When we saw the massive banner in the Theil Building advertising the debate and the presence of Thierry Baudet, we were astonished. How does the invitation of a climate change denier to discuss energy transition not provoke unrest at the university or among the students? As many of our friends, you might think it is important to invite the winner of the last elections to debate the countries’ energy transition – yet we don’t share this view.
Last year, Baudet tweeted about the ‘awesome effects’ that the rise of CO2 has on the growth of plants. In reality, while CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, climate change has a detrimental impact on plant growth such as loss of soil humidity, which cannot outweigh the positive effects put forward by Baudet. In the same tweet, he mentioned that the climate “warms slower than is always shown” and that “the smog in India has nothing to do with CO2 emissions”. If one man is capable of spreading three lies in a single tweet, how many can he share during a debate?
Among scientists, the degree of confidence in human-induced climate change is higher than 99 per cent. Thus, preventing Baudet and other climate change deniers from joining such debates is not about restraining the plurality of voices and freedom of speech, but about preventing the denial of scientific evidence. Narratives like Baudet’s contribute to the growing gap between climate science and political action, as seen similarly in Brazil or the USA.
Debates can and should happen between those who agree with science. We are now facing various challenges concerning our energy transition, and we must discuss how we can make it happen, not whether we should start it. Acting on climate change is urgent: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lPCC) report states that national governments have 12 years left to act to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees by 2100. To avoid irreversible changes and ecosystem losses, we must begin ‘rapid and far-reaching transitions’ in the energy sector, among others. Such a transition has not yet happened in the Netherlands, showcased by the fact that it is the EU country with the second lowest share of renewable energy. Baudet claims that the Netherlands is acting in a ‘climate hysteria’. This is not the case with the country failing to meet the Paris agreement, leaving a lot of room for improvement.
Universities should be a place of education and fruitful debates based on scientific knowledge and academic rigour, not a place where politicians, guided by demagogy, ignorance or denial, can spread dangerous lies. This is why climate deniers should not be invited to debate.
Max Dörr (21) is a second-year student of Management of International Social Challenges and Anaëlle Perrin (20) is a second-year International Bachelor of Communication and Media student.
Help, linkse indoctrinatie op mijn universiteit!
Do your homework before you write nonsense. The 99 concensus is based on nothing. There is no such thing as a concensus. There are more scientist who are sceptic.
Waarom weer in het Engels? Dit interesseert niet-Nederlanders echt geen biet.
Beste N. van Beek, waar baseer je op dat niet-Nederlanders dit niet interesseert? In principe zijn al onze artikelen in twee talen, dus ook dit artikel. Het artikel is overigens door de auteurs in het Engels aangeleverd, een van de auteurs is ook niet Nederlands. Dus dat is al één niet-Nederlanders die het wel interesseert.
Mvg, Elmer Smaling, redacteur EM
This is highly interesting for me and i am not nederlands
It seems both of you are unaware of what a democratic debate stands for. Whether you like an opinion or not, it is supported by many, again, whether you like it or not. I am baffled when I see how narrow minded young university students have become.
There’s a difference between opinions and facts though.
He does not deny climate change. This is fake news. The fact that the climate changes continuously has been spelled out by him in many interviews and other discussions. He is *only* pointing out the many flaws in the theory and the inconvenient truths like that in the Netherlands we should not close our coal-fed electricity generators at the extreme costs it costs, when in China they will open up another 200 in the coming 10 years. Also, the ruling out of nuclear power of any solution in the Netherlands is a big flaw in the discussions right now. This he also points out. You just want to stop discussions and free speech.
Just turn his argument down with scientific ones, why do you even hold a discussion panel if you don’t invite people with opposing views to yours.
Typical sjw echo chamber approach
Two students with no scientific background on the topic, Both with studies that are hardly of any scientific status; communications and a sort management.
And with an agenda of forbidding others to speak their mind. Shame on the both of you.
Is it not good for a debate to hear the opposite views.
To dicuss the different oppinions. Thats the meaning of a University . “Audi alteram partem”
What is a discussion without dissent?
Are you afraid Baudet is right?
So much for ‘diversity and inclusion’ right? As long as everyone follows the lies of the regresive left.
Deze tweets zijn leugens?
https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/opinie-baudets-klimaattweet-is-grotendeels-waar~b0170182/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Een debat waar alleen maar voorstanders zijn, klinkt als een saai debat. Verder zijn er wel degelijk wetenschappers die de invloed van de mens in klimaat verandering in twijfel trekken.
How to debate fascists: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-rRtMgsYnc
I have to say I find this article extremely troubling.
One main reason for this is that it lacks one important view of how do we actually know what we know (what is often known as epistemology). One important part of university research is dedicated exactly to that. In every academic field (from natural to social sciences) you can find scholars who are questioning the very foundations of that science. If you want to rebuke these scholars work and make it redundant, then that’s another argument. However, you would do so at the cost of many educational-fruitful-rigours academic contributions to science.
In saying that we now need to discuss how to prevent climate change, but that there is no place to question the methods through which certain projections have been made, you actually (I believe) make a demagogical claim that has implications to restrain a whole field in academic research, aka – philosophy of science.
If you want to argue for your point, present also the counter-arguments in a charitable way and answer them scientifically. However, you may find on your journey for doing so that there are scientists who do not agree with you. Here is one example for you to start with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NinRn5faU4
Wow, imagine thinking Thierry et al. are only concerned about epistemological rigor. Fyi there is also something called research ethics.
Comments are closed.