Sir, – Mainstream science firmly declares that our global climate is changing rapidly, that this change is largely caused by human activities and that it will have profoundly negative effects. On the other hand, a small minority of people will not accept this mainstream position and powerfully propose various alternative “scientific” explanations of climate change. Mainstream science repeatedly debunks these contrarian claims but the general public is left feeling confused and poorly motivated to urge politicians to tackle the problem of global warming.
ProfBarry McMullin (November 5th) steers close to advocating censorship of the contrarian arguments in the public press as a strategy to win over public opinion. I believe that this would be a mistake on two fronts. First, it would be an unfair strategy. The other side is entitled to state its position even when this position is based on the flimsiest of evidence. Second, censorship would hand the contrarian side a genuine grievance. Considering the traction they have gained so far in this debate with the backing of little or no evidence, imagine the advances they would make if armed with a genuine weapon. – Yours, etc,
WILLIAM REVILLE,
Emeritus Professor,
University College Cork.