How McCain can help Cameron

Ian C

If Cameron sticks to the doom and gloom on climate change he will pay for it. There is simply too much evidence emerging that the warming assumed by the doomsters is based on incomplete analysis and inaccurate modelling. It is thus looking far less likely to happen, and that we cannot tinker with the climate with known consequences anyway. And we can't do anything if it is without turning the lights off and denying developing nations the luxuries we enjoy. Far better to change the argument to a positive one of opportunities in efficiency, new technologies and the moral case for reversing the worst aspects of a consumer society, in particular waste of food, power, natural resources and overuse of chemicals. Couched in such terms he will find greater widespread support, whereas the global warmists have a negative message which has to be repeated over and over and are hugely divisive (not to mention off putting) as a result.

Doug

Well I totally disagree with IanC's comments about scientific basis of global warming. However he is right about the tone of doom-mongering about climate change. Too much stick and not enough carrot. Also people are far more concerned about their backyard and there needs to be more local relevance to this problem. Regarding McCain I used to think he was an OK moderate but not after I actually read about him. On one of the most personal issues to him, torture, he just recently flip-flopped on it in a Senate vote. I was convinced his anti-torture stance was set in stone and immutable bit I was wrong. It puts everything else into doubt for me. He has doddered his way through Baghdad and London and spouted on several occasions that Shia Iran are aiding Sunni Al-Qaeda all the while Lieberman is having to correct him. Is he confused or his trying to conjure up a reason to invade Iran? Either answer isn't flattering.

Diana

Wasn't McCain at the tory party conference 2007?

TGF UKIP

Yes, Diana, but it was in 2006 not 2007 - good speech too. Ian C is dead right that the global warming case has now been holed below the waterline. That, however, is not stopping the headbangers. The phrase "global warming" is out of their lexicon and instead it's now full speed ahead with "climate change." The collective stupidity of the British and EU political establishments on this issue is beyond belief. The best thing Dave can do is discover Bjorn Lomborg and announce a stategic review and re-think before Gordon does. As for McCain, this probably gives him enough space from George W so when he's elected it can be safely deposited in the farthest corner of the White House basement.

Doug

The data is incontrovertible. The average global temperature is rising. This leads to global warming induced climate change. The problem is unthinking deniers who have no understanding of nuance or complexity believe that global warming means that everywhere has to get warmer. It's called AVERAGE global temperature. The deniers have absolutely no leg to stand. Everyone of their straw-man arguments has been shot down. All that is left is to spew their prejudices in some of the right-wing media.

CS

The "global warming has ben holed below the waterline" argument reminds me of the insistence that there was no proof that smoking caused cancer. So, because there was no 2+2=4 proof, people blithely ignored the possibility that a hacking cough and the inability to walk upstairs without resting halfway might be indications enough that smoking was bad for you. I've no idea if global warming is happening or not, but when we see factories pouring smoke into the air we breathe and dumping chemicals into the water we drink, it doesn't take a genius to guess that it's harmful to the environment. But, because it's a problem that isn't going to kill us within the next few minutes, we prioritise cheaper cars, driving 5 mins to the shops and having the central heating on full blast instead of wearing warm clothes.

Ian C

Doug and CS offer a good example of what is happening in the warming debate and why Cameron must focus only on positive matters. Obama, whether you like or dislike him, has gone a long way by basing his message on hope, which is the lesson he is providing. On the subject of MMGW the warmist message is not/cannot be one of hope while there is alot of new research out there that gives plenty of hope with which to counter. (In the past two months I have read two new papers that cast significant doubt on two crucial aspects of the case in favour of MMGW which have been supported by well known 'warmists' - on top of the stuff that some claim have been trashed). For every case that there has been to counter the claims for MMGW there is an equally positive counter argument - not that you would realise it when you read, as in Doug's post above, that "the data is uncontovertible", when it very clearly is not for the open minded who do their research. It is essential for Cameron to ignore the politically driven control freakery that drives that debate, mainly by dogmatically claiming the debate is "incontrovertible". Cameron must not be identified with those who play that game because he risks catching a nasty cold if the ultimate conclusion is a more moderate one than that being promoted by the eco- worriers. As CS says there are huge volumes of chemicals being pumped into the atmsophere and much wastage of finite resources whose profligate use is bad fdor us al physically and financially. This must be the area to concentrate on and avoid getting it confused with the warming debate which is different matter.

