When I was in year seven, the class nerd Shane stood up to do a presentation on why he believed coca cola was bad for you. Shane had compiled a list of stats outlining sugar content, chemicals and additives and other assorted nasties found in a typical can. He was about to put a chart on the overhead projector, when he was rudely interrupted with a muffled “bulls%$t” comment from the back of the classroom.

The muffled comment came from Stevo, the tallest, coolest and best rugby player in the classroom. The whole class broke into hysterical laughter. Our social studies teacher, Mr Wilson, calmed us down and asked Stevo to elaborate on why he disagreed with Shane’s synopsis. Stevo’s reply was “because coke is awesome man!” Laughter rocked the room.

And so it is that this memory comes to me, as I observe the climate science “debate” in our country today. On one hand are the overwhelming majority of scientists who assert that the world is on a dangerous and destructive path in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand are the skeptics – a group led by a hereditary English peer with a degree in classics, a few AM radio talkback personalities, and a handful of mining executives with deep pockets and equal reach within media.

As far as I can tell, the scientists, just like my nerdy old classmate Shane, are losing the “debate.”

The media coverage on climate change in the last few months has managed to be both factual and boring and incredibly irresponsible. The hyperbole and nonsense written by some members of Australia’s media has been so poor, that I can only compare back to the propaganda campaigns launched by the tobacco companies throughout the 60’s 70’s and 80’s.

Let’s talk about science.

Apparently there is a planet called Neptune – I have never seen it, nor know what it’s made of, but I know it’s there because scientists have spent years researching, analyzing and proving Neptune’s existence. Same goes for research into asbestos. I know it is bad for you because scientists have poured decades of research into proving its ill effects. And I draw the same conclusion on climate change.

There is a reason why countries and communities support science. Research centres around the world work around the clock on solving a range of complex problems challenging the human race. Advances in medical, electronic, and engineering technologies mean that we are getting better and better at identifying threats and weaknesses.

Over the past two years, I have been privileged to meet some of the most dedicated, honest and incredibly intelligent people who have spent years pouring over facts and data that irrefutably point to a dangerous trend in global climate trends. These are high caliber people who live in a world of facts, proof, and truths and who must subject their work to multiple and highly critical peer reviews in order to even have it published. More often than not, the results are boring. But at least they are true.

So it is baffling to me to ready the heavily slanted and biased media stories that appear to go to great lengths to pick irrelevant statistics from the thousands of climate change reports and spin them to their favoured opinion. Some of these stories are downright irresponsible (the classic “it’s been getting cooler for 10 years” is a prime example) and the language now being used in mainstream politics is quite disturbing.

What’s even sadder is that six months ago, the only skeptics in the market were vested self interest groups, right wing journalists, and a fair smattering of conspiracy theorists. Now their ranks have ballooned – expanding rapidly into the suburbs, aided by the media’s preoccupation of selling stories. And yet the skeptics are yet to present scientific evidence to back their arguments.

What is wrong with this picture? Would you rather have a team of rocket scientists building a space shuttle, or a team of hereditary British peers with classics degrees doing it? To me the answer seems obvious.

But then I think back to my old classmate Shane (now an executive at a Silicon Valley software conglomerate), who knew that coca cola wasn’t the healthiest drink for us. Yet it was Stevo who won the debate, with a complete disregard for facts and pure arrogance.

Maybe my old classmates should have listened to Shane.