Source: BBC Radio 4: Thinking Allowed
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q8qq5
Date: 30/01/2013
Event: Reactions to last week's discussion about climate change and denial
Credit: BBC Radio 4
People:
Laurie Taylor: Now I must take a deep breath - a very deep breath, really, because I'm going to dive into the maelstrom of correspondence about last week's psychoanalytically inflected discussion of the ways in which climate change is denied or disavowed. Now, in my introduction to that discussion, I referred cautiously - or at least so I thought - to the broad consensus that some such change was under way. But that was not, by any means, cautious enough for listeners like Julian Flood and - in this email - Philip Saunders.
"It was striking to hear Laurie Taylor say he would 'of course' be accepting the consensus view of climate change. If one of his students said they would blindly accept a consensus view on anything, Laurie would crucify them for not 'thinking allowed'!"
But, Philip, there is consensus and consensus. I mean, in this case, I wasn't talking about popular consensus - I was referring to the sort of consensus described by listener Melvyn Tisdale, the "consensus among 90% of climate scientists who have published in peer-reviewed journals."
This means I've got no real problem at all with this interesting distinction, which came from Matthew Lemin:
"Laurie, the problem with climate scientists is the tendency to lump together as a "denier" those who disavow, alongside those with a genuine doubt that we are in imminent danger of a climate catastrophe. There are plenty of clever and knowledgeable scientists and laypeople who do not deny the globe has warmed, and agree that human emissions of CO2 have had a role in that, but who are sceptical of the 'catastrophe' bit, and are annoyed that the subject is being hijacked by bandwagon-jumping politicians and social scientists seeking to turn genuine doubt into a psychological problem."
And Paul O had a related distinction to make:
"Laurie, your discussion failed to differentiate between two quite different forms of denial. Simple denial that the climate is changing - a fringe belief - and scepticism about particular theories that attribute climate change to human agency and claim to be able to forecast future change accurately. As the discussion was between two psychoanalysts, they conveniently focussed on the former. That allowed them to cast climate change denial as the refusal to accept an unbearable reality, rather than as an attempt to test a scientific and political orthodoxy."
And one last distinction, from Andy Hibbett:
"Laurie, those wanting to save the planet have mixed up their thoughts. The planet will survive as long as the laws of physics allow. What they really mean is saving us, that is: keeping the planet hospitable to humankind as long as possible. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's not confuse our reasons."
I'm sorry there's no time for more of your comments, so let me just give special thanks to the already-mentioned Melvyn Tisdale, Ian Salisbury, Daniel Downes, Paul, David Vinter, Linda Barnes, Elena Forsyth, Roger Hicks who wrote: "Laurie, the issue of climate change is of such importance that would warrant dedicating every future broadcast of 'Thinking Allowed' to it." Also Silas Sutcliffe, James Moyes, and Ben Pile, who ominously reminds me that - quote: "There is a dark history of psychoanalysts and psychiatrists being recruited by the state to elicit the obedience of the public. Your guests seem to want to continue that tradition."