SOME PEOPLE WANT US TO BE IN DENIAL
25 09 2007This is from memory and was actually about the UK Foreign Office method of ‘handling’ a crisis about which they have no intention of doing anything…
1. Say there isn’t a problem.
2. Say that there might be a problem but we need to work out how serious it is.
3. Say there is a problem and there might be something we can do but we need to work out what to do before we do it.
4. Say there may have been something we could have done but that it is too late now.[1]
I was put in mind of the above this morning when I looked at BBC website and saw this…
Man causing climate change - poll
Large majorities in many countries
now believe human activity is causing global warming, a BBC World Service poll suggests.
A sizeable majority of people agreed that major steps needed to be taken soon to address global warming.
More than 22,000 people were surveyed in 21 countries and the results show a great deal of agreement on the issue.
Well woohoo for them. I wonder how many are prepared to do something themselves, but that is another question.
Further…
An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that “human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change”.
Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying “it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon”.
In none of the countries did a majority say no action was necessary to combat climate change.
Why has it taken so damn long to get to even this stage?
One of the reasons is that some people have been trying extremely hard to stop other people getting the basic concepts right…
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints. 1. “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications. 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”. 3. Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings. 4. “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”. 5. “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”. 6. “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.” They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years(9). [2]
There is also the well documented funding of climate sceptics by those with most to lose by the alterations that have to be made.
There are also always those willing to capitalise on any tragedy.
There needs to be major changes in environmental regulation especially in the business aviation (and transport more generally) sectors. There needs to be nothing short of a revolution in agriculture- we all literally eat oil - and there needs to be a major effort on the part of the population.
The fact that many are only waking up about it now is proof of a disaster brought about not through wilful ignorance but through various attempts to castrate, silence or falsify discussion.
I hope we still have enough time to prevent a serious catastrophe.
[1] From the BBC programme ‘Yes, Prime Minister’.
[2] http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/
Recent Comments