Some years ago I asked an old friend, who is a stockbroker and then in his forties, whether he was nervous about the expected onset of a bear market: one in which share prices fall over a long period? This was at the end of a very long bull market with steadily rising prices.
Yes, he said, he was pretty worried. Although there was no problem in managing funds successfully in these less favourable conditions, the city had recently gone through one of its periodic convulsions, with finance houses amalgamating, the upper echelons of management being ruthlessly culled, and new, younger, and more energetic blood being brought in.
He did not feel that there was anything wrong with this of course, but he saw problems ahead; in the short term at least. Although the new kids were bright and capable, they had learned their trade when the going was good and had experienced nothing other than relatively easy trading conditions. In his opinion, when the downturn came they just weren’t going to know what had hit them, and that could be a big problem for markets.
It would seem likely that a large proportion of the AGW activist movement are finding themselves in the same kind of situation at the moment. The eNGOs have grown rapidly over the last decade with a high intake of young graduates straight out of university.
So far, these keen young idealists have been pushing at an open door. Politicians, the mainstream media and, to a great extent, the general public too, have been sympathetic to their cause. No press release has been too absurd to find some journalist who will write it up. No scheme too fanciful or ill conceived to be turned down for funding. And all the time there has been an ever more vocal groundswell of public opinion urging them onwards.
There must have been periods of frustration for them of course, when progress was slower than they would have liked. But these clean cut knights in green armour had signed up to be campaigners after all, and few of them can have doubted that the triumph would be theirs eventually. All that was needed was to continually turn up the pressure with ever more extreme scare stories for the rest of the world to conform to their alarmist viewpoint.
They have become used to being hailed as the infallible fountainheads of wisdom on all matters to do with the climate, the arbiters of correct political opinion on environmental problems, and the conduit through which, provided sufficient legislation could be enacted and funding made available, the planet could be saved. The only opposition they have faced has been from a despised minority of sceptics who have persistently asked whether we can be sure that the planet really is in danger. These voices have been easy to marginalise and ignore. The forces of environmentalism have effortlessly occupied the moral high ground to such an extent that the merest hint of criticism of their views or actions has become tantamount to blasphemy.
What a difference the last two-and-a-half months have made. First Climategate, then Copenhagen, and now the seemingly endless revelations about IPCC incompetence – and worse – which is fast spreading suspicion that those who have been trusted to explain what is happening to the climate may have feet of clay.
If anyone expects that environmental activists, and the climate scientists who are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from them, will be able to mount a swift and decisive counter offensive that will win the day, they are likely to be disappointed. To do so would require them to react swiftly and with great skill to a situation that they have never faced before. These are folk who are facing the PR equivalent of shock and awe: terrifying, disorientating, and presenting a challenges for which nothing in their past experience has prepared them. Defending their beliefs is not something that they have had to plan for.
Recovery will require different skills, a new mindset, and a totally restructured strategy. This will not happen over night, and in the meantime, the panic-stricken desire to do something – to do anything – to stem the growing forces of scepticism will be irresistible. But deploying the tactics that worked so well for them in the good times is likely to have precisely the opposite effect to what they intend.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, declared war on sceptics, and presumably he did so after consultation with those who have so successfully shaped public opinion on climate change.
Such a high profile campaign might have worked in October, or even early November, before the Climategate scandal broke , but now that even the Guardian is publishing stories that sound as though they have been lifted verbatim from the most sceptical blogs, his vituperation just sounds like a hopeless act of desperation.
At the moment, any attack on sceptics suggests that the person making it is unable to come to terms with the enormity of the Climategate revelations, or with the abject failure at Copenhagen and what that means for the balance of global economic power, or with the implications that continuing revelations about the IPCC will have for any future attempts to convince the world that AGW should be taken seriously. Mr Milibands declaration of war is more likely to encourage scepticism than vanquish it because it shows that he does not understand what is happening.
