Thursday, December 03, 2009
Trouble for Cameron on Climate Change
People who question climate change baffle me. When over 90% of the world's climate scientists agree it is happening and is the result of the 30 bilion tons we have been annually emitting into the atmosphere, I tend to think they are right. Why, surely, do they say this unless they have discerned this to be the case? Deniers say it's because of their careers- if they dissent from the consensus they will lose promotion points. But there was not always a consensus; about twenty years ago it was the global warming lot who were in the minority, who were saying the earth was round when the majority either said it was flat or were unaware there ws even a problem.
Whatever the reasons people choose to disagree- most of them totally untrained as scientists of course- it does seem to me we need a really big debate, staged by the BBC maybe, where guys like Monbiot and company are pitted against those who dispute the case for cuts in emissions and all that this entails. My theory has always been that those who live in considerable comfort, hate the idea they might have to rein in their consumption to some extent. This would explain why there are more sceptics amoung the Tories than elsewhere in the political marketplace.
And this fact has now come home to husky hugging David Cameron, according to yesterday's Independent. Several of his leading colleagues are asking why Conservatives are supporting a cross-party consensus on the issue:
Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor: ‘We have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is disquieting’
Douglas Carswell, rising Tory MP: ‘the facts seem to have changed. And so I have changed my mind.’
Peter Lilley: ‘There is an irrefutable scientific process on global warming. I just think it tends to be exaggerated.’
Philip Davies, rising Tory MP: ‘Everyone has gone completely mad on this. Anyone who says ‘hang on a minute’ is completely decried and treated like a holocaust denier.’
John Maples, former Cabinet Minister: ‘The only argument for acting radically now is if there is a tipping point- a point of no return. None of the scientists whom I have read predicts that.
John Redwood: ’We will benefit from then better weather for tourism, agriculture and outdoor sports’.
David Davies: ‘Why this ferocious desire to impose hair-shirt policies?’
What a pathetic argument from Redwood too: why worry about countries which might be submerged or starved, when we might have more opportunity to play cricket? I get the feeling the consensus between the parties will come under starin between now and next May.
Shouldn't Tim Yeo and John Gummer (and other Tory "Greens"), be questioned about their links to companies which will benefit from the taxation measures they favour?
Indeed. I expect the press will enlighten their constituents at an opportune moment.
"Most of them totally untrained as scientists of course"...what? You mean like you? You can't have it both ways Skip. You can't belittle the skeptics so easily when they side with so many experts on the issue. Indeed private polling seems to prove the career line - many more experts have doubts than they publicly admit.
If the stupid Cameron, thinks he is dragging the party along this loony line now(when recent climate data is throwing serious doubt on the human impact, and in the middle of a recession), then he can think on.
For me of course we are affecting the whole area of weather change, but is it really going to stop and return to normal what is normal
I admit in my post I'd like some authoritative resolution of the debate, because as long as there is doubt people like you will trumpet it. Problem is, if I'm wrong and the problem doesn't exist, life will go on. If you are wrong, and I am right, your descendants and everyone else's will inherit a world resembling a shrivelled walnut. And over 90% of those qualified in the subject, say I am right.
Links to this post: