The Government that cried “WOLF”.
Ok, back from the USA – and just a tad jet-lagged so apologies for the delay in this post.
But only back 24 hours and I notice that according to The Times yesterday only 41% accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man made. Look at it another way only 1/3 (32%) agree that climate change is happening but believe it has not yet been proven to be largely man-made.
Should we really be that surprised? Afterall we have become not just sceptical of politicians, but actually assume that if politicians say it, it’s most likely untrue, twisted, manipulated, or at best a half-truth – which still counts as a lie in my book.
We have also had “scientists say” thrust down our throats just one time too many (rather like the “if it saves just one child” mantra). Those words have become meaningless. Worse , they begin to grate. If I hear the words “scientists say” these days, my immediate response is “which scientists?”, “who funded their research?”, “what motivated them to do this research in the first place?” “Where can I see the FULL study, not just the edited highlights”. These questions, are rarely, if ever, answered. The media doesn’t look beyond the startling headline grabber it will give them, and politicians are more swayed by where they perceive public opinion to be than what the facts of the matter are. Explain why else the Liberal Democrats have taken such a pathetic stand on the smoking ban or drugs classification – neither of which enjoyed rigorous scientific research to justify the legislation introduced.
But let’s not get distracted with lifestyle freedoms, lets consider more “serious” scientific studies of late. Because , to be clear, scientists are not omnipotent gods incapable of error. They get stuff wrong.
In 1999 Government scientists were telling us that “hundreds of thousands” could die from CJD, a year later the projections had been down-scaled to just a few thousand at most.
In 2001 the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, David King, insisted upon a massive cull to stop an outbreak of foot and mouth. Most farmers and vets said that the epidemic could be contained by vaccine, or isolation methods. But hell no, literally millions of sheep and cows were killed, farms put out of business, the tourist trade decimated.
In April 2006 Government reports suggested that as many as 700,000 of us might die from bird flu. Even scientists most modest estimates stated that around 50,000 in the UK would die. To date about 500 people around the world have been infected with H5N1 and around 260 of them have died.
And only this year Government told us that 65,000 would be wiped out by swine flu. The current projections stand at 20,000 – and even those look widely pessimistic at this stage.
Of course all of the above are to some extent “UK only” issues and with climate change we are talking about a world problem – with scientists and governments from many countries involved in the debate. But even with climate change problems exist with what “the scientists say”….. In the 1980s scientists talked of “global cooling” or a new Ice Age. In the 1990s this became “global warming”, now it is “climate change”. And , let’s be clear, almost every country has a significant number of scientists that question their government’s analysis – we are not the only ones who are asking questions about “the science”.
Nor has it helped that we have been beaten – with almost religious zeal – by the environmental stick, witnessing increasing levels of legislation introduced under the name of climate change, that have raided our wallets and invaded our privacy. And frankly even those that really do accept the worst case scenario on climate change are frustrated by the cynicism with which this potential crisis has been exploited.
So it is not very surprising therefore that when we are told by scientists and politicians that we are all going to hell in a hand cart, we will, after a while, start to question it.
If all this sounds like I am a “climate-denier” – a term I particularly dislike – then I am sorry. I am probably in the one third that believe that there is some form of climate change but am not convinced that we have correctly identified the cause (or causes) of the problem. I am also pretty sure that we are far from finding the right solutions.
So, in my view, it is an inevitable consequence of Government action to date that we have responded the way we have in The Times survey (US citizens are equally sceptical). This Government – and others – have used science to cry wolf once too often. When faced with more pressing economic issues that are much more immediate, and if we add on top of that our scepticism of what Governments say – and increasingly what “science says” – why would we do anything other than start to doubt the information we are given.
If we are to move forward on this issue it must start with a consensus on the science – and the population buying into what the scientists have to say. That’s going to be tough given the respective track records of politicians and scientists.
It’s time for Governments to make a fresh start. Fewer, better researched, scientific studies would help. So would a more consistent approach from Government on when they will and wont take heed of their own science. Finally a more rounded view of the problem must surely now be implemented – one that embraces geo-technological solutions with as much vigour as modification of population behaviour. If politicians can actually discard their natural instincts to micro-manage every aspect of our lives with scant regard to our intelligence – oh and start being honest with us about “green taxes”, then maybe we can actually solve this issue. But I doubt we can do it before then.
Tags: climate change, The Times