This morning the Sunday papers carry stories accusing the sceptics of launching a well-coordinated campaign funded by big oil. There is no convincing evidence to back this up of course, and as a sceptical blogger I know it is untrue. At one time or another I have been in touch with most of the high profile sceptics whose names have been appearing in the media recently. One of the things that troubles us all is that we are so totally and utterly uncoordinated and disorganised in the face of politicians and environmentalists who have vast manpower and financial resources to back PR campaigns run by experts whose calling is to manipulate the media.
Over the last few weeks, baffled MSM journalists have been desperately seeking out sceptics looking for guidance and background on breaking news stories of a kind that they never expected to see. That would not happen if there was any coordinated campaign, they would know exactly who to go to for the answers.
It is the sceptics who have brought the antics of the IPCC to their attention. They have been able to ‘stand up’ these stories, to use journalistic parlance, and produce powerful headlines. As one reporter said to me last week, ‘I don’t think we’ve heard the last of the Himalayas story yet by a very long way. Do you?’. The MSM know that this new slant on climate change ‘has legs’, and that it will run and run.
Attention is likely to focus on further shortcomings in the IPCC process, and those of us who read the sceptical blogs know that there is far more to come out. No doubt the cheer leaders for the warmist cause will be able to place the odd derogatory story about bloggers in the pages of the usual suspects – The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent – which is based on nothing more than bile and innuendo, but the public cannot fail to recognise that the questions that are being asked about the global warming message and the science on which it is based are well founded.
Once you know that there is a worm in the apple, who is eager to eat the rest? And if someone else has drawn the wriggling and writhing invertebrate to your attention, then you are likely to feel gratitude towards them, not suspicion about their motives.
This article is an excellent push-off point for something I’ve often thought needs doing – namely a sociological analysis of the AGW phenomenon, with no name-calling or conspiracy theories, but a real attempt to explain how this strange politico-social perversion came about. Your analysis of the young green graduate NGOer is a good start. I feel less optimistic than you and most commenters here about the chances of reason prevailing, but I’ll need some time to collect my thoughts about this.
In your last paragraph you say that you are likely to feel gratitude to the person who draws your attention to a worm in your apple. It depends. Not if it’s your own organically grown apple, and the person pointing it out has been banging on for years about Tescos’ apples being better. You might even pretend it isn’t there and swallow it, just to spite them.
I’m laughing hysterically at the caption of the photo in that link…
“Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org, part of a network of climate change sceptics”
Indeed and what a network it is. I mean whenever I get Steve McIntyre’s action items for the week in my pda-phone, I’m so enthusiastic about making my daily rounds of posts on various blogs in support of anti-climate-change posts that I just can’t wait to get started. When I finally finish making comments bashing all the lifelong scientists, I’m actually saddened in a way that I can’t keep beating them down for being the pure communists they are. My entire life I’ve been waiting for this chance to spend time anonymously destroying careers of people I’ve never met by pointing out the very words they used. I’ve been doing such a great job of this I’ve even just been recommended for the double-secret-inner-circle of climate change deniers where anti-climate-change policy is actually made!
I always find it amusing when the ‘Big Oil’ canard is rolled out to attack those of us who are sceptical of the theory of AGW. It only takes a few moments to see ‘Big Oil’ is on the side of the warmists because of the financial opportunities this opens up as I wrote about recently. And let’s not forget Rajendra Pachauri is involved with Houston oil technology firm GloriOil.
When contradictions like this are pointed out, the AGW advocates seem to get very agitated. They then start instead to talk about well financed and powerful vested interests. Well, what could be bigger than the carbon trading market which is worth billions? It’s not in the interests of sceptics, but big corporates who – again – have a stake in keeping the AGW bandwagon rolling.
All this bitterness and rancour would have been avoided if people had simply been honest that AGW is a theory, not a fact. Trying to make it more than it was to satisfy an agenda has badly damaged them.
Geoff:
I certainly agree with you about the need for a sociological analysis of the AGW debate. One of the things that keeps me interested is trying to work out why it is that so many people really want to believe that they are destroying the planet. But just think how a funding proposal to NERC would be recieved. The fact that Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist to trade should tell us something I suppose.
