The politics of climate change

Climate war - why sceptics' wariness is not so baffling

According to the Observer, Ed Miliband has declared war on the climate change sceptics. I go along with the science, but there are people in my family who don't. I like them and I like Ed Miliband. If they went to war, it would tear me apart.

I'm not the only one in this predicament. I know quite a few people my age who fret about carbon footprints and the plight of the polar bear, but whose parents assure them it's just another Guardianista right-on-athon. The last poll I saw said that that only 41% of people accept that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made.

While this is clearly a problem, I think the left have a tendency to vilify and patronise the sceptics. Climate change scepticism is not a top-down conspiracy by the Lawson dynasty and the oil lobby to manipulate opinion. Most ordinary sceptics would struggle to identify a high-profile ‘denier' other than Jeremy Clarkson. I suspect it is more the instinctive reaction of a society that traditionally values scepticism of all sorts, much as it does eccentricity, and is mistrustful of officialdom especially when it is asking them to make painful sacrifices for a far-off greater good.

Another factor that has contributed to scepticism, particularly, I suspect, among the older generation, is that they have been led up the garden path before. Over the years, they have been told to brace themselves for a new ice age, a Malthusian population mega-explosion, and the loss of a generation to spongiform brain disease. They were scaremongered into shunning nuclear power only for it to be hastily re-embraced as eco-fashions changed. They've been hectored into buying organic and into boycotting GM, while evidence for both positions remains elusive. Furthermore, since the financial crisis, the words ‘according to predictions based on computer models' no longer command the hushed reverence they once did.

Popular misgivings about global warming may not be scientifically grounded, but they certainly are not stupid. Most sceptics are not scientists but they do know about how science can be sensationalised, manipulated and politically hijacked. The intellectual tools that they are bringing to this are not scientific ones necessary to disprove a theory but the cultural ones of deconstructing a bandwagon. The Climategate emails and the sloppiness and alleged evasiveness of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have had such a corrosive effect on public trust not because they disprove the theory of anthropogenic global warming but because they are seen as the squeaky wheels of an overloaded bandwagon. Anyone who followed the gruesome debacle of Copenhagen - the horse-trading that went on inside the summit to the hysteria outside - could be forgiven for being cynical. The use by climate campaigners of terms like ‘flat earthers' and, worst of all ‘climate change deniers' with its implied comparison to Holocaust revisionism is, rightly, seen as an attempt to stigmatise dissent. They have only themselves - not Nigel Lawson or ExxonMobil - to blame for arousing suspicion and resentment.

The task of the government isn't so much to keep repeating the science, but to persuade people that the science is not politicised groupthink. If people fear that the distinction between objective scientific inquiry and environmental campaigning has been blurred - a fear that Glaciergate has revealed is not 100 per cent fanciful - then the government must demonstrate its commitment to re-enforcing and respecting that divide. There have been suggestions that governments should hand over responsibility for sending representatives to the IPCC to national scientific institutes such as the Royal Society. People were also surprised that the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is not a trained expert in a relevant field. Clearly, the bar should be raised and Pachauri shuffled towards the exit.

Climate change campaigners often seem exasperated that the burden of proof lies with them and not the sceptics. But why? It's not the sceptics who are asking for huge financial commitments and major lifestyle changes. As I said, I like Ed Miliband, but he has to ask for things nicely.

Lucy Gill

04 Feb 2010 11:30

Tags

 

Comments

• Posted by Grmpy Old Man on 04 February 2010, 11:22:34 AM Dear Lucy. Scepticism is not merely based on popular prejudice but has scientific support as well. The Polar Bear population is reported to be increasing overall. A paper due to be given to the IPCC lest yesr demonstrating this was cancelled on the grounds that it was, "unhelpful". There is a book, "The Hockey Stick Illusion" which recounts the work of Mcintyre and Mckitrick on the statistical analysis of Mann et al, ( The Hockey team) in terms that even I can understand. Climategate has blown the lid off some very dodgy dealings within the warmist lobby, which to us secular grey-beards indicates at the very least an unscientific desire to manipulate data and events to fit the hypothesis and quite possibly corruption at the highest level in the warmist camp. In the early '70's, Enoch Powell debated at a Student's Union debate at Leeds. He argued for both sides of the debate and was equally brilliant in each. his lesson was, "be sure you understand your opponents argument before you advance your own". Warmists and sceptics would do well to follow that advice, We might then get debate rather than insults traded by megaphone,
• Posted by John A on 04 February 2010, 10:40:45 PM Dear Lucy I am a sceptic and here are one or two reasons why....... 1 Worldwide geological and historical evidence for the medieval warm period. 2 Worldwide geological and historical evidence for the little ice age. 3 Geological evidence for previous periods during the Holocene warmer than the medieval warm period. 4 Geological evidence for occurrence of C02 levels in the past, far higher than present levels. 5 Geological evidence for temperature changes in the past, far greater than changes seen during the 20th century. 6 Evidence for ebb and flow of glaciers over millennia. 7 Main argument in favour of catastrophic manmade warming theory is based on results of computer simulations. 8 Computer simulations used for previous environmental studies produced results now known to be incorrect. 9 Many empirical estimates for climate sensitivity are far smaller than those predicted by computer simulations. 10 Measured tropospheric temperatures contradict the results of computer simulations. 11 Overwhelming evidence for natural climate cycles over 10's, 100's and 1000's of years, as well as over far longer timescales. 12 Empirical evidence that natural cycles in the ocean exert a far greater influence on climate than C02. 13 Empirical evidence that cycles in the sun exert an influence on cosmic rays and hence over cloud cover. 14 Empirical evidence that changes in cloud cover exert a far greater influence on climate than C02, enough to explain all of the 20th century temperature changes. 15 Geological evidence that the sun's movement through the galaxy causes changes in cosmic rays enough to explain both hothouse and iceball conditions in the deep past. 16 Empirical evidence for recent cooling of the world's oceans. 17 Empirical evidence for recent growth in arctic sea ice. 18 Historical evidence for arctic sea ice loss in the early part of the 20th century. 19 Evidence that cooling in the middle of the 20th century was caused by natural aerosols and cloud cover, not by human sulphate emission. come on you warmists . check your science .
• Posted by Bisky on 05 February 2010, 6:32:11 AM Great comments. I used to be on the AGW bandwagon until I did my own research. And it didn't take long. And the Medevial Warm Period 1000 years ago when it was warmer was good for humanity, when vineyards grew in England. Cooling devastates humanity. But all that aside, ITS OVER! Does the establishment not realize the emails are readily available and millions have read them. Do they not realize how detailed the fraud is outlined? The "trick to hide the decline" describes a 2 part process of mixing data sets and cherry picking data points. They even describe falsifying software code. They describe bullying scientists, manipulating data. They call it a "travesty" that their computer models are all wrong and want to hide it. They discuss techniques of manipulating the peer review process. Corruption is so arrogant, does media trying to support these criminals not know they will go down with them? People to media- It's over! I know it happened fast and it hasn't sunk in yet. The game changed over night. Just like when global cooling was causing ice so big it would break off and cause tidal waves. Sorry World bank you didn't get your carbon tax to change the weather. Lets see. CO2 is < 0.1% of the total ghouse effect. We are 3% of CO2, nature 97%. With the recent cooling, the earth has warmed 1.3F in 100yrs. and the sun doesn't effect anything hmmm 0.1 x .03 x 1.3 is... Dang I can't believe I was fooled for as long as I was!