Tuesday, 9 July 2019

Oligarchs, think tanks, marketing and global warming

Somewhere near you?
Sixty five years ago I had my first school chemistry lesson  with, "Doggy Collins"  a scary old Welshman. I clearly remember two topics that are relevant today, the gases comprising the earth's atmosphere and the, "scientific method".

The air we breathed then contained approximately 300 ppm of carbon dioxide it now contains 400 ppm, a 25 per cent increase in 65 years. This is a scientific fact, in other words there is a very strong probability that it is true. Doggy's scientific method involved three steps;

  • Observe the situation
  • Formulate a hypothesis 
  • Test your hypothesis by experimentation 
I should add a fourth....... present your methods, results, discussion and conclusions to the scientific community to seek consensus by peer review.

Scientific consensus about climate change has strengthened considerably since 1990, ninety seven per cent of published climate scientists  now agree that climate change is being driven by human activity ( Anthropogenic Global Warming).

Meanwhile there is a vociferous minority, in the USA  and UK denying that this is the case. They  are presumably happy to accept scientific consensus if it benefits their health or wealth but not if it means radical lifestyle change and inconvenience. People on every continent are experiencing the effects of climate change; from wildfires in California, to drought in Somalia and melting ice at the poles.

Closer to home; in the 1950s Crofters in this village made hay and grew oats, the climate was good enough at the appropriate time to make hay and harvest oats. Now it could not be done, the summers are too wet for haymaking and September too wet for harvesting cereals. Our annual rainfall in the W. Highlands has increased by 45 per cent in the last 20 years. We don't have significantly more wet days but when it does rain the rainfall is much heavier. 

Who are the deniers?....... and why do they do it?

In the USA and the UK anthropogenic global warming denial is generated and lead by right wing  think tanks and media funded by oligarchs and business corporations who have a vested interest in avoiding any mediation, it would lower their income and increase their costs. So, the "think tanks" churn out misinformation ( fake news) to create doubt about the science. This benefits their owners by decreasing support for mediation measures. The myths and misinformation are readily adopted by populist right wing politicians..... you know who they are!

The think tanks, right wing media and their supporters use the same tactics that gave us consumerism.... marketing!. They influence public support by casting doubt on the consensus among scientists. In the UK it has been found that only 11% of voters believed that the scientific consensus was 90% or more....... very effective marketing.  The gap generated between the public perception of scientific consensus and it's reality has delayed effective action to mitigate climate change.

If you are part of the consensus and recognise the global climate crisis you can outwit the  deniers by countering myths and misinformation, but more effectively by inoculating people against new myths......... explain how science works!  here is some ammunition  .....The effects of climate change NASA


Michael Mable said...

Unfortunately, so much emphasis now seems to be palced on whether you "believe" in climate change, or whether Brexit will be good or bad for the UK. Standing back and calmly evaluating the known facts before deciding on a course of action seems to be regrettably out of fashion.

Tom Bryson said...


I think it's called "moral relativism" or in other words, " if I choose to believe in something e.g. vaccines are unsafe and cause autism, without any proof and counter to scientific findings then it's true because I want it to be.

Tom Bryson said...

Moral relativism is the rejection of any absolute universal rule as to how we should behave, morality is culturally defined.

Donald Trump's daily utterances on Twitter are a good example, if he believes something then regardless of scientific evidence or other proof it's true because he wants it to be true. This could also be true of B.Johnson one of the Tory candidates for leader of the Tories and next Prime Minister. It's a rejection of renaissance and scientific revolution values that have underpinned our culture for the last 400 years..... back to the dark ages perhaps.

In the case of the Oligarchs and their "think tanks" it's just greed and a lust for power morality isn't involved.