It’s truly amazing, when you think about it, that after all the scare stories and media advocacy that the BBC would find itself reporting the results of a public opinion poll on global warming:
The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
What is more, the public is not at all sure that the motives of the climate change advocates are as pure and the driven snow.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
Maybe someone found out that global warming advocate Al Gore is set to make a fortune from carbon offset trading.
The BBC’s article really is a gem of a piece. Here are some more quotes.
[The polling firm’s] head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles".
People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.
Er, isn’t the polling firm that did the study supposed to kinda take a hands-off attitude towards the encouragement of public opinion? Or does the modern polling firm first whip up public opinion and then sample it.
And isn’t the whole point of a political conversation the full and free ventilation of arguments pro and anti?
So let’s pull the vice-president of the Royal Society, Sir David Read, into the argument. The Royal Society is Britain’s academy of eminent scientists. Said he:
People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.
Couldn’t agree more, old chap. I am sure that you have never been guilty of that. Then he goes on.
The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate.
Sorry, old chap. The science doesn’t point to anything of the kind. The science just says that since about 1850 there has been a moderate increase in global temperature and that there is a good chance that the increase is due to “anthropogenic forcing,” in short, due to man. Speculative science has a lot of theories about what might happen if the warming continues. I think it is fair to say that the quality of this science is rather less solid than the rather clear evidence of moderate warming.
The science says nothing about what we should do about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment