The Green Inquisition
Thank goodness for David Bellamy. In a glorious piece in the Times, he rips into the global warming scam with unrivalled brio — and with deserved contempt and fury for those who have turned science into the enemy of reason and sought to suppress the truth through a campaign of vilification and intimidation. Over and over again he brings forward elementary facts which directly contradict or fatally undermine the misleading claims and sometimes totally bent predictions of man-made global warming catastrophe which masquerade as ‘research’.
...the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause.And in any event, this ‘consensus’ is as much of an illusion as Al Gore’s drowning polar bears:
A recent survey of Klaus-Martin Schulte, of Kings College Hospital, of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between 2004 and February of 2007 found that only 7 per cent explicitly endorsed a ‘so-called consensus’ position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. What is more, James Lovelock, the author and green guru, has changed his mind: he recently stated that neither Earth nor the human race is doomed.World saved! The consensus argument is of course in itself absurd. Even if this famed consensus existed, it would prove nothing except the unlimited capacity of people to fall into line when their livelihoods are at stake. The ‘scientific consensus’ has been proved wrong over and over again; it was not long ago that it was proclaiming with the same certainty that the planet was about to freeze to extinction.
What matters is not that very grand people with lots of letters after their names all agree to a proposition, but whether that proposition is actually true. The priesthood of experts gets away with spouting undiluted bilge because people are easily intimidated by their aura of intellectual invincibility. But however arcane their area of expertise, whatever they say still has to correspond to the basic requirements of evidence, logic, consistency and rationality. In those areas, the judgment of ordinary people is as good as anyone’s. And that judgment (backed up by countless scientists whose voices have been all but drowned out) says we are being played for suckers. Green ones.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (33)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Jim Carr
October 22nd, 2007 5:45pmA major player in the "climate change" scam has been the BBC. I see on the Biased BBC blog that their environmental journalists are not science graduates. Perhaps worth some research and, if true, some publicising.
Brian
October 22nd, 2007 5:56pm". . . The ‘scientific consensus’ has been proved wrong over and over again . . .."
Indeed . . . Science is not subject to the democratic process, of which "scientific consensus," even if it were to exist wrt anthropogenic global warming, would be a manifestation.
Controversy about the causes of GW, its magnitude in years to come (if any), the amount and kind of resources that should be diverted to stopping its hypothetical progress, and the consequences of any GW that might occur, abounds.
As it should.
Ian Parker
October 22nd, 2007 6:04pmLet us please not forget that the mainstream media have been instrumental in disseminating and supporting this scam. The Internet reveals the extent to which the majority of the relevant scientific community actually reject the notion of human-induced global warming. The aligned manipulation of the truth by governments and traditional media outlets is the big story here. And to think we live in a free, democratic society.
Jerry Bolton
October 22nd, 2007 6:23pmI am neither a learned man with many letters after my name, or a complete idiot, somewhere in between I am. Still, I have common sense. Common sense tells me that this whole sham was started and controlled by Al Gore and the man is just not to be believed on anything. He is a charlatan . . . And I don't care if he DID invent the Internet or write the novel "Love Story."
Andy
October 22nd, 2007 7:25pmThe problem with this debate, is that it has become so ideologically charged, scientific rigor is ignored. Look at History - how science was perverted in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The current 'Global Warming' scare is yet another example of this in my view.
David Gregory
October 22nd, 2007 10:09pmHi Jim Well I'm a BBC Environment Correspondent and I have a PhD in Physics. But of course as Ms Phillips points out, qualifications mean nothing in the face of her certainty on this issue. I've had a brief correspondence with Ms Phillips before about her interesting approach to climate change science. I look forward to continuing that on her blog. Perhaps it's worth repeating. I am not told what to report by the BBC and I am not forbidden from reporting certain things. I simply report the science. That's my job. That's what I do. What Ms Phillips posts here is illuminating. I mean what is her actual argument? It seems to be based around appeals to "common sense" and what Stephen Colbert calls "truthiness". Not the truth as such but rather simple facts that are based on a deep seated feeling about what is right. Following your gut feeling rather than your head. I think at worst this is intellectually lazy (after all, what is common sense but the label we give our own prejudice?) but it's certainly not science. Which is after all, all we have to explain the world around us.
Brian
October 22nd, 2007 11:11pmMr. Gregory -- or should I say Dr. Gregory -- it is a logical faux pas to "appeal to authority" to score points in a debate, not to mention immodest in the extreme if that authority happens to be yourself.
