15. 12. 2011
FROZEN PLANET FURORE
The final programme in the Frozen Planet series was broadcast this week – David Attenborough’s personal take on climate change
For me, it was an extraordinary programme – creative, convincing, compelling. To be fair, I am hardly unbiased. Indeed, I am very biased. Primarily because of the furore that has broken out over the coverage of the programme in the Radio Times.
A few weeks ago, the Radio Times asked me to do an accompanying commentary on David Attenborough’s own article in the Radio Times. I was obviously delighted to do this. I was then told that they had also asked Nigel Lawson to do the same, which of course strengthened my resolve.
When I saw it, I thought Lawson’s piece was a disgrace. Rude, patronising, scientifically illiterate and totally inappropriate. I couldn’t really believe that anybody would publish it.
The justification offered up by the Radio Times for carrying this piece was the usual politically-correct claptrap of ‘achieving balance’ – but for no editorial controls to have been exercised is fairly extraordinary.
Perhaps I shouldn’t worry too much about this. Most people seem to have been astonished at Lawson’s ill-judged contempt. And David certainly knows how to look after himself.
But the contrast between the way in which David made up his mind about climate change (methodically, slowly, evidence-based) and Lawson’s ideological, evidence-blind approach, couldn’t be clearer. I wrote about this at some length in my initial article for Radio Times (which got somewhat ruthlessly pruned back), and just wanted to publish that original version here:
The debate about the science of climate change here in the UK becomes more and more surreal. Whilst a little clique of armchair pundits continue to peddle the usual mix of scepticism and ill-informed prejudice, real scientists observing real-time phenomena in real places all around the world point to one inescapable conclusion: that the climate is changing far faster than anyone imagined possible even a few years ago.
Talking to climate scientists who have been out in the field can be a deeply disturbing experience. As professional scientists, they fiercely defend the objectivity of their data; as private citizens (and often parents), one can’t help but note the fear in their personal testimonies.
When a personal testimony of that kind comes from David Attenborough, its impact is enormous. David is one of the UK’s most trusted and admired public figures, whose views on climate change carry great weight.
What people won’t know is the personal journey David has been on in coming to those conclusions. For years, he was studiously neutral, listening to all sides of the debate, carefully assessing the evidence, politely resisting demands from environmental pressure groups to add his voice to various climate campaigns.
Only when he felt the evidence was robust enough did he declare his opinion (a few years ago) that the climate was changing, and it was changing because of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
It’s that thoughtful, conscientious journey that makes this personal testimony from the Arctic and the Antarctic all the more compelling - and I can only hope it will help to dispel some of the doubts that people still have as to the pressing urgency with which we must now address accelerating climate change.
And there’s still so much to be done – on energy efficiency, investment in renewables, research into storage technologies, smart grids and so on.
And I’m sure that David (as a fellow Patron of Population Matters) would also be advocating huge new investments in family planning programmes in key countries to help slow population growth.
In a world where more people take their guidance on climate change from Jeremy Clarkson than from the President of the Royal Society, or from the Daily Mail than from the New Scientist, I suppose there will be some who look more to Nigel Lawson than they do to David Attenborough.
But I rather doubt it.
Comments
It's perfectly clear to me, not as a scientist or mathematician but an ordinary person who cares enough about the world and someone who has taken the time to research enough facts and information to know that as long as population growth is positive and fosil fuel usage is still growing year on year thats it's inevitable that demand will outstrip resourses and the polution from that demand and consumption will effect our planet. Regardless of whether you look at this from a scientific or religious viewpoint, continued population growth and consumption cannot be sustained. The problem is it's hard to convince a fat person to diet when he likes his food so much. More importantly when you look at the simple maths of calculating how long it will take to run our of fosil fuels we only find out that there isn't enough at the very last minute. I'm affraid any past UK government has not had nearly enough forsight to look that far ahead. It doesn't look good!
Yes,I'm a sceptic,or a realist on global warming,oops,..climate change,soon to be fitted with another tag;extreme weather eventing.There are some aspects about this scam that seldom get acknowledged.But first,let us assume the pro- anthropogenic climate change scientists and their followers are right.There appears to be a sizable minority.They are not a majority.At least,I have not heard that at the last election the Green party got a majority of the votes.So,the sceptic majority could be wrong,but the people who believe that 'climate change' is caused by physical economic activity such as the burning of fossil fuels are advocating,almost to the last activist believer,that the solution lies in burning yet more fossil fuel.Their nostrums not only do not add up,they would make climate change worse if they are right.This carry-on is a money making exercise,a gab-festing exercise,a bureaucratic and taxation scam feeding bureaucrats and people doing moderately useful research turned-into a taxpayer funded subsidy feast to produce items which by strict economic rationale should not be produced,and so on.That people are concerned about the environment is understandable,but to turn it into a religion is actually making things a lot worse.People's blind faith in these things allows politics to turn it on its head.Without Greenpeace,whaling by the Japanese might have stopped,or not,but the massive resources well-meaning people have put into that org over the years,never mind the attention,could have been directed elsewhere,so it has worked as a diversion.People who are against our current state of affairs have no grip on the decision-making process.They are not interested either.They start complaining,protesting,activating and most,like the women feminists,never look back.They go at it hammer and tongs,or not,it doesn't matter.Their huffing and puffing is deflected in the political,legislative and again in the practical application stages of measures which are put in place,as a sop.If,for instance,the problem is too much energy consumption,the solution is not to have more energy consumption.If the problem is too much de-forestation,the solution is not to have ten percent less de-forestation of a total that is twenty percent more than before,because that means there is more,overall,not less de-forestation.People are being silly.They ought to expend a bit of time and energy working out how they lost control of their elected representatives,and once they have worked that out,seek ways to get it back.At the moment environmentalists,feminists,other reformers,a solid majority in toto,are being given the run-around.The people who have staked a political career or personal reputation on this and other diversions must need go on,and the followers,...they follow.So,if it is all man-made,what should we do?Prepare for survival.The majority of huffers and puffers,faux women feminists,professional Green activists and all those who are home and hosed thanks to the long profitable wave of raising Green consciousness,they will not change their ways,yet.Climate change believers must,to be believable,live and act as if they actually believe what they say is true.Too many are in it for the political and financial gains to be made in the politics of it.Finally,this is a matter of survival of the fittest nation-state.The idea that seven billion people can be made to live in a straightjacket made up for them by some very comfortable Western middle class professionals and their blind followers is,again,silly.But there is too much money to be made for people to give it up.Possibly,without feminism,democratic gunboat diplomacy and environmentalism,capitalism in the West would now be gone.As it is,it is only surviving by means of ever greater scams.Scam junkies is what we are.If we go on like this,supporting these scams,political,financial,economic,military adventures,we will soon be like the Greeks.
New figures issued by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit indicate that the planet has not warmed for the last 15 years.
january 2012
during the jurassic life was thriving on earth. plenty of dinosaures ,flowering plants were evolving. CO2 concentration was 2000 ppm compared to 490ppm now
a few months ago the today programme ran a headline and i quote.
"british government statistics show that the average global temperature has changed by 0 degrees over the past decade. the forcaste for the next ten years is MINUS 0.3 degrees"
As a Canadian watching our Arctic ice cap melt while our petroleum-based Conservative government expands the Alberta tar ... or scar ... sands, I appreciate your efforts to bring out the facts of climate change. Sadly, as you state, the media's desire for "balance" on this issue makes a mockery of fact-based reporting and comment. It seems that only more proof offered by extreme weather will convince some, but will that be too late?.
Add a comment
We appreciate your comments.