Far from supporting their extreme views, the ASA actually threw out 9 out of the 10 objections placed by the climate changes deniers.
In fact, the only one of the deniers’ points that the ASA upheld related to a technical point about the resolution of the climate models that the predictions of extreme weather events in the UK are based on – while the models are clear that the chance of more frequent heavy rainfall and heatwaves over most parts of the world is more than 90 per cent, it’s much more difficult to make specific predictions about small geographical regions such as the UK. Beyond that however, the ASA agreed that there is extremely strong evidence for human induced climate change, that there are no national or international bodies with climate science expertise that disagree, that the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars and that images of a drought and flood-ridden future were not misleading. In other words, the ASA agreed with the view of the IPCC and most green groups.
But while yesterday’s headlines were frustrating, for those of us who have been arguing for climate action to be at the heart of the next manifesto, neither this nor the recent ‘climategate’ should push us off track. We’ve known for some time (and I’ve argued elsewhere) that we need a different approach to the environment if we’re to move the mass population to act. This new approach needs to focus on the wider benefits that come from pro-environmental behaviour – using the need to act on climate change, as an excuse to bring about the wider changes that as progressives we really want to make. Surely even the most hardcore climate deniers would find it hard to argue that it’s wrong to insulate people’s homes so that they are warmer and have lower bills? That we shouldn’t be making the UK economy fit to compete in the 21st century by investing in new technologies and new industries? Or that we don’t need to rethink our energy supply so that we are less reliant upon oil imported from unstable parts of the world?
Cast in this light, the real problem with DECC’s ads is that they talked about climate change at all. It really doesn’t matter if you believe the scientific evidence that climate change is real or not – most of the actions we need to take to reduce our carbon emissions are also the right things to do if we’re to flourish in the modern world. And we’ll know we have got our environmental policies and campaigns right when they’re so compelling that the deniers don’t even spot that they’re green.
Melanie – don’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you tip your hand as an Al Gore disciple.
“climate change denier” is a term used only by zealots. Only fools believe that climate doesn’t change. There are respected climatologists and scientists of other disciplines for whom the term ‘anthropogenic climate change skeptic’ should be applied, and – believe it or not – there are those of use without scientific degrees who know bad science when we smell it.
No, I am not employed by the oil industry.
The single most important thing you and your readers need to realize is:
Consensus is politics, not science. Just ask Copernicus.
But since you are involved in politics I don’t expect a unbiased response, but it would be refreshing for once.