But more to the point -- how strong is your belief that GW is anthropogenic? Or, are you unsure that it is?
m wood
October 23rd, 2007 12:54amWhen people talk about the scientific consensus, remember that the history of science shows that newly discovered facts can be sweep away an earlier accepted 'truth' – once the ‘consensus’ was that the Sun went round the Earth, until one (unwelcomed) voice spoke out!
Paul Morris
October 23rd, 2007 4:15amKeep up the good work Mel! I still think Mark Steyn came up with the best description of Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" when he called it a "crockumentary" by St. Al of the Ecopalypse"
LLB
October 23rd, 2007 5:22amHi David Gregory, im a lawyer not a scientist so im more qualified than you to discuss the evidence of MMGW. MMGW is a scam and theres no evidence apart from dodgy computer predictions and propaganda pumped out by your employer why dont you report that the antartic ice cap reach is at a record? maybe as it does not suit your agenda
Bill
October 23rd, 2007 10:26amI studied for my degree in geography in the mid 70's and at that time the big scare story was the coming Ice Age. I was told then by one of my professors that there was no new Ice Age around the corner, merely one of the normal climatic fluctuations that the Earth has been subject to since God was a boy. The hysteria, he told me, was all about how researchers and academics get funding. More hysteria generates more funding for more 'research'. They kept the bandwagon going for as long as possible then and I can see the same thing happening now, only much magnified. In my opinion the whole Global Warming scam is bollox. In fact it's double bollox on stilts.
Abandon Ship!
October 23rd, 2007 12:54pmBill makes an interesting point about funding. The motivations of those who question AGW are always questioned (are you in the pay of oil companies?), but rarely those of people who promote the theory of AGW. Scientists are not apolitical. I am a rare breed - a professional scientist who is a conservative. I can tell you that in the universities the Guardian and Independent are far and away the most read papers. In effect, the academics who need funding to research AGW are those who, in the main, have a worldview in line with these papers, which accep[ts AGW without question. Oh , they will say otherwise of course, but I have 25 years of experience in British Universities to demonstrate the opposite. It is therefore not at all surprising that the consensus amongst scientists is that AGW is fact. Just as the consensus amongst scientists is that Thatcher, Bush and Blair are evil whilst Fidel, Hugo and Che have or had their hearts in the right place.
Jim Carr
October 23rd, 2007 12:55pmDr Gregory, are you seriously suggesting that the BBC "simply reports the science"? It simply reports one side of "the science". The Northwest Passage story springs to mind - ice melt caused by the direction of the wind, but ascribed to man-made "climate change" nonetheless, in true BBC fashion. And, what percentage of your BBC environmental colleagues do not have *relevant* science degrees?
Patrick
October 23rd, 2007 2:16pmwhen will you climate change "sceptics" realise that your refusal to accept manmade climate change will cost lives and the secure future of this planet. you're helping to prevent much needed action. you let yourselves be manipulated by your desire to not be responsible for global warming and of course by melanie Philips questionable journalism. The debate on what causes climate change is over,open your eyes.
Brian
October 23rd, 2007 3:06pmPatrick asks: "when will you climate change "sceptics" realise that your refusal to accept manmade climate change will cost lives and the secure future of this planet."
When you True Believers provide us with unambiguous evidence of causation, prove unequivocally your scare claims about magnitude, show that hypothetical catastrophic negative effects will offset benefits, and provide realistic solutions that wouldn't themselves be catastrophic.
That's for starters.
Jim Carr
October 23rd, 2007 4:22pm"The debate on what causes climate change is over,open your eyes." That is the problem right there. The debate is not over, in fact it is the alarmists' case that is crumbling. If you would open your closed mind you would see that. And no amount of ad hominem attacks or exhortations to join the religion of the true believers will alter that.
Brian
October 23rd, 2007 6:48pmOkay -- I'm weak and can't resist.
Mr. Gregory -- sorry, that would be Dr. Gregory, BBC science writer -- writes: "I am not told what to report by the BBC and I am not forbidden from reporting certain things."
Dr. Gregory should know that this is a preposterous misdirection (I can't decide if it is a "strawman" or a "red herring" fallacy, or a combination).
If Dr. Gregory is a true believer in anthropogenic GW, and his belief is congruent with the BBC's institutional position, nobody would need to tell him what to report or what tone to take in reporting it.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but Herr Hitler didn't need to instruct Herr Goebbels on the tone of his . . . what . . . one-sided characterization of Jews.
Sincerity, a clear conscience and depth of belief do not guarantee objectivity.
Patrick
October 23rd, 2007 7:47pmif one were to reopen the debate on the cause of climate change. you both must conceed though not 100% vindicated the theory of manmade global warming is the most plausible,also the most accepted theory. yes there are other theories for instance sunspots. but the deeper you read into these more convenient explanations, the more you become aware of the data problems at the core of them oroil company backing etc... the fact is the "sceptics" cannot produce any plausible counter theories that standup to serious scientific scrutiny, even the authors of som of these theories admit th field data is wrong, but they are still championed by the sceptics.so instead of producing plausible explanations you attack the small innaccuracies linked to the broadly correct one of MMGW. lastly you refer to an open mind, whilst people such as me for decades have been receptive to any theory supported by peer reviewed science that is more plausible. which has not been forh coming. you have had an open mind to any theories that take the burden of responsiblity away from you. whist you have stubbornly resited any which hold you accountable. if having an open min means only believing arguments that reaffirm you beliefs then i am guilty of not having one. enviromentalists are not alarmists simpy people striving to protect the world.
Andy
October 23rd, 2007 9:19pmPatrick says :- "sceptics cannot produce any plausible counter theories that standup to serious scientific scrutiny" Well that is true because it is the AGW alarmists that deal in theories. The "sceptics" deal in facts. Man made global warming is a theory which is contracticted by historical evidence and current climate research. Perhaps the AGW preachers should visit www.junkscience.com. This website is offering a cash prize of 125,000 dollars to anyone who can provide scientific evidence of man made global warming. So come on all you AGW preachers present your evidence and win that prize, it should be easy as you obviously know it all.
Patrick
October 23rd, 2007 10:22pmAndy says the alarmists deal in theories "The "sceptics" deal in facts" which frankly is a laughable statement since every scientific theory is based on fact. yes there is historical evidence opposing Manmade climate change but there is historical evidence opposing the holocuast. i'd rather go with the consensus would'nt you. in regard to junkscience.com i refer you to Monbiot.com which will hopefully lift the scales from your eyes.
David Gregory (BBC)
October 23rd, 2007 11:30pmBrian: Jim Carr asked if any BBC Environment Correspondents had scientific qualifications. I responded. This leads us to the interestingly circular argument when Ms Phillips doesn't trust people with qualifications, while other posters say we shouldn't trust BBC reporters if they don't have qualifications. Hmmm, can't see a way out of that. But I'm certainly not saying I'm an expert or setting myself up as one. I'm a journalist who specialises in science. "Belief" would imply faith without proof. I look at the work and put it before the licence fee payers. As a quick guide; climate change is real. It is our fault. One event is not evidence by itself. So you won't find me standing knee deep in Tewkesbury claiming this is the final proof scientists were looking for. And David is just fine LLB: Well higher temperatures mean higher precipitation in some areas. So higher snowfall and thicker ice make sense. Google is your friend is you want more on this argument. (Well done on being a lawyer by the way!) Jim Carr: Northwest Passage. Why not read David Shukman's blog from his journey through the Northwest Passage before making such sweeping claims? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7033831.stm Brian: Belief is such as strange term to use about science. But I've gone into that. Oh yes, and have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? I expected better on the Spectator blog. Finally: Where is Ms Phillips? Here I was looking for debate with her and it's all post-and-run! Ah well.
Lefty John
October 23rd, 2007 11:43pmPatrick, please can you stop with the ad hominems about oil tainted research. There are serious scientists who deserve not to be smeared by individuals such as yourself. Can we first contextualised the actual debate which Melanie doesn't represent. The agreement is that: 1 - the world got warmer in the 20th century 2 - CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 3 - increased CO2 has a forcing on temperature None of the above 3 items are in dispute. If there is a consensus, that is the extent of it. However, what that means to the climate is debatable. The IPCC report uses models which assume a 3.7watts/m2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 concentration (from 280ppm to 560ppm). This leads to an increase of 1 degree Kelvin in temperature (all other factors being equal). This 3.7watts/m2 is not based on physical evidence. It is a physics model of a single shell surrounding a black-body object. Now, there are arguments as to whether the atmosphere can be represented as a single shell. A 2-shell model would reduce the forcing to around 2.3watts/m2 (0.6k). Secondly, the Earth is not a black-body object. Its albedo also influences temperature. Increases in albedo are negative feedbacks so lowering temperature. So far from being a certainty, there is doubt as to whether a doubling in CO2 will result in a 1k temperature increase. And that's just one small factor amongst many. The accuracy of the land temperature record is also in doubt. Anthony Watt's site surfacestations.org is well worth visiting to see a project auditing the quality of land temperatures. The amount of corrupted data is somewhat worrying. These are just two actual examples of doubts. There are others but this post would turn into an essay. You need to articulate genuine arguments Patrick. Not what you have contributed so far.
