[The base picture of woolly mammoths is by Mauricio Anton, and it is reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License]

The true deniers of climate change are not the thousands of scientists and economists, the climate realists, who are critical of the ‘global warming’ grand narrative, but the ‘global warming’ zealots who believe that we can either ‘stop’ or ‘stabilize’ climate change, two of the most ridiculous and hubristic concepts ever to afflict human arrogance. It is especially concerning, however, when you read such nonsense in supposedly serious newspapers like the Financial Times [see: Philip Stephens, ‘Saving the planet will be difficult, but do not despair’, Financial Times, June 19]. We learn from this august outlet that:

“The climate can be stabilised ...” [my emphasis]

There never has been, and there never will be, a ‘stable climate’. It is an oxymoron of stratospheric proportions, and I am unable to take seriously any commentator who glibly pens so bizarre a phrase. As my colleague, Dr. Robert Bradnock, wrote [see: ‘Guest Essay’, June 9] on this site recently:

“There is not now, and never has been, a ‘stable environment’. Climate has changed, often far more dramatically than it is changing now, in very short periods of time - and quite unrelated to any human activity. These changes are very little understood, and we have no means of knowing where we are in the cycle of changing climates.”

And, as for that headline about “Saving the planet”, the least said, the better.

The Manhattan Declaration

Moreover, Mr. Stephens is worryingly wrong concerning the ‘consensus’. His article rabbits on about the “... determined few who see global warming as the invention of woolly-hatted do-gooders and of scientists who want to be soothsayers. The small band of sceptics seizes on the inevitable imprecision of the effort to predict the future relationship between greenhouse gases and changes in temperature as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming weight of scientific knowledge.”

Has Mr. Stephens, I wonder, heard of the newly-established Manhattan Declaration [“‘Global warming’ is not a global crisis”;  signed New York, March 4, 2008], for example? This affirms, among other things, that:

1. +global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
   

2. +the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false; and,
   

3. +attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change.  Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.  
   

This Declaration has now been endorsed by over 1,100 serious folk, scientists, economists, and other specialists, including climate scientists. You may view for yourself those who have endorsed the Manhattan Declaration, as follows:

1. +Climate experts;
   

2. +The endorsers who attended the March 2008 Manhattan Conference;
   

3. +Qualified endorsers who did not attend the Manhattan Conference;
   

4. +Members of the public, often with science backgrounds, who wish to support the Manhattan Declaration.
   

The Real Scandal

Now, the real scandal might actually be the fact that Mr. Stephens may indeed not have heard of the Manhattan Declaration, which has been disgracefully and willfully ignored by the UK media. Can you imagine the coverage of such a declaration were it in support of the ‘global warming’ trope?

The truth is that there is no ‘consensus’ on climate-change science, and, in any case, ‘consensus’ in science is a dangerous concept; there is even less of a ‘consensus’ on climate-change economics; and, very soon, any contrived pseudo-political ‘consensus’ will start to fall apart as the climate enters a possible cooling phase, as economic realities bite even deeper, as the political hypocrisies become apparent for all to see, and as the very idea that carbon emissions can be reduced quickly is deemed a mammoth hoax [picture above].

I am afraid, Mr. Stephens, it is you who are in denial about climate change. Unlike the climate realists, you appear to deny the inherent inexorability of climate change, and you seem to be in painful denial over the fact that the ‘global warming’ grand narrative is beginning to lose its paradigmatic power. As your own article states:

“In both the US and China, people are less concerned about climate change than they were a year ago. The proportion in China has almost halved from the previous 42 per cent.”

I fear, Mr. Stephens, that ordinary folk have too much down-to-earth commonsense, as I know from my many talks throughout the country with farmers’ groups, engineers, business folk, the WI, and schools.

And finally, can I say that I am appalled by your resort to ageism (your gratuitous third paragraph - by the way, I am passionately anti-smoking), which should have no place in a liberal newspaper like the Financial Times?

It really is time for the climate-change realists to speak up over the noisy clamour of the ‘global warming’ climate-change deniers.