What the liberal elite feel you should know about 'Climate Change'

Bishop Hill has a summary – at once fascinating, deeply revealing and rather chilling – of a recent workshop staged at Oxford University to discuss the role of the media in reporting Climate Change. (hat tip: Barry Woods)

It shows that EVEN NOW as far as the liberal elite is concerned, all public doubts about AGW are merely a question of “false consciousness” in need of correction rather than the result of evidence-based scepticism.

Here is the BBC’s Richard Black:

I’m not surprised at the level of UK scepticism as the main impacts of climate change are decades away and in other places. The problem is poor science awareness. We need to improve science education so people properly understand climate science.

Here is the Guardian’s David Adam:

The meaning of sceptic is very specific. It’s not taxi drivers or people who don’t want to pay higher electricity bills. It’s someone who knows better and takes a contrary view for pathological reasons. No journalists believe that climate science was undermined by the emails.

Here is the Financial Times’s Fiona Harvey:

Sceptics were clever in choosing their name. We do need a new name, denier won’t work because of Holocaust associations.

Later we find Ms Harvey yearning – inna Sir-John-Houghton-stylee – for a catastrophe that will show all us denier/sceptics JUST HOW WRONG WE ARE:

Climate scientists aren’t generally newsworthy; sceptics, IPCC problems and emails are making the news. “Climate – guess what? Still changing” is an unlikely headline. A short-term disaster is needed to guarantee coverage as people aren’t good at processing information about there being no ice at the poles in 30 years.

You couldn’t make it up. By far the scariest contributions, though, come from a Sun editor called Ben Jackson. A notionally right-wing tabloid is not what you’d normally associate with the liberal elite, but his remarks betray exactly the same prejudices as those of the Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC. I leave readers to speculate why this might be.

Here, for example, is yer Sun man’s remarkable bizarre statement about Jeremy Clarkson:

People listen to Jeremy Clarkson who’s sceptical (although eventually Jeremy will come round).

What’s he proposing? Blackmail? Thumbscrews? Contract withdrawal?

Still, it’s not all bad news. Here’s the Sun editor again on how the public mood is changing:

The other day a Sun driver talked to me about the Medieval Warm Period. That wouldn’t have happened 6 months ago. All climate science will now be tested and people will ask how strong the science really is. There’s been a perfect storm of things going wrong – Climategate, Copenhagen, Met Office predictions – it could only be worse if David Attenborough had been caught in bed with Lord Monckton.

5 thoughts on “What the liberal elite feel you should know about 'Climate Change'”

  1. Here is the BBC’s Richard Black:
    “I’m not surprised at the level of UK scepticism as the main impacts of climate change are decades away and in other places.”

    Actually James, he is bang on with that sentence even though he does not outline the “main impacts”. The ONE certain thing we do know is that climate will change. As to weather (sic) it is warmer or cooler, that is the real question.

    and by the way you little rascal……quoting the Sun! Though the last line did make me laugh!

  2. For an insight into how the liberal elite corrupted science, it pays to cast an eye over Jerome Ravetz, his pals and their “new paradign” of Post Normal Science, summarized well here:


    Oh, and as a special treat it’s got a link to another Willis Eschenbach symphony of scorn at the silly old git, and I’m starting to become a bit of a WE fan. Are he and the ‘pole channelling one another?

    Ravetz, an old Marxist-turned-Quaker who affects a disarming well-meaning-old-mannerism, seems to have been the guy who, round about the end of the 80s, started telling the world of physics it was OK to lie in a noble cause. Seems the old way science was done wasn’t produced results he approved of, so he decided a “new paradigm” was needed, in which the antiquated and unfruitful notion of truth was replaced by something called quality, which he doesn’t see the need to define.
    He’s now agonising (at WUWT) over why it all went to buggery, and seems unable to draw the painful conclusion that his own tendentious ramblings have legitimised scientific corruption.

    He frets about science adapting to the “new conditions in which it now operates”, without arguing convincingly, or indeed at all, what those new conditions are. In reality of course there never were any new conditions – they, along with the need for a “new paradigm” existed only in the minds of that seemingly fixed percentage of any generation which believes it will be the last to walk the face of the earth if everybody doesn’t listen up, mend their evil ways and do what they say.

    Ravetz writes lethally bad prose, so those of you tempted to try to fathom his intellectual meanderings, beware – probably best to stick to the summaries of others. Seriously.

  3. just realised I posted a link to your own piece! Sorry… surfeit of Chateau Collapseau…

  4. Cameron was on Talk Sport this morning(4th March). He was asked what he would do about climate change , now that the whole idea has been more and more discredited.He said that even if the underlying science was wrong, and we were only going to suffer a propotion of the impending climate change, then we still must act in the same way to reduce emissions, etc., Thus however much the science is proven to be incorrect he will STILL pursue the same discredited policies.According to this logic, at what point would he NOT act against GW-a true figure of 50%, 30%, or maybe 1% of the predicted GW? …do tell us. In other words -I’m sticking with the policies even though the underlying science has been disproved.He would commit us to all the unwanted spending rather than lose face!

Comments are closed.