« Defend Science | Main | Sea Level Predicition Not A Prediction »

Sceptics To Die Quicker - Yeo

Leadership is the answer to the right's problem with climate change | Damian Carrington | Environment | guardian.co.uk

As climate change most directly challenges extreme ideas of personal freedom and unfettered markets, it is this fringe that ends up in denial.

But what struck me most was how these fringe views influence the debate in direct contradiction to what most people want. Politicians and newspapers pride themselves on being in tune with the popular mood.....
So what happens next? Presumably this yawning gap between what the public think and what right-wing politicians and newspapers do will lead to lost votes and circulation. That's the sort of evidence that does change minds, eventually.

An alternative, as Yeo has pointed out on a previous occasion, is to simply let nature take care of the elderly sceptics, who will go to their graves sooner than the rest of the population. The question is will either happen quickly enough to avoid the six degrees of warming to which the IEA says our current path will lead?

Comments

I think Yeo is no spring chicken....

My response at the Guardian:

"All three main parties in the UK back action on climate change, and every government and science academy on Earth does the same."

This is no surprise when you look at the make-up of the Advisory Boards and find the same names cropping up time and time again. People like John Schellnhuber, who is on just about everybody's advisory board, and was Director of Research at Tyndall. Nick Stern, economist, involved in carbon trading via Idea Carbon and on Potsdam's "science" advisory board, along with Jennifer Morgan, ex-WWF and former advisor to Tony Blair. Stern's colleague at LSE and Idea Carbon, Sam Fankhauser, economist to GLOBE International and a member of the UK Climate Change Committee. Yeo himself has commercial interests dependent on climate legislation, via Low Carbon Vehicles. The conflict of interest is immense and yet the accusations about "the right" are the only responses you can come up with.

The networking is vast as they swap scientists and produce "new" research at their new institutions, such as Jean Palutikoff, former CRU director, now at Griffiths University, Australia. Diane Liverman, a geographer from Oxford Environmental Change Institute, now at Arizona State and on the US Science Advisory Board, along with heads of NGO's such as WWF-US and Environmental Defense, non-scientists on a "scientific" body. Tyndall has just opened a new institute in China and the money is always there, straight from the tax-payer.

There is Bill Hare of Greenpeace, a leading IPCC author, Malte Meinshausen of Potsdam, also former Greenpeace, Potsdam based, and now with a base in Australia. The same people, the same agenda, the same data, popping up all over the world. Of course we mustn't forget the most famous "scientist" of all, Dr Pachauri, the railway engineer and economist, with funding from the UK for his TERI organisation and direct links with the US Democrats via Teri-US and as head of a climate department at Yale University.

There is direct evidence of a warmer Arctic at the turn of the century when Amundsen negotiated the NW passage, yet the presentation we are given is from 1979, following the coldest period in the 20th century, which produced the cod wars with Iceland as cod migrated south into UK waters because of the cold. Unfortunately the ice is returning, as levels are back at the long-term average for the satellite record.

The trouble is Damian, in any group of people, there will be some who hold their ideology so dear that no amount of evidence, however compelling, will lead them to change their minds and I am afraid you are one of those people. Your "yawn" about the fact that temperatures haven't risen in spite of increased CO2, shows just how closed your mind is.

"...yawning gap between what the public think and what right-wing politicians and newspapers do will lead to lost votes and circulation. That's the sort of evidence that does change minds, eventually."

So nothing to do with science or facts or anything as old-fashioned as that.

All to do with presentation, spin, and how many peoples' opinions you can influence.

Pretty much what we expect from a lefty warmist, really.

Not even worth honouring with a fisking, is it?

Ah but what Yeo is too thick and out of touch to work out is that climate change scepticism is just like gardening - for most people it just doesn't start to become interesting until they hit the mid-fifties and develops into a real passion from then on. So as the old ones die (or are killed off - by penuary resulting from the politicians almighty feck ups and the use of inflation to reduce the debt to insignificance) they are replaced in numbers by the maturing common-sense of those that follow on.

"As climate change most directly challenges extreme ideas of personal freedom and unfettered markets..." Wrong. Free markets will increase wealth no matter what the climate does. Being richer mitigates the supposed effects climate change.

Post a comment