Jury's still out on global warming

Dec 10 2009 By The Stirrer

THE Copenhagen summit this week has already been described as one of the most important meetings in history – a once in a lifetime opportunity to tackle a global meltdown caused by climate change.

Not to be outdone, deputy council leader Paul Tilsley has already declared his own war on greenhouse gases with the Birmingham Declaration.

This high-minded document promises better home insulation and commits the local authority to introduce a fleet of energy efficient electric vehicles.

It’s a welcome initiative, for sure, not least because we all know that fossil fuels will eventually run out.

Never mind global warming, it’s just plain common sense to be thrifty with our natural resources.

But does it necessarily follow that we should be dramatically changing our lifestyles to prevent a catastrophe brought about by rising temperatures?

The truth is that no-one knows for certain – and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

In the last fortnight alone, there have been allegations that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which supports the idea of man made global warming, deliberately skewed its statistics.

While an investigation continues, other scientists have come forward to argue that far from heating up, the earth is actually cooling down.

This remains a minority view, but history is littered with examples of those who’ve been pilloried for saying the unsayable, only to be proved correct in the long run.

In the 17th century, for example, Galileo was put on trial for heresy and forced to retire early for challenging the orthodox view that Earth was at the centre of the universe.

In the long run, of course, he was proved correct.

Science is not a popularity poll, but a muscular battle between rival bodies of evidence – and on climate change the jury is still out.