Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

Support the Guardian

Fund independent journalism with $15 per month
Support us
Support us
Former Conservative chancellor Lord Lawson says he is not a climate change denier but is 'sceptical' about global warming policy. Photograph: Martin Argles
Former Conservative chancellor Lord Lawson says he is not a climate change denier but is 'sceptical' about global warming policy. Photograph: Martin Argles

The voices of climate change sceptics

This article is more than 15 years old
Thinktanks, lords and shock jocks are just some of the dissenters in the climate change debate

The furore over the climate scientists' emails has given an unexpected boost to global warming sceptics on both sides of the Atlantic, but none outside that small circle believe the affair will divert governments, businesses or communities from seeking a low-carbon future.

The affair lifted the launch, announced in The Times, of a new "high-powered" think tank on climate change by Lord Nigel Lawson, the former Conservative Chancellor and current global warming critic. He denies he is a climate change sceptic, but is "sceptical" about the policy response. He found the perfect platform to promote his Global Warming Policy Foundation while also calling for an independent inquiry into the content of the emails.

The director of the GWPF, headquartered in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, is Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool's John Moores University, who has argued concern about climate change has reached "near hysteria".

Its board of trustees includes Lord Barnett, a former vice-chairman of the BBC who voted against the Climate Change Bill, and the Bishop of Chester, who has argued there was no consensus among climate change scientists that "carbon dioxide levels are the key determinant".

Its academic advisory council includes Prof Ian Plimer, an Australian who argues volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. "Some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics", said Ward. "To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US. It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny".

In the US, the trove of hacked emails seemed heaven-sent for America's most devoted climate contrarians.

Among the last citadels of climate change deniers – the radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Senator James Inhofe – the emails were touted as evidence of a worldwide scientific conspiracy. Inhoffe said. "They cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

Limbaugh said: "I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. "

But such outrage is likely to remain confined to the margins of American political debate. In Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science – including Inhofe.

In the business world, some of the biggest players in the fossil fuel economy – such as Rio Tinto, Shell and General Motors – have joined USCAP, the business partnership that is supporting efforts to get a legislation through Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

"I can say conclusively that the hacked emails are just blips of information that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the push to get policymakers to back the science," said Anne Kelly, the policy director at Ceres, a sustainable business network whose members include PepsiCo, American Airlines and Bloomberg. "One can't help but think of the reaction of buggy whip manufacturers in the early part of the 20th century when the horseless carriage was created. The consensus has transcended political boundaries. It has transcended sectors. It is not an environmental movement anymore – it's smart business and investors agree."

In the political world, the email affair has elicited no comment and came as it was announced that 65 national leaders had so far pledged to attend the Copenhagen talks, almost a third of the total.

More on this story

More on this story

  • The era of climate change 'denial' is over

  • Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

  • Google hosts fundraiser for climate change denying US senator

More from Headlines

More from Headlines

  • Israel-Gaza war
    Palestinians to return to northern Gaza after deal on Israeli civilian hostage reached, says Qatar

  • Elon Musk
    Jewish non-profit chief says Musk will spur violence with his ‘Nazi salute’

  • US immigration
    Colombia accepts deportees after earlier blocking flights and incurring Trump tariffs

  • NFL
    NFC championship game: Washington Commanders v Philadelphia Eagles

  • Art and design
    Two Van Gogh paintings to be shown in London for first time

  • France
    British sailor lost at sea after yacht found ‘eviscerated’ off French coast

  • Belarus
    Belarus exit poll puts Lukashenko on 87.6% of vote in presidential election

  • US Capitol attack
    JD Vance defends Trump’s January 6 pardons as Graham says it could spur more violence

  • Latvia
    Sweden opens inquiry into damaged undersea cable as Nato deploys ships

  • Animals
    The framing of the shrew: California students photograph mammal never caught on film

Comments (57)

This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next time

Comments (57)

This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next time
Sort by
Per page
Display threads
Displaying threads 1 to 25 of 57
  • Namron7
    0

    KinginYellow

    Hmm. Seems to me there is not much evidence either way. But I certainly bow to your superior knowledge of whistleblowing procedures. Would I have used them if I wanted to leak the information?

    NO.

    I do find your trust in 'official' OR 'proper' whistleblowing procedures very touching though, and I note not a trace of irony when you refer me to a direct.gov.uk site for information on best practice in this area. It's very unusual to find that level of trust in people of any political persuasion these days, and I sincerely hope you never have reason to lose your innocence.

    What's with your comparison between Telegraph coverage of MPs expenses and this issue? I get your pedantic thing about 'official' whistle-blowing routes, sure, but my whole thing was that the MSM response to the issue has been woeful - and the last time I looked the Telegraph was MSM.

  • KingInYellow
    0

    Namron7

    With regard to the whistleblower, I don't have any evidence except common sense. For instance any of the expediencies you suggest, apart from hacking the AGW websites, would lead to likely identification.

    The only evidence that exists is an attempted hacking of Real Climate.
    There is no evidence of a whistle blower.

    Proper whistleblowing procedures exist in most if not all professional organisations and are specifically designed to ensure that any attempt at whistle blowing does not reveal the identity of the whistle blower in the first instance. I have experience of using my own company's procedure for example and have suffered no detriment. That process expressly obscures the identity of the whistleblower. I would be extremely surprised if UEA did not have a comparable procedure. ACAS and UK government best practice guidelines are quite clear on this:

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DG_10026552

    Any whistle blower, with an ounce of real evidence, would also be able to approach the mainstream media, as I pointed out, and not only get it published anonymously, but would also receive financial reward.

    For example, those who got the Commons' expenses published took that route. That was front page material for several weeks. All the so called evidence for the climate change evidence got from the same paper (The Torygraph), was a belated article on the inside, and isn't even mentioned in today's edition.

    Thanks for your input.

Most viewed

Most viewed