In dangerous denial

Peter Wilby
The Guardian,
Monday June 30, 2008

According to an Ipsos Mori poll, carried out for the Observer this month, most Britons believe climate change is at least partially down to natural causes, and not solely to human activity. A majority also believe scientists are divided on the causes and more than a fifth say the whole thing has been exaggerated.
Now where would they have got those ideas from? One Channel 4 programme, claiming global warming is "a swindle", has no doubt played a role, as have internet blogs arguing all the world's scientists are party to a Marxist conspiracy bent on destroying western civilisation. But the press, though declining, still counts. It contributes to the framework within which public debate proceeds. It lends respectability to the opinions it highlights.
A study by the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University found US newspapers have improved their coverage of global warming. By 2006, only 8% of what they published failed to reflect the scientific consensus: that human activity is more than 90% likely to be responsible. The UK tabloids - the Sun, Mirror, Mail, Express and their Sundays - show no improvement, with 23% of their 2006 coverage at odds with what nearly every climate scientist believes.
Happily, the Murdoch empire has gone green, thanks to James Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation in Europe and Asia. The Sun and the Times now rarely give space to deniers of man-made global warming. The latter was once full of sceptics but then a leader graciously announced "the planet deserves the benefit of the doubt". But neither paper gives consistent and/or prominent coverage. The Sun is currently dominated by UFOs, with an "exclusive" last Wednesday about a 13-strong army of alien craft over Shropshire, and other recent front-page stories about police helicopters chasing little green men over Cardiff.
These stories didn't include even a final-paragraph quote expressing scepticism - a "balance" newspapers observe scrupulously when they report evidence of global warming. It's harmless fun, I suppose. But Sun readers could be forgiven for concluding that, as a matter of public concern, global warming is on the same level as extraterrestrial visitations.
Several other papers continue to give a high profile to global warming denial. In the Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, Tom Utley and Andrew Alexander all scorn suggestions that we need to reduce carbon emissions. None has anything beyond a science O-level. Nor does the Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, a former Private Eye editor. He gleefully reported this month that, since January 2007, global temperatures have fallen 0.77C. This figure, from satellite and balloon readings, is correct but, down here on Earth, where we happen to live, spring 2007 land temperatures were the highest on record (the figures go back to 1880) and those for spring 2008 tied with 2000 as the third highest.
Booker is the most plausible global warming denier among regular columnists because he packs his pieces with "facts" sourced to "experts". But he is none too particular about his experts' credentials. Take another of his campaigns, concerning white asbestos, which the World Health Organisation regards as a class one carcinogen. According to Booker, it is harmless (he admits the dangers of blue and brown asbestos) and claims to the contrary are attributable to commercial interests that make money from disposing of it.
The most quoted "expert" for this story is a Professor John Bridle who runs something called Asbestos Watchdog. In 2006, Radio 4's You and Yours - in a 20-minute item denounced by Booker as "reckless" and "laughable" - reported Bridle had been convicted under the Trade Descriptions Act for passing himself off falsely as a qualified asbestos surveyor. He claimed connections to an impressively titled European body that couldn't be traced. His professorship is an honorary one from Russia. As for Asbestos Watchdog - which, writes Booker, offers "honest advice" to an "ever larger number of people" - I tried to contact it last week and both its website and telephone number were inaccessible. Bridle went to Ofcom about You and Yours; this month, the regulator rejected all his complaints.
Dig deep enough and you find that, just as Bridle proved to have connections to the asbestos industry, so many of the "experts" journalists quote on global warming receive money, directly or indirectly, from the oil industry. There's nothing wrong in newspapers challenging consensus views, and many scientists who have been proved right in the end - for example, those who warned of how lead in petrol could affect children - began as lone mavericks. But sceptics themselves merit scepticism, and journalists should give their scientific credentials and their relationship to vested interests the most careful scrutiny. Berating the EU, as Booker frequently does, or denouncing school standards, as Melanie Phillips does, won't kill anybody. Asbestos is different. So is measles and, as Cardiff University research has shown, MMR vaccinations fell in step with press claims that they were linked to autism.
Global warming could kill millions. If Ipsos Mori is right, the deniers are gaining ground. Its polls show the proportion of Britons who are unconcerned has risen from 15% to 23% in the past year. Many politicians believe government action to arrest climate change is still a vote loser. It is likely to remain so as long as much of the press remains wilfully ignorant of science.
So Nick is now right of the Times?
Nearly three years ago in this column, I asked of my former colleague Nick Cohen, "how far right is he going?". At that time, I detected signs that the Observer and New Statesman columnist, once the most unshakeable of leftists, might extend the change in his political allegiances beyond his support for the Iraq war.
Last Wednesday, I was surprised to find in the London Evening Standard that my old friend is wobbling even in his previously reliable defence of civil liberties and fair trials. By ruling that anonymous witnesses could make trials unfair, the law lords, Cohen wrote, would leave themselves "with blood on their hands and the rest of us with corpses on our streets". The contrary view was put in a Times leader: "Without knowing who a hostile witness is, no defence lawyer can properly assess his or her credibility for a jury." Anonymity, it continued, could protect those who wished to settle scores "and prejudice a jury against a defendant as evidence of fear that he or she inspires".
If he had written it, the old Cohen would have put it more robustly.
Dirty secret exposed
Congratulations to the Lords committee on communications for exploding the myth that media ownership doesn't matter any more because the internet allows a thousand opinions to bloom. Opinion lacks clout without the backing of information and, as the committee points out, nearly all fresh information is generated by a handful of established news organisations. Even the most sturdy critics of the mainstream media use material from the same media to demonstrate how they are fed a pack of lies. That, as one witness told the committee, is "the dirty little secret of the information revolution".