top of page


Broadly speaking there are two sides to this debate.

Some people accept that increased co2 emissions caused by human activity is driving climate change, and others do not.

One side thinks that "science-deniers" are preventing us fixing the planet, while their opposition claims these "climate fanatics" are dragging us into an authoritarian future of top-down control dictated by private interests.

I am not trying to prove either side right or wrong.

We know that impending doom presents an ideal opportunity to introduce wide ranging change, and that government overreach implemented in the name of climate change could lead to a poor quality of life.

We also know that heavy industrialisation and irresponsible corporate greed can—and does—cause unnecessary damage to our natural world.

The real crisis is our inability to discuss the issue in an open and frank manner, before catastrophe strikes: The collapse of our basic freedoms or the collapse of the climate.

Before we waste time arguing on twitter over different interpretations of statistics, pointing fingers at those with other views... it is time to admit:

If you create a model which includes every possible variable, all you could perceive is chaos.

We cannot be sure what the future holds. We can, however, accept that a hell on earth caused either by environmental disaster, or totalitarian slavery are both entirely possible.

We needn't reject the claims of scientists, journalists, activists or politicians. We ought not spend time arguing with those we disagree with. Whatever state our complex planetary climate, or our impact on it, ANY solution to climate change must uphold the THREE PRINCIPLES to protect the individual from excessive interference, undue influence and tyrannical control.

Any policy, legislation or cultural influence which fails to measure up may be rejected.

bottom of page