Peter Hadfield, formerly of the New Scientist, has taken to YouTube to tackle climate change sceptics as he recently explained on the Guardian’s Environment Blog:
After questioning and listening to hundreds of climate change “sceptics,” I have found that not all are conspiracy theorists or religious fundamentalists. Many are keen to learn about the science of climate change, but they have been learning about it from rather dubious sources.
So two years ago I began a series of videos on YouTube to explain the science, and rebut urban myths that spin round the internet and end up on the opinion pages of the Daily Express and the Wall Street Journal. The result has been astonishing. My channel, Potholer54, now has over 27,000 subscribers. The videos have been mirrored by others all over the internet, and several university lecturers have asked if they can use it in their environmental science classes. Most importantly, former sceptics tell me the videos have changed their minds about the reality of climate change.
That success, however, comes at a price. It means looking at the science – not scary and unrealistic images of submerged cities. It means accepting the fact that Al Gore is not always right, and he should not be defended when he’s wrong. It means acknowledging that while sceptics like Christopher Monckton and Martin Durkin fabricate a lot of their facts, many environmental activists tend to exaggerate theirs.
You can read the full piece here or view his YouTube channel here. But here’s his film addressing the claim that climate change is natural and always happens:
Share:
2 Comments
Potholer54 is a really good example of the power of one guy to change opinions. He talks clearly, slowly and makes an effort to examine the debate in a broadly academic fashion.
I’ve signed up to Potholer54. We need sensible people,like him. What we know about scientific analysis that it is never completely right and is always changing to reflect hew evidence and new theories to explain them. Its difficult to be honest about this when the opposition is so certain of its position. In addition any estimated effect of global warming will come with a range of possibilites reflecting the uncertainties of the methodology. the worst case will always be the one highlighted by the media.
I had a great example yesterday in the Independent, not about climate change but about finance. The Bank of England has estimated that the global financial crisis has cost the UK economy beteen £1.8tr and £7.4tr. The headline says “Credit crisis cost the nation £7tr says bank of England”. The lower figure is totally ignored. no wonder the public become sceptical when scientific data on Climate change is used in the same way.