Have I seen The New Jerusalem?

[Pabmusic]

Indeed. The dangers of this are obvious, but I imagine that the extent of these kinds of attitude is greater in some countries than in others - perhaps much greater in one large one than in most others, indeed.

Oh yes. To the extent that some religious fundamentalists in the large country openly argue that the planet was given by god for us to do with as we please, and this is what you would expect as 'the rapture' approaches.

[ahinton]

Oh yes. To the extent that some religious fundamentalists in the large country openly argue that the planet was given by god for us to do with as we please, and this is what you would expect as 'the rapture' approaches.

Were anything remotely like this to generate that nation's climate change policies, I shudder to imagine the consequences!

That said, I'm not really sure as to the extent to which complacency over climate change is down to the noises made by these often vociferous nutters as distinct from vested interest international fossil fuel exploration and distribution corporations, though each is clearly a large spanner in the works. Whereas one can scoff at the former (its dangers notwithstanding), the obsessive pursuit of commercial interests on the part of the latter is extraordinary when such interests could be pursued by those firms changing horses in mid-stream and investing increasingly in renewables / sustainables and decreasingly in fossil fuels; there seems to be a misperception that exploration, development and distribution of renewable and sustainable forms of energy is somehow incapable of generating massive profits just because it's "green". Whilst I am not for one moment advocating the encouragement of global renewable and sustainable energy resources just so that the big boys can simply derive their vast profits from these rather than from fossil fuels, it's those very big boys that seem determined to remain resistant to involvement in it as though it would harm them commercially.

As I've said before, I have no idea to what extent global climate change could be controlled by the gradual replacement of fossil fuel dependency by renewable and sustainable energy resource dependency, but there are those who believe that it may have long-term beneficial effects in this regard and, in the meantime, the air pollution benefits are beyond question in any case and one might therefore have thought that these alone would be reason enough to motivate this process of change.

[Richard Barrett]

This is interesting

Yes it is. Of course the development of science isn't so to speak "democratic", so that the fact that there are only 24 CC-denying papers out of 13 950 papers on climate change over 20 years doesn't in itself make the 24 wrong. After all, there was a time when Galileo was right about planetary movements and almost everyone else was wrong. On the other hand, what deniers among laypeople often don't appreciate is that scientists in general are not wedded to their ideas as if they were beliefs (unless they're paid to be): when quantum theory was proposed by a few physicists at the beginning of the twentieth century it went against all theories of physics which had hitherto existed, yet within a couple of decades it had become accepted as the best and most accurate theory of the nature of matter and energy, and it still is. Why was this? Because it explained previous observations in a deeper and more general way than had previously been possible, and because it enabled accurate predictions to be made (on which are based most of the technology we use now every day). Conversely, the reason why CC-denial science has remained the preserve of a tiny fringe of scientists is that it does neither of these things.

Part of the problem here is that many if not most people have very little idea of what the concept of a "scientific theory" (as opposed to a belief) actually means, primarily because the philosophy of science isn't taught in schools alongside science itself. It isn't difficult to understand; but the preservation of a certain level of ignorance among the population, so as to enable fears and prejudices to be manipulated more easily, is so convenient to the state/capital conglomerate that one might imagine it was deliberate policy.

[ahinton]

Yes it is. Of course the development of science isn't so to speak "democratic", so that the fact that there are only 24 CC-denying papers out of 13 950 papers on climate change over 20 years doesn't in itself make the 24 wrong. After all, there was a time when Galileo was right about planetary movements and almost everyone else was wrong. On the other hand, what deniers among laypeople often don't appreciate is that scientists in general are not wedded to their ideas as if they were beliefs (unless they're paid to be): when quantum theory was proposed by a few physicists at the beginning of the twentieth century it went against all theories of physics which had hitherto existed, yet within a couple of decades it had become accepted as the best and most accurate theory of the nature of matter and energy, and it still is. Why was this? Because it explained previous observations in a deeper and more general way than had previously been possible, and because it enabled accurate predictions to be made (on which are based most of the technology we use now every day). Conversely, the reason why CC-denial science has remained the preserve of a tiny fringe of scientists is that it does neither of these things.

Part of the problem here is that many if not most people have very little idea of what the concept of a "scientific theory" (as opposed to a belief) actually means, primarily because the philosophy of science isn't taught in schools alongside science itself. It isn't difficult to understand; but the preservation of a certain level of ignorance among the population, so as to enable fears and prejudices to be manipulated more easily, is so convenient to the state/capital conglomerate that one might imagine it was deliberate policy.

Two more paragraphs stuffed with great good sense; many thanks. Whilst I agree that the absence of teaching of - or even reference to - the philosophy of science in schools is obviously a major influential factor here, it still seems to me strange that some people can't seem to tell - or even be concerned to tell or be able to tell - the basic difference between ideas clearly and overtly based and dependent upon faith and those that are predicated upon bona fide joined-up scientific research; perhaps that's the biggest worry of all in this. You are quite right also to imply that the creation and promulgation of a climate of fear is an inherent necessity for those determined to manipulate masses of people in service of their agendas. I wish that, among others, more journalists would recognise and capitalise (sorry!) on this in ways that might help to challenge such manipulation; some do, of course - and some do it very well and convincingly - but most of them don't write for the national dailies.

[teamsaint]

There is a really big problem here. No doubt RB is correct about the failure to teach philosophy of science. But that is, as he suggests, just a start point. The question "Why" is really terribly important.If it is so important in such a technologically interdependent world, why on earth is it ignored? I know we could ask the same question in other areas too.I know what I think; it's too important for ordinary people to know about.
Too many of us probably ARE unable to tell what is " bona fide joined-up scientific research", and what is research produced in the interests of a pressure or lobby group. Governments (and governmental bodies) have relied on dubious evidence too often, and trust disappears.
Regarding climate change, at least some scepticism is borne out of the economics of the thing. People see ever more efficient green technology, yet ever faster rising bills. And critically, they see the dangers of yet more financial exploitation in carbon trading.
The question of carbon trading needs looking at now, before the vested interests get their way. it will be too late in a few years time. So for now, protest is based on fear and belief, because by the time the financial evidence is in, it will be too late, systems will be set up, the damage done.
Belief and trust are important. We ought to be able to trust our governments. We need to believe that they are acting in our best interests.

[Serial_Apologist]

Regarding climate change, at least some scepticism is borne out of the economics of the thing. People see ever more efficient green technology, yet ever faster rising bills.

And they're told to see green technology as inevitably interconnected with rising bills

And critically, they see the dangers of yet more financial exploitation in carbon trading.
The question of carbon trading needs looking at now, before the vested interests get their way.

Stopped, more like - what, after all, is "carbon trading", other than we, only civilised because we need to burn environmentally-damaging fossil fuels, bribe you, unbeknighted poor third world economy, to take our speeding penalties, for which we will gladly pay you.

[Flosshilde]

Oh dear, Cali - you seem to have a Pee infection

[Pabmusic]

...Too many of us probably ARE unable to tell what is " bona fide joined-up scientific research", and what is research produced in the interests of a pressure or lobby group. Governments (and governmental bodies) have relied on dubious evidence too often, and trust disappears...

The greater problem may be that the media does not understand the difference. 'Scientific' reporting is rarely done (for a big, sexy story) by "our science correspondent" and thus the media go for soundbites. The result of trials, studies or experiments must conclusively 'prove' something, or (better still) overthrow everything previously believed - or it isn't news. Most scientific studies do little more than increase our understanding of something we knew reasonably well already. I suspect the media was as much to blame over the terrible MMR scare than the shoddily biased study that suggested a link between MMR and autism in the first place.

I do take issue with one point, though. Whether or not any study is funded by vested interests is (if it is well conducted) not usually very relevant. The scientific method, including peer review in creditable journals, is not especially susceptible to conspiracy or cover-up. For instance, a study that examined a very narrow range of options should be apparent from the peer review. That said, there are ways in which studies can be biased - for instance by reporting only the successes and not the failures - that do not appear in peer reviews.

Returning to the MMR scandal, as soon as the media picked up on a study that gave a newsworthy message, that was the true position, and those who pointed out the flaws in the study (most of the scientific community) were the villains trying to prevent the truth emerging. And people in Swansea are suffering.

[Richard Barrett]

I do take issue with one point, though. Whether or not any study is funded by vested interests is (if it is well conducted) not usually very relevant.

The MMR misinformation, though, was indeed funded by vested interests - Andrew Wakefield was paid a total of almost half a million pounds by lawyers hoping to prove that the vaccine was damaging (and using legal aid funds!), and the payments began two years before the publication of his Lancet paper in 1998 which first claimed a connection between MMR and autism (although similar claims had been made earlier in the 1990s in the USA, which is presumably why the lawyers decided to go into action).

But you're right: when the mass media have the choice between publishing a big scare story and a scientifically valid and measured account of the issue they will almost always go for the former.

Returning to UKIP, I see that this morning Farage's party has had to "distance" itself from the fascist EDL which has endorsed it by not standing against it in upcoming council elections. I suppose their ideas do differ in detail.

[Nick Armstrong]

Oh dear, Cali - you seem to have a Pee infection

Sometimes actions speak louder than words...

[Cornet IV]

Returning to UKIP . . . .

Crikey - I think I remember them.