Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: https://audioboo.fm/boos/1842827-is-there-a-green-hush
Date: 10/01/2014
Event: Brickbat-wielding climate sceptic lobby - "a lot of very powerful voices in politics and elsewhere"
Credit: BBC Radio 4
People:
Evan Davis: Now, there were times when a period of extreme or unusual weather would lead to a flood of suggestions that climate change is to blame. Such suggestions have emerged in the recent bout of storms - the Prime Minister said he thought they might be linked to climate change. But the green lobby's been relatively timid in making that call. Some think there is a "green hush", a desire by the greens to avoid the argument. I wonder if that's the case. Let's talk to Mark Lynas about it - he's an environmentalist and writer. Morning to you, Mark.
Mark Lynas: Morning, Evan.
Evan Davis: Do you feel hushed?
Mark Lynas: Well, I can certainly see the hashtag #greenhush, but - and I think there is a chilling effect of - from the constant attacks one gets from climate sceptics when you mention the issue of climate change in relationship to any kind of extreme weather that we're seeing. But, I mean, scientifically, there's actually some pretty strong evidence that heavier precipitation - so, more rainfall and potentially more flooding - is - would be expected to be the result of a warmer atmosphere, because warmer air can hold more water vapour and so we can get more heavy rainfall. So the physics is quite - is actually reasonably clear. The IPCC itself - so, the main assessment body for climate change - has said that there's medium confidence in - that we're seeing heavier rainfall and that's attributable to human activity. So it's not - it's a long way from being completely wrong to actually link what we're seeing to climate change. It - no, I don't know if anyone would say it's a single cause, but I do think there's been a lot less talk about it than there certainly was a few years back, when it really did make the headlines.
Evan Davis: It feels that way. I'm going to bring Rowan Sutton in, though, here, because in fact you mention the IPCC - he's a lead author for it, and from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, based at Reading. Morning to you, Rowan.
Rowan Sutton: Good morning.
Evan Davis: Let's start with you on what the - what you think the science actually says at the moment? Can you link the floods to climate change?
Rowan Sutton: Well, so I agree with Mark's comment, that in a warmer atmosphere, we expect that when it rains it will rain more heavily. And that's a robust prediction of climate science. As he also said, that doesn't mean that we can blame any single event on climate change. And I'd like to drawn an analogy, really, with the health sphere. So just as we say that smoking causes lung cancer, it is reasonable to say that global warming causes heavier rainfall and flooding. That doesn't mean that any particular incidence of lung cancer is caused by smoking, nor does it mean that any particular flood is necessarily caused by global warming.
Evan Davis: Does that mean that you, Rowan, would be loath to say: floods - another warning that climate change is bearing upon us, or any of those kinds of things, those kinds of statements?
Rowan Sutton: Linked to a single event, I wouldn't put it like that. But when, of course, we look worldwide, and we look at the patterns over a number of years, then, you know, the IPCC had a very clear statement: human influence on the climate system is clear, and we should not be surprised to see unusual patterns of weather emerging, over timescales of decades, as indeed is happening.
Evan Davis: All right. Mark Lynas, how bad is it? If you go on Twitter, or somewhere like that, and you write - if you wrote now "These storms show we should be more worried about climate change", what sort of reaction would you get? And what what would - why would that deter you?
Mark Lynas: Well, I'm not sure it would deter me, but I would get an instant and overwhelming reaction from the sceptics out there, who are very quick to jump on any suggestion which could even be vaguely construed as being alarmist, in terms of climate. I mean, my stuff on Twitter doesn't matter, but - you know, the Prime Minister, when he mentioned a potential relationship, in the House of Commons, you know, there was editorials coming down. You know, they're waiting with the brickbats to come down on any suggestion at all, here, and I do think it has an effect on scientists, on politicians, even on the media, because everyone's looking over their shoulders, worried about being attacked by climate sceptics, here, and the reality here is -
Evan Davis: If the argument's on your side, Mark, you just make it, and you say "Well, here's the evidence, and I can point to it". I mean, I don't understand why you would be, sort of, cowed by - I mean, I know there are some very vitriolic people in the argument, there are lots of arguments, and I just don't know why you would be cowed by it.
Mark Lynas: Well, personally, I don't think I am, but I mean I could put the same accusation to you - I mean, the BBC has much less coverage of climate change in relation to floods than was the case a few years ago, and you acknowledged that yourself. And I think we're all just - we're all just very aware that there is this very strong lobby out there, there's a lot of very powerful voices in politics and elsewhere telling us that we shouldn't even be talking about this, and it is a concern. I mean, the issue here is that the politics - I mean, it's, you know, the rural Tories out there who are anti-wind are quite sceptical on climate change, and those are the ones who are making all of the furore. I mean, there's even divisions in the Cabinet here, so it is a very politicised issue. And it's not as if you can just - I mean, I would love it if you could just talk about the science and talk about the relationship between heavier rainfall and more floods, because I think that would be interesting and I think it would be useful for society, in terms of adapting to climate change.
Evan Davis: Professor Rowan Sutton, do you feel that, do you find you get attacked by people who - is it a vitriolic debate, what you - how you'd characterise it?
Rowan Sutton: It's certainly a recurrent frustration, from the scientific community, that the science can be misrepresented for political ends. And we do see that happening and that does put some people off from engaging, with discussing these issues in the public sphere, so -
Evan Davis: Was there too much alarmism on some occasions - did the greens oversell their case, oversell the certainty with which they made their case, at times, that perhaps deserved to be -
Rowan Sutton: Without doubt - I'm sure there have been, you know, some communications that could be cast as alarmist, but of course it's difficult to find the right language to talk about such a serious issue as changing the Earth's system. We don't really have the language to talk about that. And, as a global society, we're still getting our heads around what it really means.
Evan Davis: Mm. Professor Rowan Sutton from Reading University, and Mark Lynas, thank you both.