Just the most offensive scenes possible in Paris at the weekend. A mere two weeks after the city was attacked by islamic fascists, a climate change march gets hijacked by the usual rent-a-crowd thugs of the ultra left and anarchists, culminating in candles, placed at various venues to remember the dead, being thrown at police officers and idiots protesting where the flowers of remembrance have been laid. What this is supposed to achieve, I will never know.
There is no scientific argument that suggests that climate change isn’t occurring and the overwhelming evidence is that humans are driving climate change. The conspiracists, with their wild and deeply flawed imaginings, can deny but they do in the face of what are now facts. I am in favour of people marching to urge that action be taken to slow and halt climate change. What I am totally opposed to is the reckless, brainless rioting that accompanied the protests in Paris. What were they thinking about? That they would persuade ordinary people that action needs to be taken to prevent the world heading for climate catastrophe by violent protest, by desecrating the tributes to the dead and injured? More likely, it would have the opposite effect, dissuading rather than persuading. If people like that are leading the climate change debate, then how can we take them seriously?
Not many things shock me, but I would not dream of standing on flowers left to honour the dead, nor throw a candle left by a loved one at the police. I might be extremely angry that we are standing by and watching our planet be destroyed, but I suggest it might just be a little counter-productive to express my views through violence. But perhaps I am a little old fashioned.
Can I explain, in detail, all the scientific evidence that shows how climate change is occurring? No, but then I don’t need to. Whilst I do not have “faith” in an imaginary celestial dictator, I do believe scientists, the overwhelming majority of them too, are not making this up. David Attenborough said today when asked how he would answer Donald Trump’s view that climate change was not true, “Look at the facts.” Now when Attenborough speaks, I listen. If I had to choose between his view and that of Trump, or, perish the thought, climate-change denier Nigel Lawson, I think I know who I would believe the most.
Put pressure on the politicians by all means, tell them that they have a duty not just to us but for generations to come to confront the fact of climate change. But don’t use violence, eh?