David Lindsay

Watching John McCain and his Vice-Presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman, on tour with some other Senator, I am reminded of On The Town, starring Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly and The One Whose Name No One Can Ever Remember.

Any Republican reading this, won’t you just love voting for the same Vice-Presidential nominee as Gore supporters did in 2000?

Nicholas

It is interesting that Doug puts the contra-climate change lobby on the right wing and like most of his ilk becomes emotional, if not hysterical, in arguing the case for. That is a very left wing characteristic that you can read in the New Statesman blog comments all the time: attack the person not their argument, accuse them of being right wing as though that in itself invalidates their case, wring hands, smear ash on hair and wail to the sky that we are all doomed. I have yet to see a rational, reasoned or balanced discussion about the subject. The case for is so highly charged politically it has become a PC "no go area" and any voices in dissent are shouted down as pariahs and their message suppressed.

I'm not making a judgement here on climate change, by the way, just an observation about the nature of the argument. I worry about the demise of reasoned debate and the rise of spin, soundbites and political zealotry.

Jim Krzenski

Should we fight a war one way or should we fight it another? Is there an enemy? Is it ourselves? The resolution of this "potentially" critical debate has been so poisoned by politics that this independent and critical thinker remains uncommitted to either side of the issue. How do we move forward from this morass? As a free people let us commission a study equivalent to the Manhattan Project. Permit this team of independent, highly qualified scientist to resolve this issue, without outside interference, once and for all. The commission’s charter would require unbiased, scientifically determined answers to the following three questions. Is there a problem? Is human activity/behavior causing it? Whether or not it is caused by human activity/behavior can human activity/behavior correct it? Why have we not done this? I believe it is because our nations today do not possess the same caliber of leadership that existed in the early 1940's. I ask; would a Churchill, Eisenhower, or Roosevelt have permitted this potentially critical issue to fester this long down in the dismal mud slinging quagmire of political debate. I think not!!! It is time, once again, to storm the beaches to tackle and resolve our problems as a team. Lest we not forget, “So few sacrificed for so many”!!! If those gallant leaders of the past are witnessing all this they are certainly uttering, “What the hell are you all doing – move forward”!!!!

Ian C

Your solution sounds like a positive proposal, Jim. But the whole problem is the subject matter. It is currently the most researched area of science and thus impossible to come to conclusions without restricting the research. The debate would then be ill-informed and hijacked again by the various lobbies, which is precisely what has happened with the UNPCC. We have to let it run and get the politicians out of it, while we concentrate on the the things we can do something about eg. profligate waste and pollution.

Jim Krzenski

Ian, In the minds of the naysayer’s it all boils down to the almighty (dollar/pound/euro/other) or the environment that supports our very existence. Will our civilization survive or will we go the way of many previously extinct civilizations? However, no need to fear, we have one advantage previous civilizations allegedly did not possess. We have technology!!! If the ambient atmosphere deteriorates beyond repair we now have the ability to survive in spite of our self defeating behaviors. If we can establish an environmentally controlled base on the moon to support our survival, we certainly can do it here on earth. I believe, as we destroy the sustenance our beautiful planet provides we'll be forced to migrate into our environmentally controlled shelters. No need to dispair, we will not have to read the history that posterity writes about the selfish, short sighted behaviors manifested in our era. What posterity may write about us is nothing we need to consider. All we must consider today is profit. How much money can we make? How many things we can buy? I’ve got to have more stuff!! Let us just keep the economy humming along. What by products? They do not exist as long as they are not in my backyard – out of sight out of mind? Many generations from now will the walk in the park require the donning of an environmentally controlled space-like suit? We must start making decisions with posterity in mind. What are the solutions which will not only benefit us today but tomorrow as well? As I gaze out the window of my study I cherish the sky, the air and the water of our beautiful world. Now, I think I’m going to go for walk, without my spacesuit, and thank God for this most beautiful of places to live. Will our posterity be able to do the same or will they forsake us???

Dave B

HMG sponsoring something like the 'x prize' for a fuel efficient car.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/21/xprize_cars/

Rather than some 'carbon trading' boon-doggle would be a positive change in my opinion. New technologies, not new taxes.