment. Is global warming occurring? If so, how much of it is man-made? Even if it is not man-made, what will be the consequences of temperatures continuing on the current trend and could or should we intervene? These are the core questions that we must address as a society. Climate change is important because: If those who say it is real, and catastrophic are correct, we could be facing a disastrous situation in the near future if it is not turned around. Or alternatively if those who oppose are correct we could be crippling our economies at an already bad time by imposing unnecessary and useless taxes that will be ineffective, and/or be evolving power ever upwards towards unaccountable agencies and away from national democracies in the name of a non-existent threat.
The approach suggested by the voters is one of scientific scepticism. The labelling of sceptics as "deniers" or other emotive language on either side is a distraction to our inquiry. We should conduct our investigation in a similar fashion to a court. We should into account the evidence presented by expert witnesses on both sides to get to the facts.
It is our contention that extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof. Since one cannot prove a negative the emphasis falls on the one proposing the hypothesis for global warming to prove it as true. It is also up to proponents to answer the other questions such as causation, what the consequences are most likely to be, whether it is possible to intervene and whether it is desirable to do so. Only when these questions have been answered in a falsifiable, testable and transparent way can we begin to gauge what the appropriate response should be.
The leaked emails revealing that scientists at the University of East Anglia were withholding their data from peer review and would rather destroy it than hand it over to sceptical reviewers is extremely worrying and inappropriate for an institution receiving taxpayer money. It has cast doubt on whether global warming is even taking place, and has revealed a very partisan attitude inside the anti global warming movement. There can be no sacred cows in scientific research, especially when publicly financed, and when the consequences of the evidence being wrong could be disastrous for the world economy.
We need full disclosure of all data from those in the climate change movement, and quickly. We also need a robust cross examination by climate sceptics so that the public can better understand the issues and be properly informed about them. "Leaving it to the experts" is no longer an option, especially given the fact that the question has ramifications in every single citizen's life.
The Copenhagen climate conference and any further international initiatives should be postponed until a full and public debate that includes all evidence is presented and enquiries held into the data collection, presentation and interpretive practises of the climate scientists.
One way to do this would be by a jury type system with a counsel and expert witnesses on both sides supervised by a panel of high court judges who would help filter the evidence based on the standard of evidence in civil law. A public referendum could follow a televised trial of the arguments and could make television history in terms of innovation, education and public engagement in politics. It would provide a great shot in the arm for British politics which is currently at a nadir following the recent expenses scandals and would also provide insight into the British justice system.
1 authors proposed articles for this document. The ones displayed were approved by the majority of voters, with 1 voters taking part. The views expressed in the document do not necessarily reflect the view of Diffusionware Limited, it's directors, agents or employees.
←Back to Headlines