That post wasn’t really intended to sound particularly optimistic. Someone on the NS thread compared the recent performance of bloggers to the Battle of Crecy (forgive the accent, it’s late). They seemed to be attracted by the idea that a small force defeated a much larger one, but a I understand it, the battle was won because of superior tactics and weaponry. That certainly doesn’t sound like the sceptical blogosphere as I know it. A better analogy might be an invasion, with a tenuous foothold on enemy territory, facing formidable opposition and with the sea behind. Only a steady advance which progressively deprives the opposing forces of the means to resist will eventually bring victory. And invaders don’t usually get a second chance.
Geoff, TonyN
I believe that when it comes to the analysis of the AGW phenomenon, we will find that it will be inextricably linked to the loosening of monetary policy and the excess bowings of the west during the late 90’s and through the 00’s until the credit crunch. Excessive property prices and the feel good factor resulted in a degree of detachment amongst the electorate. Politicians had us believe that we had moved into a new and unending error of prosperity with no end. We all remember Gordon Browns boom and bust speech.
What politicians and advocacy groups needed was a big world campaign to latch onto to make their mark on history. Gordon Brown never mentioned Global Warming or Climate change until he had ousted Blair and suddenly he is its champion, believing it will bring votes.
I also believe, without much evidence unfortunately, that Blair and Clinton may have been at the heart of some sort of agreement to deliberately increase lending to those that could ill afford to pay it back, aided and abetted by the mathematical geniuses with their money earning algorithms. They needed us to feel rich so they could work their agenda. The only thing that went wrong for them during this period was Gore losing out to Bush.
I also believe that the AGW bandwagon may have arrived a little earlier than it did but for 9/11 and all its distractions. From a sceptics point of view the various wars and the distractions they have had on politics may be the factor that has saved us. Because now there are two inescapable facts that will drop AGW in its tracks; one is that we are cold and miserable and have been for three years in a row and even the disinterested man in the street understands this despite the propaganda. The second is we have no money.
And as for why they are having difficulty in handling all the revelations; it down to a phenomenon of the Left (but not always restricted to them) in that they have the greatest difficulty in accepting there is any other way than the way they tell us. Just listen to some of the utterances from some in the Labour party about the disaster that will befall Britain if anyone else but they win the next election. Recall Neil Kinnocks very ungracious speech when he lost the general election. These are all example how this group just cannot accept any other way. It’s why they are so devious over AGW as they wish to make it Fait Accompli before we can voice dissent and vote them out.
Peter Geany: “The second is we have no money.” I agree absolutely – the fact that our national finances are now in a black hole is going to concentrate minds wonderfully. This touches on all the aspects of climate policy, from energy policy (an emphasis on “reliables” over “renewables”) to green jobs (Spain as an object lesson) to climate change “reparations” to Third World nations; the emphasis will be on cutting back and debt reduction. In the contest between simply keeping the lights on and rebuilding the National Grid from the bottom up with experimental-stage technology, which will win? My money (not that there’s much of that) would be on the next government (and the one after that) doing whatever is necessary to keep our existing power stations going for as long as possible, quietly ignoring or circumventing EU emissions targets and putting expensive and ambitious projects such as the Severn barrage and carbon capture on hold. The growing scepticism about AGW among the public will make it a lot easier for the politicians to change tack, and the order in which this will happen, I think, is the public first (as has happened), then the media (as is happening), then finally the politicians.
Tony: “One of the things that keeps me interested is trying to work out why it is that so many people really want to believe that they are destroying the planet.” This is I think where the climate debate shades ultimately into the realm of the “big questions”, i.e. “Who are we?”, “What is our purpose in life?”, “What is the Universe?”, etc.
An example. Despite us sceptics sometimes being called “flat-earthers”, the comparison is not valid, as photo evidence from space and the daily experiences of air travellers demonstrate that the Earth is round, beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing particularly complex or hard to understand about this evidence either. Of course, there’s still the outside chance that the roundness of the Earth could be some sort of fiendishly complex illusion, but you’d really have a job to build a convincing case for this. However, the climate is another matter, being nightmarishly complex and difficult to model or predict. In that way, it presents us with a huge ambiguous picture which can be interpreted in many different ways, depending on a) one’s scientific background (or lack thereof), b) the general level of scientific knowledge at the time, c) what particular piece of data or evidence is being emphasised and d) the mindset and personality of the person involved.
