February 9, 2010
In Praise of…William Hague?
On Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show, William Hague went on-record declaring that everyone in the shadow cabinet “accepts that there’s a compelling case on climate change, and a strong scientific case.” He carefully manoeuvred his response to say that climate change deniers shouldn’t be “demonised” because there’s a “legitimate debate” to be had. And contrary to the sentiments of Green Purists, this is tactically a very a sensible thing to say. It avoids ClimateHate.
Hague then dispelled any ambiguity by declaring that even if one were agnostic about AGW, or thought it was only 50% likely that the science supporting it was correct, “then that would be a sufficiently massive risk for the whole future of the planet and the human race that you would need to take pretty drastic action and that we would need to take the pretty drastic action of the sort that was being looked for at Copenhagen.”
He rounded off by saying that even on the most basic precautionary principles we need to take action against climate change.
So credit where credit’s due. Well done Mr Hague. Indeed, for all his other failings David Cameron too has stood firm on this issue. Whatever else they get wrong (and that’s pretty much everything), I applaud the Conservative leadership for not being pressured by the rampant denialism of their grass-roots, frequently evidenced on websites like Iain Dale’s Diary and ConservativeHome.
Whether the Tory top brass can put these good words into action post-2010 is another matter. There are already influential backbenchers like Douglas Carswell MP spouting denialism from their blogs, whilst former Chancellor Nigel Lawson has set himself up with the denier camp. It’s been observed that most of the expected incoming Tory MPs this spring are climate change “sceptics”.
Cameron and Co have so-far avoided pandering to an apparent growth in popular denialism. Liberal Conspiracy yesterday analysed a new poll which appears to show that climate scepticism is on the rise. Although this may have as much to do with the recent unusually cold weather, one has to wonder if the hacked UEA emails and the much-publicised false glacier claims are taking their toll.
But what certainly doesn’t help is the media persistently presenting the issue of climate change as though there is some sort of “debate”, with two equal sides. This is especially infuriating when the science is unequivocally supportive of man-made climate change, regardless of hacked emails about tree rings or one false claim about melting glaciers in a 1000 page document.
We already expect little better from the likes of The Express and The Daily Mail. But as Sunny recently raged, the BBC are at it too. Never mind the Telegraph and Spectator blogs, both hotbeds of rampant denialism.
As i’ve remarked before, the modern media presents a particularly acute problem on the issue of climate change. What to do about enormously dangerous, irresponsible, scientifically-ignorant and misleading reporting in a democracy with a free press is an aggravating question. Of course, I certainly think that free speech and freedom of the press includes the right to spout scientific ignorance – under normal conditions. But is it the same when such irresponsible reporting makes it harder to take measures required to save the entire planet? Should we perhaps ban climate denialism?
It looks like a difficult question, but really it’s dead in the water. Banning climate denialism would be self-defeating because it would only fuel the fires of conspiracy. A free press spouting climate denialism is currently a fact of life. The question is how to deal with that in a non-counterproductive way.
In all honesty, I don’t even know where to begin in effecting positive change. Yet here the Tory Party have a crucial role to play in preventing things getting worse. For as one of the two main parties, they help set the parameters of legitimate debate and action.
This is really important. As I noted last week, democracies run on legitimacy. Policies can only be conceived and enacted within the parameters of what is widely regarded as acceptable, both within and without a particular party. If the Tories embrace climate scepticism, this will legitimate denialism as a mainstream position – thereby encouraging more people to subscribe to it, and in turn legitimating any denialist activities emanating from a Tory government.
By contrast, if Cameron and his clique hold steadfast against the deniers, then there remains hope (however small) that meaningful action may be taken to avert disaster.
Outrageous as it sounds, forget about the economy. The most important thing David Cameron must do over the next 5 years is defy his own grass roots and continue to stick to the science. If the Tories plunge into climate denialism, then we really are in trouble.
freethinkingeconomist said,
February 9, 2010 at 9:36 am
Great post. I’ve stuck it on my Top Blogging sidebar . .
Greece, money printing, immigration and inequality « Freethinking Economist said,
February 9, 2010 at 1:39 pm
[...] Not all Tories are deniers. Paul Sagar praises Hague, and boils it down nicely: Outrageous as it sounds, forget about the economy. The most important thing David Cameron must do over the next 5 years is defy his own grass roots and continue to stick to the science. If the Tories plunge into climate denialism, then we really are in trouble. [...]
Tweets that mention In Praise of…William Hague? « Bad Conscience -- Topsy.com said,
February 9, 2010 at 2:40 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Claire Spencer, Paul Sagar. Paul Sagar said: In Praise of…William Hague? http://badconscience.com/2010/02/09/in-praise-of-william-hague/ [...]