Climate Conspiracy comes to Edinburgh Council
So Edinburgh Tory Councillor Cameron Rose has decided to start a climate conspiracy blog. I’ve had a look around and I can’t see any qualifications Cllr Rose has for a blog on climate change. I can see that he was a policeman. Perhaps since he retired he’s been studying climate, physics, geology and other subjects that would qualify him to talk about climate change, but I can’t find any evidence of that.
It seems he’s just decided that climate change is one of those issues that the good people of Southside/Newington need to be informed about. Or, perhaps he thinks they should be misinformed, as his blog is so heavily partisan that there’s not much in the way of information on there.
He does go out of his way to criticise Professor Geoffrey Boulton. That’s Professor Geoffrey Boulton, one of Britain’s leading geologists, former Regius Professor of Geology at the University of Edinburgh. He is an expert in glaciers and ice sheets. A world renowned expert. Prof Boulton actually has more letters after his name than Cameron Rose has in his name.
He was appointed a Fellow of the Royal Society for his outstanding contribution to science. He has an OBE for his services to science. He has received awards from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Geological Society of America, the International Glaciological Society, the Swedish Royal Academy, and the French government.
But Cameron Rose obviously thinks his years of service on the beat qualify him just as well to comment on climate science.
Of course were this any other realm, Cllr Rose wouldn’t even bother challenging an expert as eminent as Geoffrey Boulton, or indeed comment on the IPCC or other expert opinions. Indeed, I watched him tell the people of Portobello that traffic wasn’t a problem at the Planning Committee. This was because an ‘expert’ employed by a company wanting to bring 900 waste lorries into the middle of Portobello said it wouldn’t be a problem.
It’s obvious that in Cllr Rose’s view every expert is up for sale and you pick the expert that suits your prejudices. If you want companies to be able to profiteer by destroying Portobello you listen to paid experts. If you don’t want to have to deal with climate change you don’t listen to experts. After all, in his view they’re all self interested. No expert could possibly be evaluating evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence. (I’m a little bit terrified by a former policeman holding this position).
Cllr Rose has a very clear agenda here. He’s an ideologue. He doesn’t want a society where people come before profit. He doesn’t want to move away from a culture in which big companies ruthlessly exploit people and degrade the environment. And climate change is very obviously a major challenge to the exploitative, dystopian society he so values.
Either that or he’s just a crank who believes that the moon landings didn’t happen, Princess Diana was killed by MI6 and that the President of the USA wasn’t born there. He might be an enthusiast for the Illuminati. Who knows, he might think they’re behind all this climate conspiracy?
Perhaps in the near future we’ll be seeing Cllr Rose blogging on the full range of conspiracy theories?
Peter said “. . . I take your point about serious arguments. I am, not however the best placed to make those.”
I appreciate your humility.
As to your first link, my article was occasioned by it and was a response to it. I spent a long time reading through and considering it. I appreciate you accept Tamino’s views. I prefer to weigh, consider and test them. Like you I do not follow all the arguments. But that is not a reason for not engaging gear and reading up, including differing views.
As to the second, ” our world is starting to sizzle. . .” is language which epitomises a catastrophic situation. I’m struggling to see that evidence. And he makes a lot of assumptions.
Finally as to your last para,it will be easier to engage if you don’t make unwarranted assumptions, “. . you’ve decided to pick on climate change as the conspiracy you want to expose.”
Best wishes and don’t expect further response soon as I’ll be out of range for a few days.
Martin,
Thanks for your comments. I take your point about serious arguments. I am, not however the best placed to make those. I am, however, reasonably well placed to point out that Cameron Rose has substantially less idea what he’s talking about than Geoff Boulton does. I’m interested in why it’s this conspiracy that Rose has chosen to blog on rather than others.
Cameron,
I think Montford’s position is well dealt with here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/01/climate-change-robin-mckie
I’m really fascinated by why you’ve decided to pick on climate change as the conspiracy you want to expose?
I don’t think that you are arguing that the green movement should set its policies by agreeing with the most qualified person, or the person with the most letters after their name. I imagine there are some very qualified people at BP who could argue for its safety policies in the Gulf of Mexico. There are many qualified people arguing in favour of carbon sequestration. I imagine it would not be difficult to find qualified people arguing in favour of Japan’s whale hunting position.
Your suggestion that Rose believes that the moon landings did not happen belittles you, not him.
There are plenty of proper arguments that you can use against Rose – raise your game and use them.
The green movement is not, and never has been, about deference to those with authority or those with qualifications. Nor is it about personal attacks on those with whom it disagrees.
Peter,
Thanks for reading my Climate Edinburgh blog. And for your views. There are a few assumptions and ad hominems in there. Let me know when you’ve read Montford’s book and I’ll be very happy to discuss.
It seems a really daft thing to do. I’m told he’s been circulating climate conspiracy books on the Council. He even asks the Council Leader for her opinion on climate conspiracies at Leader’s questions… seems to me like a rather misplaced focus.
I didn’t know he was a cop, which just makes some of his conclusions scary. Like his assertion that a denialist website is more authoritative than the Real Climate website because it got more visitors on a particular day.
Or, more probably, it’s deliberate obfuscation to catch out the casual visitor which is why the entire blog has a green coating smeared onto it.