When I was studying biochemistry, back in the 1970s, one thing that was impressed upon us was that, in science, there is no such thing as definitive proof for any theory. Scientific research depends upon data, and it is always possible to criticise this data as being non representative or incomplete, and it is also always possible to come up with more than one theory to explain the data. The custom in science is to then accept the explanation that seems to be the most logical – whilst being aware that what may have seemed logical in the past may look like superstition today, and what appears logical today may appear to be muddled thinking in the future.

Unfortunately, the fact that there is an element of doubt inherent in every scientific theory has not been communicated beyond the university lecture theatres and into the public domain: scientists have been happy to appear to be the providers of facts, absolute truths, and complete certainties.

We are now counting the cost of this in the debate about the link between global warming and fossil fuels. Few people now argue about the accuracy of the data showing that the planet is warming up, nor with the idea that if the warming were to continue, life would become impossible – particularly not if they have lived through a record heatwave, or been affected by forest fires – and they now expect the scientific community to give them a definitive and unequivocal explanation of why it is happening.

If the phenomenon was happening in a neutral space (on a distant planet, perhaps), scientists would look at the data, take note of the correlation between fossil fuel use and the warming, take into account the greenhouse gas theory that predicted global warming would take place if carbon dioxide was pumped into the atmosphere, and would conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, burning fossil fuels was causing the planet to heat up.

But it is not happening in a neutral space. People working for fossil fuel companies, politicians, and government officials may all have an interest in not seeing a link between fossil fuels and global warming, and then we each have our own personal addiction to fossil fuel use. Even if the scientific consensus is that burning fossil fuels is causing the planet to heat up, people representing some of the most powerful institutions in the world adhere to the counter argument that the weather is always changing, and that there is no absolute proof that in this instance it is being caused by fossil fuels. The mass of the population is then happy to say that if the experts cannot agree, then one may as well carry on using fossil fuels as before.

Thus, if it is the case that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming, and we stick to our current course of waiting for some definitive proof of the link, then our current destiny is a future in which we hasten our own demise by burning more and more fuel, whilst incessantly arguing amongst ourselves.

The situation is further complicated by a lobby that has emerged over the past few decades that claims that our current lifestyle could be maintained without causing climate change if we were to switch from fossil fuels to electricity derived from renewables and nuclear power.

Implicit in this idea is that there would need to be a short-term surge in fossil fuel use to build all the new infrastructure that would be needed. This vision of the future also seems to have become inextricably linked to big tech, mass surveillance, huge data centres, and artificial intelligence, and it is by no means clear that it really would lead to a significant reduction in overall fossil fuel consumption.

This gives a clue to another possible, completely different, approach to the question of global warming. Rather than waiting for scientists to agree an explanation, or industrialists to propose a solution, we could look at the whole question of the relative costs and benefits to everyday life arising from technology and the Industrial Revolution. Insofar as it has led to a steady centralisation of power in the hands of remote and unaccountable institutions, we could each resolve to do what we could to re-establish a greater degree of control over our own lives. This would automatically lead to a reduced personal consumption of fossil fuel, and if global warming continued anyway, we would be better placed to provide a decentralised, humane response, adapted to specific local conditions.

Compost and Farmyard Manure
With the phasing out of compost or farmyard manure being put on the land, the ability of the land to soak up water is so much less than it once was. It is very sad that modern land owners, or at least most of them, seem not to notice or care about this.
My garden gets loads of compost each year and it's in amazing condition, with plants greening up once they get planted out in a matter of a week or so. I believe that the health benefits just can't be beaten.
I should add that, this spring, I cleaned out an old stone-built well that was full of plastic fertiliser bags and composted material, no water. Once cleaned out to the bottom, a small amount of water returned but eventually disappeared as the weather got warmer. So far it has not returned.

Stephen, UK

The Nature of Progress
Re: "An alternative would be to try to understand why so many things have gone so wrong in the first place."
There was a time when I went to the doctor to address a certain condition. He simply prescribed a "Big Pharma" drug, and sent me on my way. On the way home from the visit, I began to question the reasonableness of his "solution." He had never told me why I had gotten the condition in the first place. He never told me what I might do differently to avoid the problem altogether. He simply prescribed a pill. I went home and did a little research on my own, and I found that a simple change of diet would resolve the problem without requiring any dependence on "Big Pharma" or on the doctor. The solution to any problem lies in the knowledge of where and why the problem began.
The modern idea of "progress" seems to always involve an industrial solution, initiated by a centralized governmental intervention.

C.S. Lewis once said, "If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road, and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."

Kerry Brown, Pennsylvania