Robbie Gore
October 23rd, 2007 11:48pmPatrick says " yes there is historical evidence opposing Manmade climate change but there is historical evidence opposing the holocuast." If your historical evidence opposing the Holocaust comes from the likes of David Irving then you have made a convincing argument to disregard EVERYTHING you have to say about ANYTHING.
Lefty John
October 24th, 2007 12:25amDavid Gregory (BBC), You seem to have certain blindspots when it comes to scientific evidence. In response to your reply to Jim Carr for example. Maybe you missed the NASA report by Son Nghiem (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)? Here the essential part of the news release: Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. "The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said. Perhaps an apology to Jim Carr is in order? Just go to jpl.nasa.gov/news to read more. Oh and while you're there, perhaps you could read about the record levels of sea ice found this year in Antarctica? Curious isn't it that 2007 has seen global sea ice level to average out from these record lows and highs?
Robert Williams
October 24th, 2007 12:35amBellamy has had preious claims shot down in flames "Junk science David Bellamy's inaccurate and selective figures on glacier shrinkage are a boon to climate change deniers George Monbiot Tuesday May 10, 2005" http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1480279,00.html
Phil Roberts
October 24th, 2007 7:28amM'lud, the defense calls the prosecution.
I think that's all we need to hear, isn't it? Defense requests that whatever passes for "common sense" on the right now be thrown out of court on the grounds of common decency, if not dragged out into the street and strung up on a gibbet as a cautionary example. Did the hurumphing and phnarr phnarring of the British Do-Nothing Establishment ever make sense? If it ever did it was so long ago as to be beyond memory.FlipC
October 24th, 2007 9:58amOkay first of all can we separate 'climate change' and 'global warming'? Next can we differentiate between 'cause' and 'contribution' If we do that perhaps we can see that climate change is a natural process that's been going on for the last 4 billion odd years and we can look at the real options presented : 1) Global warming is a natural process of climate change and would have occurred in the same manner whether we were present or not; 2) Global warming isn't a natural process of climate change and was caused by mankind; 3) Global warming is a natural part of climate change, but mankind is a contributory factor; 4) Global warming isn't a natural part of climate change, but mankind isn't a contributory factor. Please note that contributory factor can mean either accelerating or decelerating the process. Those should cover the 'It's not us', 'It is us', and 'It's not us, but we aren't helping' camps. Now present the evidence for each.
Brian
October 24th, 2007 6:06pmMy original question to Mr.Dr. Gregory: "But more to the point -- how strong is your belief that GW is anthropogenic? Or, are you unsure that it is?"
Mr/Dr. Gregory, BBC correspondent replied: "As a quick guide; climate change is real. It is our fault."
This is too easy. "It is our fault" speaks volumes. There is nothing equivocal about that pronouncement. Mr./Dr. Gregory know's he's right, and he knows that skepticism about GW being anthropogenic is entirely unwarranted, worthy of scorn.
The fact that there are authorities who don't believe as you do (Ball, Lindzen, those 60 or so Canadian scientists who called on Prime Minister Harper to slow the rush towards complying with Kyoto, Spencer, Reiter, Cristy, etc.) is irrelevant, though I don't know why.
If this isn't faith on steroids, I don't know what is. (Mind you, Mr.Dr. Gregory may be right -- but there is ample room in my own mind for doubt.)
But the strength of your conviction leaves me troubling over how objective you can be in representing opposing viewpoints fairly. As Anthony Pratkanis said in his classic piece on persuasion and self persuasion (http://preview.tinyurl.com/2v5jw) "Set a rationalization trap. The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right."
The BBC would be far fairer were it to employ a skeptical scientist writer alongside its unskeptical science writer, the venerable Mr.Dr. Gregory. Then, let them have at it, side by side.
Parenthetically, I am disturbed to the point of outrage by the silence of those AGW advocate scientists who remained silent whilst Mr. Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was adopted into Britain's curriculum.
This group of "objective" scientists should have been at the forefront of documenting the errors in his film. It should not have been left to a judge to make that decision.
Their silence was dishonest, and leaves me wondering why I should trust them.
Phil Roberts
October 24th, 2007 9:24pmBrian
October 24th, 2007 10:18pmPhil Roberts wrote: "Further, the gains from "doing something" aren't exactly bad things. Reduced local pollution, reduced dependence on Mid-East Oil and Russian Gas, more efficient energy technologies which we can then sell to other people. Plus the fact that mitigation is going to be necessary even if we're not the cause of climate change - even if the causes of GCC have no anthropogenic component whatsoever, "
Translation: the narrative and a virtuous goal are more important than the facts.
