Is the belief in man-made climate change a religion?Tim Nicholson, an executive sacked from a giant property company, claimed he was unfairly dismissed because of his "philosophical belief in climate change". And a judge ruled in his favour. This is the first case of its kind. Judge David Sneath said that Nicholson, a former environmental policy officer, could invoke employment law for protection from discrimination for his belief that climate change was the world's most important environmental problem. That conviction, said the judge, amounted to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, 2003. Nicholson had been head of sustainability at Grainger plc, Britain's biggest residential property investment company, until he was made redundant in July last year. He is now bringing a case for unfair dismissal with a claim that one of the reasons for his sacking was his strong belief about the importance of the environment. Mr Nicholson told the hearing that his green beliefs affected how he lived his life, "including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste and my hopes and my fears". "For example,” he said, “I no longer travel by airplane. I have eco-renovated my home. I try to buy local produce. I have reduced my consumption of meat. I compost my food waste. "I encourage others to reduce their carbon emissions and I fear very much for the future of the human race, given the failure to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale." The judge, finding in favour of Mr Nicholson, said: "In my judgment, his belief goes beyond a mere opinion”, and found the company guilty of discriminating against Mr Nicholson. The University of the West of England are pressing for “climate denial” (in people like me and about 23,000 other scientists who have publicly dissented against the idea of ‘man-made’ climate change) to be classified as a form of “mental disorder”. I can”t help feeling that the same legal protection would not be given to us who fail to share Mr Nicholson’s “philosophical beliefs”. And I can't help thinking that it is all getting rather silly. I really am surprised at the judge. If the science were as strong and solid as the 'warmers' would have us believe, there would be no need for 'philosophical arguments'. The fact that the 'warmers' have to resort to suggesting that those of us who disagree with them and mentally ill just proves their inability to furnish evidence to support their case. Blind faith is no substitute for science. Last updated 3 April
2009 |
