“since the mid-nineties the global warming/climate change issue has become hopelessly politicized”

I’m getting bored being called a climate-change denier on LinkedIn, even though the charge instantly reveals the accuser as a science ignoramus who hates free speech.
Given that it’s impossible to find anyone who believes the climate is constant and never-changing, “climate change denier” lacks point. But green zealots who use it reckon because of its ignorant, extremist, holocaust-denier implications, anyone who dares to criticize the conventional wisdom will be forced to shut up. Their extreme view says because of human activity the climate is running out of control. This has become a global emergency requiring drastic short-term action including big changes in western lifestyle. That is a questionable scenario to say the least, but politicians of the left use it to justify their intrusive policies.
I’ve tried to explain my journey on the climate issue, but it’s been a bit piecemeal. Here’s a fuller explanation, and it starts with my appointment as Reuters’ Science and Technology Correspondent in the mid-1990s. When I took the job, my global warming knowledge was limited to the BBC-led mantra. Simply put, this added up to “humans are killing the planet and if we don’t stop tomorrow the world will end”.
No proven link
Not surprisingly, an early story choice was global warming. I interviewed many of the world’s foremost climate scientists, but to my amazement, none of them agreed with the BBC’s proposition. The science was not settled. There was no proven link between the human production of carbon dioxide (CO2) and warming, although some scientists came close to saying that.
Most of my output on climate change is buried deep within Reuters’ vaults, but here’s a link to a story still available (https://wgbis.ces.iisc.ac.in/envis/doc98html/enen1119.htmlstor). The modern reader may be surprised by the balance. Science may not have changed much in 25 years, but reporting standards certainly have.
Since the mid-nineties the global warming/climate change issue has become hopelessly politicized. The left loved an issue which suggested if mankind was to be saved from itself, the firm centralized socialist hand of government was needed to force people into safe actions, not the invisible hand of markets. Criticism was not an option. A firm link between climate change and CO2 was still not established but the use of computer modelling, where much of the input was often questionable, drove the issue on.
ClimateGate skullduggery
Much skullduggery was suspected in some of the computer modelling. This came to a head in “ClimateGate”, when the University of East Anglia was caught in 2009 showing scientists had falsified data. A subsequent BBC documentary found the perpetrators innocent and turned them into heroes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
To add to the increasing panic, the climate emergency canard was launched, even though it was demolished by Professor Steven Koonin in his book “Unsettled” (see my review https://www.wintonsblog.com/headline-climate-science-built-on-shifting-sands-book-review/)
The mainstream media was either bought and sold on climate change or too lazy/timid to make the balancing effort. Humans were guilty and any hint there might be other contrary arguments was shouted down.
For contrary arguments from many massively qualified climate scientists look at the Science and Environmental Policy Project – https://www.sepp.org/. The latest SEPP weekly report said this.
“Bits and pieces buried deep in the (the U.N.’s) IPCC physical science reports indicate that at least a few scientists involved in the IPCC process understand the precious truth – that carbon dioxide has a trivial influence on temperatures and increasing it is benefiting life on Earth with plant life flourishing, benefiting all.”
If that ever gets any major media play, a lot of harmful policies will have to be reversed and a lot of stout parties will collapse.
Laziness rather than conviction led the way on climate reporting, although it didn’t help when my alma mater Reuters announced it would also abandon its traditional insistence on fairness and balance: https://www.wintonsblog.com/reuters-supports-climate-change-partisan-why-and-is-coverage-compromised/.
“many claims about the increasing incidence of forest fires, floods and natural disasters were simply wrong- IPCC data”
More evidence that the conventional wisdom’s victory was complete was clear when children, egged on by Sweden’s Greta Thornberg, showed that they were being taught biased and one-sided science in schools. Children’s eager appearance at demonstrations dramatized this, and much melancholia being demonstrated about how their lives would be cut short by humanity’s destruction of the climate.
David Attenborough demonstrated how easy it was to spread panic amongst the ill-informed by using alarming videos of forest fires, tidal waves, flooding and drought, coupled with superficial and inaccurate assertions about how we were all guilty. If only teachers or the BBC had used Koonin’s research, based on IPCC data, which showed many claims about the increasing incidence of forest fires, floods and natural disasters were simply wrong.
Thanks Bjorn
One loud voice of reason in all this has been Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg. His regular columns in the Wall Street Journal and appearances on LinkedIn restore some sanity to the argument. Lomborg argues that, yes, there is evidence that human activity is changing the climate but he points out that much of the West’s attempts to mitigate this – for instance the EU plan to ban fossil fuels and become carbon neutral by 2050 – will be ridiculously expensive, ruin the west’s way of life, stop any economic gains by the impoverished third world, and have almost no impact on the climate.
Lomberg believes that developing technology will ultimately end our reliance on fossil fuels without donning hair shirts. Lomborg has been subjected to more than 20 years of failed attempts to undermine his credibility, mainly with nitpicking rather than substantial issues. (Here’s a review of one of Lomborg’s books – https://www.wintonsblog.com/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-book-review/.
“It’s not about “if” the climate is warming. It’s about “why”
There is an argument to be had about climate change, despite the attempts by green zealot rent seekers on LinkedIn to shut down debate. The science isn’t settled, but anyone attempting to construct a rational argument is immediately branded a “climate change denier”.
Everybody knows the global climate has been gradually and erratically warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The argument is not about “if” the climate is warming. It’s about “why”. Warmists say all of the increase is down to the impact of man, others say it’s smaller, and there are some who say it is entirely natural.
If sanity in policy-making is to be restored and panic about a non-existent climate emergency ended, reporting on climate change should routinely include views to balance the story.
Here’s a selection of stories from my time as Reuters Science and Technology Correspondent on climate change.
Nearly every true climate scientist accepts and agrees that the climate is gradually warming, and that it has been since the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. Big whoop!
To report that 97% of all scientists agree that the climate is warming due to human activity is the worst kind of biased, lazy and misleading reporting.
Myself and many others have long known that the climate changes. The climate is a result of a complex and unpredictable global system, that we don’t fully (or even adequately) understand. The honest and open scientists admit this.
The only thing more dishonest and moronic than saying they understand and can predict climate change is their hubris in saying they can control or stop it.