When the person isn’t a scientist (as most of us aren’t), when the level of knowledge is low (as it still is) and when so much data is filtered through the media (and is thus subject to oversimplification, misconstruction and exaggeration) then a lot will depend on the person’s mindset. I like the analogy of the climate as a giant Rorschach inkblot test – it’s ambiguous enough for just about anything to be read into it. Experiencing (and reflecting on) a thunderstorm on a warm spring day, one person will see something beautiful, another person will see something ugly or threatening. A religious person will see the handiwork of God, an atheist will see the marvellous displays of energy that mindless matter can generate, and someone who is prone to existential angst and guilt will see menacing embodiments of his own fears.
There is of course much more to be said on the subject, but this particular comment is probably long enough(!) Someone who regularly goes down this particular road is “Stefan” who occasionally comments on climate-resistance.org (Geoff, you will know who I mean) and will see if I can track down a few of his insights, which I’ve often found interesting.
Alex:
I think that I mentioned in a post some time ago that I met a young psychology student who had proposed doing her disitation on why people want to believe in AGW. The strange, or perhaps not so strange, thing is that no one else has followed the same path, given that global warming is billed as the most important problem of our age.
Perhaps the answer may be as mundane as a greater feeling of security if we believe that we are in control of the natural world rather than it being in control of us. But I suspect that the matter is far more complex than that.
@Jeremy,
There is a “network of sceptics” – it’s called the “internet” :-)
@Tony,
You’re nearly right. They believe that their neighbors, their fellow citizens, other westerners are “destroying the planet”. But there is personal exemption – other people are responsible. This is a subtle but important distinction.
When they say “we” they mean “my group but excluding me on this occasion”.
Jack:
I was using the term people in the plural sense of a group, not really in relation to individuals. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said, ‘ … our society (or even culture) needs to believe that they are destroying the planet’.
You are certainly right about reluctance to accept individual responsibility.
TonyN:
What’s not to like about believing we are destroying the planet?
Politicians like it because they can look statesmanlike while avoiding addressing real problems. They can also control people’s behaviour (which they really like) and raise taxes.
Journalists like it because catastrophe sells.
Big Oil likes it because they are in the business of making money and are already positioning to leverage AGW concerns and, as a byproduct, reinforce their green credentials. Plus they still have the oil.
Big Gas likes it because it increases demand for natural gas as it is a “cleaner” fuel.
Big Coal likes it as they can tap taxpayer money for research ito CCS and claim “clean coal”.
Farmers like it because they can make more money growing subsidized biofuels than food.
Researchers in earth sciences like it because it provides funding for neat things like glaciology. I recall a Research Hydrologist saying to me a few years ago ” This AGW may not be real but it does provide funding sources for basic hydrology research” which has been the poor relation in the sciences up until recently.
Teachers like it because it provides a simple narrative for lesson plans.
Environmentalists like it because it raises funds for their pet projects.
Engineers like it because they can design interesting projects like the Severn Barrage.
Pastors like it because it provides reinforcement to the “sinning” of mankind.
Insurance companies like it because they can increase premiums while not increasing their risk of a payout.
Psychologists like it because they can get grants to study the psychology of denial.
Third World politicians like it because they claim reparations from rich countries.
Water Managers like it because they can blame global warming for the mismanagement of river basins.
I could go on. One group that doesn’t like it are the poor in the Third World who are getting decreased aid for health and education, increased food prices (see biofuels above) and their land being acquired for carbon credits. But the poor in the Third World do not have a voice especially since Oxfam has abandoned them to their poverty in the pursuit of AGW concerns. The other group that doesn’t like it are right wing libertarian types. But for every sceptic blog there is an AGW blog and people drift on the internet to where the opinions reinforce their own. All that remains are a few sceptics with common sense and that is a commodity that is in short supply. As Geoff noted on another thread, without the internet we would all be off to the library muttering over old journals. Not a pretty sight.
