Minega Isibo in his weekly column decided to tackle the climate change skeptics. I think that is an exercise in futility because of a simple reason; he doesn’t have the facts to prove his argument. While he went on and on about this and that, I still didn’t see any bit of fact. And I think I know why.
It’s because not a single scientist can actually prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that climate change will be necessarily bad for the human race.
What I’ve heard is that the world’s average temperature will rise by an average of three degrees Celsius. What Minega forgot to note was that the earth wasn’t always this cold.
There was a time when Great Britain was covered in rainforest. So, the question I have to ask is this, “the world will get a bit warmer, so what”? I mean, while I’ve heard of the doomsday scenarios, I haven’t heard a counterargument.
I’m not a climate scientist, or even a scientist at all, but all the so-called models that some of the scientists are using have been found to be faulty. And unlike what he’d have us believe, there isn’t unanimity in the scientific community about the whole debate.
And these aren’t necessarily bad scientists, but people from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
So, why should I believe those saying we have to cut carbon dioxide emissions and not the scientists who say that we shouldn’t?
Is it because the media has become a driving force behind the whole climate change storm? I will not say that any side is necessarily right, but I won’t say that either side is wrong. And your column didn’t shed any light to the debate.