A Beardful of Bunkum
David Bellamy's at it again, with even dafter claims about climate change.
by George Monbiot
Published in the Guardian (December 09 2008)
We all create our own reality, and shut out the voices we do not want to hear. But there is no issue we are less willing to entertain than manmade climate change. Here, three worlds seem to exist in virtual isolation. In the physical world, global warming appears to be spilling over into runaway feedback: the most dangerous situation humankind has ever encountered. In the political world - at the climate talks in Poznan for example - our governments seem to be responding to something quite different: a minor nuisance which can be addressed in due course. Only the Plane Stupid protesters who occupied part of Stansted airport yesterday appear to have understood the scale and speed of this crisis. In cyberspace, by contrast, the response spreading fastest and furthest is flat-out denial.
The most popular article on the Guardian's website last week was the report showing that 2008 is likely to be the coolest year since 2000 {1}. As the Met Office predicted, global temperatures have been held down by the La Nina event in the Pacific Ocean. This news prompted a race on the Guardian's comment thread to reach the outer limits of idiocy. Of the 440 responses posted by lunchtime yesterday, about eighty per cent insisted that manmade climate change is a hoax. Here are some clips from this conversation:
"This is a scam to get your money ... The only people buying into "global warming" have no experience with any of the sciences".
"If we spend ANY money or cost one person their job because of this fraud it would be a crime. When will one of our politicians stand up and call this for what it is, BULLSH1T!"
"What a set of jokers these professors are ... I think I understand more about climate change than them and I don't get paid a big fat salary with all the perks to go with it".
And so on, and on and on. The new figures have prompted similar observations all over the web. Until now the "sceptics" have assured us that you can't believe the temperature readings at all; that the scientists at the Met Office, who produced the latest figures, are all liars; and that even if it were true that temperatures have risen, it doesn't mean anything. Now the temperature record (though only for 2008) can suddenly be trusted, and the widest possible inferences can be drawn from the latest figures, though not, of course, from the records of the preceding century. This is madness.
Scrambled up in these comment threads are the memes planted in the public mind by the professional deniers employed by fossil fuel companies {2}. On the Guardian's forums you'll find endless claims that the hockeystick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world's glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age. None of this is true, but it doesn't matter. The professional deniers are paid not to win the argument but to cause as much confusion and delay as possible. To judge by the comment threads, they have succeeded magnificently.
There is no pool so shallow that a thousand bloggers won't drown in it. Take the latest claims from the former broadcaster David Bellamy. You may remember that Bellamy came famously unstuck three years ago when he stated that 555 of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were growing {3}. Now he has made an even stranger allegation.
In early November the Express ran an interview with Bellamy under the headline "BBC shunned me for denying climate change". {4} "The sad fact is", he explained, "that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme". He had been brave enough to state that global warming was "poppycock", and that caused the end of his career. "Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn't doing that".
This article received more hits than almost anything else the Express has published, so ten days ago the paper interviewed Mr Bellamy again {5}. He took the opportunity to explain just how far the conspiracy had spread. "Have you noticed there is a wind turbine on Teletubbies? That's subliminal advertising, isn't it?"
There is just one problem with this story: it is bollocks from start to finish. Bellamy last presented a programme on the BBC in 1994 {6}. The first time he publicly challenged the theory of manmade climate change was ten years later, in 2004, when he claimed in the Daily Mail that it was "poppycock" {7}. Until at least the year 2000 he supported the theory.
In 1992, for example, he signed an open letter, published in the Guardian, urging George Bush Sr "to fight global warming ... We are convinced that the continued emission of carbon dioxide at current rates could result in dramatic and devastating climate change in all regions of the world". {8} In 1996 he signed a letter to the Times arguing that "Continued increases in the global emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels are likely to lead to climate change at a rate greater than the Earth has experienced at any time during the last 10,000 years". {9} In the same year he called for the replacement of fossil fuels with wind power {10}. In 2000 he announced that he was supporting a plan to sue climate change "criminals": governments and industries which blocked attempts to stop global warming {11}. But Bellamy's new claims about the end of his career have been repeated as gospel in several newspapers {12, 13} and all over the web {14}.
