I was discussing international situations and it occured to me that we all take sides very quickly, whether it is a football team with whom we have no connection, or a country with whom we have no connection. The Grand National is a classic example where people bet £millions because they like the name, I support sunderland and have never been there or have a connection. The idea of taking sides becomes more pertinent and dangerous when discussing international affairs. We all have access to multimedia, and I have heard the term, all over facebook or ‘the media’, when actually the truth is that it is all over the friends that have been selected – basically an echo chamber. I am as guilty as anyone else – why would I want to have my morning/afternoon/evening spoilt by the ranting of a fascist or racist; so I bar anyone whom I believe is either of those, do not watch the right wing liars on TV, and am content with my little bubble. It is so easy to find ‘evidence’ that supports our arguments, but without verification are we being suckered into believing a lie. Todays papers led with an example, The Sunday Express with a headline that “UK would be plundered by the EU if Brexit reversed”. Millions will believe this, but my sources say that the UK has been economically harmed by Brexit, who is to be believed? The evidence strongly points to Brexit being a disaster – but am I being selective. The climate change question is even more confusing, 98% of scientists and 100% of the evidence point to a waiting catastrophe. I read that scientists and media are funded by oil companies – is this true? Could they be correct and their statements of just coping with the change is less harmful than trying to stop it?
On the last quandary – woud you cross a road with anything less than 99.9999% chance of it being safe – climate change has the ability to be incredibly harmful to billions of people.