George Marshall argues that the carefully stage managed involvement of civil society in Copenhagen fails to speak in any meaningful way to the people who really hold the balance of power.

For many of us Brits the journey to Copenhagen has required the trials of true carbon penitence. We eschewed the £12.50 flight in favour of a far more circuitous and exhausting trawl through the Low Countries with regular tests of faith. Our Eurostar train broke down. At the Danish border we were forced to stand in the cold for hours whilst police frisked, groped and poked their way through every part of our bags and underpants.

When we got to Copenhagen we crawled between the various performance and exhibition venues like the Stations of the Cross before standing in the snow for over 3 hours – and horror stories abound of people waiting for five hours only to be told to come back the next day– for an accreditation to enter the actual COP15 holy of holies. As it set over our line of supplicants, the midwinter sun was in perfect alignment with the conference centre, a Potemkin windmill, and, on the horizon, a vast coal burning power plant.

Shivering in the dark in this slow shuffling queue I was reminded of how nightclubs will engineer a long queue outside (even when the club is half empty) to persuade people that this really must be the place to be. The UN has performed a similar stunt- deliberately offering vastly more accreditations than the venue can contain to anyone who applies including planeloads of American sophomores in various gap-experience youth delegations who mill about and perform lame stunts in Polar Bear costumes.  (To be fair, there were  parallel conferences and events that displayed all the freshness, vigour and inspiring vision that the official summit so clearly lacked.  This was also the largest ever international gathering of climate change activists and progressive organisations and the new connections they formed will be a lasting legacy).

Another lame protest in Polar Bear costumes

This open invitation to the world is part of an overall campaign of impression management that this is an open and accountable process conducted in full view of civil society. And, of course, it is nothing of the kind; the official negotiations invariably take place behind closed doors, and the real negotiations – the ones required for the self-serving compromise that will appear magically in the very last hour – take place in hotel rooms.

Our presence as invited delegates from civil society makes us complicit in this deceit- a ten thousand strong Greek Chorus circling the real action, and augmented by the thousands of participants from the ‘global south’ and indigenous groups invited by Northern Non-Government Organisations. More disturbingly, as I observed time and again in strategy meetings, the NGOs replicate the same inequalities as the larger process- the key decisions are made by a small clique of white specialists and presented to the unconsulted global representatives in the audience (effectively muted by the obligation they feel to their hosts for their free flight bed and board).

Outside the convention centre, the entire city of Copenhagen has morphed into a corporation sponsored climate change theme park. Every subway station and bus stop carries the slogan ‘Hopenhagen’ sponsored by Siemens or Coke. In the main town square, competing with the  adjacent Tivoli Gardens funfair, a 15 metre wide illuminated globe projects energy saving tips alternating with the logos of the sponsors. Hey kids, don’t forget to unplug your mobile phone….and don’t forget who made it.

Right On Banner Clutter in Kongens Nytorv

Circled by six vast banners asking ‘Where Do We Go From Here?’ (sponsored by BMW) or exhorting us to Bend the Trend, the  Kongens Nytorv Square is cluttered with climate kitsch- a shiny climate satellite, fiberglass eco-globes by local artists, giant blow up faces of Colors-of-Benneton style indigenous people, a photo display of ‘100 places to remember before they disappear’ and a bizarre structure of scaffolding and flapping bed sheets which, on closer investigation I see are scribbled with pleas for political action. It is funded by the United Nations Environment Programme and is yet another example of the whole-world-is-here-and watching-trope.

Outside society may be permitted to speak in the streets around  the conference- albeit in a suitably stage managed and marginal fashion – but the conference has absolutely no interest in how it speaks back.  Not one of the official side events or briefings concerns the means for communicating the science or building public support for the decisions it makes. The one event I found concerned with ‘engaging the public’ could think no further than how to explain the official political process. As with all UN style public engagement it involved being lectured and powerpointed by a panel of bureaucrats before being allowed to ask a short and respectful question.

Nonetheless one member of the audience went tearing off-road with a question about how they would deal with the UEA e-mail hacking. It was a googly question from the real world where public trust in the science is in precipitous decline and self-promoting deniers roam the chatshows.

The panel looked dumbfounded and could provide no answer: these conferences occur in a constructed reality of concerned global citizenship and have no comprehension that the future of the world’s climate depends on winning over the voters of Oklahoma.

And so, looking back on Copenhagen, I have to ask:  who were all those banners, posters, photo exhibits, polar bears, melting ice statues, video installations really talking to? Did they persuade the doubting heartlands that this was their issue, or did they reinforce the widespread suspicion that this is an inward looking and irrelevant faith? And why are we too absorbed by the pilgrimage to ever ask this question?

And finally a word from our sponsors….

Polluters and financial speculators promote their worldview

The theft of 1,000 private e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) shows that deniers have learned lessons from dirty politics and are running a new campaign to undermine public trust in climate scientists. The feeble response from the UEA and the climate science community shows that scientists are still totally underestimating the fragility of that trust and the crucial role it plays in building public belief.

The Importance and fragility of Trust
The lay public, when presented with confusing data and competing arguments  about climate change deploy the heuristic (a fancy word for a mentalof short cut) of believing the people they most trust. Trust in the communicator  is therefore a crucial precondition for belief in climate change.

Unfortunately the three main climate change communicators: politicians, journalists and environmental campaigners, are among the least trusted people in society- fighting it out for bottom place in the ranking with lawyers and car salesmen. No one would pay any attention to them at all if they were not drawing on the aquifer of public trust in scientists.

Climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and that public trust is merited by their authority.  With the exception of a few outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper values or make an emotional connection with the public – indeed they see that as contrary to their professional independence.

However, whilst it is true that there is an underlying respect for scientific expertise, there are many other more emotional and contextual components to real trust. We tend to trust people we know, who seem to be like us, who speak to our values and life experience, who appear to have integrity or- that most intangible quality- people whom we seem to like.

The Deniers have always understood this. They use language that is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence, progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted) free thinkers standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness.

Scientists often seek public anonymity. The only person portrayed the front page of the IPCC’s website is the long dead Alfred Nobel on the side of a gold medal. Deniers by comparison realise that trust (and distrust) is all about personalities. They promote themselves (and their personal backstories) constantly. They are not a pleasant bunch, but they get lots of practice in creating a good impression and some (such as Lomborg and Stott) can be charming in person.

And they seek to demonise real science by picking out individuals to abuse. None more so that Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a paleoclimatologist who prepared the famous hockey-stick graph.  Dr. Mann has had the bravery to stand publicly by his findings and has been subjected to an extraordinary campaign of vilification and accusations of distortion and falsification (there are 20,000 responses to a search for “’Michael Mann’ climate fraud”). Mann seeks to keep above the fray but he has plentiful grounds for a string of libel actions.

