I SAW Chasing Ice recently, a hauntingly beautiful film about glaciers and climate change and it got me thinking about lung cancer.
This is because the scientific probability that climate change is caused by humans is now the same as lung cancer being caused by smoking. NASA, CSIRO and others all agree. So why the controversy?
As children 30 years ago, we were taught smoking is bad, while alternative stories of Grandpa who smoked like a chimney till he was 101 were common.
But as I remember, these skeptical experiences never trumped the scientific method and principle: the open process, research and criticism that underpins most of our technological advancement to date.
I'm glad this science debate takes place without me, in an open ended rigorous manner, because it would be very difficult and time consuming to be involved in.
It therefore worried me deeply when Liberal Senator Brandis said "those who say the climate change debate is over are medieval and obstructing free speech".
By doing this, he supports the elevation of discredited arguments and experiences that have already been debated.
The reason and rigour of science has not faced such an attack since Copernicus and Gallelio.
Unlike my father, I will not face a smoking-related death. I hope future generations will also benefit from today's science and escape the consequences of climate change.
Alistair Spong, Margaret River
