eurealist.co.uk

I have not been keeping up with events this is the first time I have heard the term ‘climate change denial’ or linking those who dare to question one particular view on global warming  to the Nazi Holocaust denier.

This sort of think grabs my attention becasue the USE United States Of Europe deniers always try to act very much in the same manner it will happen get used to it. they aslo try to hold the high moral ground.

From Spiked

Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech The demonisation of ‘climate change denial’ is an affront to open and rational debate.

There is something deeply repugnant in marshalling the Holocaust in this way, both to berate climate change deniers and also as a convenient snapshot of what is to come if the planet continues to get warmer. First, the evidence is irrefutable that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis; that is an historical event that has been thoroughly investigated, interrogated and proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Although as the American-Jewish academic and warrior against Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt, has pointed out, even the Nazi Holocaust is not above debate and re-evalution; it is not a ‘theology’.)

There is no such proof or evidence (how could there be?) that global warming will cause a similar calamity. Second, it is, yet again, a cynical attempt to close down debate. The H-word is uttered as a kind of moral absolute that no one could possibly question. We are all against what happened during the first Holocaust, so we will be against the ‘next Holocaust’, too, right? And if not – if you do not take seriously the coming ‘global warming Holocaust’ – then you are clearly wicked, the equivalent of the David Irvings of this world, someone who should possibly even be locked up or certainly tried at a future date. At least laws against Holocaust denial (which, as a supporter of free speech, I am opposed to) chastise individuals for lying about a known and proven event; by contrast, the turning of climate change denial into a taboo raps people on the knuckles for questioning events, or alleged events, that have not even occurred yet. It is pre-emptive censorship. They are reprimanded not for lying, but for doubting, for questioning. If this approach was taken across the board, then spiked – motto: Question Everything – would be in for a rough ride.

Letter in the Times

edited

The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the leading edge of research — the asking process — where argument, debate and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is totally faith based, with all those working in this field having notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches are designed to substantiate their beliefs.

I see no compelling reason to distinguish this “faith” from that felt in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as heated, and based on as little “factual” evidence as some religious confrontations. Many pursue false “gods” and fall by the wayside, but never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief.

It is only by constant questioning, challenging and reinterpretation in the light of new information that understanding progresses. The British Centre for Science Education should embrace this inquisitorial, correctional philosophy without fear. Science is not for the faint hearted.

DR MIKE SNOW
Former senior research scientist
Medical Research Council