With the collapse of Marxism and, to all intents and purposes, of other forms of socialism too, those who dislike capitalism and its foremost exemplar, the United States, with equal passion, have been obliged to find a new creed.Now, even the BBC has allegedly caved into the Climate Change zealots, who don't want anyone to even know that some of their views are being questioned, however gently.
For many of them, green is the new red. And those who wish to order us how to run our lives, faced with the uncomfortable evidence that economic prosperity is more likely to be achieved by less government intervention rather than more, naturally welcome the emergence of a new licence to intrude, to interfere, to tax and to regulate: all in the great cause of saving the planet from the alleged horrors of global warming.
But there is something much more fundamental at work. I suspect that it is no accident that it is in Europe that eco-fundamentalism in general and global warming absolutism in particular has found its most fertile soil. For it is Europe that has become the most secular society in the world, where the traditional religions have the weakest hold.
Yet people still feel the need for the comfort and higher values that religion can provide; and it is the quasi-religion of green alarmism, of which the global warming issue is the most striking example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.
Does all this matter? Up to a point, no. Unbelievers should not be dismissive of the comfort that 'religion' can bring. If people feel better when they drive a hybrid car or ride a bicycle to work, and like to parade their virtue in this way, then so be it.
Nonetheless, the new and unattractively intolerant religion of eco-fundamentalism and global warming presents real dangers. The most obvious is that the governments of Europe may get so carried away by their own rhetoric as to impose measures that do serious harm to their economies. That is a particular danger at the present time in the UK.
On Friday I reported THIS piece about some cooling which is taking place as a result of a phenomenon known as La Nina. The BBC correctly reported some facts about the levels of global warming since 1998. Over the following two days their Environment Editor Roger Harrobin came under intense pressure to change the BBC's report, pressure which he resisted and then, according to climate change sceptic Jennifer Marohasy, caved into. See the full email exchange HERE. Jo Abess, the climate change activist, says at one point...
"I don't think you should worry about whether people [are] suspicious that the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them ... it would be better if you did not quote the sceptics.'That rather says it all, don't you think?
35 comments:
Truly Orwellian !
"It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is
heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing
the emergence of the truth.
I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter."
Off topic Iain, but with reason:
Why are you not blogging about the big argument over your stats? You seem content to argue in other people's blogs; why not a word here?
Hang on, the implication of what you have written is that pressure has been put on him from within the BBC.
And that they are therefore not giving a balanced view. The pressure is coming from outside the BBC and Roger Harrabin is clearly doing well to give both sides of the argument and in no way capitulating to his boss at the BBC to suppress debate.
In her e-mails Jennifer Marohazy says ... "I don't think you should worry about whether people [are] suspicious that the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them ... it would be better if you did not quote the sceptics.'
Says it all, really. Why am I not surprised that Horabin caved in?
An aside it maybe, but Mr Lawson seemed to have ample opportunity to express his views on the Andrew Marr show as far i am aware. He even made the statement that the 'science is isnt conclusive' on whether global warming is man made.
The question must be asked, an i am not exactly some green zealot at all, is that do we spend our critical and political energy disputing what is becoming pretty obvious scientific fact, or do we continue to have this silly ding dong.
To me the overarching positivity of lowering our carbon emissions is not only about be far less wasteful, but far more economical in our consumption. Surely this is something sceptic and zealot can unite behind?
*Note i havent read the emails on the blog, just a general point*
It is very disappointing to see that Roger Harrobin has caved into the activist Jo Abbess's threats and demands. But the wider scandal is that the BBC continues to treat climate change as though it is something caused by man's activities, and not an almost entirely natural phenomenum.
Jo Abbess was, of course, prominent in the recent Heathrow Climate change 'camp', which itself resulted in illegal entry to the airport and clambering on aircraft.
Now I am confused - who is Jennifer ? And who is Jo ? Do you really know your elbow from your ar$e on this ?
And who is 'horabin' ??
[iain dale] "Ms Marohasy says at one point...
"I don't think you should worry about whether people [are] suspicious that the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them ... it would be better if you did not quote the sceptics.'"
No she bloody well does not !!!!!
The BBC has to learn not to patronise people but we , in my view , must not dig our heels in too far out of dislike of the misinformation and bullying associated with that dreadful word
"Green"
I think its time to differentiate between the issue and the idiots with dogs on strings who have attached themselves to it ( as well as the puppet scientists.)
The Green Party itself has an unholy mix of socialist and faintly fascist romantic clap trap in its Policy draw , but the fact that the Green party supports the ogre Livingstone does not mean that we should not take a responsible view of the our stewardship of the world in itself .
The open use of "Green washing" by the Labour Party , notably by naming their planned slums for new immigrants in the South "Eco Towns "( for the purposes of altering the balance of population) again en-mires the issue in the dirtiest of Politics. Crowding , flood protection and coastal protection ..... are ignored by the government which shows you how cynical they are on the entire subject until it suits their taxing agenda Nonetheless behind the posturing and rubbish though there are real causes for concern and costs that should not be dumped on the future .
I very much like David Cameron’s balanced approach Conservatives must always be a Party that cares about what we leave behind as well as today. The techno-phobic zealots are off putting but we should not be infected with their unreasonableness.
I believe David Cameron’s initiative in this area is truly Conservative and if people find his message attractive ...what is the problem with that. We have to find a way to protest against the mis- use of Green issues whilst remaining firmly the Party of the conservation and the environment , .
Here endeth the lesson...
change the words "climate change" to "evolution" and "skeptics" to "creationists" and you'll see why your little rant is so specious.
MMR, fluoride, area 51, flat earthers, evolution, etc etc.
I have never seen a shred of evidence Iain that you have any scientific understanding just a reflexive right-wing bias on any issues beyond your ken. Stick to the politics matey.
They are less open to pressure from those on the other side. In November I suggested a claim made that sea level rise in the Mediterranean was so great that the estuary of the River Ebro was being drowned. This is wholly untrue. They didn't bother to reply.
What criticism of climate change? The people you allude to print their alternate ideas in newspapers and on the internet. If they have a substantive contribution submit it to the leading journals for review. It's how science works. The problem is they don't submit papers because they know they'll have the reviewers laughing in the aisles about the trash they call work.
The worlds scientists even take a look at this rubbish and prove they are nonsense when they are under no obligation to do so for un-reviewed material.
When the BBC reports science they should be reporting peer-reviewed work because they aren't a scientific literate body. They should not be trying to pawn of sceptics opinion as scientific, peer-reviewed work.
"Emerging Truth" - sounds like something the Jehovah's Witnesses would say.
Personally, I fairly certain that climate change is a relaity, and that we do need to be acting differently. I am of the opinion that it is better to be safe than sorry.
But these people wind me up so much with their absolutist "I am right and you are a child-abusing, blood-drinking evil man for not doing exactly as I say"!
It makes me want to go and sell the Prius and buy a 4X4 to spite them!
I posted about this yesterday here.
A particularly dodgy bit of de-balancing stealth editing from the BBC.
Annon 3.07. What would have happened was that seeing she was getting no-were with old Roger, she (or someone else) would have rung up Roger's boss, who would have been emotionaly blackmailed, who would then have had a quiet 'I say old chap' word with Roger, who would have caved!
Well, when I was a press officer, that's what I would have done anyway!
I wonder if any of the AGW evangelists ever ask themselves "What if?"
Are their views liberal enough to accept dissent?
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
I muddled the names and attributed something Jo Abbess wrote to Jennifer Marohazy.
I think the whole environmental debate has become very murky. I am a keen environmentalist - but I don't understand why in recent years the entire agenda has been hijacked by 'global warming' and 'climate change'. There are all kinds of other issues - for instance rate of population growth (now seemingly a taboo subject) and the dangers of nuclear energy that have simply been jettisoned. The debate has become far too politicised to be trusted. And talk of 'peer review' doesn't guarantee the majority view of scientists is entirely to be trusted. Like everyone else they are subject to the pressures and temptations of career opportunities and funding. If these are weighted to reaching certain conclusions about climate change - then most will succumb to pressure to get the 'right' finding. We aren't living in the age of Newton and Darwin - independent men who were not beholden to any institution.
Not that long ago, someone working for a major financial organisation was helping to organise the speaker programme for an industry conference. He included, amongst a variety of speakers for the climate change session, someone who has very good academic qualifications and who is relatively well known, but is a climate change 'doubter'. Needless to say, at the last minute the 'doubter' was removed, with no explanation, from the panel. Yet if you knew the air miles this firm runs up, the projects they deal with and the overall picture of the industry, you'd really have a whole new definition of 'cynicism'.
Climate change fundamentalism is as bad a threat as radical Wahabi Islam, but we're not allowed to say that, are we?
You can check the evidence for yourselves over at the most excellent News Sniffer site here. Share and enjoy.
The BBC has not caved into the demands of climate change activists.
It is doing what it is told to do by the people that control it.
Here are some clues to who these people are.
They are the same people that run the world.
Which is not George Bush, Al Gore, Gordon Brown, Or any other elected person or political party.
Work out who REALLY controls the UN, the EU and the USA and just about every thing else, and you will be getting fairly close.
BTW
We have long since been able to change local whether conditions. The technology has existed since the 1970s if not longer. The existence of which was announced on the BBCs 'Tomorrows World', as far back as 1975. Can we trust the people who control this technology not to use it, or indeed tell us if they have already done so?
The climate change propagandists won't accept debate any more - they've got the Treasury on side, that's all they're interested in. The lead author of the IPCC report on climate change has been exposed as a liar and a fraud over the Wilkins Ice Shelf and even the BBC has had to admit that the earth will cool this year and that the earth hasn't warmed since the temperature peaked in 1998.
