Voices of dissent - heretics or heroes?

It is interesting that one of the fiercest areas of debate to have emerged over the last few days (within the Th!nk2 competition) is to what extent global warming is occurring and whom, or what, is to blame. As far as I can tell everyone is in agreement on the fact that the earth is heating up, but there are a few who question whether humans have played a part within that. What's really interesting is that these people have positioned themselves as sceptics, consciously placing themselves in direct opposition to other discussions. It's intriguing because while everyone agrees on what's occurring, their disagreement over the root cause has incited an incredible amount of furor.

The heated debate that has ensued has got me thinking about the role of dissenters. It was not so long ago that those who believed the world was warming were considered scientific outcasts. Heretics of progress if you will. The vast majority of the population considered notions of a heating planet to be  ravings of a few addled minded "greenies". Over the past thirty years however, the voices of dissent have gained ground and now non-believers have been cast in the role of sceptics. As the debate of the last few days has demonstrated, today if you disagree with the view that human beings are responsible for global warming then you will be subject to vehement opposition.

This tells me a couple of things. Firstly, it is clear that dissent has to play a role in forwarding our understanding of a topic. If everyone was forced to agree with the majority opinion then we would never progress in our thinking. Defending your viewpoint forces you to clarify your stance and fortify your facts. That said, the larger burden of proof necessarily lies with the dissenter. If the majority are in agreement on a topic, then you must find a way in which to convince them of your position. If you are dogmatic and belligerent in presenting your views it is unlikely you will meet with a receptive audience.

Debates such as this are vital. It is foolish to rest on our laurels, or to uncritically accept what other people are telling us. Continually re-examining the evidence can only ever strengthen our understanding of what we're dealing with. That said, how we express dissent is pivotal to how we then deal with it.