Comments on: Climate denialism as anti-politics

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:39:00 +0000

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.

By: Gaw

Gaw — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:29:48 +0000

His point was that they hadn’t been implemented. So try implementing something different. My point would be to try persuading people differently, too.

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:17:24 +0000

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.

By: Gaw

Gaw — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:05:27 +0000

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.

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:13:21 +0000

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

By: Gaw

Gaw — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:56:44 +0000

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.

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:35:43 +0000

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.

By: Dean Burnett

Dean Burnett — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:33:09 +0000

"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

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:30:56 +0000

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.

By: mikeovswinton

mikeovswinton — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:19:38 +0000

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.