Hacking into UEA
The recent hacking of the servers of the University of East Anglia can only be understood within this landscape of competing appeals to public trust. The strategy is this: the source of belief in climate change is the trust in the scientists as open, accountable, honest and independent. If you can challenge those qualities you can undermine the public trust. Just by revealing the things that people say to their peers in private, you can suggest that they are closed, secretive and conspiring to their own ends. The further you have gone to uncover those documents- in this case hacking into a secure server- the more you imply that they were buried and hidden from view. even the New York Times and Washington Post can portray a crime as an act of public disclosure.

The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through these e-mails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and exaggerated for a mixed bag of self interested and politicized ends. Even better for them, some of these quotations come from Michael Mann.

But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the e-mails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on Realclimate.org, the website that Mann helped found, the e-mails contain “no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords”.

But this is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context. The speed with which the emails have been cut apart and fed into existing storylines is remarkable. The story has been led from the beginning by the denial site climatedepot.com (I absolutely refuse to provide a  hyperlink)  where you find the entire page given to ‘Climategate’, ‘smoking guns’,  ‘blood in the water’ – lines that have all been fed to and doltishly repeated in the mainstream media.

Swift Boating the Climate Scientists
The coordinator of climatedepot.com is Marc Morano, a libertarian right self publicist and former aid to the outspoken denier Senator Inhofe, who has been seeking to become a kingpin in the climate denial industry. Marc Morano is not new to this kind of dirty fighting. According to the investigative site Source Watch,  Morano, whilst working as a journalist for the right wing Cybercast News Service,  was the first source in May 2004 of the smear campaign against John Kerry that later became known the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Although different in context and content, there are marked similarities between the Swift Boat campaign and the hacking of the UEA e-mails. Both were sophisticated strategies to undermine trust. Both identified trust and integrity as a major strength of the opponent and then played carefully chosen story lines to undermine them. At the very least the UEA e-mail campaign is an application of dirty political tactics to climate change campaigning.

Personally I suspect it goes further than that. The storyline is too clever, the timing on the brink of Copenhagen and the US climate bill too convenient. Obtaining compromising internal documents is the holy grail of presidential campaigns, so why would not campaigners who cut their teeth in US politics not seek to apply the same tactics against the poorly defended servers of a provincial university. I wait with interest to find out how these e-mails were obtained.

Call me a bastard and I’ll show you my birth certificate
And, the most disturbing similarity between the UEA hacking and the Swiftboat campaign, is that both rely for their success on the unwillingness of the opponent to rise to the debate and defend themselves. It is a generally accepted analysis that Kerry’s slow response was a huge strategic mistake which strengthened the smear. A weak response to an attack on your integrity, however ill founded, is read as guilt.

The UEA response has been frankly pathetic. It was informed by Real Climate of the hack on Tuesday 17th  but only responded reactively two days later when journalists caught onto the story. It refused to confirm whether the e-mails were accurate or not and, for a long time, refused to comment at all.

Now, in typical scientist fashion, it seeks to argue the data rationally. The UEA website states that “the selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way”. Mischievous? Irresponsible? What naughty pixies.

Then the CRU director, Professor Phil Jones focuses on one of quotes: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline” For the smear campaign it is only those key words trick and hide that count- the rest can be made into anything it wants. Jones ignores this and responds with a detailed technical explanation of the passage with reference to the original graphs. It’s like responding to someone calling you a bastard by showing them your birth certificate.

One can only conclude that the UEA’s communications team is totally out of its depth. A less charitable conclusion is that they are defending the interests of UEA and are not concerned about (or have not understood) the damage to climate science.

An appropriate response
So might I suggest this would have been the appropriate response for Professor Jones:  speak to every journalist who calls, go on the offensive and defend your science. Clearly state that you are not prepared to have your hard working and committed colleagues  around the world defamed or slandered by the kinds of people who illegally hack into computers.  State that this is a desperate last ditch tactic by fanatics who have lost the rational debate.

And how about taking action against the criminals who hacked in? The stolen emails are currently on a website called www.anelegantchaos.org that has been set up for the purpose and is linked from all the denial websites. The owner of the site has written a self important introduction about the public interest of the site and the “disappointing insights” it provides. He has also put in a function to search the stolen property.

He is probably an egotist who enjoys the attention, so I am not going to name him. However his name, address and telephone number are all on the site registration.  If he had my private emails splattered all over his site he would be hearing from my lawyers – if he was lucky. The fact that there appears to have been no attempt to prevent this site is yet further evidence of the half hearted response of UEA.

Sadly, due in part to the lackluster response, I am sure that these wretched e-mails have now entered permanently into the mythology of climate denial. Scientists are going to have to be a lot more savvy and on the ball in future.

At a recent dinner at Oxford University a senior researcher in atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in Thailand. I asked him whether he was concerned that this would make a contribution to climate change (we had, after all, just sat through a two hour presentation on the topic). “Of course,” he said blithely, “and I’m sure the government will make long haul flights illegal at some point”.

To be honest the conversation had not just idly strayed into the topic of holidays: I had deliberately steered it in this direction as part of an informal research project- one you are welcome to join. Previous experimental subjects include a senior adviser to Nicholas Stern who flies regularly to South Africa (“my offsets help set a price in the carbon market”), a member of the British Antarctic Survey who takes several long haul skiing trips a year (“my job is stressful”), a national media environment correspondent who took his family to Sri Lanka (“I can’t see much hope”) and a Greenpeace climate campaigner back from scuba diving in the Pacific (“it was a GREAT trip!”).

Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing is that every one of these people has a career that is predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change- an assumption that a moment’s introspection would show them was deeply flawed.

It is now 44 years since President Lyndon Johnson’s scientific advisory council warned that our greenhouse gas emissions could generate ‘marked changes in climate’. That’s 44 years of  research (now costing, by one estimate (1), three billion dollars per year ), symposia, conferences, articles, documentaries, and now 80 million references on the internet. Despite all this information, polls over the past five years have shown that 40% of people in Britain  resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. In the US it is over 50% .

I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather I see this as proof of our failure to construct a shared socially held belief in climate change.

I find that climate scientists strongly dislike the word ‘belief”. Writing in The Guardian Vicky Pope, head of the UK Hadley Centre wrote testily “we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence”  (4).

I could not disagree more. People’s attitudes towards climate change, even Dr Pope’s, are belief systems constructed through social interactions within peer groups. People then select the storylines that accord best with their personal worldview.

In Dr Pope’s case (and my own) this is a worldview that respects scientists and the evidence. But just listen to what other people say. Most of them regard climate change as an unsettled technical issue that is still being hotly debated by eggheads. Many reject personal responsibility by shifting blame elsewhere – to the rich, the poor, the Americans or the Chinese- or suspect that it is a Trojan Horse built by hair shirt environmentalists who want to steal their luxuries.