AGW is now so embedded in the culture that it will be years before it dissipates. I have tried to think of a similar meme contrary to common sense on such a large scale and the only one I could think of was the attitude of young men signing up to be blown to bits in the First World War. Granted the information was limited at the time but even when they knew what it was all about they still were determined to do their bit. The culture at the time did not brook dissent. Attitudes had changed by the Second World War but battle deaths in the thousands were still “acceptable” then. Only in the last decade or so has our tolerance decreased to the point of accepting virtually no deaths in war of western soldiers. That’s quite a change in attitudes and culture but it took almost 100 years.
Every time there is an “unusual” weather event, the AGW concern will be reinforced (or ACC as I see some are now using given all the snowfall this winter). And there will be plenty of “wild and wacky weather” to come. One thing that I have learned in the last 40 years of using climate and hydrology data is that the only thing “normal” about climate is variability.
Potentilla:
The sixteen examples that you give all point to individual motivation that can be identified, – with a little soul searching – even by those concerned. What I am thinking of is the vast majority of people who aren’t business leaders, water managers, politicians or even environmentalists in the sense of being activists.
Of course there are a lot of people who have a stake in climate change now, and however the credibility of scientific evidence may change over the next months and years they will be reluctant to relinquish their views. But I am talking about something deeper that seems to affect people for whom there is no obvious dividend from AGW.
These are the kind of people who express concern about climate change but, when you gently suggest that the science may not be nearly as settled as it may seem, behave as though you have tried to deprive them of something. I’m not thinking of dedicated folk who have windmills on their roofs or drive Priuses, but just ordinary, everyday people who happily drive several miles to put their bottles in the bottle bank because they feel like a bit of an outing,
They seem to need their belief, and any logical well-informed argument is met with the kind of shocked hostility that suggests that they have no wish to set aside their concerns even if they have no rational basis.
A facile explanation would be that AGW is a type of hypochondria that afflicts affluent societies, but that doesn’t explain why such a complaint should exist or why, during the last decade, it has become so deeply ingrained. One suspects that if the climate change scare recedes then another equally unsubstantiated fear will immediately replace it; one that also relates to natural phenomena.
TonyN
Thanks for a very thought-provoking article that has already resulted in some very interesting responses on the psychology behind the AGW movement and the current reaction to the “Climategate” revelations.
But back to your original theme (the warmists just don’t know what hit them). You wrote
It is not only “their beliefs” but also “their reputations” they now have to defend. And they have definitely not planned for this.
Phil Jones confirmed your observation in the Times “I thought of killing myself” interview:
It was certainly naïve of Jones and the rest of this very influential group of climatologists to believe that they would always remain on the pedestal “as the infallible fountainheads of wisdom on all matters to do with the climate” (as you put it so well), and were therefore free to do more or less what they wanted (without any personal accountability), even though they were being funded by public money.
Politicians are usually astute enough to know that their actions are under the spotlight, and that, while they might enjoy the good will of the press for a time, this could change in a heartbeat. A few very narcissistic individuals might forget this for a brief moment and believe they are invincible (or “invisible”, so no one will notice their transgressions), but these guys usually end up taking a hard fall, while the smart politicians watch their step more closely. Defending their reputations is something they plan for daily.
It apparently never crossed the minds of this group of climatologists, who somehow believed that they would always be riding high.
Sic transit gloria.
Max
TonyN:
This is true but the people I know who are AGW believers maybe drive to the bottle bank but they do not cut back on international holidays and relatively extravagant lifestyles. If they really believed in AGW they would modify their way of living. So I think this proves that they have no rational basis for their beliefs. If they had a rational basis they would surely behave differently.
So I agree that it must be an unsubstantiated fear of natural phenomena that is driving AGW concerns. Frank Furedi wrote a good article on this with this amusing paragraph:
Gazing around the office a different idea occurs to me for the “belief” in AGW. It’s a slightly depressing one but never the less.
