Day Ten: Survival continued
OK, I've finished my yoga session, there's a whale pod on my I-pod and the valium's kicking in nicely. I think I may be ready to have another look at the Motor Show Survival Guide's take on 'Going Green'.
So, where were we? Ah yes...
"...atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, which some scientific research suggests is a major contributor to global warming".
This is actually technically correct, in the same sense that 'some scientific research suggests that cigarettes are not the best cure for bronchitis' or 'some scientific research suggests that the Earth may not be flat' are technically correct, but it rather reminds me of a memo sent by US Republican party strategist Frank Luntz to advise republicans on how to deal with the issue of climate change. Here's an extract:
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," he wrote in 2002.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
Luntz also mentions that "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth".
If you have a look at rightwing news sites and the pronouncements of Republican politicians, you'll find that, when dismissing the issue as an absurd eco-conspiracy theory (designed, in the words of Myron Ebell, climate science advisor to Bush, "to hamper American competitiveness") started to wear a bit thin, their next debating position was the Luntz defence: it would be foolish to do anything about this until the scientific debate is resolved.
This has worked very well in the US almost up until the present day, despite the fact, and this is my point, that THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE.
Good scientists are cautious, they don't deal in 100% certanties, but that doesn't mean that there is a 'debate' around whether gravity exists or whether the Earth goes around the sun. The climate change 'debate' is no more nor less than a delaying tactic used by people who know full well what's going on, but would rather not do anything about it as such action might threaten their financial interests, or their choice of car.
If the Luntz memo isn't evidence enough, a 2004 study by Naomi Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change", to see whether they agreed, disagreed or had no stance on what she refers to as 'the consensus position' - that climate change is real and anthropogenic (caused by human activities).
Her results were as follows:
No stance : 232 (25%)
Agreed : 696 (75%)
Disagreed : 0 (0%) (not a sausage) (bugger all) (zilch)
As I said, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE.
There is a debate, of course, conducted on Top Gear and in the Daily Mail, but it ain't scientific.
For example, in the Times a few months ago a famous motoring journalist declared 'I'm not going show (sic) any interest in in what comes out the back until there is 100 per cent agreement among scientists that CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change.'
This is where the debate is happening - in the minds of little boys with their fingers in their ears.
Now, as you've all been so patient, here's another picture of what Land Rover rather amusingly refer to as an 'off-road' vehicle.
I suppose if all 'off-road' vehicles looked like this we would at least be safe from them churning up the countryside. Wait a minute, I think I've found another good point about Land Rover!
Tomorrow, the end of the show and my final entry in this blog.
