Say I were to ask you to prove that the dinosaurs were wiped out when an asteroid collided with the Earth 66 million years ago, in what is now snappily called the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction event.
If you were as weirdly obsessed by these catastrophes as I am, you would maybe start by citing the worldwide layer of sediment known as K-Pg boundary, which was first discovered near Gubbio, Italy, and is thought to be the fallout from a massive explosion. You would mention the soot that is associated with this layer, the site of a huge impact in the Yucatan region of Mexico 66 million years ago and, finally, you would ask what else could have caused the dinosaurs to die out more or less overnight. A skeptic might respond that this is all supposition, evidence tenuously linked to fit a very recent theory: None of it constitutes proof and no one can ever know why the dinosaurs vanished to allow the rise of mammals and the eventual evolution of man.
So you would quote more evidence, such as the presence in the K-Pg layer of iridium, an element rare on Earth, but not in asteroids, as well as the altered state of quartz, which can only be made under extremely high pressure, such as is caused by a huge impact of a 10km asteroid. You would mention the long darkness when only ferns grew and the fact that the seas were emptied of all but the most tenacious species.
Ah, but this is still all very hypothetical, the skeptic would say, at which point you might give up and tell him, yes, a spacecraft might have visited Earth and exterminated 75 percent of the world’s species, but you’re going with the best available evidence. The skeptic would walk away, satisfied that he had achieved a draw, not from the merit of his argument, but simply because he had not let you convince him.
This is where it is with the climate change deniers. The absolute proof of man-made global warming is unlikely to arrive until it is too late and so the deniers are scrupulously indulged with equal time in the argument, where nothing is ever good enough for them.
They are always the sniping antagonists,who rarely, if ever, stand up to say: We believe in the following facts and here is our research.
MAKE A CASE
It is a risk-free strategy — at least for the moment — that comes almost exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not, incentivized by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today program, I finally boiled over.
It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man’s activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.
Until such a conference is held and people such as Lawson, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, Samuel Brittan and Viscount Ridley — names that begin to give you some idea of the demographic — are required to provide the proof of their case, rather than feeding off that of their opponents, they should be treated with mild disdain. I do not say deniers should be banned from media outlets, as the Web site Reddit has attempted to do, but just that there should be agreement that they must now qualify, with argument and facts, for the balanced coverage they receive in such places as the BBC.
I believe so passionately in the Natural Causes Climate Change Conference (the NCCCC, perhaps) that the fee for this column is offered to start the ball rolling. And I will be the first to buy a ticket, because the deniers’ case has about a tenth of the strength of the warmists’ case and I want to see them flounder, as all the scientific guns are trained on them. Of course this will not happen — why would someone such as Lawson exchange the comfortable position of ringside critic for the roll of protagonist? However, for him and the rest of the deniers, a failure to put up will soon mean they have to shut up, simply because no one is listening.
With each new freak weather event, they look more and more superfluous to the debate about how humanity is to survive the 21st century.
For the moment, they have a disproportionate influence because they have created the illusion that this is a finely balanced discussion where a person can reasonably support either side. They empower a certain amount of stupidity, laziness, selfishness and ignorance in the minds of many, and I hope some of the younger deniers, though few, live to acknowledge responsibility.
I mentioned that most deniers come from the right and it is true the uninterrupted business of capitalism, which often entails waste of resources and energy, is a priority, but there is something deeper that explains why there are so few deniers from the left and that is to do with conservative mind. In his 1956 essay On Being Conservative, the philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote that the man of conservative temperament is “not in love with what is dangerous and difficult; he is unadventurous; he has no impulse to sail uncharted seas. What others plausibly identify as timidity, he recognizes in himself as rational prudence. He eyes the situation in terms of its propensity to disrupt the familiarity of the features of his world.”
This is so perceptive about the conservative instinct and I think it explains the reluctance among many sane people to come to grips with the enormous implications of man-made climate change: the radical actions that must be taken to avert further rises and how societies and economic systems should be adapted to cope with extreme weather events associated with even the tiniest temperature rise, which are now agreed by both sides.
To suspend hostilities for a moment, it seems to me that both sides should start by considering the undeniable waste of energy in cities, where office lights shine through the night and supermarkets pump out hot air at open entrances and cold air in their freezer sections. Saving energy and a huge insulation program might prevent the construction of more wasteful wind turbines, some of which, in the extreme weather of last week, burst into flames or had to be shut down.
Some agreement must be achieved soon or the deniers will not be the only dinosaurs.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented