The most expensive scare, which became a scam, was the campaign against asbestos. In this case, a genuine source of harm from amphiboles (which had been tackled long ago) was confused with the harmless ‘white’ asbestos which formed 90 per cent of all asbestos-containing materials. Neither the media nor the law-makers armed themselves with the facts to resist the combined pressures from interest groups, lawyers seeking personal injury fees and contractors earning inflated sums to remove the innocent fire-resistant material. In Britain and America, bankrupting litigation was brought against companies dealing with the innocuous substance. Juries began awarding $25 million each to plaintiffs who showed no symptoms of ill health. A collective madness took hold. Lloyds of London was brought to the brink of ruin, a fate passed on to many of its names.
Booker and North take these and other telling examples not just to highlight past folly but to warn about the future. In particular, they relate them to the global warming debate. Scientific experts (many of whom, on closer inspection, transpire not to be climatologists at all) who assert rising temperatures are largely man-made have so collared governments, research funding, hearts, minds and the ‘factual’ output of the BBC that to express contrary evidence is to be equated with engaging in Holocaust Denial. Western governments are committing themselves to the sort of emission-cutting targets that are either unsustainable or economically ruinous. But what if this latest weather cycle, like so many in the past, is as much or more to do with natural variations in the sun’s activity?
Only time will tell whether a measure of scepticism towards the most alarmist climate claims is well founded. In the meantime, the similarities in method between those pushing the man-made global warming agenda and the various blinkered boobies and charlatans responsible for the catastrophes dissected in Scared to Death demands a more pluralistic response than almost anyone in our public life is prepared to countenance. That alone, should worry us.





Comments
Clint Lichtner
January 8th, 2008 3:27pmWhere is this book "Too Much Zeal" available? A search of the ISBN returns nothing as well. Is it so recently published that it's not yet distributed?
Report this comment
Leonard Colquhoun
January 5th, 2008 6:29amThe "gullibility of the media" is surely linked to the (perceived) almost total ignorance of journos and celebs of science; indeed, isn't is trendy now to boast of this ? And with tabloids, and even self-styled "quality" media, publishing and/or broadcasting astrological nonsense as if fact, what can be hoped for ?
Report this comment
ian skidmore
January 4th, 2008 6:10pmYou do a valuable public service in publicising this book. I make a point of eating more of anything the government warns me against. Not trusted them since the "carrot and the ability to see at night" scandal of wartime years when I ate a mouintain of carrtots Red Rum couldn't have jumped over,went out into the black out and walked im to a wall. I was 12 at the time but sixty seven years later I haven't forgotten or forgiven
Report this comment
Alex Hutchinson
January 4th, 2008 5:25pmPerhaps the greatest threat from the scares surrounding BSE, salmonella et al is that just as with the boy who cried wolf, they lull us into a false sense of security when faced with a real threat with severe real consequences. Climate change may be that real threat, and even if it isn't, surely it makes good sense economically and on grounds of national security to reduce demand for imported energy and our dependency on regimes such as those of Mr Putin and Mr Ahmadinejad who supply it.
Report this comment
jud kirk
January 4th, 2008 2:07pmI need to be enlightened as I have not found this overwhelming evidence. Perhaps Mr Calcott can direct me to this evidence?. I would also like to see where this "wait and see" approach is, because prior to the global warming hysteria plenty was being done to reduce energy consumption, primarily driven by economics but that doesn't provide stories for the media
Report this comment
David Owen
January 4th, 2008 1:52pmPhilip Calcott's badly spelt comment seemed to miss the point as much as he accuses the article's author of doing. Seems to me they were not trying to argue the 'climate physics involved'. Does Mr Calcutt fully understand these ? Does anyone, given the degree of disagreement shown by different 'experts' in the field. Even if one accepts 'a step change in CO2 levels', it still seems perfectly reasonable to doubt whether this is entirely due to man-made activity, and even if it is, is there any way at all of reversing this trend ?
Report this comment
EyeSee
January 4th, 2008 1:26pmExcellent topic and so true. We have become conditioned, particularly by the Labour nanny-state ideal not to think for ourselves, so scams like these get through. Now I don't want to do the conspiracy thing, but I found the 'buy it at Amazon' bit amusing. It isn't in stock and hasn't been for at least a while, if not since release. Nor at Play.com, why is that? Nor, incidently is Norman Baker's book about the murder of Dr Kelly.
Report this comment
Philip Calcott
January 4th, 2008 12:13pmA fair enough article until the author gets to global warming. Here he just illustrates his ignorance of the climate physics involved. The evidence that a step change up in CO2 levels will have a dramatic effect on climate is overwhelming, as is the evidence that this is already happening. To ingore this and counsel a "wait and see" approach is shear irresponsiblity.
Report this comment