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
|
