Yes, there are weirdoes in the environmentalist movement. But that does not mean that the people who are worried about any possible negative climatic impact in our world are nutcases. Today the majority of scientists agree that there are dangerous environmental developments on our planet, such as global warming, dwindling resources, water shortage, desertification, deforestation, disappearing plant and animal species, pollution, and that these are partly caused by human activities. On the other hand there are those who say these things would happen anyway, even without man's interference, i.e. that they are not man-made. One of those persons, SPES member Mike Howgate, gave a talk at Conway Hall in London on 15th April 2007, in which he said that we cannot prove that our current human-technological activities will lead to environmental disasters, and that we should not worry so much about that and stop spending money and wasting time on such matters. He mentioned some non-events of the past: disasters that had been previously predicted but then never happened, and he assumed the same would (not) happen again, i.e. no terrible catastrophes are likely to bother us in the foreseeable future, at least not due to man's behaviour towards the environment.

Mike Howgate is of course entitled to express his opinions, and the SPES (South Place Ethical Society) has every right to invite speakers advocating such views. SPES has had a long tradition of inviting controversial speakers defending unpopular views, and I hope they will continue doing so. After the talk there was, as usual, some time for questions and discussion, and I expected that many people attending the meeting (mainly humanists and freethinkers, I assume) would argue against the views of the speaker. So I was rather surprised when the major part of the following discussion was in support of the speaker. There was especially one gentleman (I don't know whether he was an SPES member) who had a near-monopoly during the question and discussion time and who talked about half of the available time; he ridiculed the environmentalist arguments and those people who warned about possible future disasters ("doom-mongers"). Only few of the other persons present contradicted him and the speaker.

I would have expected such an attitude amongst the old guard of Tory party supporters and hard-line capitalists and some categories of religious fanatics ("God will take care and solve the problems of our world"), but not among freethinkers. Why did not more of them oppose those arguments? Could it be because some demonstrators taking part in climate marches wear silly hats and unfashionable clothes, and even look a bit scruffy? Or were they convinced by the arguments of Mike Howgate and a few scientists like David Bellamy? Or do they object to some of the sacrifices we have to make in order to prevent a possible environmental disaster? How much more ice from Antarctica and Greenland has to melt and how many more arable regions have to become deserts and how many more million trees have to be cut down and how many more species have to die out before the climate threat is taken seriously by those people?

Alex Hill