31 May 2010

Andrew Marr Summarizes the Climate Debate in Two Paragraphs

From this weekend's FT:

Global warming is dangerously overheated. To the bemused onlooker, it seems to be a branch of predictive science dominated by empurpled men bellowing at one another. Self-righteous doomsters lick their lips as they list the horrors rushing towards us as a direct result of our greed and selfishness. Self-righteous “sceptics” pounce on mistakes by scientists to denounce the whole man-made global warming thesis as a leftish, hairshirt-wearers’ plot.

There is no escape from the shouting. However meticulous the science, prediction is only prediction. As Ian McEwan recently reminded us in his novel Solar, climate science is as riven by ego, jealousy, mixed motives and exaggeration as any other branch of human thought. The range of possible outcomes seems confusingly wide.


  1. "Global warming is dangerously overheated."

    That's due to screamhouse gases. ;)

  2. This is still a biased comment by a journalist employed by the most hysterical alarmist media organisation on planet earth. The BBC is at the financial mercy of the British government, the prime mover of international global warming agreements.

    He basically supports the 'meticulous' science, but condemns extremists on both sides. Pushing the usual corporate left vs right divide and rule meme. The book itself, recommended by Marr ,supports the supposition that global warming is real and will change the British climate.

    For me, there is one outstanding truth. AGW is a corporate / banking scam to impose carbon trading on the world. Notwithstanding any science. Below is my page of article stubs, detailing the history of carbon trading and support for global warming by all major corporations and banks.

    In particular, it reveals the pivotal role of Enron in promoting the green agenda, inserting carbon trading into article 16 of the Kyoto Protocol and funding environmental groups.

    Carbon trading

  3. Certain “Environmentalists” seem to be sensitive to mundane knowledge. That the masses, armed with a ton of mundane knowledge regarding the environment, are overlooked. The “overlooking” the voice of the masses with their mundane information then earns a badge of honor for certain “environmentalists“ who spend their time in the quest and belief in non-empirical “special knowledge”.

    It’s the argument of historically tested accumulated mundane knowledge vs. non-empirical special knowledge. Hence it may well boil down to the classic argument between the anointed/intelligentsia view and the tragic/empirical view.

  4. The problem is there is almost no debate, just two silos lobbing insults at one another. The only exception to this is your dad's site. He actuall gets climate scientists on opposite sides of the debate exchanging ideas with relevant charts, graphs and discussion. Its unfortunate there are so few sites like his.

  5. since you (in)directly brought it up, I'm wondering Roger how you think your own ego and motives figure into this debate...

  6. The problem with Andrew Marr is that he is Andrew Marr - a professional liberal apologist .

    In one TV interview a few years back I remember Andrew Marr state that the Artic Sea no longer freezes in winter. So he is/was a true believer. So his statement, "Global warming is dangerously overheated" is just his embarrassed repositioning on the subject and not an objective re-reading of the issue.

  7. The current 'balanced' position of the BBC can be ascertained by reading James Delingole's report on a BBC radio programme by Marr's esteemed BBC colleague Justin Rowlatt (Ethical Man) which opens with the statement

    "Climate change is a divisive issue. I believe that it is a real threat and needs to be tackled. I know many people disagree. But whatever you believe you should be concerned about how our society responds to the issue because there is a growing view that mitigating climate change means we have to change our view of democracy.

    Halina Ward of the Foundation For Democracy And Sustainable Development says "We don’t have to be driven by what 50% plus 1 of the population wants to say that we represent a majority view."


    Meyer Hillman:

    Democracy allows people the freedom not to be obliged to do things that we know we must do, so how can one possibly say yes but the principle of democracy must prevail over and above protection of the global environment from excessive burning of fossil fuels? Given the choice, I would sadly – very, very sadly – say that the condition of the planet in the future for future generations is.