Science Or Belief?

Tim Nicholson of Oxford, who worked as the head of sustainability at Grainger PLC in Didcot, has been told that 'he can take his employer to tribunal on the grounds he was unfairly dismissed because of his views on climate change. [....] In March a judge ruled the 42-year-old could use employment equality laws to claim unfair dismissal. But the firm appealed against this as it believed his views were political and a "lifestyle choice." [....] After the hearing, his solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."'

So climate-change has now become a 'belief'. I think the firm is right on this: whether man-made climate-change is true or false (it's false), and whether any 'moral imperative' results from it is immaterial - the point is that any effects (or lack of them) can be scientifically verified. The basis of the climate-change argument is in the realm of fact not the mystery of faith so therefore it's science, and no more a 'philosophical belief' than saying 'the moon is made of green cheese.' Therefore Nicholson's 'belief' and his moral decision is a 'lifestyle choice.' I hope that if Nicholson's appeal is successful, it doesn't set a precedent so that employers have to take seriously the really loony beliefs, the sort espoused by the ragbag of nutters that tend to make it onto the news: flat-earthers, UFO-hunters, Scientologists and so on. That would be a disaster...