Harry's Blog

Now before you send the Eco-Stazi round I just want to make clear that I believe that it's more likely than not that mankind is having an adverse effect on our climate. But my beef is the way that views on climate change are being forced on people and the way language is being used to do so.

We're well used to hearing phrases like "holocaust denier" - and rightly such people are pilloried for being ignorant racist fools. But when similar language is applied to people who are unconvinced by what continue to be a lot of contradictory arguments, bad science and total nonsense it's not surprising people remain sceptical about the concept of man-made climate change.

To describe such people as "climate change deniers" is disingenuous, unfair and really a Godwin'a Law own-goal. It also displays a Newspeak style attempt at controlling thought through language.

Notice the phrase isn't the (admittedly less snappy) "Man-made climate change denier". Instead the phrase "climate change denier" builds up its own straw man then links the denier through association with the most common use of "denier" in this context to Nazism.

I find it hard to believe there is anyone who would deny that our climate changes. In myriad cycles caused by planetary, solar, techtonic and atmospheric cycles our weather patterns are constantly changing over thousands, hundreds and tens of years. These various patterns conflict with each and bring about complex patterns in our climate. The poles have thawed and frozen, glaciers have come and gone - Viking grazed cattle in Greenland where ice sheets now dominate.

The big issue is whether we as a species have contributed to this change with our industrial society and effect on the planet's flora and fauna. Do we have more of an effect than sun cycles or the greenhouse gas output of volcanoes? The evidence more and more suggests we do - but it's not conclusive.

The phrase "climate change denier" though says that someone who doesn't believe that mankind is changing our climate is so stupid they don't even believe the climate is changing at all. The phrase says all climate change is an issue of our adverse effect on the world. And if you believe that, then you're a murderous fool one step away from being a Nazi. Which is ridiculous.

If someone doesn't believe that climate change is man made I can understand how they've come to that conclusion and I feel it's a pretty reasonable stand to make, even if I don't agree. Personally I feel we have a duty to look after our planet - avoid pollution and the destruction of natural resources. We have an effect on our planet and we should minimise that. But it's not going to stop the massive natural forces that change our climate, to assume if we prevent all greenhouse gas emitions that the climate won't change in ways that we'll have to deal with is just plain silly.

Unfortunately the thought police have lumped all these issues under one banner. There's a danger if strong scientific proof should emerge that we're not really affecting the climate very much at all that companies and nations will once again feel they can rape our planet and that we don't have to plan for changes that our climate will undergo. Pollution in my local river might not make the Antarctic ice shelves melt - but thanks to a political focus on climate change someone might stop such pollution and fine those responsible. That's good. But these issues shouldn't be so tied to one particularly argument that the whole house of cards could come tumbling down.

Some pathetic mouth breathers don't believe the holocaust occurred. Some less hateful but no less stupid people suggest NASA didn't put a man on the moon or that the twin towers were blown up by explosives, or the world was made 6000 year ago. But those that deny our climate is being altered by our behaviour might be wrong, but they are hardly hateful or should be the target of such ridiculous vilification. What we need is an open debate, not trying to silence dissenting voices. For hundreds of years science was on the other side of this age old conflict of knowledge versus dogma, it's a shame to see it take the dogmatic approach.