TalkClimateChange

Call them extremists, alarmists or fanatics, the climate change debate suffers from its fair share of those who are counterproductive and prevent progress and understanding by the propagation of extreme views.

This is a serious issue in current times as our elected leaders begin to make important decisions which may have profound impacts on our future. The danger being that the propagation of false truths into the public conscience may steer the debate away from its optimal conclusion.

We see evidence of such problems in the ongoing battle that is being fought between rival scientific camps, each claiming that the other side has made fundamental errors or omitted important data. In this case, politicians have clearly chosen sides with the mad-made global warming group, but uncertainty caused by the scientific discord prevents recommendations being fully implemented. We are therefore subjected to a bizarre game in which nobody appears to be winning.

Who are the climate extremists, how do you spot one, and how can we address this problem?

People harbouring extreme views on climate change exist on both the green and red sides of the debate. Typical behaviours of climate extremists include:

The use of sweeping generalisations which are in ignorance of basic facts

Red example: “It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is today - without any human influence” - which fails to understand the completely different planetary circumstances of the Holocene Climatic Optimum period which makes such comparisons irrelevant. 

Green example: “Current examples of glacial retreat, drought and diminishing arctic ice cover provide absolute proof of manmade climate change” - which attempts to suggest that hard evidence exists, but fails by ignoring the effects of normal regional variability as scientifically documented.

Exaggeration, particularly the use of doomsday scenarios

Green example: “Climate change will cause widespread death and human misery due to sea-level rise, drought, food shortages and spread of disease, and thus threatens to be the greatest potential disaster in the history of humanity” - completely ignoring the fact that mankind has and will always have to adapt to changing circumstances and has an impressive track-record of surviving by applying technical solutions to adverse challenges.

Red example: “Combating climate change through emissions reductions will be economically ruinous and reflects the green agenda which will only be satisfied once we are all living in caves” - completely ignoring many of the credible and less drastic solutions, as well as the potential economic costs of not addressing climate change and the knock-on benefits of decarbonising our economy.

Disconnect from the reality of the real world

Green example: “We can only stop climate change by dramatically reducing our consumption, learning to live with less and by immediately stopping or severely restricting the use of all fossil fuels” - which ignores the basic reality that mankind today lives longer, eats better and is more comfortable as a result of the carbon fed industrial revolution. Changing this overnight is impractical, dangerous and will make nobody’s life better.

Red example: “Mankind is too insignificant to have any real kind of influence on our climate - how can we possibly be responsible for global warming?” - ignoring the fact that mankind’s success has been built on the ability of our technology to master the elements of our environment, and that the human population explosion is anything but insignificant.

The climate debate is full of statements which demonstrate these characteristics. We read them every day. They offer no solutions, and threaten progress by adding confusion.

So what’s the answer to climate extremism?

As with other forms of extremism, education is often key. Unfortunately we are not convinced that the public are interested or engaged in the details, and many remain polarised on the issue. Many news sources report only one side of the argument according to their political alignment, with few media outlets providing much debate. This needs to change, and the mass media need to take a more balanced view.

Other global experience of extremism suggests that we need to keep agendas separated. Climate change is an ideal platform on which to address many perceived injustices since the villain (in the form of Co2 emissions) is a proxy for economic output. Serious discussions about the future of world climate should not be used as a platform for promotion of world socialism, suppression of third world development or any other kind of ideal or agenda. Similarly, we need to move away from the universal idea that all forms of growth are good and adopt a more sustainable approach to the use of our world’s resources as our population continues to explode. Just as any economist will tell you the dangers of runaway growth we should start listing to environmentalists too.

Finally, we need to keep the discussion real. However noble the principles, we should not forget real people. The changes that we make for the future will have impacts today. These need to be carefully considered - if there is one thing that extremism has taught us, it is that the ends rarely justify the means.