Human-induced climate change vs natural cycles - Professor Brian Cox said more recently 'The debate is over'.

And in each case so it is; it's accepted fact.

Sure, there will always be a few flat-Earthers on the fringes. In the case of climate change, the bigger problem is the people who don't care - "I'm alright, and I don't care about you". Often an 'ad hominen' attack (otherwise known as 'shooting the messenger') will throw the dogs off the scent for a while. Rather than "I don't agree with what she says" or "his views make me uncomfortable", we get "she's an idiot" or "he's a liar", neither of which add anything of any use to the conversation. Then there are those who choose to cast doubt on the facts because the truth is a bit inconvenient.

Science welcomes challenge and informed debate: Scientists, unlike some, like to be proven wrong because along with the proof (if, indeed, proof it is) comes further learning. There may well be some regret and disappointment if a scientist finds that he or she has been barking up the wrong tree for years, but ultimately the road to truth is fraught with dead ends.

Personally, the people I understand the least are those internet jockeys who read a few articles on a subject and deem themselves experts. It is known that the inner workings of social media and the world wide web at large tend to reinforce a viewpoint by offering content complementary to that being viewed thus drawing the reader into the "rabbit hole". Would it not make more sense to expand the enquiry by suggesting alternative perspectives?

I have had many face to face conversations with non-experts (and by that I mean not qualified in their field) on many subjects. I have witnessed a claim to the discovery of a permanently repeating pattern in the mathematical constant Pi; I have been told of the self-assembling nanobots in the Covid vaccine designed to tune into the much-heralded 5G network; and of course, I have been told that human-induced climate change is a hoax.

I think it would be very exciting to be shown conclusive proof that climate change is a con, Earth is flat, no one has ever been to the Moon, Donald is a stable genius, and the god who recently oversaw the slaughter of 300 Nigerian civilians is a beneficent one.

Is it reasonable for people to hold these views, as they undoubtedly do? Must one go through the motions of of a supposedly rational discussion on these themes? Or should we smile and nod, even as we wonder at the astronomical height of assuredness which allows such claims to be made without apparent acknowledgement of even the possibility of contradiction. Is this just my struggle against 'unreason' or is it, to quote Reg in "Life of Brian", 'symbolic of their struggle against reality'?