DESPITE 19 countries making holocaust denial a punishable offence, antisemites continue to deny the Nazi mass murder of Jews. There are those who propagate the notion that the 1969 moon landing did not happen, suggesting it was an elaborate charade filmed in a Hollywood back lot.

During the pandemic, Covid deniers said the immunisation programme was a plot by big tech to inject the population with nanochips to achieve world domination.

Astonishingly, there are still those who deny that the Earth is round. Don’t believe it? Look up the Flat Earth Society website where you will find that: “It has been shown that the Earth is not a whirling globe of popular credulity, but an extended plane of times immaterial”.

The whole issue of denial of events or phenomena was raised in my mind by Deputy Jonathan Renouf when he expressed his disappointment with this newspaper (JEP 29 January) for publishing the views of “climate change deniers”. In trying to persuade the editor to shut down the public debate on climate change he demonstrates the attitude that is so often present among activists – an unwillingness to listen to views other than those which he holds.

Reform Jersey Deputy Catherine Curtis was another who tried to blackout the discussion. When Dr John Constable was invited to give a talk entitled “Can Wind and Solar Sustain a Modern Economy” she said it was: “...akin to a briefing from anti-vaxxers or Covid deniers” – an extremist view.

I thought I had written everything I had to say on the matter of climate a couple of years ago, but the refusal to allow all sides of the issue to have their say is dangerous and requires rebuttal.

I read the JEP letters page and most columnists daily and have seen nothing in the way of ‘denial’ of climate change.
Every schoolchild learns that our planet has been heating and cooling for the four and a half billion years of its existence, so climate change is hardly a new phenomenon. Most, though not all, reputable scientists say the trend is being accelerated by mankind’s activity. What I have read is a range of views on the proportionality of government reaction.

In a fit of eco-jingoism, the States decided there was a climate emergency and voted an initial £50 million to achieve carbon neutrality. Sources suggest it is likely to cost six times that much and, not unreasonably, people are asking whether the benefit is worth the cost. It is a good question. Dr Constable was addressing an aspect of it and I should have thought our elected representatives would want to hear what he had to say.

Chiam Potok wrote: “We live less than the time it takes to blink an eye, if we measure our lives against eternity.” There is a tendency among those who hang major decisions on the words of experts to believe they understand all the issues relating to climate change, but how can they? The modelling of future change is based on past evidence and the problem with that is accurate climate records do not go back more than 200 years. But, the argument goes, by comparing multiple proxy records, scientists can reconstruct a consistent story of Earth’s climate for the past few thousand years. Even assuming those ‘proxy’ records are entirely reliable, they are still looking at the issue over an minuscule fraction of the period in which our planet’s climate has been changing – a blink of eternity’s eye. Not enough, in the view many, to declare an emergency. And so, I welcome the debate on the proportionality of our response and, in particular, how much we should spend for – in world terms – an infinitesimal effect.

I hope the editor will continue to ignore those who seek to shut down the debate and continues to encourage contributions on all aspects of climate change. From open debate a common-sense consensus may emerge.

Eyebrow raising

After the 2022 election I wrote: “It’s far too early to begin assessing, far less passing judgment on, the new Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers and I hope Deputy Moore in particular will be allowed a honeymoon period without undue criticism, something which her immediate predecessor was not afforded.” Less than two years later it seems important to repeat the sentiment. Evidently our new Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Farnham, in selecting his team of ministers, has tried to balance the widest possible range of political views; to some it might look like mission impossible, but he and his cabinet are entitled to a period without negative intervention in order to settle in and give it a proper chance.

That said, the States’ decision to appoint Deputy Montfort Tadier as chairman of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel was eyebrow raising. The Deputy is well known for his antipathy toward to the finance industry, a crucial part of our economy with multiple international interests. In 2013, he gave a damaging interview to French newspaper Le Parisien in which he said Jersey was a tax haven hosting “sham trusts” and he predicted “finance will leave sooner or later”. More recently, during the election for Chief Minister, he asked his party leader about the Island doing business with countries with questionable civil rights records, ending with the pejorative comment, “just to get a few quid for Jersey”. The remark demonstrated a lack of understanding of the importance of finance. His dismissive “few quid for Jersey” is what pays for our education and health systems and other public services. Does he ever pause to consider what would happen to those services were it not for the industry that he appears to despise? Small wonder his party, Reform Jersey, is held in suspicion on the topic.