« Where Does The Telegraph Get Its News From | Main | We are still all going to die - latest. »

Global Warming? Climate Change? Climate Destabilisation? Tickell's The Man With The Answers

The political climate may be right for change | The Times (£)

Crispin Tickell

There is a long and rickety bridge between the world of science on one side and that of public understanding and policymaking on the other. The science is usually far ahead of the politics. But during the past 40 years a series of meetings, reports and conferences have changed attitudes towards climate change or, as I prefer to call it, climate destabilisation.
There is an obvious distinction between natural change over thousands or millions of years, and human-driven change, which is new. The latter is not now in serious doubt: the only question is by how much. As has been widely pointed out, the increase in greenhouse gases is likely to lead to accelerated warming of the Earth, probably by at least 3C by the end of this century. For humans, the likely consequences reach far and wide.
We now come to the crossing of the bridge. Scientists work on different degrees of uncertainty; they have to cope with phoney science and face difficulties in converting the language of science into the language of politics. By contrast, politicians usually operate short term within the election cycle. They want black-and-white answers, not shades of probability.
Failures of understanding between the two worlds are compounded by wobbles in public opinion, such as after the “climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia. There is also a natural reluctance, particularly in an economic downturn, to accept changes that might cause pain to present generations in order to avoid greater pain to future ones.
Still, the greening of politics continues. This is shown by the broad acceptance by all British political parties of the need for action, and by the creation of a committee on climate change with real powers.

And so on.

"There is an obvious distinction between natural change over thousands or millions of years, and human-driven change, which is new. The latter is not now in serious doubt."

So obvious only a fool would ask for proof. Can't you peasants see how wonderful the Emperor's new clothes are, and how important Grandees such as Moi are and how important it is that you let us tell you what to do?

Comments

"The latter is not now in serious doubt."

Well, no, seriously folks, it is not in doubt.

In the same way that there is no doubt, no doubt at all, that when you turn on the headlamps in your car, your fuel consumption increases a little; after all, the energy has to come from somewhere.

But it's the wrong question. The right questions would be (a) is it significant and (b) can we realistically do anything about it and (c) realistically do we need to do anything about it. Honest answers to all those questions would demolish the warmist myths, of course, which is why they are careful not to stray into those areas of the discussion.

Thus do they darken the waters around themselves, and sow confusion in the minds of their listeners. Thus does their cause advance, and their power and wealth increase.

"Climate Destabilisation".

By my count, Global Warming has been renamed at least four times in the past couple of years. Sooner or later, I hope, the politicians will notice.

"Scientists... face difficulties in converting the language of science into the language of politics."

And so they should.

Because once you convert science to politics, it's no longer science.

It's scientism.

Of course they have no difficulties in converting the language of politics into the language of science. It's what the IPCC was set up to do.

Post a comment