1 The wind, the Climate and the Media

Most of us rely on the media to form our opinions on current affairs, but few of us would claim that newspapers, television and the radio are entirely impartial and reliable in their news coverage. This can be particularly true when the stories that they are reporting are likely to catch the public’s imagination and add a little drama to their lives.

Three years ago I started to research a book about the British landscape, and particularly the countryside. Wind farms were beginning to appear in remote and beautiful rural areas, introducing conspicuous industrial development to places that had formerly been rigorously protected — with the general support of the public, politicians and planners — from such intrusion. Although small groups of protesters were vigorously objecting to planning applications at a local level, there was no public outcry or general support for their cause. This seemed strange, because I had always thought that the unique beauty of the British countryside was a vital part of our heritage, to be enjoyed, and jealously guarded, by all.

It seemed to me that our attitude to the countryside was changing, and I wanted to understand why this was happening. Monitoring media coverage of wind energy was an obvious first step. It appeared that the merit of wind farms was being heavily promoted by government, environmental pressure groups and the British Wind Energy Association, and that many of the claims that were being made for this new panacea for pollution were, at the very least, exaggerated.

Further research, drawing on the opinions of engineers and scientists who were directly involved in the energy industry, confirmed that the case for wind power was not just exaggerated, but that much of the evidence was misleading. These were people who were able to analyse the process of wind generation in terms of basic physics: watts generated, mechanical efficiency, energy lost in transmission, CO₂ mitigation, and reliability of supply. As a non-scientist I struggled at times, but soon began to realise that the seductive picture of a new, clean, silent, cheap source of energy, that the advocates for wind power were promoting, was at odds with the facts. It also became clear that the promoter’s highly romanticised views would always be easier to convey to the public than the hard headed reasoning of people who actually understand how these systems work. This was reflected in the news coverage that I was seeing. Attracting readers, listeners or viewers is the primary concern of all editors and, generally speaking, ‘difficult’ stories that involve technical terms will not do this.

While I was following this line of research I began to come across references to climate change that told a similar story. Up to this time, I had assumed that the scary headlines that were appearing in the media were, if one allowed for normal editorial exaggeration, well founded. I accepted that the only dissenters were likely to be politically motivated mavericks, dedicated controversialist or organisations that had a vested interest. It came as a surprise when I discovered that there were fair-minded people, with a good grasp of climate science, who had serious doubts about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change and the way in which it was being presented to the public. Many were also able to express their concerns in the form of clear and rational polemics.

I say polemics, rather than arguments or criticisms, because these sceptics were often too cautious to make judgements, but preferred to pose questions. As Socrates discovered to his cost some two thousand years ago, this can have a devastating effect on arguments that are considered to be orthodox, and it can also be very dangerous unless you have a high resistance to hemlock poisoning.

As I delved more deeply into a subject that was now beginning to fascinate me, I found that there was a very clear pattern in the way that the controversy was being played out. Environmental activists, parts of the media, and some scientists and politicians, were making assertions that seemed to exceed the degree of certainty that current research could possibly justify. When confronted with questions by sceptics, their response was not to address the issues raised, but to attempt to discredit the questioners by means of ad hominem attack. Sceptics were routinely accused of being the tools of ‘big oil’, right-wing extremists, self publicising egotists, ignorant fools or just evil and selfish people who wanted to destroy the planet. Often there was not a shred of credible evidence to support these accusations, nor did those who uttered them seem to feel the need for any. Assertions of bad faith seemed to be all they felt was necessary. There was an obvious reluctance to address the quite legitimate concerns that were being raised by sceptics, or engage in any kind of rational debate.

This battle was not just being fought out in the mainstream media, but also on the internet, where the constraints imposed by libel laws, editorial policy and civilised discourse were less of a hindrance to unfettered discussion. This freewheeling environment — the wild west of the new media — certainly has to be entered with considerable caution. In hyperspace everyone can have a voice if they have a computer and are prepared to set up a website or blog. Often there is no immediate way of estimating the truth or authority of what is being said. On the other hand the web provides ready access to opinions and information that newspapers and broadcasters are reluctant to cover because of its complexity and limited appeal to readers. It is necessary to invest plenty of time and effort in determining what information is likely to be reliable and useful, and what is just froth. Letting newspapers and broadcasters feed you a filtered version of what is happening is certainly a whole lot easier, even if this is unlikely to be a very complete or accurate picture of events.

If the web may be a good place to vent spleen, start rumours and plant misleading information, it is also a place where no orthodoxy is safe from well-informed scrutiny, and this is a very healthy situation indeed. As I moved from one website to another, witnessing ferocious and bloody battles being fought out on blogs by keyboard warriors who know no constraint, a picture began to emerge that was at odds with what the mainstream media was reporting. The reasons for this are too complex to analyse in detail here — future posts will attempt to do so — but I want to mention some of the things I discovered as they begin to explain why wholesale industrialisation of some of our most precious landscapes can proceed with hardly a murmur of complaint from either the general public or politicians.