Pretty much every government harping on about climate change is left wing and the ultimate aim of the left is to make everyone equally miserable and poor. Climate change is the perfect excuse for imposing crippling taxes and restricting mobility and civil liberties to achieve those aims.
Please stay out of science, Iain.
Science is not democratic - it doesn't matter how many crackpots you have claiming its not happening, it doesn't change what is actually happening.
And the scientific consensus - derived through evidence, reason and peer review - is that climate change is a real problem.
Get over it.
I notice you don't link to N. Lawson's article in today's FT Iain.
I found it to be quite ridiculous. I have no side with teh climate change agenda, but his arguments were obvious sophistry.
Misrepresenting the arguments of the climate change lobby is not a good way of winning the argument and it leads this rather disinterested observer to conclude that maybe the arguments against climate change really are quite weak.
I would say however that D. Lawson tends to write a lot more convincingly on this issue.
Big Andy
More on Jo Abbess here. She's, erm, a character!
Oscar Miller said...
The debate has become far too politicised to be trusted. And talk of 'peer review' doesn't guarantee the majority view of scientists is entirely to be trusted.
I agree, 'peer review' of scientific work is important but it is not the guarantee of rigour that people assume it to be. Reviewers are chosen by the editors of the publication, or conference organisers, from amongst those who have some knowledge of the subject (experts where possible). In most cases there are only 2 or 3 reviewers so it doesn't mean that there is a broad spectrum of assessment. Indeed they may have been selected because their known views suit the person selecting them.
If the work is presented at a conference prior to publication then critics have some chance of being heard, though even there they may not get a hearing because the time allowed for questions on a paper is typically only about 10 to 15 minutes. The Chairman decides the order in which questions are taken and people who are known to be hostile to the author are likely to find that the time has run out before they have been called.
It is very easy to ward off potential critics. The result is that biased or incompetent work may be published and general readers will believe that it has been validated by the ‘experts’.
And the scientific consensus - derived through evidence, reason and peer review - is that climate change is a real problem.
Same scientists that told us Tobacco does not cause Cancer or that Aborigines were semi ape. Same scientists whose predictions about the extent of the devastation about to hit us have been proven wrong as each mark is passed. Where is the dramatic rise in sea levels predicted with such certainty only in the 70s .
Scientists say what they are paid to ,and they are paid to have an emergency not to tell everyone go back to sleep . Scientists are amenable to the suggestion that not only that which pays them is right but that which augments their sense of superiority is right.
All of academia is left leaning and you are about as likely to get a balanced view from environmental scientists about the climate as you are about the position of women from the Professors of ‘women’s studies ‘. They are a political and commercial group not a scientific one and anyone who cannot see otherwise is a child to whom I wish to sell time shares and savings policies.
"Same scientists that told us Tobacco does not cause Cancer or that Aborigines were semi ape. Same scientists whose predictions about the extent of the devastation about to hit us have been proven wrong as each mark is passed. Where is the dramatic rise in sea levels predicted with such certainty only in the 70s"
But that's exactly why the scientific method works - it isn't dogmatic, there is no left and right - when new evidence arises, scientists will change their mind. As it is, the evidence points towards climate change being a big problem. Politicising it isn't going to help.
"All of academia is left leaning and you are about as likely to get a balanced view from environmental scientists about the climate as you are about the position of women from the Professors of ‘women’s studies ‘."
What on earth is a "balanced view"? I fail to see how an environmental scientist, drawing conclusions from the evidence available should have to say "on the one hand, there's loads of evidence for this, but to be fair, despite there being no evidence to suggest it, it could be the complete opposite"... that's madness.
psythor said...
"scientific method works - it isn't dogmatic, there is no left and right - when new evidence arises, scientists will change their mind."
Very possibly. Except that most 'environmentalists' are either scientists making money out of this scam or Marxist propagandists who would kill their mothers, or the planet, as long as they get to issue decrees against everyone else.
"the evidence points towards climate change being a big problem. Politicising it isn't going to help."
This 'evidence' is politicised to start with - it's the new religion of the fascist left. The scientists who question this entire project are, at best, ignored; others are subject to worse.
"I would say however that D. Lawson tends to write a lot more convincingly on this issue."
I pity you if you take that clown seriously.
Speaking of correcting things online Iain. Have you changed you original post about all this to acknowledge the story WAS featured on the BBC's Ten O Clock News?
"the story WAS featured on the BBC's Ten O Clock News?"
where? I downloaded the Ten O Clock News and it was not there. The strange thing is that the program from the BBC website cuts before the end.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ten/2655185.stm
Thank goodness some one has finally decide to stand up to green lobby and their scaremongering!
Anonymous said...
"I downloaded the Ten O Clock News and it was not there."
You probably got the date wrong. It was broadcast on April 3rd.
Post a Comment