In his fascinating book Carbon Detox (2007), George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information {15}. Our views are formed by the views of the people with whom we mix. Of the narratives that might penetrate these circles, we are more likely to listen to those which offer us some reward. A story which tells us that the world is cooking and that we'll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted than the more rewarding idea that climate change is a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and venal scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people should unite to defend their freedoms.
He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing to do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists. We should emphasise the old-fashioned virtues of uniting in the face of a crisis, of resourcefulness and community action. Projects like the transition towns network and proposals for a green new deal tell a story which people are more willing to hear.
Marshall is right: we have to change the way we talk about this issue. You don't believe me? Then read the gibberish that follows this article on the Guardian's website.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. James Randerson, 5th December 2008. 2008 will be coolest year of the decade. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather
2. For the origins of such claims and the people behind them, see George Monbiot, 2007. Heat: how to stop the planet burning. Chapter 2: The Denial Industry. Penguin, London.
3. George Monbiot, 10th May 2005. Junk Science. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
4. Helen Dowd, 5th November 2008. BBC Shunned Me For Denying Climate Change. The Express. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
5. Anna Pukas, 29th November 2008. David Bellamy: ‘Global Warming Is Nonsense'. The Express.
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/73486/David-Bellamy-Global-warming-is-nonsense-
6. Simon Hattenstone, 30th September 2002. The Green Man. The Guardian.
7. David Bellamy, 9th July 2004. Global warming? What a load of poppycock! Daily Mail.
8. David Bellamy and others, 1st March 1992. A climate of change. Manchester Guardian Weekly.
9. David Bellamy and others, 14th June 1996. Call for tougher action on CO2. The Times.
10. David Bellamy, 16th December 1996. Cited by Peter Spinks. Glimmer of hope for wounded planet. The Age (Melbourne).
11. No byline, 7th November 2000. Bellamy tackles 'climate criminals'. The Evening Standard.
12. eg: David Bellamy, 25th November 2008. The price of dissent on global warming. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-5013479,00.html
and:
13. Debra J Saunders, 3oth November 2008. When the warmest year in history isn't. San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/29/INLB14C70S.DTL
14. For more on this, see http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/david-bellamy-victim-but-of-who/
15. George Marshall, 2007. Carbon Detox. Gaia, London.
Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/09/a-beardful-of-bunkum/
Bill Totten http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html
by George Monbiot
Published in the Guardian (December 09 2008)
We all create our own reality, and shut out the voices we do not want to hear. But there is no issue we are less willing to entertain than manmade climate change. Here, three worlds seem to exist in virtual isolation. In the physical world, global warming appears to be spilling over into runaway feedback: the most dangerous situation humankind has ever encountered. In the political world - at the climate talks in Poznan for example - our governments seem to be responding to something quite different: a minor nuisance which can be addressed in due course. Only the Plane Stupid protesters who occupied part of Stansted airport yesterday appear to have understood the scale and speed of this crisis. In cyberspace, by contrast, the response spreading fastest and furthest is flat-out denial.
The most popular article on the Guardian's website last week was the report showing that 2008 is likely to be the coolest year since 2000 {1}. As the Met Office predicted, global temperatures have been held down by the La Nina event in the Pacific Ocean. This news prompted a race on the Guardian's comment thread to reach the outer limits of idiocy. Of the 440 responses posted by lunchtime yesterday, about eighty per cent insisted that manmade climate change is a hoax. Here are some clips from this conversation:
"This is a scam to get your money ... The only people buying into "global warming" have no experience with any of the sciences".
"If we spend ANY money or cost one person their job because of this fraud it would be a crime. When will one of our politicians stand up and call this for what it is, BULLSH1T!"
"What a set of jokers these professors are ... I think I understand more about climate change than them and I don't get paid a big fat salary with all the perks to go with it".
And so on, and on and on. The new figures have prompted similar observations all over the web. Until now the "sceptics" have assured us that you can't believe the temperature readings at all; that the scientists at the Met Office, who produced the latest figures, are all liars; and that even if it were true that temperatures have risen, it doesn't mean anything. Now the temperature record (though only for 2008) can suddenly be trusted, and the widest possible inferences can be drawn from the latest figures, though not, of course, from the records of the preceding century. This is madness.
Scrambled up in these comment threads are the memes planted in the public mind by the professional deniers employed by fossil fuel companies {2}. On the Guardian's forums you'll find endless claims that the hockeystick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world's glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age. None of this is true, but it doesn't matter. The professional deniers are paid not to win the argument but to cause as much confusion and delay as possible. To judge by the comment threads, they have succeeded magnificently.
