We are seeing a revolt of ordinary people in so many western countries, with the notable exception of us here in the UK. But will any of these “populist” victories make any difference? Are we in the West, particularly in the UK, so embedded in “Wokery” that it will take generations to escape?
These thoughts are prompted by an article by the ever-thoughtful Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph of 26 January. She asks when the West lost its collective mind and predicts that reversing it will be a long haul. I also have a related question - or perhaps two questions - about how we stop the rot.
Wokery
But maybe we should start by giving some examples of what we mean by the loss of common sense she refers to, much of it swept up in the term “Wokery”. Don’t worry! There won’t be too many examples or I would run out of space - and mental energy!
Net Zero
The main example has to be Net Zero, which isn’t normally thought of as a symptom of Wokery at all, but which shares some of its characteristics, in particular its claims to morality.
Net Zero started as a concern about “global warming” back in the 1980s. This had to be changed to “Climate Change” when, embarrasingly, around the turn of the century, the world seemed not to be warming as predicted by the alarmists. “Climate Change” was seen to be a much safer cause for panic, as the climate has been changing for many centuries and indeed millenia and is unlikely to stop now.
The alarms have now been super-charged in the shape of Net Zero, requiring us to take steps that will certainly cause catastrophic harm, particularly to poorer people, all intended to save the planet. But here we take leave of common sense. Plainly what we do in the UK - and even what we and others do in the West - will have no effect at all on the climate. How could it when developing countries, including for this purpose China and India, have no intention of going along with it?
DEI
Need I go on to give more examples of Wokery and its related idiocies? The next in line must be those that come within the heading of “Diversity, Equality and Inclusion” - DEI - worthy, of course, as the underlying ideas are. DEI has, in its more egregious aspects, involved sending male rapists into women’s prisons. No, let’s not go there. Net Zero is a good enough example to allow us to look at the more fundamental problems - and particularly the morality.
It is a Moral Issue
The first problem, which is touched on in Janet Daley’s article, is that the alarmist case is essentially a moral, even a quasi-religious creed. The problem is that you can never argue against a religion with scientific facts or indeed economic truths. They are “saving the planet”. You explain that the costs will be substantial. Too bad. Do we want to die? Surely any price is worth paying to avoid armageddon.
But I have a question. Why haven’t we taken it on board that we are looking at a creed - and that a creed is never countered by facts? Why haven’t we confronted the moral issues?
As I say, the alarmists firmly position themselves on the moral high ground. How do they dare to do this? One of the key aspects of climate policies, even before Net Zero was invented, was to stop using fossil fuels to generate energy. Accordingly, the likes of the World Bank (always keen to be politically correct) refused to help finance power projects in the developing world that used fossil fuels, even though they would deliver, I guess, the only form of energy that poorer people could realistically afford. This has the effect of denying the poorest people in the world access to cheap energy. They have to continue to live in what we would regard as dangerous squalor. How moral is that? Why don’t we point it out loud and clear? I well remember the late Nigel Lawson saying that these policies were not only immoral but “wicked”. Indeed so. I wish I heard those who (correctly) bang on about the excessive costs of Net Zero also stress its immorality - and indeed wickedness.
What about the facts?
I have another question. This relates to the science. I take Janet Daley’s point that talking science is no good against those firmly positioned on their moral high ground. But there are also some benighted souls, like probably most of our friends, who are still capable of looking at facts, even scientific facts. My question is, why aren’t the relevant scientific facts prominently displayed, even endlessly repeated, so that they become so well understood that the alarmists can’t go on getting away with it?
What facts am I referring to? The principle fact is the one I’ve already mentioned - that none of the things we are meant to be doing under the heading of Net Zero has any chance of making any difference to the climate at all - essentially because China and India, understandably,
want to do all they can to improve the lives of their people with the cheapest energy available . But it’s more than that.
Some of the most eminent scientists in the world have explained that, even if we did halt or reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there is no evidence that even that would affect the climate. Why don’t we hear about this? I know about it because for many years I have followed the work of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (set up as a non-party think tank some 15 years ago) and because I read the Daily Sceptic - both activities being probably regarded as somewhat bizarre!
But let’s go there. What eminent scientists you may ask? I name two: Professor (Emeritus) William Happer of Princeton and Professor (also Emeritus) Richard Lindzen of MIT. Both have explained that, quite simply, there is no climate emergency.
Both have contributed to the film called Climate: the Movie, which sets out the basis for this in cold scientific, but intelligible, detail. They also explain that the increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (presumably caused in large part by human activity) have been good for the planet, since it is a vital plant food and has been the cause of increased green vegetation around the world. (How often do Green activists point this out?)
Now to my question. I certainly don’t want to try to defend what these eminent scientists say. I couldn’t - I am certainly not a scientist. I want to know why their views are largely unknown. Even the Daily Sceptic rarely mentions them.
These scientists did in fact contribute to a move by other scientists to advertise their views by establishing a body called the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Their declaration, saying bravely that “there is no climate emergency”, was originally signed by some 1200 scientists. It has now been signed by 1900 scientists and doubtless others. My question is not whether they are right or wrong. It is why don’t we know anything about it? People still hold on to the obviously absurd non-statistic that 95% of scientists agree with the alarmists (debunked many years ago). Interestingly, Wikipedia has no page for CLINTEL - it says “This page has not yet been created”. Why not? - one wonders.
Reasons
One reason for the deafening silence is perhaps that people no longer believe scientists. Another is that it’s so easy to say, “Ah, but there are other scientists who don’t agree”. If there are, why do we need effectively to censor Professors Happer and Lindzen? Let these others come forward and tell the learned professors, who have been studying these matters for most of their lives, where they have got it all wrong.
No, we need to get back to Janet Daley. We are faced with a cult, an apparently beguiling creed. We seem to have a deep-seated need to believe in an impending catastrophy. As they used to worry before the first Millenium, “The end of the world is nigh”. Some of them continued to worry even after, happily, the end of the world turned out not to be so “nigh” as they feared.
How long will it be for us in the 21st century, before reality hits home? The consensus seems to be that the realists must focus on costs - the admittedly mind-boggling costs of Net Zero and what Lord Hannan refers to as the inexorable lurching towards bankruptcy. Maybe they’re right. People will only focus on reality when it hits them in their wallets.
But I still question why we don’t also point out that eminent scientists say it’s useless - as well as it being immoral.
As usual, do please tell me where I’ve got it wrong.
Tony Herbert
4 February 2025
Comments