Homo sapiens. A fly’s faeces in the vast of the universe? Or a major player - powerful enough to smash and trash the planet we live on? Do we underestimate our influence? Or do we think too highly of ourselves?

In the current climate debate humans are often portrayed as greedy villains who proliferate, exploit and devastate. In order to save the Earth and thereby ourselves from destruction we must turn away from the sin of burning fossil fuels and adopt an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. The latter is defined as anything from refraining from flying to embracing the humble ways of the Amish. Is it fair?

Six and a half billion human beings are accused of jointly polluting the atmosphere to a catastrophic extent. Slowly but surely, we will boil ourselves, melt the ice caps, exterminate all species and put an end to all life on Earth. Are we really that powerful? Or are we just a bunch of megalomaniacs?

When our grandparents were in school it was thought that the universe was very small, perhaps only 5,000 light years across. 500 years ago it was thought that space was only a little bit bigger than the Earth. In modern times, with the power of technology, we are finally starting to grasp the immense size of the universe, and it is much bigger than anyone could have ever imagined. What do we know about all the forces that rule the universe? What do we know about all the mechanisms ruling the climatic system?

The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and there have been at least four major ice ages in its past. It has withstood asteroids, reverses in polarity and many other truly catastrophic events. The modern form of Homo sapiens first appeared about 100,000 years ago and the Industrial Revolution started in England around 1733 with the first cotton mill. Supporters of AGW claim that in just about 300 years man has managed to strike a deathblow to the Earth’s fragile climate. Reversing the course of things will require total abstinence from fossil fuels.

I don’t have all the facts. Neither do I have all the answers. However, I dare to believe that blaming man for altering the climate and destroying the planet is giving ourselves way too much credit.

In today’s Times Argus, a Vermont publication, Dr. Alan Betts reflects on the analogy between smoking and the “global carbon-dioxide pollution” that comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

We now have public health advertising to warn teenagers of the long-term hazards of smoking. Why? Because for decades the tobacco industry encouraged teenagers to start smoking as a way of building its future market. (…) The biggest consequences from all our carbon dioxide emissions are also in the future, so it’s hard to grasp the significance of our addiction to fossil fuels for our children.

Dr. Alan Betts is Vermont’s leading climate scientist and the past president of the Vermont Academy of Science and Engineering. He received his B.A. in Theoretical Physics in 1967 and his M.A. in 1971 from Cambridge. He received his PhD. in Meteorology in London in 1970. From 1971-1979, he was a professor at Colorado State University before founding Atmospheric Research in Pittsford, Vermont, in 1979. Now how can such a well-educated man call carbon dioxide a pollutant and compare its effect with that of nicotine fumes?

All animals, including us humans, breathe out carbon dioxide, which is then used by plants during photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is the principle food of plants. When the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increases the food available to the Earth’s plants increases. Carbon itself is the basis of all life on Earth and carbon atoms continually move through living organisms, the oceans and the atmosphere. When you watch your child grow, you actually watch CO2 being further processed. So why all those horror stories about CO2 poisoning the planet?

Another climate change scientist, Dr James Lovelock of Great Britain, predicts Apocalypse in The Daily Mail.

We’re all doomed! 40 years from global catastrophe – and there’s NOTHING we can do about it.

What is it with all those scientists? Are their predictions of total disaster just clumsy efforts to get noticed and published? And are journalists really so ignorant to the basic facts of biology?