Yes. Normal people, real people. Let's say ‘real people’ then. [Interruption.] Well, I don't recognise many faces around here of people who've followed, in their own private lives, a hair-shirt austerity programme. We all enjoy very comfortable—[Interruption.] Well, we all enjoy extremely comfortable lives, earning very large sums of money compared with the average and I think it is patronising and condescending to describe the desires of ordinary people as 'consumerism'.

Global warming is another controversial issue—[Interruption.] Yes, I am going to mention global warming, because the reaction of the education Secretary actually exemplifies everything that I'm talking about this afternoon. Because I hold views on global warming that are in a very small minority in this Assembly, but the way in which the education Secretary reacts when I raise issues of this kind is that I'm not entitled to hold these views, because there is no intellectual foundation for them at all, whereas, in fact, there is a very respectable debate going on amongst meteorologists and climatologists on these issues. Are organisations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation used in providing course materials on these issues in the Welsh baccalaureate? I very much doubt it. And yet, if we look at climate history, we've had cycles when global climate was warming and others when it was cooling. Roman times were very hot and medieval times were very hot, and in between we had little ice ages—we had one at the end of the seventeenth century. So, if we look at observational facts, then they don't actually bear out the climatic models that are based upon computer predictions.

These are controversies, and you may disagree with them, but we should certainly teach the other side of the case if we're to have a balanced debate on the topic, because we're imposing massive costs upon people by artificially increasing the price of energy. It may be a good thing that we're doing these things, I don't know. We don't have the means of being able to decide, because we don't understand the facts. Climatology itself is a highly complex matter. There isn't the historical data available anyway to compare one period with another, so we can't actually draw any conclusions from the very small changes that have taken place in temperature globally in recent years, because we can't compare with the previous generations in an arithmetic way. And we don't know, anyway, how far current trends will last.

So, there are limitations to the information upon which theories are based, and I don't believe that that is fully reflected either in the teaching that is undertaken in schools. All I'm saying in the course of this debate is that we should recognise that in all of these controversial topics, there is another side of the case, and that should be put so that children, yes, should be able to argue and make up their minds. We shouldn't treat this as a kind of article of religion, where there is no argument on the other side of the case—[Interruption.] Lee Waters says, 'Respect science'. Well, the science that I'm talking about is respected by Professor Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, who is the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, by Sir Ian Byatt, director general of water services for England and Wales, Professor Freeman Dyson, fellow of the Royal Society, world renowned theoretical physicist and professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, by Professor William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, Professor David Henderson, head of the economics and statistics department at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and many, many others in the list of those who support the attitude of scepticism that is the essence of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s work. It's not that they are pursuing a particular agenda to impose a view, because there is a variety of views, even within the Global Warming Policy Foundation—[Interruption.]