How To Be A Denier

Claim yourself to be a fount of knowledge.
Claim that every scientist's a liar.
If you've done a course at any college 
you can be a certified denier.

Gather up those inconvenient facts
and twist them like they're bendy bits of wire.
Disseminating data needs great tact
but any fool can thrive as a denier.

Lobby for a mega corporation 
to push emission targets ever higher.
Easy work, with great remuneration 
- it's such a cushy job, is a denier.

If you're expert at communicating 
with the press, you'll never lack for buyers. 
In every board-room there's employment waiting 
for an oily climate change denier.

Any trivial hint of weather cooling,
anywhere, you'll trumpet through the shires
as if it quells all doubt - it's easy fooling
a public that's not wary of deniers.

Turn the TV off, the news is boring:
floods and storms and raging forest fires.
Say, "Well I can't see no glaciers thawing!"
'cause nobody's as blind as a denier.

Fling some mud at Chomsky and Al Gore,
laugh out loud at Lovelock and his Gaia.
David Attenborough's a cheating whore
in the frozen world of the denier.

Preach whatever sermon gives false hope.
Chorus with the most dogmatic choir.
Reference the Bible, not the Pope.
Be a pious climate change denier.

'cause there's no risk at all for us old duffers
who won't live long enough to stand on trial
and answer for our lies to those that suffer
the tragic consequences of denial.

climate changeclimateclimate change deniersdenial

◄ Six Degrees

Speak The Unspeakable ►


Profile image

Tim Ellis

Wed 21st Oct 2015 19:13

Thanks Cynthia. Good to talk with you M.C.

Profile image

Cynthia Buell Thomas

Wed 21st Oct 2015 15:43

Major topic, and brilliantly put, entertaining in its forceful message.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Wed 21st Oct 2015 14:48

Thanks Tim. Looked up and commented on via your
profile page.

Profile image

Tim Ellis

Wed 21st Oct 2015 12:28

I quite agree M.C. There is in fact such an impartial body in existence - The IPCC was set up by by the UN in 1988 precisely to evaluate all the scientific evidence in the way you describe. Their most recent schedule of fully evaluated findings is the one summarised in the link I posted in my previous reply. I do hope you will read it.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Wed 21st Oct 2015 11:54

Tim - I appreciate the measured tone of your reply.
I have always taken the view that any important
subject deserves a rigorous and fearless examination -
especially one so well-known and widely promoted as
"climate change(global warming)". The problem is that
there have been strongly opposing views and the subject
has achieved something of a "religious status" whereby
it is heresy to question its existence/teaching. I spent a
working life in public service and know all too well of the
belief that if something is SAID to be often enough, then, ergo - it MUST be. I have no problem querying this
state of affairs and would love some impartial body far
removed from the subject to produce a time and evidence "schedule" of fully evaluated findings - right up to date - for public consideration and consumption.
For every David Attenborough, there seems to be a
David Bellamy and the confusion is palpable and in no
one's interest in a global world when there is even belief
that it is being "engineered" to prevent the development
of an increasingly powerful/resentful third world.

Profile image

Tim Ellis

Wed 21st Oct 2015 09:59

Thank you Greg Freeman and Ledger de la Bald. Thank you also M.C.Newberry - you're comments are welcome, and you are quite right to say this is an issue that has grounds for discussion. I have been trying to discuss it with anybody that would listen for about 30 years now! But what the world needs more urgently than discussion now is action! (See my previous blog entry) I guess I should be flattered that you have followed my instructions in this poem so diligently, but I recommend you acquaint yourself with the current science before you say any more. There is a good summary of the most recent IPCC report here If you don't have time to read it all, the Met Office, the BBC and NASA all have good information on climate science which I can recommend.

Profile image

Greg Freeman

Wed 21st Oct 2015 09:36

Regardless of whether a certain commenter is under the impression that this poem may be aimed at him personally, or the issues that it raises, I'd just like to say what a pleasure it is to see such a well-crafted work on Write Out Loud, Tim. Roger McGough might appreciate the fact that it rhymes, too. And that's my last word on the subject!

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Tue 20th Oct 2015 20:51

"Inconvenient facts" can be a two-way street and we need to accept that when expressing a point of view.
Consider the following - from the Sunday Telegraph back in 2007 on mankind's effect on the climate...especially
when it was reported that "the temperature rise at the
beginning of the 20th century (prior to 1940 when
human emissions of CO2 were relatively insignificant)
was as great - most graphs show greater - than the
temperature rise at the end of the century". The item
"No one any longer seriously doubts the link between
solar activity and temperature in earth's climate history.
During the post-war economic boom, while industrial
emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down
(hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s).
<N.B. WOL readers would need to be circa pensionable
age to recall that far back with any degree of understanding of the subject>.
Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. Thanks to China
and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they
were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold? Too many
journalists and scientists have built their careers on the
global warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked
their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be
painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong,
wrong, wrong."
Strong stuff! Hence the sense in approaching such an
emotive subject with considered impartiality and
properly substantiated information across the spectrum
of "for" and "against" to be sure of achieving a BALANCE
of expense and effect in dealing with the situation.
Who would press for anything less with so much held
to be at risk?

<Deleted User> (8659)

Tue 20th Oct 2015 19:35

Well put Tim.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Tue 20th Oct 2015 16:33

This may be timed as a reply to my Samuel Pepys
extracts in my recent little poem. Certainly, there are
grounds for healthy "for and against" discussion.
The origins go back a long way to be sure. I recall a
French source attacking the promotion of CFCs as the
cause of damage to the ozone layer - and cited very
plausible backers in the commercial world for pushing
this policy for financial/development gains. The ozone
"hole" was as far away from human industrial activity
as was possible in this world - and no mention was made
of the high rate of volcanic activity thereabouts.
And the massive pollutant output from the 19th century
Industrial Revolution seems to have passed by without
blame or comment.
On the plus side, today we have more trees - the great
absorbers of pollution - than ever before (very recently
reported in a global survey...don't ask me how they
did that but science can be a wonderful thing!) - AND
it's been reported that the ice shelf is thicker than previously assessed. Who knows what to think?
So - basically, this is not a clear cut issue by any
means. Let us BE alert and confine pollution by all means
possible whilst acknowledging that the world is an ever
evolving reality employing devices far beyond our own
effects (and knowledge) over the long (very) term.
Being a fervent "believer" can be as misguided as
being a fervent "denier".

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message