And the climate specialists in my private experiment, immersed as they are in the scientific evidence, have nonetheless developed ingenious storylines to justify their long haul holidays. ‘I work hard on this issue’, they argue, ‘so I need a ‘proper’ break to help me keep going’. Thus their climate change work is not a personal challenge, it is a proof of their virtue and a form of moral offset:

So, with time running out, please humour me and imagine that we focus our efforts on generating a socially held belief. What would change in the way we present climate science?

Well, for one thing we would become far more concerned about the communicators and their perceived trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is an elusive and complex bundle of qualities: authority and expertise are among them. But so too are less tangible qualities: honesty, confidence, charm, humour, outspokenness. The tiny network of maverick self-promoting skeptics play this game well– which is one of the reasons why they exercise such disproportionate influence over public opinion.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a particularly poor job of promoting itself as an authoritative and trustworthy institution. It should be telling the story of how it achieves consensus on an unprecedented scale, and enabling its most presentable participants to speak directly to the world.. At present, under sustained skeptic attack, it can’t even provide a list of the people involved in the process. It has no human face at all – the only images on its website are the covers of reports or the beach resort where it will hold its next meeting.

The single greatest quality of the people we trust and believe is that they appear to be like us and understand our needs and values. We badly need to widen the range of voices speaking on climate change and, inevitably, this means that climate experts relinquish some of their dominance and become more concerned with enabling others to speak.

Finally- to really push my luck- a belief driven approach would recognise the crucial need for imagination to make this issue real and current.- in polls scarcely 10% of people regard it as a major problem facing Britain today . These risks will never feel imminent, nor the alternatives feel possible, unless we can project ourselves into the future. And that requires a major effort of personal and collective imagination,

Again I am sure this is uncomfortable for many scientists, like Professor Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre who regularly warns against apocalyptic language that “actively ignores the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions”(6) . He is quite right that the language of fear can be counterproductive- it must be balanced with a positive vision.

However it is also clear that the moderated cautious language of professional science is inadequate to motivate, empower and inspire concerted change, even in the lives of the climate professionals themselves. Scientists must recognise the need for a far wider range of voices and approaches and that will means a greater respect and productive partnership with the creative arts. And maybe we are now at the stage when scientists can throw down the challenge:” we’ve done the work, we believe the results, now when the hell will you wake up?”

This is a slightly longer version and unedited of an opinion piece written for the 23rd July issue of New Scientist. Link..
For the proof of  the pudding read the bizarre and overwhelmingly sceptic comments that follow it on the New Scientist website.

NOTES

1.  The growth of climate change science: A scientometric study. G STANHILL Climatic change 48:2-32-3, 515-524, Springer, 2001
2. Environmental Choices study 2008 Haddock Research and Branding, Inc. 2008
3. Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters January 15-16, 2009, Rasmussen Polls link…
4.  Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims, Comment is Free, www.guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 February 2009
5. The Environment- How important is it really to the public? Ipsos MoriNov 2008 link..
6. Mike Hulme, Chaotic world of climate truth, BBC News viewpoint link..

Dr Adam Corner argues that geo-engineered solutions to climate change are ‘capitalism’s ultimate parlour trick….an impressive leap from a desperate denial of the causes of climate change, to a triumphant denial of the consequences’

In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein joined the dots between the commercial manufacture of military weaponry, the marketing of anti-flu pandemic drugs and the foreign construction firms drafted in to rebuild Iraq – three happy projects bound by the shared philosophy of ‘disaster capitalism’. It may be time to add another enterprising scheme to this rather opportunistic programme of panic-driven profit making: Geo-engineering – the intentional, large-scale manipulation of the earth and its ecosystems in response to human-caused climate change.

In an impressive leap from a desperate denial of the causes of climate change, to a triumphant denial of the consequences, frontier capitalism may have stumbled across its best idea yet. The loose band of technologies that offer the mouth-watering prospect of engineering our way out of the climate crisis are straight out of science fiction, yet are being taken seriously by scientists and investors alike.

Schemes vary from injecting the atmosphere with sulphate particles to induce cooling, to fertilising algal blooms with iron filings to cause increased CO2 sequestration, to chemically ‘scrubbing’ CO2 out of the air. As the Royal Geographical Society  event on geo-engineering last week link showed, many are seduced by science that dangles the carrot of a technological fix to climate change in front of their noses.

The event provided a fascinating window into the way in which geo-engineering is currently perceived by the scientific community. Professor David Keith link…, a keen advocate (although far from an evangeliser) of geo-engineering called for a responsible, measured research programme into the possibilities of geo-engineering. The problem with this proposal, however, is that even toying with the idea of geo-engineering opens a Pandora’s Box of climatic and socio-political uncertainty. As the Greenpeace scientist Dr Paul Johnston noted at the same event, even the most elementary research into geo-engineering will involve real-world experiments with the global commons.

Jim Thomas, campaigner with the Canadian ETC Group has observed that if control over this global commons appears even remotely feasible, international conflict will inevitably ensue link… . Environmental scientists like David Keith are undoubtedly well-meaning in their pursuit of technological solutions to climate change, but their research does not take place in a vacuum – it is conducted in a world that is defined by a deeply unsustainable and inequitable socio-economic system.

What hope is there that geo-engineering will be benignly applied for the greater good? Will the consent of the developing world be sought when we conduct our climatic experiments with their natural resources? Will we share our new found knowledge with everyone, or only those who can afford to buy our patented designs?

As philosophers like John Gray have repeatedly observed, an unwavering faith in human progress often amounts to little more than a secular replacement of religious fervour. In response to accusations that that geo-engineering research would involve taking unprecedented risks with the planet’s fragile eco-system, Professor David Keith replied “This isn’t 1750” – the implication being that while pre-industrial revolution scientists did not foresee the consequences of their actions, today’s crop of experts are too wise to act so carelessly. But while few in the environmental science community would seek to take unquantifiable risks with the climate, there is a hardy band of disaster capitalists that would happily take the risk for them.

Worryingly, several experiments with algal blooming have been driven by commercial pressure from companies keen to sell credits into the emerging carbon-trading market. Never mind that artificial algal blooms are yet to deliver any proven CO2 reductions – large scale geo-engineering projects could be capitalism’s ultimate parlour trick: The design and manufacture of machines, on which we ultimately become dependent, to neutralise the waste produced by a society of consumption-driven economic growth. The lure of geo-engineering – colonic irrigation for the planet – is almost irresistible. What if it worked – what if we really could scrub the skies of carbon, and without having to reduce our carbon emissions?

Unfortunately, the question of technical proficiency is a red herring. We know we can design technologies that can alter the climate – that’s the problem we’re trying to solve. The more important issue is whether we can engineer our way out of trouble in a way that does not exacerbate existing inequalities. Tackling climate change is perhaps the most critical test of our commitment to social justice we will ever encounter – what could be more fundamental than the intentional management and division of the earth’s natural resources?

But unless significant changes in how scientific knowledge is shared and distributed are achieved, geo-engineering simply cannot address climate change in an equitable way. To believe that the unprecedented power of geo-engineering will not be wielded by the rich and the powerful at the expense of the weak and the vulnerable is more than simply wide-eyed techno-optimism: It amounts to a comprehensive denial of political reality.

Dr Adam Corner is a Research Associate in the School of Psychology at Cardiff University. His research focuses on the public understanding of science and the communication of climate change. He write regularly for his blog www.100monthsandcounting.blogspot.com

George Marshall seeks to understand the psychology of people who deny the existence of climate change- and finds some very common and very human failings.

It is true that nearly 80% of people claim to be concerned about climate change. However, delve deeper and one finds that people have a remarkable tendency to define this concern in ways that keep it as far away as possible. They describe climate change as a global problem (but not a local one) as a future problem (not one for their own lifetimes) and absolve themselves of responsibility for either causing the problem or solving it.

Most disturbing of all, 60% of people believe that “many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change”. Thirty per cent of people believe climate change is “largely down to natural causes”, while 7% refuse to accept the climate is changing at all.

How is it possible that so many people are still unpersuaded by 40 years of research and the consensus of every major scientific institution in the world? Surely we are now long past the point at which the evidence became overwhelming?

If only belief formation were this simple. Having neither the time nor skills to weigh up each piece of evidence we fall back on decision-making shortcuts formed by our education, politics and class. In particular we measure new information against our life experience and the views of the people around us.

George Lakoff, of the University of California, argues that we often use metaphors to carry over experience from simple or concrete experiences into new domains. Thus, as politicians know very well, broad concepts such as freedom, independence, leadership, growth and pride can resonate far deeper than the policies they describe.

None of this bodes well for a rational approach to climate change. Climate change is invariably presented as an overwhelming threat requiring unprecedented restraint, sacrifice, and government intervention. The metaphors it invokes are poisonous to people who feel rewarded by free market capitalism and distrust government interference. It is hardly surprising that political world view is by far the greatest determinant of attitudes to climate change, especially in the US where three times more Republicans than Democrats believe that “too much fuss is made about global warming”.

An intuitive suspicion is then reinforced by a deep distrust of the key messengers: the liberal media, politicians and green campaign groups. As Jeremy Clarkson says, bundling them all together: “…everything we’ve been told for the past five years by the government, Al Gore, Channel 4 News and hippies everywhere is a big bucket of nonsense.” Michael O’Leary, the founder of Ryanair, likens “hairy dungaree and sandal wearing climate change alarmists” to “the CND nutters of the 1970s”. These cultural prejudices, however simplistic, align belief with cultural allegiance: “People like us,” they say, “do not believe in this tripe.”

However much one distrusts environmentalists, it is harder to discount the scientists… depending, of course, on which scientists one listens to. The conservative news media, continues to provide a platform for the handful of scientists who reject the scientific consensus. Of the 18 experts that appeared in Channel 4′s notorious sceptic documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, 11 have been quoted in the past two years in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, five of them more than five times.

Dr Myanna Lahsen, a cultural anthropologist at the University of Colorado, has specialised in understanding how professional scientists, some of them with highly respected careers, turn climate sceptic. She found the largest common factor was a shared sense that they had personally lost prestige and authority as the result of campaigns by liberals and environmentalists. She concluded that their engagement in climate issues “can be understood in part as a struggle to preserve their particular culturally charged understanding of environmental reality.”

In other words, like the general public, they form their beliefs through reference to a world view formed through politics and life experience. In order to maintain their scepticism in the face of a sustained, and sometimes heated, challenge from their peers, they have created a mutually supportive dissident culture around an identity as victimised speakers for the truth.

This individualistic romantic image is nurtured by the libertarian right think tanks that promote the sceptic arguments. One academic study of 192 sceptic books and reports found that 92% were directly associated with right wing free market think tanks. It concluded that the denial of climate change had been deliberately constructed “as a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism”.

So, given that scepticism is rooted in a sustained and well-funded ideological movement, how can sceptics be swayed? One way is to reframe climate change in a way that rejects the green cliches and creates new metaphors with a wider resonance. So out with the polar bears and saving the planet. Instead let’s talk of energy independence, and the potential for new enterprise.

And then there is peer pressure, probably the most important influence of all. So, when dealing with a sceptic, don’t get into a head to head with them. Just politely point out all the people they know and respect who believe that climate change is a serious problem — and they aren’t sandle-wearing tree huggers, are they?

This articles first appeared in The Guardian link..

Postscript

Having said ‘out with the polar bears’, the Guardian brilliantly headed it with a stock photo of a polar bear in a little scrap of ice.  What is rather more interesting are the comments that follow which are mostly text book examples of the various denial strategies we know only too well:

“Even from the point of view of someone who believes in the global warming mass hysteria, it is obviously sensible to see that its a global problem and not local (who In Britain would regret a bit of warming?) that its obviously future, because its not happening now”

“I’m a skeptic – period – why? Because time and again during my 50+ years I’ve been lied to again and again by politicians (WMD anyone), the media (name your topic), and so-called experts and institutions (SARS, Bird Flu, Millenium Bug, The UN etc, etc)”

“consensus of every major scientific institution” does not equal “fact”. ..How is it possible that a planetary body that has endured ice ages, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, etc can be said to be under threat by a puny species like humankind?”

And finally the endless cliches of the Holocaust:

“Marshall suggests that we Denialists should be deprived of social approval. Our friends should boycott us. The yellow star and the pink triangle are obviously old hat”….

Yes, of course the suggestion that someone might politely point out that other people think you are wrong is comparable to centrally planned genocide…

Guest blogger Roman Krznaric argues for a revolution in empathy to tackle climate change.

‘We seem to be suffering from an empathy deficit – our ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes, to see the world through those who are different from us.’ – Barack Obama

Occasionally – just occasionally – a mainstream politician says something that is both original and useful. This is the case with Barack Obama’s views on empathy. In a thousand speeches, and in his book The Audacity of Hope, he has put cultivating empathy – learning to see the world from the perspective of others – at the centre of his moral and political vision.

I am inclined to praise him because I believe we should view the problem of tackling climate change not as an environmental issue, or one concerning technology or social justice or markets, but primarily as a problem of empathy. We must learn to see the individuals behind the newspaper headlines about climate change, and imagine ourselves into the uniqueness of their lives, developing an understanding of their most important experiences, beliefs, fears and hopes.Sound far-fetched, wishy-washy or a little too sandals-and-carrot-juice for your liking? Let me explain myself.

The big question facing us is this: How can we close the gap between knowledge and action on climate change? Millions of people in rich countries know about the damaging effects of climate change and their own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, yet relatively few are willing to make substantive changes to how they live. They might change a few light bulbs but they do not cut back on flying abroad for their holidays nor do they want to pay higher taxes to confront global warming.

So far economic, moral or other arguments have not been enough to spur sufficient action. This is because a fundamental approach has been missing: empathy.

Individuals, governments and companies are currently displaying an extraordinary lack of empathy on the issue of climate change, in two different ways. First, we are ignoring the plight of those whose livelihoods are being destroyed today by the consequences of our high emission levels, particularly distant strangers in developing countries who are affected by floods, droughts and other extreme weather events, such as flood refugees in the Indian state of Orissa. How many of us have made an effort to put ourselves in the shoes of
Annapurna Beheri, a woman from Orissa whose home and family shop selling biscuits and tobacco were washed away in 2007, and to imagine how her life has been affected by the realities of climate change? So, there is an absence of empathy across space.

Second, we are failing to take the perspective of future generations who will have to live with the detrimental effects of our continuing addiction to lifestyles that result in emissions beyond sustainable levels. Thus there is a lack of empathy through time. We would hardly treat our own family members with such callous disregard and continue acting in ways that we knew were harming them.

Generating empathy both across space and through time is one of the most powerful ways we have of closing the gap between knowledge and action, and for tackling the climate crisis. The problem is that, until now, empathy has been largely ignored by policymakers, non-governmental organisations and activists.

And although Obama talks fine words about empathy, he is yet to mention it in the context of climate change or to suggest concrete measures for creating the empathy needed to help reduce our emissions. It is time to recognise that empathy is not only an ethical guide to how we should lead our lives and treat other people, but is also an essential strategic guide to how we can bring about the social action required to confront global warming.

I would like empathy to become the watchword of a new era of policies, social movements, cultural projects and individual action on climate change. How can we encourage this empathetic revolution of human relationships? What exactly might it look like? Here are a few of my ideas for cultivating empathy across space and through time:

Climate Diaries
Small groups of individuals – for example members of a local neighbourhood association, work colleagues or some friends – could get together to create Climate Diaries. Each person chooses a developing country and for one month collects news clippings and other information about the effects of climate change in their country. They should focus on gathering materials of a personal nature, for instance interviews with drought-hit farmers. The group then reconvenes to discuss what they have learned, share insights and plan any practical action they may wish to take as a result of their researches. Climate Diaries is an idea that builds on recognised forms of grass-roots community action such as affinity groups, which have been used by innovative organisations such as the UK’s Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN).

Climate Corps
The Peace Corps established as a federal agency in the US in the early 1960s has given hundreds of thousands of young people the opportunity to experience the realities of living in poverty in a developing country, especially in Latin America. I want the European Union to establish a similar programme called the Climate Corps. Young people would go on placements for a year to live with a community in a poor country hit by climate change. They would work on adaptation projects such as helping build flood defences, or engage in other work of use to their hosts, such as teaching English to village children. In EU countries with military service, Climate Corps should be offered as an alternative option. With the right marketing, joining the Climate Corps could become a rite of passage for young people as popular as back-backing for a year before university. One of the rules of Climate Corps is that you must travel to and from your destination without exceeding a carbon emission limit, which would force you to avoid travel by plane. Climate Corps would be a major boost to generating empathy across space.

The Climate Futures Museum
Without a time machine, it is impossible to give people direct experience of the future. But we can find ways to simulate the projected realities of everyday life a century from today. That is why every major city in the world should establish a Climate Futures Museum. The purpose of a Climate Futures Museum would be to provide experiential learning designed to develop our empathy with future generations who will have to live with the impacts of climate change if we fail to take concerted action in the present. The museum would not contain standard informational displays behind glass cases or on computer screens. Instead, it would house experiential exhibitions that allow visitors to understand in reality what it would be like to have their homes flooded, to be faced by drought, or to experience a hurricane. You might have to put on a life jacket and be tossed around in a dinghy in a wave machine. Creative minds would be needed to design an empathetic experience that would be etched in your memory for ever.

Tackling climate change requires adventurous thinking to invent projects that will bring about a revolution in human relationships where we learn to put ourselves in the shoes of others and see the consequences of global warming from their perspectives. If we fail to become empathetic revolutionaries, the gap between climate knowledge and action will never be closed. Each of us needs to carve into everything we do, the empathetic credo, ‘You are, therefore I am.’

This is an extract from Roman Krznaric’s essay ‘Empathy and Climate Change: Proposals for a Revolution of Human Relationships’, written for the University of Manchester workshops on ‘Future Ethics: Climate Change, Political Action and the Future of the Human’ link You can download the complete version from www.romankrznaric.com.

Roman Krznaric is the expert on Empathy at The School of Life in London. You can see a 6 minute video of Roman talking about empathy and climate change link..

Lucy Michaels, our guest blogger, gives an expert insiders view on the threat and the denial of climate change in Israel.

Greetings from our little corner of the Eastern Mediterranean.

I live in a small kibbutz, in a hyper-arid desert valley on the borders of Israel and Jordan near the Gulf of Eilat, where I am researching both the implications of climate change for the region and how its inhabitants are beginning to address the issue.

GROWING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

Climate change is beginning to make its presence felt here. In the last decade, local residents in our valley have seen significantly fewer rain events. We now have a miniscule 16 mm rainfall per annum. Local divers cannot fail to notice that the region’s most sensitive eco-system, the Red Sea coral, is bleaching.

The effects are also being felt in the centre of the country as the desert belt marches rapidly northwards encroaching on the Mediterranean biome. A temperature rise of 1.5°C is predicted to result in the desert moving between 300-500 km northwards with huge implications for the majority of the Israeli population which lives in this fertile region.

Climate change pays no attention to the fiercely fought over national boundaries in the region. A half metre rise in sea level will cause flooding in Tel Aviv’s residential areas and damage power plants and other coastal infrastructure. It will inundate the Gaza Strip and its already highly polluted groundwater aquifer and sole water source. And it will overwhelm the low-lying Nile Delta in Egypt causing around 1.5 million environmental refugees (IPCC/ Friends of the Earth Middle East figures).

Meanwhile, the impact of less predictable weather patterns will clearly affect farmers across the region  (2% of the Israeli population, but 17% of both the Palestinian and Jordanian populations).

Drinking water is also an urgent transboundary issue, and 2008 is another serious drought year in the region. All of Israel’s aquifers are at their red lines and Israel’s main freshwater reservoir, the Sea of Galilee, has fallen to a point beyond which pumping will threaten the ecological integrity of the lake. The Palestinian Authority is also sounding the alarm about a severe water crisis in the West Bank. Human rights organisation B’Tselem blames both the drought and Israel, which essentially controls the water supply in the West Bank, for this parlous situation. Meanwhile in Amman, Jordan, most households only have water in the taps one day a week.

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL IN ISRAEL

Considering all this, it is no surprise that climate change is described as a ‘threat multiplier’ in this already fragile region.  Frankly you can begin to understand why the battle-weary policymakers and the general public in Israel would rather not think about this new threat to the Promised Land.

To underline this, several months ago, at my university, eminent climatologist Pinhas Alpert presented his latest predictions for the Fertile Crescent region, the “cradle of civilization”, undertaken with the Meteorological Research Institute in Tsukuba, Japan. We watched as the geographical area, which stretches from the Nile to the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, shriveled and disappeared with only a modest temperature rise of 2.6°C by the end of the century. However, the gathered hydrologists, agronomists and ecologists merely nodded sagely, asking technical questions about models rather than running from the room screaming which was perhaps a more appropriate response.

At the end of 2007, I undertook some preliminary survey research on Israeli perceptions of climate change. The results suggested that in fact Israelis from across the country, from sophisticated Tel Aviv to Arab villages in the Galilee, are aware of climate change. They are also concerned about it, although not quite yet concerned enough to do anything . The most common responses ranged from ‘Israel’s emissions are so small (the US emits as much in three days as Israel does in a whole year) what difference can we make’, to ‘We have more important urgent things to worry about’.

Much of Israel’s culture of climate denial comes from the intense way in which life is experienced here. Whilst proffering to love this country, Israeli concern for environmental issues and the environment in general are considered of relatively low importance due to the bigger distraction of the conflict.

Confronted with the more tangible sense of threat by a ‘terror’ attack or the incessant and somewhat obsessive discussion on the streets as to whether Ahmadnijad will drop the bomb and obliterate Israel altogether, it is perhaps understandable that the more diffuse and distant threat of climate change does not register highly on Israeli risk-o-meters.

Israelis are regularly bombarded by ‘disaster’ images. As has been found in research elsewhere, disaster imagery of climate change is most likely provokes feelings of powerlessness rather than the desire to take action. Compounded with this is the fact that Israelis are in general pretty fatalistic. An attitude widely heard in religious communities in both Israel and Palestine was that ‘If this is God’s will, so be it’.

A further aspect of Israeli climate denial, argued by Alpert and supported by my own research, is that there is a relatively high number of climate skeptics in Israel such as astrophysicist Nir Shaviv who still persists with his Cosmic Ray theory despite it being roundly rebutted by the scientific community. A personal friend at the Israel Meteorological Service is yet to be convinced of the anthropogenic causes. Alpert argues that climate skepticism in Israel represents a Jewish trait based on traditions of Jewish critical learning – to constantly dispute and find alternative explanations. This, I think, is a polite way of saying that Israelis in general are an argumentative and contrary bunch.

LITTLE AWARENESS OF EMISSIONS

In the public arena, most people appear to connect climate change with feel-good events such as Live Earth and Earth Hour, in which Tel Aviv participated. Such events may have begun to raise consciousness around energy efficiency in Israel, yet popular trends here still lag several years behind Europe and the USA. Apart from the religious community, post-materialist values are few and far between. This summer’s water crisis may go someway towards raising awareness about resource conservation. I was overjoyed yesterday to see a man rebuking his neighbour for watering his garden in the middle of the day. This simply never happens here.

The truth is that Israelis can make a difference. Israel ranks in the top 25 for per capita CO2 emissions – above most Western European countries – and this is linked to use of electrical appliances: a whopping 40% of total electricity output in summer is expended on the arctic blast of the air conditioners in pretty much every home, business or public building.  One Tel Aviv resident told me that air conditioners used to be few and far between. Today people have them on simply to drown out the constant hum of their neighbours’ units. The need for air-conditioning is also a function of poor building design and construction and cheap building materials.

Other culprits include high private transport use and, increasingly, the high energy cost of desalinating Mediterranean seawater as a means to allay the water crisis. Even if the government were willing to implement a carbon tax or other incentive to increase energy and water efficiency, it is clear that grassroots campaigns are necessary to shift Israeli self-perception from that of ‘consumers entitled to squander limitless resources’ to that of ‘responsible citizens averting ecological disaster both locally and regionally’.

Astoundingly Israel was classified as a non-Annex 1 country under the Kyoto Protocol. This means it has no obligation to reduce or even stabilise its emissions. The Israeli government had effectively ignored the issue with only the odd law to set standards for electrical appliances and laughable voluntary green building standards.

LOOKING TO THE CORPORATIONS FOR ACTION

A cursory glance at the Israeli media coverage of climate change actually shows that its main focus appears to be on Israeli scientists doing cutting edge research to find solutions and Israeli entrepreneurs promoting renewable energy.  Israel loves trumpeting its cutting edge scientists and entrepreneurs to the world, and this may also contribute to a more pronounced sense of optimism and faith in scientists to solve the problem than may be found elsewhere.

As a non-Annex 1 country, Israel’s biggest corporations have done very well as recipients of Clean Development Mechanism financing. This includes the bromide and magnesium factories partially responsible for destroying the Dead Sea as well as Israel’s sole cement works and paper mills

The rise in oil prices, the changing discourse in the US to address energy independence and Israeli entrepreneurs sensing a new market have certainly led to the business community waking up. When Al Gore addressed a renewable energy conference in Tel Aviv this May, all sorts of unlikely business leaders were turning up and it certainly wasn’t to worry about the coral reefs.

These include Shai Agassi, a Silicon Valley billionaire who wants Israel to be a testing ground for the electric car; the Israel Corporation, the huge chemicals multinational, which announced its intention to become an “ambitious and leading player in the alternative energy market”; and Israeli-born Arnold Goldman, whose company Luz II is developing a heliostat system for generating solar energy. Another company, Solel, is already building solar thermal power plants worldwide. These companies would dearly love to begin solar energy production in Israel, with its high levels of solar irradiance, but have faced a raft of bureaucratic delays and inadequate feed-in tariffs.

Thus it was no surprise that Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Minister of National Infrastructures, received an unenthusiastic reception at the same conference when he promised that, within the next 15-20 years, renewable energy would make up 20% of Israel’s energy mix. This may seem a fair amount but there are grounds for skepticism. Israel currently produces less than 0.2% from renewables and has already failed to meet its 2% renewable energy target for 2007.

Yet, at the same time, the minister approved a new coal-fired power station in Ashkelon to appease the powerful union of the Israel Electric Company (IEC), which has brought the country to a standstill on several occasions. The IEC, in its wisdom, has displayed a complete lack of vision and investment in renewable energy, mainly because of the low cost of imported coal from Colombia, Indonesia and Australia. At the public hearing about Ashkelon coal-fired plant a few months ago, it soon became clear that the IEC planned to go ahead whatever: it had already ordered the turbines.

Finally, to end on a more positive note, there is some political movement.  Some say that the Israeli government’s renewed interest in negotiating with its water-richer neighbour, Syria, could be connected with concern over water scarcity.

Israel has a burgeoning Permaculture movement, active student environmental groups and at least three Green Parties. The latest, the Green Movement, promotes a progressive environmental and social justice agenda and as a protest vote against Israel’s positively awful current crop of politicians, is likely to win seats at the next election.

For more information:

Climate for change, Haaretz, Lucy Michaels, May 25th 2008 link..

Climate Change: A New Threat to Middle East Security EcoPeace / Friends of the Earth Middle East link…

Arava Institute for Environmental Studies – A peace-building and environmental leadership programme for students from Israel, Palestine, Jordan and internationally which focuses on shared regional environmental problems. www.arava.org

Bustan Qaraaqa permaculture project (The Tortoise Garden) in Bethlehem is part of the Eco-Alternative Guesthouse project link..

George Marshall in short interview argues that we must stop refering to climate change as an environmental issue arguing that this provides a handy denial strategy for people to argue that it has nothing to do with them..

The original is on youtube at link…

For those with nothing better to do, there are more of these short pieces of George(me) talking about

Climate Change Denial …. link
People Don’t Care About Polar Bears…..link
End of the world? You decide! …..link

Review of The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so), Lawrence Solomon, Richard Vigilante Books, 2008

There’s a flood of cookbooks in the UK, (and climate change denial books too) so let’s start with a recipe for writing a popular book undermining climate science. Fancy a go?- this is what you do…

First of all, from all the thousands of papers published every year on climate change, cherry-pick a few isolated pieces of work that draw different conclusions from those presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Then, highlight the CV’s of their authors in glowing and virtuous terms. Just think of those paragraph-long descriptions of ingredients you get in pretentious restaurants: point out that these are not just carefully picked cherries; they are sun-dried organic fair trade cherries di Modena.

Then claim that the goal of your book is not to settle the science but merely to show that the debate is active. By this sleight of hand, you can claim that scientific process depends on constant challenge without allowing any debate about the studies you cite. This then allows you to draw superficial similarities between positions that contradict each other. Modena cherries in a Bolivian Chilli and Wild Alaskan Salmon confit? So what if they don’t go together, you can say, they’re top ingredients and they’re all red too.

Finally, so that you can adopt a populist questing tone, make it clear that you have no expertise in any of these areas and are just another perplexed joe public seeking the truth. “Ok”, you can admit coyly, “I can’t cook to save my life, but I’m a free thinker. After all, only conformists say that banana doesn’t go with cheese.”

And there you go: a nice recipe for any number of articles, think tank reports, leaders in the Sunday Telegraph, talks to the Adam Smith Institute, presentations to congress, Channel Four documentaries, or, as I hold it in front of me, a cooked book like ‘Deniers’.

I must admit that Lawrence Solomon is awfully good at this stuff. Like all the best climate skeptics he is a great communicator. His prose is tight and readable. He is ironic and amusing. His own credentials are impressive: whereas Bjorn Lomborg used to boast that he was once a Greenpeace activist (in fact he was just a member) ; Solomon is the acting head of a well-regarded environmental organisation.

But there is something curious going on, and it takes a while to spot it. The book purports to show that leading scientists, taking major personal risks, are prepared to ‘deny’ the stated consensus on climate change. The lengthy byline (added, one suspects, by some keen publicity person) is “the world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud”

And yet it slowly dawns on the reader that few of these ‘world renowned scientists’ disagree in any way that climate change is happening, is serious, and is primarily caused by human emissions. They are well funded career scientists who are not standing up for anything much other than a nice round of applause from the other hysterics.

The first witness for the prosecution is Dr. Richard Tol, a critic of the Stern Report, who, as the book admits, is in every other way “a central figure in the global warming establishment”. Then we hear from Dr Christopher Landsea who argues that hurricanes are not increasing due to climate change. He is also a contributing author to the second UN IPCC report and agrees fully with its main conclusions. The book tells us that Dr Edward Wegman, who challenges the statistical basis of the famous ‘hockey stick’ climate graph, “does not dispute that man made global warming was occurring’.

So, Solomon’s key witnesses are actually leading scientists who accept the core consensus but have some important and relevant reservations about the causes and impacts. By page 45 Solomon has admitted as much: “I noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers”.

Solomon allows himself to make this self-deprecating admission because, whilst he wishes to lionize the careers of his ‘world renowned experts’, he is also prepared to be condescending about their judgment.

He argues that they are suffering from a delusion that the whole theory stands firm despite the evidence of that own specialist work. “Affirmers in general. Deniers in particular” crows Solomon. “Like other smart people, scientists accept the conventional wisdom in areas they know little about…We know from our daily lives that the consensus can be spectacularly wrong.” According to Solomon they are in denial about their denial and he is going to drag them out of the closet.

Solomon’s cavalier strategy of ‘outing’ climate deniers has already become spectacularly unstuck. In January 2007 he dedicated his regular Denier column in the Canadian National Post, which forms the basis for this book, to Dr Nigel Weiss. Weiss, he said “believes that the science is anything but settled except for one virtual certainty: the world is about to enter a cooling period”.

Dr Weiss responded immediately and did not mince his words link…“The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel”. Unusually the rebuttle was accompanied by an official press release from the University of Cambridge.

Whilst the National Post issued a groveling apology, Solomon was not going to let his search for truth be derailed by accusations of slanderous fabrication. Astonishingly, the article still appears on his website without any qualification link. It has now spread all over the internet and has been repeated in the form of a faked interview in another book “Scared to Death” by skeptics and media pundits Christopher Booker and Richard North.

So let’s do some real ‘outing’. Solomon is not really an independent searcher after truth- he is a frontline communicator for a large and influential denial industry that aims to prevent political action and undermine public concern about climate change.

Start with the scientists in Denial. With each chapter, the legitimate questioning scientists I have just mentioned give way to the professional skeptics. There is Professor Richard Lindzen, who, according to the investigative journalist Ross Gelbspan, consults to oil and coal interests for $2,500 a day and whose trip to testify before a Senate committee on climate change was paid for by Western Fuels.

Lindzen, along with three of the other ‘world-renowned scientists’ in Denial, found time in their busy research schedule to appear in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, a notorious British documentary that was denounced by the UK government’s chief scientific adviser, the Royal Society. One of the contributers threatened to sue the director for gross misrepresentation.

Six of the stars of Denial were among the the ‘A’ list of professional contrarians, lobbyists and conspiracy theorists who spoke at the New York International Conference on Climate Change in March this year. The sponsor was the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank which has received $781,000 in grants fron Exxon Mobil since 2000 for its campaign against the Kyoto Protocol.

Even if we assume that he started with pure intentions, Solomon has now fallen in with some very unsavoury people. In April this year his column for the National Post defends Fred Singer who, as usual, he calls ‘one of the world’s renowned scientists’. Singer has not had a peer reviewed paper published in 20 years and is linked to a string of oil and coal industry lobby groups. He has long operated as a hired gun for the tobacco industry giving ‘expert’ testimony that side stream smoke is not dangerous.

In June 2008 Solomon’s column praises a ludicrous and widely condemned paper on the beneficial effects of heightened carbon dioxide by the Oregan Insititute of Science and Medecine. The OISM, which has no affiliations to any recognised scientific body, is a far right fringe body that markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools”.

And in April we find Solomon launching his book at an event organised by some of the most notorious anti-environmental campaigners in Washington. In his speech he congratulates his hosts; Myron Ebell, the Cooler Heads Coalition and the Competititve Enterprise Insitute (CEI) for “for the integrity and tenacity that he and they have shown during this entire global warming debate”.

For an environmental campaigner he has fallen into the worst crowd imaginable. It would be like Barack Obama speaking at a Ku Klux Klan meeting and praising them for their contribution to racial tolerance. Myron Ebell led aggressive lobby campaigns though a think tank called Frontiers of Freedom to gut the US Endangered Species Act. Ebell and the CEI ran a public campaign against higher fuel efficiency standards in cars arguing, among other things, that it would lead to more accidents. The Cooler Heads Coalition, formed by CEI, opposes any political action on climate change and brings together a host of libertarian and far right interest groups such as Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and Defenders of Property Rights.

Solomon gives them respect and credibility. They give him status in return, calling him ‘one of Canada’s leading environmentalists’ and an ‘internationally renowned environmentalist’. Maybe this expains how an environmental campaigner can become best buddies with the professional lobbyists who despise his own movement. Environmental campaigners are poorly paid and often vilified with few plaudits or rewards. On the other hand skeptics live in a self-congratulating world in which there are no also-rans. Everyone is a winner. Everyone is famous or world renowned. Anyone who is assertive and skilled with polemic can be a star.

If you are middle aged activist and wondering what you have really achieved in your life it must be very seductive. And dangerous.

Sources: www.sourcewatch.org, www.theheatisonline.org, www.realclimate.org, www.desmogblog.com

This review first appeared in a slightly different, referenced and edited form on the website China Dialogue.

These adverts are not greenwash or misinformation. They manage to use the images and language of climate change without in any way recognising the scale of the threat or their own responsibility for the problem. Innocent, cynical or deeply disturbed? What do you think?

Last year General Motors hit a smart way to market their notorious gas guzzling tank, the Hummer- they would encourage hummer owners to offer emergency relief in ‘natural’ disasters. Naomi Klein said about this idea: “it’s a bit like the Marlboro man doing grief counselling in a cancer ward”.

And then to top it all GM broadcast this ad. When I watch it don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or scream and I usually alternate insanely between them. Alison Wright, who sent it in, says: “The message is not only that a Hummer will help you survive the apocalypse, but drivers of Hummers are good, selfless people who will help others in need. Talk about irony….”

In the States NBC refused to show this ad- and no doubt GM was delighted to stir up a bit of publicity from that. By the way, that little “crooks and liars” at the end is the logo of the group that put it up on you-tube. This is a genuine ad.

A more recent Hummer ad glorifies the burning of electricity in a curious parody of energy saving ads. Link… I really do feel that there is some clever and deliberate marketing behind this.

In a previous posting we noted the ubiquitous practice of naming SUVs after murdered tortured and exterminated indigenous groups. Volkswagen’s excursion into the market is named the Touareg after an ancient nomadic tribe of the Southern Sahara which has been viciously repressed by the Niger government. Volkswagen have not only stolen their name but shoot most of the publicity for their car in sand dunes. Mark Bennett, who sent it in, writes: “It uses the name of a people traditionally living on minimal resources to suggest some sort of false connection between an enormous tank of a 4×4 and outdoor, rugged and adventurous living. The carbon emissions then increase global warming, adding to the gradual desertification of Sub Saharan Africa and more people living in deserts.”

The ironies run even deeper. In Niger the Touareg minority has started an armed rebellion to defend its lands against mining for uranium to fuel the reborn ‘zero carbon’ nuclear power industry. And back in Germany Volkswagen has tooled up the Toureg with a machine gun on top for sale as an military vehicle. LinkHow long before Touaregs are shooting down real Touaregs?

Marianne sent me a photo of this promitional can of Castlemain XXXX with “all this global warming is making me thirsty – thank xxxx for that” written on the side. She says “I was so stunned i had to take a picture much to the bemusement of the in-laws!” It’s another example of the ho ho macho ironic bring it on posturing we’ve seen before. The drought in Australia has become so sustained and serious that urban areas such as Sydney have been recycling the treated water from sewage plants. So, ho ho for global warming- a glorious future drinking piss. Got to be better than paying to get it in a tinnie.

Graham spotted this advert by South Africa airways of a plane flying over a disintegrating ice sheet. He says: “Once again it’s hard to believe there was any naivety behind the choice of image, it seems to me to be very much an “up-yours!”statement and the caption would seem to support this – the melting Arctic ice being a mere side show, an entertainment to be viewed from your window as you cruise past burning thousands of litres of aviation fuel”. The caption reads “For those occasions when there is a better show outside you can always pause the movie inside”.

And finally here’s one of my own. I was minding my own business coming out of a meeting at the University of Oxford Centre for Environment. I was accosted by enthusiastic hawkers at the gates who thrusted a free bag into my hands on behalf of those deeply green and globally concerned people at BP. Nice to know that they have found a way of blowing their immorally high profits. When I read the attached card my irritation passed into dumb astonishment. On the front was a picture of scorching desert with the caption “Ever wanted to go to one of the hottest places on earth?” and on the back was the BP logo with the heading “We’ll take you there, and beyond”.

The text is offering graduates a junket to Houston to experience the wonders of BP’s whizz bang headquarters and its “virtual reality 3-D imaging room that allows you to explore energy reserves….it’s a chance to see some really hot stuff- in a part of the world that does get a little warm at times”. Well clearly the writers are permanently locked into their virtual reality headsets if they can fail to see the bitter ironies in all this.

Many many thanks to everyone who sent these in. Please if you see a ludicrous advert sent it to me at george@coinet.org.uk. When I have enough I will post them up and the cream of the crop will be featured at some point in the Guardian newspaper.