Climate denialism as anti-politics
Francis Sedgemore, Thursday 3 December 2009
Today in an email forum for science communication professionals, a member cited an article by Guardian art critic and Turner Prize jurist Jonathan Jones. The piece discusses the London Science Museum‘s current climate change exhibition, and an opinion poll conducted by the museum on the imminent Copenhagen Summit.
The following is based on my contribution to the forum discussion…
Jonathan Jones’ piece raises some interesting questions, and also much conjecture as to why climate sceptics and deniers have so much influence when the scientific evidence is firmly stacked against their contrarian arguments.
For what little it’s worth, I put this down partly to a general arsiness in public opinion which fosters, and in turn is being encouraged by, an anti-political and therefore anti-democratic culture. Perversely, this anti-politics has grown alongside the facilitation of mass debate afforded by the Interwebs. Technology now provides everyone with an opportunity to publish their opinions, and potentially reach a global audience at very little financial cost to themselves. But this is often at the expense of accountability.
Newspaper website comments pages, for example, encourage sloppy, ya-boo thinking, and in turn lazy writing designed to encourage ‘lively’ debate. Being a former writer for the Grauniad’s Comment is Free website, I speak from bitter personal experience and a deep sense of guilt. Journalists can sometimes be their own worst enemy.
There is these days an all-too-common engaging of mouth before brain. Now this is fine when it’s restricted to blogs read by no more than three old men and a dog with anger management issues, but we can surely do without it in public. I’ve cited The Guardian as a typical offender, but there others, including the BBC’s “spEak You’re bRanes” (aka “Have Your Say”). Even the Telegraph and Times are at it now. Let’s not mention the Daily Mail (oops!).
I too can appreciate hearing what Joe Public has to say about the parlous state of the world, but if we’re to have a proper debate, it has to be structured. Jonathan Jones talks of “lousy faked-up events in museums”. Those hardworking and grossly underpaid souls who work in science museums may take personal offence at Jones’ comments, but surely he has a point, even if he unfairly singles out museums for a verbal kicking.
As for the climate change debate specifically, there is in my view a lack of vision and leadership on the part of the science community, which in public is overly fearful of appearing partisan. This reticence to speak and act outside the peer-review process, which leaves the outreach stuff to science communication ‘experts’ who may or may not have a clue what they’re doing, provides ample space for PR-savvy climate denialists to dominate the scene.
There are of course exceptions to this rule, but far too few of them. To my mind we need more Jim Hansens and David Nutts – i.e., people unafraid to speak out, even at the risk of going over the top and subsequently having to partially retract statements of personal opinion. I would say that the public have more respect for errant but honest individuals with a gob on them, than scientists and spinners whom they perceive to be scheming behind the scenes. I stress the word “perceive”, as this ClimateGate business is so much crap.
Talking of ordure, the other day I received a press release from an American PR firm, announcing that the anti-environmentalist lobby group CFACT is sending to Copenhagen a delegation of 10 “climate policy experts”. This is the kind of thing we’re up against, and our quite frankly pathetic response is to go on the defensive and fret over Phil Jones’ email manner.
Feed the writer! 
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 16:19 UTC
In respect of some of the first part of what you have to say, have you ever seen the satire that Mitchell and Webb did on the habit that has crept into the News of asking for email comments? Go to youtube and type in “Mitchell and Webb” “Reckons”
On the second part, its more than a little unfair to single out musuems – a lot of the scientific debate and discussion events around here (eg Cafe Scientifique etc) happen in them. The problem seems to me more that its the usual suspects (ie my partner) who go and those of us who need to get to know about science (ie me) who find a reason not to.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 16:30 UTC
Yes, I did see that Mitchell and Webb sketch, and very good it was too. To paraphrase: “It’s imperative that you tell us what you think!!”. Spot on.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 16:33 UTC
“People unafraid to speak out, even at the risk of going over the top”
Indeed. Here’s an example of the legendary Jon Richardson doing just that
I’ve seen many examples of other comedians doing similar stuff, so it’s not all going the way of the deniers, at least. Can provide other examples if wanted.
All the best
Dean
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 16:35 UTC
Dean – Jon Richardson is good, as are a number of other comedians who tackle such subjects (including the subject that is the dickhead Jeremy Clarkson). But what’s also needed is serious commentators who are prepared to go for the individual and collective jugular of the deniers.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 20:56 UTC
I don’t think we need any more heat in this debate. I think we need serious commentators who have no interest in the jugular of the deniers.
The hammer-and-tongs style always turns off the non-committed who are inclined to wish a curse on both houses or split the difference. Going over the top and having to make partial retractions, is, in my view. disastrous – a great way to lose credibility. What’s more, my guess is that the dire predictions of doom have provoked something of a ‘paradoxical response’ (I expand on this here).
I think a focus on actual action including smaller, concrete projects that can be justified for reasons of economy or reduction in political risk as well as environment should be promoted. Pragmatic empiricism should set the tone.
Your side seems to be losing the debate despite having the bulk of scientific evidence on side: more of the same is not advisable.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 21:13 UTC
I disagree. We don’t need any more bluster, but we could do with less pussy-footing around, and more hard-nosed exposure of various leading denialists and their agenda. And as for going over the top, Jim Hansen’s intervention today is most welcome. That I regard as advancing the debate.
Another welcome contribution is the debate on Channel 4 News this evening between Kevin Conrad and Bjørn Lomborg:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1529573111?bclid=51319066001&bctid=53970995001
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 22:05 UTC
Just watched the C4 News clip. I thought Lomborg had the better of it. Killer argument: we need to come up with something different after twenty years of failure to convince.
This something different may not be Lomberg’s suggestion: it might merely be a different was of putting the point over. But shouting the same thing louder is surely not sensible.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 22:17 UTC
Lomborg didn’t have a killer argument, as he was wrong to imply that the policies he was attacking had been 20 years in the implementation. That simply isn’t the case, and Conrad called Lomborg on this. That said, I do regard Lomborg as a serious and occasionally constructive climate sceptic. It’s just a pity that he cherry picks so much, and so often employs straw man arguments.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 22:29 UTC
His point was that they hadn’t been implemented. So try implementing something different. My point would be to try persuading people differently, too.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 22:39 UTC
Lomborg was criticising the approach of mainstream environmentalism (which may or may not be justified, while putting forward a faith in technological innovation as the only conceivable solution to the problem. He is living in cloud cuckoo land if he really thinks that climate change mitigation through technology solutions is possible in the near term. We do require near-term changes, and that means radical emissions reductions, with the rapid development of green technologies following on behind.