Geoscientist Online

Dear Editor, It is a difficult skill being an editor when contentious issues are discussed. Try to ‘present a balance’ and ‘don’t allow abuse’ are a couple of my rules. I suggest the proportion of climate change (0% to 100%) due to humans is a fair matter to debate—and it is important. So, comments in Readers’ letters in Geoscientist, August 2018 that ‘The scientific evidence for human-induced climate change is irrefutable’ and ‘climate change scepticism …. is wilful ideological blindness’ suggest some of the contributors to the Earth Science Ireland magazine that I edit are both stupid and blind.

I have seen it written (C.P.Summerhayes, 2015, Earth’s Climate Evolution, Wiley Blackwell, p2 & 7) that some scientists “display their ignorance by trotting out the mantra ‘the climate is always changing’” and “If you start with an absolute belief that humans do not cause global warming then…. no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise…. what you hold is a ‘belief’ not scientific understanding”. It immediately signalled to me that there is a serious debate to be had and the answer is not simple.

Perhaps the belief or religion is that of the scientists promoting Armageddon and unwilling to debate sensibly. That may be too cynical but it makes an editor’s job easier if facts are presented rather than bullying assertions, and censorship is surely not an option. Mike Ridd’s example was a good one.

Tony Bazley