As today’s the start of Climate
Week it’s a good time to explore how those doubting climate change operate
and especially Nigel Lawson’s Global Warning Policy Foundation (GWPF).
There is now substantial consensus in the scientific
community on both the facts of climate change, and man’s role in accelerating
it. Last year two American scientists
sent a questionnaire to 10,000 scientists, all in disciplines related to
climatology. (Examining
the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2012 - Eos, Transactions
American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library). They received 3,000
replies, in answer to two basic questions, in summary:
- Have global temperatures generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant since 1800?
- Is human activity a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82%
answered yes to question 2. And, ‘…as the level of active research and
specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions.’ In other words, the more people actually understand about
the climate, the more likely they are to think that global warming is still
occurring, and at least partly man-made.
Yet a number of well-funded foundations and think tanks
continue to provide platforms for those who dispute man’s contribution and/or
deny that the climate’s even changing. These
foundations are understandably coy about where their funding comes from. The GWPF, founded and chaired by former Tory
Chancellor Nigel Lawson, claims that it is ‘…funded overwhelmingly by voluntary
donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts’, and that
it ‘…does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a
significant interest in an energy company.’
But beyond that Lawson has refused to disclose the names of donors.
The website claims that it ‘…does not have an official or
shared view about the science of global warming.’ Its main focus is on ‘…global warming
policies and their economic and other
implications.’ And there’s the real
clue. Of the foundation’s 20-strong
academic advisory, eight have an economics background. The rest come from a wide range of
scientific disciplines but only three are actually in fields directly related
to climatology.
One of its missions is to ensure the ‘…media become more
balanced in its coverage of climate change,’ though it doesn’t feel the need to
display any balance itself. A search of
its site only finds articles hostile to renewables, and nothing but uncritical
acclaim for coal-fired power stations, shale gas and nuclear energy. And despite the lack of an ‘official’ view
about the science, the only ‘scientific’ material SIC could find on the website
expressly denies not just man’s contribution, but the fact of global warming
itself. The foundation is promoting the
idea of ‘global warming standstill’, since some have claimed that for the last
few years global temperatures have stopped rising. There’s not space here to deal with the
complexities about that – but it’s an issue to which we’ll return. For those
with an appetite for complex statistics look at Fake
skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature | Open Mind
Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, attacked
Lawson in a lecture last year, among other things, for his ‘ideological’
approach to climate change (a charge Lawson strenuously denied). Readers can judge for themselves about that,
but it does seem a strange coincidence that the vast majority of climate change
deniers come from the neo-liberal free market right. And concern about interference in the market
(for which read getting in the way of multi-national energy companies) seems
more important to them than the facts of global warming itself.
And that of course is the real role played by bodies like
GWPF (and many more like them in the US ). By casting doubts on the
reality of climate change, they create confusion in the public mind (assisted
by the Telegraph, Mail and Express), and thereby give the government an alibi
for backing off carbon savings policies (remember ‘the greenest government
ever’?).
It’s a trick of the right we’re seeing all the time at the
moment: defining problems away so we don’t need to deal with them. The
government is changing the definition of child poverty, conveniently disguising
the fact it’s on the increase. Fewer
people will be classified as having disabilities thanks to the new Work
Capability Assessments, which will justify reducing services for the
disabled. And if global temperatures
aren’t rising, we don’t need to worry about carbon emissions, so who needs wind
turbines?