Ordinary Gweilo

On Monday, the SCMP printed one of Simon Patkin’s (always entertaining) letters.  Today they have printed two replies:

Evidence of warming

Simon Patkin’s accusations of "Shrill alarmism" (October 2) reflect an increasingly aggressive right-wing view in the US that anyone who disagrees with the party line is either biased, un-American or both.

His selective evidence is telling. Would he perhaps consider the following – to use his term – "biased" evidence?

On September 20, European scientists released a photograph dated August 2003 which shows the normally ice-bound North Pole-32 meteorological research station sitting beside open water;

Satellite images last month showed dramatic openings – over an area larger than the British Isles – had appeared in the Arctic’s perennial sea ice during late-summer storms.

Scientists say it is "highly imaginable" that a ship could soon sail unhindered to the North Pole; and

The journal Science recently reported year-round Arctic sea ice shrank by one-seventh between 2004 and last year.

Mr Patkin writes that US Senator James Inhofe blames left-wing media for biased reporting. This is the same senator who called the US Environmental Protection Agency a "Gestapo bureaucracy". This is the same senator who is involved in a lawsuit to suppress a scientific report on the possible effects of climate change in the US.

This is also the same senator who has received more oil and gas campaign contributions than any senator except John Cornyn of Texas.

The recent studies Mr Patkin refers to were partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

Mr Patkin seems to espouse the view of the American right that environmental activism is simply another movement targeting US infrastructure and unity.

American self-interest has never been more aggressively pursued than in recent years.

Biased? Alarmist? Who is the pot and who is the kettle here?

DAVE DEARMAN, Tuen Mun

I think I have agree with Mr Dearman’s analysis.  Simon Patkin’s view of the world seems to be that one is either for or against capitalism, and that environmentalists are all left-wing anti-capitalists.  Of course it’s no problem to find individuals and groups who do take that extreme position, and it suits Simon to pretend that this discredits all those who express concern about the environment.

However, the reality is that concerns about global warming can now be heard from those on the right of the political spectrum (The Economist and the British Conservative Party come immediately to mind) who had previously been deeply sceptical.  In addition, many large corporations (including several energy companies) are starting to get worried, and even to take action – though Simon apparently regards them as traitors to the cause.

There probably was a time when Simon could have got away with dismissing environmentalists as irrelevant left-wing extremists, but the debate has moved on and now it is the climate-change-deniers who seem out of touch. 

There’s another letter making similar points, but then veering dangerously off course towards the end:

Vested interests

I see Simon Patkin is back on the letters page, this time citing US Senator James Inhofe to argue against man-made global warming ("Shrill alarmism", October 2).

CNN and other news media have thoroughly refuted the scientifically unsupported claims in Senator Inhofe’s recent diatribe. When the senator says that the US National Academy of Sciences believes the famous "hockey-stick" graph of rising temperatures is unsupportable, that is a lie. When he says the Arctic is getting cooler and the polar bears are thriving, that is a lie. He ignores the massive scientific consensus on this topic, instead choosing reports from a small group of scientists and even a novel (Michael Crichton’s State of Fear).

By the way, in his 2002 election campaign, Senator Inhofe accepted more than US$850,000 in contributions from the oil and gas industry, the second highest amount received by any Senate candidate.

If Mr Patkin is so quick to mention the 60 scientists who wrote to the Canadian prime minister about the Kyoto Protocol, why doesn’t he also mention the 90 who wrote at the same time to say that the Canadian government isn’t doing enough?

The facts are simple. There is an overwhelming consensus on man-made global warming. Each and every person who has come out against this consensus has been proved to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

The so-called sceptics are either in the direct or indirect employ of the oil and gas companies, and have as much credibility as scientists employed by the tobacco industry to insist that smoking is not bad for you.

STEVE SCHECHTER, Mid-Levels

I fear that I have to take issue with the last two paragraphs.  I don’t agree that the facts are simple, and I think it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to question the consensus.  The problem with drawing any conclusions is that the planet has been here for very much longer than man has been around, and accurate scientific records cover an even shorter period.  So I don’t think it is fair to assume that all scientists who have doubts about global warming are paid by the oil and gas companies, or even that receiving money from an energy company would invalidate their research. 

However, given the evidence we do have, governments and large corporations have an obligation to act in a responsible manner rather than simply to try to maximise their profits – though I have every confidence that large energy companies will find plenty of ways to make good profits out of being environmentally-aware.  So Simon needn’t worry too much about the future of capitalism.

Finally, I notice that Simon has used his blog to criticize the comments I made on Monday.  I would reply in his comments, but he deletes anything he doesn’t like, so that would be a waste of time.  For the record, I haven’t read Senator Inhofe’s speech, and my point was a simple one – "right-wing Republican says left-wing media is biased" is not news.  Also, I don’t know how to break this to you, Simon, but all media are biased.  Oh, and when they disagree with you it’s obviously a conspiracy.