People need something to believe in to give their lives meaning. Consider that a great many people lead relatively dull and repeatitive lives. Something like AGW provides a means of self definition, social inclusion, and purpose. Through that drive to the bottle bank, turning off the hall light, driving 5mph slower etc etc. People feel that they are now part of something greater than they are, these small acts take them out of their lives and into the great realms of saving gaia. The long haul flights for the holidays don’t matter because the purpose isn’t to save the earth, it’s to save their sense of self.
For AGW to be wrong means a return to the depression monotony of the everyday as well as challenging the idea of who that person now believes themselves to be. This is the sort of thing that will always be resisted, at least until the next bandwagon comes along.
Potentilla:
Have you ever looked at Warm Words? This is the UK government’s manualfor achieving general acceptance of the idea of AGW. It sets out a series of rules to be implemented by all government departments and its authors certainly seem to have done some heavy thinking on how public opinion is formed and how it can most effectively be manipulated.
The cynicism of the authors is breathtaking, and the techniques, which we see being put into practice every day, have been very successful.
Barelysane:
That’s a different take on the situation that I haven’t seen before, and an interesting one.
Could it be linked to the notion of AGW hypochondria as a complaint of affluent societies in the following way?
Apparently, during WWII the British population was far healthier than at other times. Or was it that there were just fewer visits to the doctor with trivial aches and pains because people had more pressing, and very real, concerns linked to a united commitment to the war effort, and this provided purpose in their lives?
Some excellent and thoughtful comments here. Tony, re your #7, that would indeed be a fascinating psychological study. I find it ironical that where psychologists have discussed AGW in recent years it is mostly to figure out ways of getting the general public to comply with government edicts concerning lifestyle changes and carbon footprints; I cannot recall reading anything by a psychologist looking at the issue from a different angle and dissecting the anatomy of alarmism. (If anyone has read such a report or article I would be interested to know about it.)
Something else has occurred to me that (sort of) ties in with what others have commented on here. Whereas the environmental problems raised in previous decades have been about hugely diverse subjects – deforestation, overfishing, heavy metals, plastic waste, species extinctions, particulates, etc., all this worrying complexity can be solved by climate activists by focussing on one index – the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This may partly explain the appeal of campaigns such as 350.org. Although it is a bit of a cliche to compare AGW alarmism with religion, you can imagine similar thought processes at work in some religious movements, where all the baffling and complex moral dilemmas in life can be resolved by accepting Jesus, or by precisely following the letter of the Koran. Everything resolves to a single equation. So, in the case of 350.org: above 350 ppm = Hell. Below 350 ppm = avoid Hell. It is at the same time scary (if we allow “business as usual” to take its course, we end up in Hell) and empowering (if we act now and keep emissions below 350 ppm we avoid damnation.) The comforting and attractive idea that underlies it, IMO, is the notion that we have our hand on the world’s thermostat. What I don’t seem to see from the believers, however, is a coherent idea of what the perfect climate would be like or what period in climate history would they most like to return to, i.e. what would Heaven be like, climate-wise.
TonyN
I think that’s a difficult comparrison to make, during that time people had to live healthier lifestyles (diet/fitness). While i do agree that these days people are more educated about illnesses (giving rise to hypochodria) and that WWII certainly provided very pressing concerns i’m a little wary of that as an example.
Though you could well be onto a point about AGW hypochondria being a complaint of affluent societies.
However i think it goes beyond that, and goes back to what i was saying about giving purpose etc. Humans at their very core are social animals, it’s hardwired into us. All but a very few actively seek out others and usually they are to a greater or lesser extent reflections of ourselves, i.e. like minded (over simplifying a little). We’re all familiar with the concepts of group think and memes, and hear AGW comes into play in a way that is true for all three sides (alarmists, sceptic, denier), and it’s also a gotcha. Each group has it’s own memes and levels of group think, though with the sceptic and denier i think it’s less of a self identity/purpose thing.
(there are significant parallels here to religion, but i’ll need to think about this some more).
Forgot to add that I agree also with Barelysane’s point re tackling climate change providing a sense of purpose. This is surely the thinking behind Al Gore and Thomas Friedman calling for a World War II-style total mobilisation against global warming. Joe Romm has also said “…in fact WWII is the only plausibly-close metaphor for the scale of effort needed to stabilize at or below 450 ppm and preserve a livable climate.”
