a little rant
alaimacerc reports that this weekend Jeremy Clarkson, Top Gear host, freelance opinionated wanker, and known climate change denier, was on UK TV commenting approvingly on old clips of himself denying not just global warming but the ozone hole as well.
It's quite the public service of Clarkson to do this. Given the evidence for the ozone hole is very strong, and scientifically in no doubt, and the global response clearly is working, then identifying himself as an 'ozone hole denialist' is helpful in making it very clear that his global warming denial is based on similarly nonsensical dislike of anything hippy environmentalists believe, and in no way based on actual knowledge or facts, and Clarksons views represent the complete opposite of what is sensible. You'd think even someone as smugly self-boosting as Clarkson might have acknowledged that he'd got that one wrong by now. If only more climate change deniers would produce old rants stating they didn't believe in evolution, or thought Einstein was wrong, or that asbestos and smoking are good for you, thus making it easier for the general public to identify them as the anti-science kooks they are.
Actually, a surprising number of professional global warming deniers have serious previous form in claiming smoking wasn't bad for you.
And Fred Singer, whose anti-global warming views are often promoted by global warming deniers because he is one of very few global warming deniers with any real climate/weather science credentials, was of course an ozone hole denier too (and a tobacco industry defender, and a denier of the dangers of second hand smoking).
Also, quite a few global warming deniers are obsessed with false claims about the use of DDT in fighting malaria, seemingly because they still carry a grudge against Rachel Carson (though it also seems possible the Tobacco industry pushes this line basically to distract WHO from anti-tobacco campaigns), but while that particular delusion is common enough to ring alarm bells with those who observe the right wing denialist movement, its not something the general public immediately recognises as wrong.
In general, it's very common for global warming deniers to have past form denying other environmental/public health causes that are now accepted as relatively uncontroversial public policy. It seems there is a large element, pretty clearly on display in commentators like Clarkson, of a tribal dislike of the environmental movement. Few of them, of course, are charismatic celebrities like Clarkson, so few of them get their past positions examined. We have a news media that looks back a few weeks or months, rather than looking at the history of pundits and sources.
It's funny, while global warming denial is tragically common in Australia (well, perhaps not that common among normal people, clearly quite common among the right wing of the Liberal party), ozone hole denial is pretty much completely absent. Almost everyone here knows people who have had at least life risking brushes with skin cancer, and quite often people who have died from skin cancer related problems. I can tell you my personal experience is that the difference in how easy it is to get sunburnt in the Northern and Southern hemispheres seems pretty obvious. Funny how people like Clarkson don't usually trumpet their ozone hole denial credentials, isn't it?
It's quite the public service of Clarkson to do this. Given the evidence for the ozone hole is very strong, and scientifically in no doubt, and the global response clearly is working, then identifying himself as an 'ozone hole denialist' is helpful in making it very clear that his global warming denial is based on similarly nonsensical dislike of anything hippy environmentalists believe, and in no way based on actual knowledge or facts, and Clarksons views represent the complete opposite of what is sensible. You'd think even someone as smugly self-boosting as Clarkson might have acknowledged that he'd got that one wrong by now. If only more climate change deniers would produce old rants stating they didn't believe in evolution, or thought Einstein was wrong, or that asbestos and smoking are good for you, thus making it easier for the general public to identify them as the anti-science kooks they are.
Actually, a surprising number of professional global warming deniers have serious previous form in claiming smoking wasn't bad for you.
And Fred Singer, whose anti-global warming views are often promoted by global warming deniers because he is one of very few global warming deniers with any real climate/weather science credentials, was of course an ozone hole denier too (and a tobacco industry defender, and a denier of the dangers of second hand smoking).
Also, quite a few global warming deniers are obsessed with false claims about the use of DDT in fighting malaria, seemingly because they still carry a grudge against Rachel Carson (though it also seems possible the Tobacco industry pushes this line basically to distract WHO from anti-tobacco campaigns), but while that particular delusion is common enough to ring alarm bells with those who observe the right wing denialist movement, its not something the general public immediately recognises as wrong.
In general, it's very common for global warming deniers to have past form denying other environmental/public health causes that are now accepted as relatively uncontroversial public policy. It seems there is a large element, pretty clearly on display in commentators like Clarkson, of a tribal dislike of the environmental movement. Few of them, of course, are charismatic celebrities like Clarkson, so few of them get their past positions examined. We have a news media that looks back a few weeks or months, rather than looking at the history of pundits and sources.
It's funny, while global warming denial is tragically common in Australia (well, perhaps not that common among normal people, clearly quite common among the right wing of the Liberal party), ozone hole denial is pretty much completely absent. Almost everyone here knows people who have had at least life risking brushes with skin cancer, and quite often people who have died from skin cancer related problems. I can tell you my personal experience is that the difference in how easy it is to get sunburnt in the Northern and Southern hemispheres seems pretty obvious. Funny how people like Clarkson don't usually trumpet their ozone hole denial credentials, isn't it?