No wonder we’re confused about climate change . . .
The head of the UN’s climate change panel (the IPCC) Rajendra Pachauri has released a novel that combines lessons on climate change with sexy story lines.
The protagonist in Pachauri’s book is eerily similar to Pachauri himself: an environmentalist and former engineer who inexplicably has a lot of sex with women (I can’t say whether the last part as any basis in reality). According to The Times the book: “mingles lectures on climate change with descriptions of Sanjay’s sexual encounters, including frequent references to “voluptuous breasts”.
Following last week’s visit from the Skeptic Dark Lord Mockton (who looks and sounds like an evil mastermind from a new climate themed Bond film) I can’t help but wonder if some of the increasing confusion about climate change stems from the eccentric oddballs who we’re told to believe.
Writing erotic mystery novels about being some kind of crime fighting climate activist should not preclude you from being taken seriously in your day job. I haven’t read Return to Almora, for all I know Pachauri might be the Ian Fleming of the climate activist genre.
But it’s worth pointing out that Ian Fleming wasn’t running MI6 when he was writing about James Bond. Being the head of the IPCC may be a pretty sexy profession, but Rajendra Pachauri is the boss right now and one would think should be dealing with the real job of convincing the entire world about this thing that they keep saying will kill us all.
This is the same bloke who recently faced calls for his resignation after it turned out IPCC claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 were ripped out of a magazine.
Proof that the self-preservation part of Pachauri’s brain is clearly missing is further evidenced by the fact he let India’s richest man, gas and oil mogul Mukesh Ambani, release the book. He then went on to accept cash from BP for the launch.
But the wackiness doesn’t stop at Monckton and Pachauri. Have a look at another two prominent climate types in Professor Ian Plimer and Guardian journalist George Monbiot.
Monbiot combines the boring righteousness of a hippy with the pomposity of the English aristocracy, lacking the fire twirling ability of the former and charm of the latter.
Meanwhile I’m half expecting Professor Ian Plimer to have his next television appearance interrupted by a flying Dolorean out of which will hop a flustered Marty McFly informing Plimer they must travel back to 1955 once more.
News Limited blogger and proud climate skeptic Tim Blair correctly pointed to the fallacy of using the claims of scientists as undeniable proof of the existence of man made climate change. Blair argued the mad scientist character cliché exists for a reason because scientists have been married to all sorts of theories that were a bit zany to say the least. True, but that argument runs both ways Tim, and Plimer’s manner suggests he’s a couple of months off constructing a tower that receives regular lightning strikes.
Of course confusion over climate change isn’t entirely the fault of odd-ball climate activists. After all it is a rather complicated issue, one that previous generations never really turned their minds to let a lone be asked to make a judgement upon.
Perhaps this is why we’re drawn to the loudest and wackiest in climate change debate, because considered and moderate explanation of a complex topic would be, well, quite boring.
Anyone who says this is our problem and not the fault of the climate activists of either persuasion is wrong. Like it or not there is a debate about the reality of man made climate change going on and the side whose explanation is the most palatable to the public will win. There is a PR war on right now and both sides seem to have given the contract to the Addams Family.
If you want evidence that the electorate is confused about the issue have a look at the poll put out by Fairfax yesterday. It’s instructive on a climate policy level, albeit one that accepts the need for Government action climate change.
While 56 per cent of people said they supported the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme. But when voters where presented with a choice between Tony Abbott’s emission’s funds and Kevin Rudd’s ETS more supported the non-ETS policy 45 to 39.
So people don’t quite know what they want. Given the wacky mob telling people what to think I can’t blame them.
Read all about it
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
The latest and greatest
Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…
I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…
In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…