The case for wind generation is under-pinned by one fundamental assumption; reducing CO₂ emissions will prevent climate change. This imperative, when presented with total assurance, apocalyptic warnings, and often-sanctimonious ethical and moral overtones, has the effect of overriding all other considerations. If you are convinced that our landscape is likely to become an arid desert within a few generations, then no sacrifice is too great to avert that disaster, even if it means desecrating what you are seeking to preserve. Many people now believe in anthropogenic global warming fervently, and their representatives can be found in the ranks of scientists and environmental activists who are in a position to influence public policy. At the same time, expressing any doubts about global warming has become, at best, a sign of ignorance, political incorrectness, or is simply socially unacceptable. At worst, it is considered to be an irresponsible act of moral turpitude.

Until quite recently, the general public viewed environmental activists with some caution. They were considered to be on the outer fringes of the political arena; gentle, earnest, caring and dedicated no doubt, but single issue idealists whose beliefs were an extreme form of the vague concerns that most of us share about an industrialised society’s relationship with the natural world. These were good people striving for a better future that would really be a recreation of an idyllic pre-industrial past: pollution free, organically fed, powered by unlimited supplies of cheap renewable energy harvested from wind, waves and the sun, where we could all be self-sufficient and happy. A perfect world forever just out of reach, but one that we could all relate and aspire to in our dreams. What I found on the internet was something very different; for many environmentalists idealism has soured and turned into a ruthless fanaticism where any means of imposing their beliefs on the general public seem to be justified.

The first thing that I noticed was that environmental websites routinely exaggerated the scientific evidence for global warming, often to a breathtaking extent (Here). They used every trick of the spin-doctor’s trade to get their message across. These sites were not shoestring amateur constructions. They were very professional, convincing, obviously well funded, vast in extent and designed to be one-stop-shops for anyone wanting an authoritative overview of recent developments in climate science and its implications for the future of the planet. I realised that what I was looking at was political propaganda, pure and simple, and this raised an interesting question; why was exaggeration and spin really necessary if the scientific evidence was robust? Surely if the case for the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming was as clear and conclusive as the environmentalists claimed, it could be compellingly stated in simple terms and without exaggeration.

But there was an even more sinister aspect of these websites, an underlying intolerance, and an almost violent hatred for anyone who did not wholeheartedly embrace the environmentalist’s worldview. This took several forms: unscrupulous ad hominem attacks on opponents to the extent of trying to destroy their reputations; sanctimonious contempt for all those who might hold different views, however rational and well founded; a reluctance to admit that there could possibly be any uncertainty about the scientific evidence; and, most disturbing of all, a determined, well funded, extremely competent and successful campaign to manipulate media coverage of climate change, renewable energy and the reporting of scientific research. Indeed it seemed that environmental organisations were often acting as PR departments for favoured climate scientists, ensuring that news of their latest findings would reach an audience far wider than the usual range of the academic journals. These stories carried a dramatic spin that discounted all uncertainties and would appeal to science correspondents and editors who, either not knowing or not caring that the press releases exaggerated the implications, the findings or the robustness of the methodology, would welcome a ready made scare story with open arms. Underlying this was a fervent belief in the rightness of a cause, and a conviction that such exaggeration, or even misinformation, was justified by the plight of the planet. Just how a rational assessment of any danger could be made on the basis of distorted information was not something that seemed to matter to them at all.

When I began to find references to scientists feeling intimidated if they expressed doubts about global warming, it came as no great surprise. At this stage my main reaction was one of deep concern, and to some extent a feeling of betrayal. While never having been a member of any environmental organisation I had always been sympathetic to their aims and wished them well. Charles Wacher, one of the founders of the Soil Association, had been a close friend and we had spent many hours discussing the dangers that industrialisation might hold for humanity and ways in which these might be mitigated. Now I was seeing the environmental movement in a very different light, and it scared me. The history of the last hundred years is littered with examples of idealistic movements that have become fanatical, with consequences that now make us shudder.

I had begun my research with a fairly simple objective; to discover why the public’s attitude to the landscape was changing to the extent that industrialisation of precious and irreplaceable areas of great natural beauty was becoming acceptable, and to what extent this might lead to further detrimental change. It was also in my mind, perhaps optimistically, that if one could identify the causes of this change of attitude it might be possible to make a case for caution before too much more damage was done. Although research is never easy, I felt that I was at least on fairly safe ground, delving into issues with which I was familiar. How wrong could I be?

The prospect of having to engage with matters such as cutting edge scientific research, militant political activism, the psychological origins of deeply held – perhaps even irrational and hysterical – beliefs, or the way in which the revolution in information technology is influencing public opinion, had not occurred to me. Yet all these things have now come within the compass of my research.

I am aware that, in attempting to summarise in a single post what has become a very complex task, it has been necessary to touch briefly on issues that merit far more detailed consideration and present arguments that require more substantiation. Some readers may be familiar with these matters; they will be able to fill in the blanks from their own experience. Others may wonder, with good reason, what evidence there is to justify what I have said. Future posts on this blog will deal in far more detail with issues the raised here. I hope to be able to add new posts about twice a week.

To find out how this blog got its name see (Link here)