How can you ‘prove’ both sides of the climate debate? | OPINION

SOME things are just so predictable.

Which is why it was no shock to hear global warming advocates claim the recent hot weather was positive proof the globe is warming and disaster is just around the corner.

Which is exactly the same strategy used by the global warming non-believers, who claim the massive cold snaps and extreme weather being experienced in other parts of the world is proof the globe cannot be warming.

They could also claim their view was backed by Lake Hume being full and there were good snowfalls up the mountains.

I don’t know whether the globe is warming or not, whether or not humans are playing a part in it, whether can we do something about it, and if we can, then how should we do it.

It should be fairly simple to work out the first two, but that just hasn’t happened — mostly because of blind ideology where people grab whatever information they can that will be “proof” of what they are claiming.

For example, how can people take as gospel what the likes of Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and Alan Jones claim?

After all, what qualifications do any of these people — or journalists on either side of the argument for that matter — have which would not only allow them to claim they are right but do so in such a vehement manner?

On the other hand, so far as I can work out, the number of pro-global warming scientists far outnumber those who are denialists.

We are told by some that the pro-warming theory is nothing more than a massive global financial conspiracy.

The only problem with that is global warming and the greenhouse effect was a given 40 years ago when I was in high school.

Which then begs the question as to why it has now become such a controversy.

The next thing which is starting to move me into the pro-corner is the fact Labor, the Greens and the Coalition all not only believe in global warming but Labor and the Coalition also have exactly the same policy — they just differ in how to solve the “problem”.

That is, Labor believes in the carbon tax while the Coalition believes their Direct Action Plan is the way to go.

Which again starts to push me into the pro-global warming camp.

And the reason for that is the Coalition has been so outrageously dishonest when it comes to the subject.

Tony Abbott only became the Leader of the Opposition because of the support of those in the Liberal Party who are strongly opposed to the concept of global warming.

But he won the job by defeating Malcolm Turnbull by only one vote, suggesting the Liberals are split down the middle when it comes to the theory of global warming.

It seems many Coalition supporters were happy their side of politics was against the global warming theory and set about mocking the “pro” supporters.

Which was rather embarrassing for them when they found out the Coalition had not been completely honest with them.

But, for me, the most persuasive argument so far was the message former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader Tim Fischer gave to farmers and others during the opening ceremony the Henty Machinery Field Days last year.

That message was the globe is being subjected to “climate chaos” and the Himalayan glaciers will have melted within 25 years — which we all know, or should know, would lead to a massive disaster involving millions of people.

So both sides of this incredibly divisive debate need to look into their hearts and ask themselves if their point of view is shaped only by ideology.

Because if they are wrong they are going to be responsible for future generations suffering a terrible fate, and that seems a terrible price to pay for moronic stubbornness.

Smartphone
Tablet - Narrow
Tablet - Wide
Desktop