This blog is an outlet for my personal thoughts and views. It is generally concerned with life, science, nature and the world around us. It will often cover items about surfing, or should that be especially about surfing. There may also be some philosophical discourse. There will not be any politics and very little religion. I must point out all views expressed are my own and are not intended to offend anyone, or be taken as proven facts - there are times when I have been proven to be incorrect or misguided. While I try to be accurate, I am human and will make mistakes, so please be understanding.

Gallery

Saturday, 4 June 2011

I deny that I exist

Following on from the thread of earlier postings about deniers and sceptics here's the next instalment of the piece written in the New Scientist.


A lie can be an important tool in the arsenal of a denial group, especially when considering that we believe that which we can perceive, something which I will talk about another day. A prime example of this can be shown by the story of a quote given by John Houghton, a former chair of the IPCC;

“Unless we announce disaster no one will listen”

This quote was published by an Australian journalist as evidence that climate change warnings were deliberately exaggerated. Before taking this any further consider that the journalist is a conservative who disbelieves climate science.
On face value the quote seems pretty damning, especially considering its source. 
This quote then went on to be used the following year by a Canadian journalist and again at a later date in an article by a scholar at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Slowly the quote has gone on to be used in several books, on blog postings (and here’s yet another one) and many web sites, eventually becoming cited as prime evidence by climate change deniers. Great you may say, what’s the problem. Well I suppose the real problem is that John Houghton never said or wrote those words.
This lie became prominent because it had a degree of believability about it to those who first used it i.e. people hostile to climate change are always likely to believe that Scientists are trying to bully them with extreme ideas. Once taken up as genuine by these few it is then easy enough in today’s technology/information age for the masses to come into contact with the statement, taking what was once a lie and for many making it true.
The moral of this being that you should always check your sources and question the motives of those providing the information. So, what’s my angle?