There have been articles in national broadsheets claiming that there's a massive conspiracy, that the data was fixed, that carbon dioxide is not the culprit, and that even if it is, it's not down to humans. Despite the huge amount of climate research, the availability of public data, the detailed reports of the evidence, the consensus between diverse scientific bodies around the world, despite the correlation of the data from different satellites, different monitoring stations, different climate models, and even different sets of historical records, people still claim that it's a put up job. Why are the deniers so vocal? Why are they so convinced there's a conspiracy?
Big bad government?
Part of the answer lies in the idea that government is a bad thing, and therefore anything that requires governments to act to constrain the actions of its citizens is something to be resisted. In the US, there is widespread fear of growing government. It should be remembered that national government only came to the United States in order to constrain the growth in power of the federal governments. The aim was to prevent federal governments taking too much tax, and exercising too much power. National government was supposed to protect the rights of individuals to do just what they wanted.
So Americans see growing government with suspicion, as a reduction in their rights, curtailing their freedom. And talk of freedom gets a big crowd in the US. Whether it is the freedom to bear arms, or drive an SUV, many US citizens resent any limitations on them imposed by the state. The land of the free has an ingrained ideology against government control, whether it applies to industry or the individual.
This leaves it rather ill-equipped to deal with issues which require actions that the population as a whole will not like. Basing politics on populism means that such issues are never faced. If the electors don't want tax rises, you can't increase government spending. If they won't give up their SUVs, it's hard to promote lower fuel consumption. When it comes to climate change, American politicians typically run scared. Despite popular support for doing something, there is mass resistance against anything that will affect them personally.
This fear of government is behind some of the scare stories about global warming research. It is popular to make two related claims: that the data was fixed, and that there is a conspiracy to spread international government control. By linking the two, deniers of global warming can avert attention from the evidence at the same time as playing on anti-government prejudice. This stalls any moves to get people to wake up to the reality of climate change in the US.
Fixed data?
This claim is almost too ludicrous to take seriously but in the wake of the media frenzy over the leaked emails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, it is important to make some points clear. Firstly, the data from Hadley corresponded perfectly to the climate data obtained by the two other separate independent sources, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climate Data Center (NOAA and NCDC) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. If Hadley's data had been fixed, it would have been necessary to fix the others in exactly the same way. Secondly, they would have had to keep it secret. So the World Meteorolical Organisation would also have had to be in on the conspiracy. It is inconceivable that this could happen, especially in view of the fact that the message is not what governments want to hear.
Conspiracy?
There are several versions of the conspiracy theory going around ranging from a plot to boost the sale of energy-efficient lightbulbs, through to the one about communists from Eastern Europe infiltrating green organisations to create a communist world government by stealth. This latter is favoured by American deniers who want to play on the prejudice against government control of anything. Somewhere in amongst that is the Telegraph line that it is all to do with the growth of European Union bodies and the removal of British national sovereignty. Hijacking the issue for such a strange political agenda encourages people to ignore the science.
If you doubt the accuracy of the data, you will be reluctant to base conclusions on it. If you question the motives of the people presenting the data, you will be reluctant to trust their conclusions, regardless of the data. And that's the idea behind the conspiracy theorists. But the data is solid, and the motives of the scientists are beyond question. Not only are they presenting an unpopular message, unpopular for all governments, but even the sponsoring bodies would prefer not to have to listen to the it. It is a globally unwelcome message. If there was any conspiracy, it would be to promote the message of the global warming deniers, not the evidenced position of the scientists. The conspiracy theories just don't make sense.
The Evidence?
Here are some excellent and concise sources of information compiled by William R. Wilson, well worth reading. They give you the detailed facts which should help convince even the most adamant denier and many detailed links to further sources:
Evidence I
Evidence II Snow Cover
Evidence III Arctic Ice Cap
Evidence IV Antarctic Ice Cap
Evidence V Disappearing Glaciers
-
Thanks for stopping by, John. It's interesting that even leading broadsheet newspapers assume that science has to decide its evidence by consensus, that everyone has to agree before we need to listen to them.
I think a lot of that problem is down to the idea that scientific views are little more than opinion, and it's that fundamental misunderstanding of how science works, that leads commentators to be so blasé about climate change.
Bob Lloyd has studied in four universities and has degrees in Biochemistry, Mathematics, and Computer Science. After a long career in publishing, teaching, and software engineering, he is now retired and lives in Andalucia in the South of Spain with his wife and rather ancient cat.
Dennis and Donella Matthews wrote"The Limits To Growth" way back in the 1960s, and its now apparent the party's over. We cannot sustain an ever expanding economic system based of cheap fossil fuels.
If the public is faced with the limits to growth there is a natural reaction. It begins with denial and then as the limits become evident, anger sets in. Scapegoats are sought and attention diverted to punishing those thought responsible. As the limits to growth become impossible to deny, a sense of hopelessness may prevail. Thrown back on our own resources we feel betrayed, lonely, and isolated We become homo economicus and are stripped of our self-imposed illusions about the future. We may seek to survive economically by destroying ourselves environmentally. The limits to growth removes our comfortable assurances that our ever expanding economy will continue to work its magic. In a very real sense we become like children whose toys have been suddenly taken away.
The limits to growth can only be ignored by thrusting ourselves into a hell of our own making, where that hell can best be described as a truth realized too late.
Keep up the good work!
John Fisher