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.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his