A letter writer to the Craven Herald asked last week about my opinion on climate change science.  For those of you not lucky enough to receive that august organ of news, I thought it might be worth using this space to jot down some possibly contentious thoughts…..

First, though, let me say I am no scientist, though I have read the books of James Lovelock with great interest and do dip into my son’s copy of “Scientific American”, if there are items that grab my attention and  are basic enough for a non-scientist to understand!  I also, and this may be a bit of a give-away (!), have read some books and articles by George Monbiot.

Despite being a non-scientist, it has always struck me that our understanding (or not) of science across the total population is one of the main issues when it comes to opinions on climate change science.  It has always struck me as paradoxical that when we go to the doctors, for instance, scientist or not, we are happy enough to accept his/her diagnosis and treatment without having to “believe” the science behind the drugs.   We are happy enough to buy a new washing machine or computer without having to “believe” the science behind the mechanical and electrical processes. 

It is generally only when the science brings unwelcome news about potential changes to our lifestyle, that we can downgrade our usual trust in science to mere “belief”.  This is made more pronounced when the events are only predicted rather than directly observable, giving us the apparent luxury of choice.

I do accept the vast, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence for climate change, but even if I didn’t and was a doubter, there are still powerful reasons for finding alternative, cleaner sources of energy that will lead to greater sustainability.  Investing our energies and money in finding alternatives to fossil fuels seems only sensible, given that these are finite resources.  It is one of the reasons why I am so happy to support our party’s policies, and the consistent green vein that runs through them all.  This coherent green narrative  seems to me to be an absolute essential for any party that thinks themselves fit to govern in the 21st century.

Finally, as regards conspiracy theory pedallers, such as that old Tory dinosaur Nigel Lawson and others of his ilk, I have always been at a loss to understand what is “in it” for climate change scientists to join together to fool and mislead the public on such a huge scale.  How would they personally gain by propagating a vast web of lies, except by grants being awarded in the current funding round, their reputation being temporarily enhanced and the possibility of winning prizes?  As science is generally transparent, any gains will be temporary and ephemeral. The rewards just don’t seem worth the risk.

The same cannot be said, however, for those corporate giants and their shareholders who control the oil, gas and coal companies.  They, indeed, do have a lot to lose if there was to be a wholesale move from arbitrary choice of belief or disbelief in climate change science to a position of trust.  It seems that they are the ones we are best advised to watch.