So, where are we now with global warming?
Politicians world-wide got into the “save the planet” business for two reasons; electorates were convinced the planet needed saving and would vote for candidates who said they’d do just that and wouldn’t vote for candidates who said it was all hysteria, which it was and which most of them knew it was. That is political reality. Once they had been voted in, they stared spending the money because up to a couple of years ago, the economies were rich or apparently so.
One way or another, they have had to get out of the save the planet business because the money is simply no longer there. All over the world, economies are either very fragile or in some cases on life support. Climategate was pivotal in undermining the credibility of the ‘science’ which supported the hysteria. It also gave politicians a solid excuse to back away from funding pledges, though you’ll never hear any of them admit that.
People no longer really believe or care about the whole thing because as recession bites their concerns return to the necessities of the life. In last year’s mid-term elections in America, every Republican candidate was a declared climate sceptic and indeed in some cases were replacements for candidates who were still pressing the climate alarm button.
The message to politicians is clear; vocal scepticism gains them votes, global warming alarmism loses them votes. They will always go with what gains them votes and dump what policies lose votes. You won’t be hearing much about global warming in next year’s presidential election in America.
For the climate alarmists, the available responses to this sea change in the political landscape are really limited. The consensus response seems to be that it’s a communications issue. If they can just keep explaining the situation better and harder, then they’ll regain the mob. What is of course missing from this bunker mentality response is that it’s not a communications problem; it’s a credibility problem.
At grass-roots level, people don’t believe it any more, if they ever did at all. The MSM (main stream media) are still pushing the message but even they are backing off it too. They call it “climate fatigue” and it doesn’t sell many papers these days. The global warming craze, like the hula hoop, Rubik’s cube and bobby socks, has run its course.
The rational response would be to change their approach but this implies a complete policy revision. This cannot be done without risking schism in the church of climatology. Too much symbolic ideology is invested in wind, solar and wave power, which as subsidies dry up, are rapidly becoming financially unviable. Dumping these in favour of the only real alternative, nuclear power, would lose the foot soldiers of the movement.
The global warming monster is not dead but its back is broken. I think that politically there will be no grand volte-face away from it but rather a quiet retreat and it will suffer death by lack of funding.
Related article : The death of the AGW belief system.