(And before this delicious quote, Mr. Roberts disdainfully allows how anybody skeptical of AGW is not to be taken any more seriously than those who believe in a flat earth, or advocates creationism. That, of course, is the obligatory condescension, an apparent effort to discredit skeptics, to humiliate and badger them into toeing the AGW line by characterizing them as rubes.)
My points stand:
i) There are reputable scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic GW for reasons which I believe are valid, and the last I looked, science isn't subject to the democratic process.
The GW and AGW debate needs to happen, and if the BBC were serious about objectivity, it would invite a skeptical scientist to write alongside the un-skeptical Mr.Dr. Gregory.
ii) Mr.Dr. Gregory is not an objective reporter of controversy, he is an advocate of AGW -- persuasion and enlightenment are two different things, and if the BBC wishes. He has admitted to this, and it is impossible for such a deeply held bias not influence how he represents a viewpoint that differs from his own.
There are credible voices that could represent anti-AGW positions, and it speaks volumes to me that the pro-AGW voices work so hard at trying to silence them.
iii) As a cohort, scientists who advocate AGW remained silent about Britain adopting "An Inconvenient Truth" as a non-partisan, factually accurate body of information into its curriculum.
It is nothing short of a scandal that these scientists kept mum, and, apparently, even though they knew better, were perfectly comfortable allowing misinformation to be taught as fact, presumably because the misinformation furthered their goals or reaffirmed their biases. (I am open to the possibility that my conclusions as to the motive behind their silence are incorrect.)
I ask again: if these pro-AGW scientists are above board and trustworthy, why didn't they speak up before the courts got involved, and why should I trust them now?
David Gregory
October 25th, 2007 12:54amBrian: You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me. Or perhaps I am not making myself clear? I report what science tells us. Now if you ask me to shorthand that for a blog post it comes down to... yes it's real, yes it's our fault. As a broadcast journalist this sort of broad brush approach is frankly not much less sophisticated than a standard TV report! If you want a deeper debate about the philosophy of evidence, complex computer models and public understanding of science I'm your man! But perhaps you should email me direct rather than clog up the Spectator website? Meanwhile let me restate. I don't BELIEVE any aspect of science in a blind faith sort of way. I report what scientists are saying. That is my job. More than that, I'm very well aware the superficiality of tv is its power and its limitation. So just as I select my shirt so it doesn't distract the viewer, I don't select shots of drowning polar bears either. Drowning polar bears, like a purple shirt would distract from what I'm trying to say. (and once again... where is Ms Phillips?)
Lefty John
October 25th, 2007 1:28amPerhaps some of the believers (since there is no evidence, believers is an accurate statement) would tell us why the Russian Academy of Science has rejected the AGW hypothesis?
Brian
October 25th, 2007 9:51pmMr.Dr. Gregory wrote: "Brian: You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me. Or perhaps I am not making myself clear? I report what science tells us. Now if you ask me to shorthand that for a blog post it comes down to... yes it's real, yes it's our fault."
I did not ask Mr.Dr. Gregory what "science tells us" (sic).
I asked him this: "But more to the point -- how strong is YOUR belief that GW is anthropogenic? Or, are YOU unsure that it is?" (Oct. 22, 11:11 AM. Emphasis added.)
Mr. Dr. Gregory has created a strawman when he insinuates that I asked him what "science tells us." I asked him about HIS beliefs.
And retreating behind "shorthand" is disingenuous. There was no reason to do "shorthand" when asked a simple question. I could have answered my question easily enough, and if I could, there's no reason why a BBC writer with a Ph.D. in physics could not.
In fact, many credible scientists have legitimate questions about whether GW is anthropogenic or not; where GW (be it AGW or not) might or might not take the world; and what should be done about it, if anything.
But you'd never know that there is legitimate controversy from having read the unskeptical Mr.Dr. Gregory.
In fact, SOME science may suggest GW is anthropogenic, but SOME science suggests it is not.
Mr.Dr. Gregory has become an advocate of one position over another, and as such, he has forfeited his position as a disinterested reporter: he cannot be expected to represent a position he passionately disagrees with with the same vim and vigor as one he has persuaded himself is correct.
(By the way. I'm still awaiting reason to trust the pro-AGW scientists who stayed quiet and allowed "An Inconvenient Truth" to be incorporated into the country's curriculum as if it were factually accurate, knowing full well that it was fraught with conspicuous errors and unsupported assertions.
For them to keep silent on this matter, while vociferously championing AGW, suggests that for them the narrative and a favored outcome are more important than factual accuracy. These are the same scientists who inform the unskeptical Mr.Dr. Gregory's beliefs.)