There is no pool so shallow that a thousand bloggers won't drown in it. Take the latest claims from the former broadcaster David Bellamy. You may remember that Bellamy came famously unstuck three years ago when he stated that 555 of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were growing {3}. Now he has made an even stranger allegation.
In early November the Express ran an interview with Bellamy under the headline "BBC shunned me for denying climate change". {4} "The sad fact is", he explained, "that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme". He had been brave enough to state that global warming was "poppycock", and that caused the end of his career. "Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn't doing that".
This article received more hits than almost anything else the Express has published, so ten days ago the paper interviewed Mr Bellamy again {5}. He took the opportunity to explain just how far the conspiracy had spread. "Have you noticed there is a wind turbine on Teletubbies? That's subliminal advertising, isn't it?"
There is just one problem with this story: it is bollocks from start to finish. Bellamy last presented a programme on the BBC in 1994 {6}. The first time he publicly challenged the theory of manmade climate change was ten years later, in 2004, when he claimed in the Daily Mail that it was "poppycock" {7}. Until at least the year 2000 he supported the theory.
In 1992, for example, he signed an open letter, published in the Guardian, urging George Bush Sr "to fight global warming ... We are convinced that the continued emission of carbon dioxide at current rates could result in dramatic and devastating climate change in all regions of the world". {8} In 1996 he signed a letter to the Times arguing that "Continued increases in the global emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels are likely to lead to climate change at a rate greater than the Earth has experienced at any time during the last 10,000 years". {9} In the same year he called for the replacement of fossil fuels with wind power {10}. In 2000 he announced that he was supporting a plan to sue climate change "criminals": governments and industries which blocked attempts to stop global warming {11}. But Bellamy's new claims about the end of his career have been repeated as gospel in several newspapers {12, 13} and all over the web {14}.
In his fascinating book Carbon Detox (2007), George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information {15}. Our views are formed by the views of the people with whom we mix. Of the narratives that might penetrate these circles, we are more likely to listen to those which offer us some reward. A story which tells us that the world is cooking and that we'll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted than the more rewarding idea that climate change is a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and venal scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people should unite to defend their freedoms.
He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing to do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists. We should emphasise the old-fashioned virtues of uniting in the face of a crisis, of resourcefulness and community action. Projects like the transition towns network and proposals for a green new deal tell a story which people are more willing to hear.
Marshall is right: we have to change the way we talk about this issue. You don't believe me? Then read the gibberish that follows this article on the Guardian's website.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. James Randerson, 5th December 2008. 2008 will be coolest year of the decade. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather
2. For the origins of such claims and the people behind them, see George Monbiot, 2007. Heat: how to stop the planet burning. Chapter 2: The Denial Industry. Penguin, London.
3. George Monbiot, 10th May 2005. Junk Science. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
4. Helen Dowd, 5th November 2008. BBC Shunned Me For Denying Climate Change. The Express. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
5. Anna Pukas, 29th November 2008. David Bellamy: ‘Global Warming Is Nonsense'. The Express.
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/73486/David-Bellamy-Global-warming-is-nonsense-
6. Simon Hattenstone, 30th September 2002. The Green Man. The Guardian.
7. David Bellamy, 9th July 2004. Global warming? What a load of poppycock! Daily Mail.
8. David Bellamy and others, 1st March 1992. A climate of change. Manchester Guardian Weekly.
9. David Bellamy and others, 14th June 1996. Call for tougher action on CO2. The Times.
10. David Bellamy, 16th December 1996. Cited by Peter Spinks. Glimmer of hope for wounded planet. The Age (Melbourne).
11. No byline, 7th November 2000. Bellamy tackles 'climate criminals'. The Evening Standard.
12. eg: David Bellamy, 25th November 2008. The price of dissent on global warming. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-5013479,00.html
and:
13. Debra J Saunders, 3oth November 2008. When the warmest year in history isn't. San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/29/INLB14C70S.DTL
14. For more on this, see http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/david-bellamy-victim-but-of-who/
15. George Marshall, 2007. Carbon Detox. Gaia, London.
Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/09/a-beardful-of-bunkum/
Bill Totten http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html
posted by Bill Totten at
9:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home