I stumbled upon this article while reading a recent piece relating to an organisation which Roger Black, the ex BBC science correspondent, joined. What was particularly interesting was the list of alarmist climate change organisations, all well funded, and basically doing the same job of feeding alarmist propaganda (dressed up as science) to the media in the hope of persuading us that there is no doubt whatsoever about the issue that the climate is changing radically and we are all doomed unless CO2 emissions are cut drastically.
This comment below the article caught my attention: "Why the urgency and why the compulsive need to boost levels of public compliance regarding “action on climate change”, though (aside from the obvious motivation of wanting people to agree with them, and also the desire to wield power)? It’s still not 100% clear to me what’s driving all this activity. Those who want CO2 mitigation have largely got what they want, in the UK at least – the three main political parties committed to it, the Climate Change Act ensconced in the law books, the EU committed to it, the United Nations committed to it, the majority of the media and NGOs and charitable foundations on side. What more could they reasonably expect to gain, even if a higher percentage of the public acknowledged the “strength of the scientific consensus”? What practical difference would it make?"
The writer has discounted one answer to his question, which is that there are people who genuinely believe what they are doing, rather like nineteenth century missionaries, or today's radical Muslims. Being convinced they are right does not, of course, make them right, but such people want to convince everyone else.
This comment below the article caught my attention: "Why the urgency and why the compulsive need to boost levels of public compliance regarding “action on climate change”, though (aside from the obvious motivation of wanting people to agree with them, and also the desire to wield power)? It’s still not 100% clear to me what’s driving all this activity. Those who want CO2 mitigation have largely got what they want, in the UK at least – the three main political parties committed to it, the Climate Change Act ensconced in the law books, the EU committed to it, the United Nations committed to it, the majority of the media and NGOs and charitable foundations on side. What more could they reasonably expect to gain, even if a higher percentage of the public acknowledged the “strength of the scientific consensus”? What practical difference would it make?"
The writer has discounted one answer to his question, which is that there are people who genuinely believe what they are doing, rather like nineteenth century missionaries, or today's radical Muslims. Being convinced they are right does not, of course, make them right, but such people want to convince everyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.