The debate about climate change grows acrimonious. On the side of those who hold that climate change is a real possibility are politicians, students, ex-Table Mountain tourist guides, academics and others. On the side of those who hold that climate change is not a possibility are politicians, students, nuclear scientists, engineers, academics and others.

Thus, apart from ex-Table Mountain tourist guides and the flaky left, the sides are fairly well matched. It does not help that the evidence, so wondrously presented by Al Gore, is turning out to be hooey. Two scientists say so. Not just anybody, but Messrs McNider and Christy. They are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, in Huntsville, and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Christy was a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US Vice President Gore.

McNider and Christy have published a graph showing that the predicted world atmospheric temperature increase of 0.9 ºC from 1980 to 2015 is wrong – measurements show a much lower increase. Gore’s hockey stick, even if it is an ice hockey stick (see . . . it is flat at the bottom, not curved), is out the window.

So the ‘not possible’ bunch win. Well, perhaps not. The real ‘possibles’ turn to the US National Aeronautics and Space Agency (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) where they can quote that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century were very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organisations have issued public statements endorsing this position . . .” They have a chart on show which is supposed to prove that temperatures are screaming up since 1880. I cannot see it. And, to be candid, a temperature rise of 0.5 ºC in 35 years does not sound much (1980 to 2015), in particular, since the same rise (0.5 ºC in 35 years ) apparently occurred from 1900 to 1935.

The ‘not possibles’ are, however, at a disadvantage. For them to push their case, they have to do so silently, and alone. They get no reward for disagreement. Not so for the real ‘possibles’. The rewards for believing that climate change is a real possibility come in the form of meetings, seminars and parties and, best of all, heavily subsidised trips to exotic locations.

Every year, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) holds a ‘Conference of the Parties’, or CoP, to assess progress in dealing with climate change. Most recently, the CoP’s exotic location was Lima, Peru. Of the delegates, 294 came from Brazil, 109 from China, 71 from Germany and . . . 84 from South Africa. Among the 84 were an intern from the University of Cape Town and a woman who has no recorded affiliation to any department. There was an office administrator from the Department of Environmental Affairs and the ‘registry clerk’ from the same department. There was nobody from the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Pretoria or the University of KwaZulu-Natal. All in all, the attendees were wall to wall from the departments of Environmental affairs, Agriculture and others all, I can assure you, nonscientists.

There is a down side – 74 of the South African delegates had to fly to Lima and back, a casual 10 820 km. They would have clocked up an impressive 84 t of carbon emissions. Then, depending on subsidies, their air flights would have cost taxpayers R6-million. It is this sort of beano which makes it worth an individual supporting the belief that climate change is a real possibility. Sooner or later you get a free holiday. And, if you think I am being too cynical, wouldn’t you be, given this sort of behaviour? It is tragic, really.

We should be able to agree. Climate change could be a reality. I do not happen to think so. But when international conferences are abused by attendance of the seminar/party element, it is hard not to take sides. Why does the UNFCCC not restrict attendance on a country proportional basis, while maintaining full voting rights? Why does nobody from the UNFCCC tackle McNider and Christy head on? Is this not a debate? Seems not. They must have their reasons, which, from here, seem very dodgy indeed.