The Chant of the Barbie Dolls

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/07/robin-mckie-benny-peiser-climate?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Benny Peiser says:

"While I reject economically damaging and, for that reason, politically unattainable climate policies, I am in favour of adapting to a changing climate and making our societies more resilient, as mankind has throughout its existence. "

Peiser is personally entitled to reject "economically damaging" policies to tackle climate change, but he is NOT entitled to the non-sequiteur that they are therefore "politically unattainable". As far as I am concerned, bailing out failed banks is very economically damaging (short, medium and long term), yet somehow that's "politically attainable".

In other words, he has no monopoly on the definition of what is economically damaging; and what's politically attainable is not his unilateral decision. Turkeys can vote for Christmas, if the alternative is ending up as foie gras. If society decides to damage HIS (by definition short term) economic interests (and/or mine) for the sake of long term avoidance of the impact of climate change, so be it. The fact that he is "in favour of adapting to a changing climate....." is the same as saying he is in favour of wrapping up warm when it's cold out i.e. he is saying and advocating precisely nothing. Of course we're not REALLY talking about his or my economic interests, we're talking about Lawson et al's economic interests, aren't we?

If Peiser can make associations like "climate change policies are economically damaging" then anyone can. "Climate change policies are economically favourable" because they include the introduction of new forms of technology giving rise to new jobs in brand new economic sectors. That's just as likely to be correct and/or just as easy to argue. Not to mention that when ever it happens, and it will, fossil fuels will run out: "Early adaptors of alternative technologies will benefit, in the same way as early adaptors of fossil fuel economics did." See? I can make up baseless assertions that sound like they make sense as well as Peiser. Which is why we have the scientific method. Peiser's assertions about the nature of the credibility of climate science are just that - assertions with no basis in fact.

What's interesting though is that he appears so embedded (of course, given his job), his implicit assumptions make clear to the rest of us what we really need to understand:

The political process is so corrupt that it can't represent the interests of ordinary people, so hijacked has it been by vested short term interests. If you want something done about climate change, voting labour, tory, lib dem or green wont help. It's only through sustained grass roots activism akin to the abolitionist movement, or the civil rights or anti-war movements in the US in the '60's that sufficient change will take place. These examples show us it can, even in the teeth of the vicious guard-dogs slavering to "protect" us from "economic damage".

His late stage denialist position: "ok, global warming can occur due to anthropogenic CO2, but it wont be as bad as they say" is the "modern dinner-party denialist about town" fall back stance of surprisingly many otherwise well educated but, crucially, innumerate middle class opinion formers. Over ciabatta they opine: "Global warming, oh sure that exists, but predicting the future, computer models, what's all that about? I'm sure it can't be as bad as all that". How long will it take for the fall back to the "ok, global warming is real, and it will be bad as you said, BUT ......" stance?