Barleysane:
This observation of yours is very perceptive:
This does not bode well for changing attitudes on AGW. If it is embedded in people’s sense of self then it will require several generations to remove it. Variability in climate will continue to reinforce the meme. Only statistical analysis would counter it and that discipline is only understood and appreciated by the high priests of the Deniers and they are heretics anyway.
Potentilla
I doubt statistical analysis would have the slightest impact (if it is linked to sense of self). Belief either internal (self belief) or external (God) tend to be immune to facts and figures (though there is a fair bit of overlap between these with one feeding into the other). For example you can tell someone with depression that things will get better or a christian that there’s no evidence for god, back either amount with any data and you’ll get the same response from both.
Given we’ve had 20+ yrs of total immersion in this belief system, with some people living their entire lives in it. Moving on is unfortunately likely to be very slow and very difficult. If someone is going to change how they think about or identify themselves they’re only likely to do it either gradually or by displacement e.g. i’m going to drive 5 miles less not to save the planet but because it costs less, and i’m still a good person because ……….
You really could write for a very long time on this topic. Be interesting to see that dissertation if the student ever decides to put it on the web.
TonyN,
Loved how you worked vituperation in there.
Classic………
Brute:
Where, for Gods Sake?
12th paragraph………very good.
Something that looks very interesting is happening here .
Paul Dennis, you may remember, is the UEA scientist who The Independent tried to rail-road as the CRU hacker on Sunday. They provided not a a shred of evidence to support this other than that he has, from time to time, posted comments on sceptical blogs and has exchanged emails with Steve McIntyre.
Have a look at the comments on his new blog and see what kind of reception he’s getting.
TonyN #11
I know exactly what you mean about “the kind of people who express concern about climate change but, when you gently suggest that the science may not be nearly as settled as it may seem, behave as though you have tried to deprive them of something”.
I’ve tried a little gentle scepticism on a few friends (an entomologist, a physics teacher with a PhD, and an epidemiologist). None were hardline Greens. All manifested an urgent desire to change the subject.
You say:
“A facile explanation would be that AGW is a type of hypochondria that afflicts affluent societies, but that doesn’t explain why such a complaint should exist or why, during the last decade, it has become so deeply ingrained.”
Facile or not, the explanation seems to me to be valid, even if not complete. Why now? Because a certain kind of affluence (access to unlimited air travel, as many cars as your driveway can hold, more DVDs than you will ever have the time to watch..) which used to be limited to a tiny number, is now shared by – what? – 20-30% of the population. These people have become “rich as Creosote” (T. Pratchett) not by being grasping capitalists, but because of the wholly natural economic growth of our kind of society. Many of them would consider themselves “on the left” and struggle to square the moral circle.
You continue:
“If the climate change scare recedes then another equally unsubstantiated fear will immediately replace it; one that also relates to natural phenomena”.
If you read the blogs, the other fears are already in place; peak oil (which equates to a disbelief in our ability to progress beyond the internal combustion engine); population explosion; water wars.
So you’re right to see it as a problem at least partially psychological in nature.
Barelysane #14 makes a good point when he says: “People need something to believe in to give their lives meaning”.
Durkheim over a century ago defined this lack of meaning as “anomie”, a psychological state which he identified, by examining – not individuals – but official suicide statistics. People top themselves on holidays, at weekends, when they’ve achieved the freedom they desired by divorce, etc. We’re a whole society who have won the lottery, and we’re looking for explanations.
It’s important that any explanatory system should be sociological, or political, and not psychological. I agree with Alex #6 that Stefan at climate-resistance.org has some fascinating psychoanalytical insights into a certain Green mindset. But such analysis, even if valid, can’t be used in what is essentially a political debate. Whether Greens are paranoiac manic depressives or not (Stefan’s analysis is much more subtle) is not the question. Paranoiac manic depressives have always existed, in all strata of society. The question is, why are they suddenly espousing AGW, and at all levels, from the geography teacher, down to the humblest cabinet minister. (Thanks to Potentilla #10 for that list, which could surely be added to).