DOCSLIB.ORG

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of ORAL EVIDENCE to Be Published As HC 254-Iv

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of ORAL EVIDENCE to Be Published As HC 254-Iv UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 254-iv HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE CLIMATE: PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS MONDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 2013 DR JAMES RANDERSON and CATHERINE BRAHIC FIONA HARVEY, LEWIS SMITH and RICHARD BLACK Evidence heard in Public Questions 151 - 209 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Science and Technology Committee on Monday 9 September 2013 Members present: Andrew Miller (Chair) Stephen Metcalfe Stephen Mosley Sarah Newton Graham Stringer ________________ Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Dr James Randerson, Assistant National News Editor, environment, science and technology, The Guardian, and Catherine Brahic, News Editor, environment and life sciences, New Scientist, gave evidence. Q151 Chair: Could I welcome our two witnesses and, just for the record, invite them to introduce themselves? Catherine Brahic: I am Catherine Brahic, Environment News Editor at New Scientist. Dr Randerson: I am James Randerson, Assistant National News Editor, which means I sit on The Guardian’s news desk and deal with both print and web, but I have specific responsibility for environment and science news. Q152 Chair: Welcome to both of you. You are both experienced journalists. I know that the world of journalism is not totally isolated in your respective newspapers and publications; you have some cross-over with your colleagues elsewhere. One of the odd things is that, when we announced this inquiry, we found it extremely difficult to get a response from some parts of the media. We proactively invited papers here like The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, and eventually they both said no. In a slightly shorter time scale, The Times, The Economist and The Sun either could not send someone along or it was too short notice. Can you speculate on why there is a reluctance on the part of the media to help us solve some of the difficult problems that we are tackling? Dr Randerson: It is a bit hard to comment on the motivations and reluctance of my colleagues in other parts of Fleet Street. It is a pity, because it would be good to hear their point of view on different things. I do not know. Perhaps it was in the box marked “a bit difficult”, but it should not be. Q153 Chair: But the editorial of the Daily Mail is regularly commenting on climate change issues. Why do you think they would not help us? Dr Randerson: Only they can answer that question. Catherine Brahic: I cannot possibly fathom that. I would agree with James that it is a shame and we would have liked to hear their contributions as well, but it is difficult to speculate. 2 Q154 Chair: We would have welcomed their views. What difficulties are there when reporting subjects like climate change compared with other issues? Catherine Brahic: It is an incredibly difficult and complex topic—obviously, New Scientist deals exclusively with science news—compared even with other domains that we cover. The uncertainty issues are also considerable in climate science and can only really be compared with certain biomedical issues. It is also not just a scientific issue. It is a scientific issue that is inherently enmeshed in social, economic, financial and political issues, and that makes it a very emotional scientific topic, unlike some others. Dr Randerson: I concur with all that. It is a very big topic and it is complex. There are elements of it where there are uncertainties; there are elements where there are fewer uncertainties, and those two different areas can become confused. It also has a tendency to be very political. I have been reading some of the previous evidence sessions. There has been an elephant in the room, touched on by some speakers but not really addressed. There is a tendency among some people on either side of the debate to argue backwards, whether or not they are doing it consciously. There is a certain strain of opinion on the left that climate change is a good issue for them, because one way of countering it is along the lines of saying that big business, free markets and so on are bad. There are some people who think that is a good route to go down and will shift that on to their scientific position. Likewise, on the other side of the debate, there are people who see that and think, “This is a bad issue, and we will aim our fire at the science,” when they have not made up their mind based on the science. I am not suggesting for a minute that all the actors in the debate are arguing on those terms, but it has a tendency to be quite political. The scientific aspects of it also follow through to different potential policy outcomes, which themselves are quite complex and indeed international in terms of global climate agreements and so on. All that makes for quite a difficult mix in terms of reporting on it. Catherine Brahic: The politics of it tend to be very entrenched, so people tend to have opinions that they stick to. Everything they hear is used to support their own entrenched opinion. Unlike, say, theoretical physics, you tend to take the science to back up your point of view, which differentiates it from the other topics that we cover. Q155 Chair: What is it that would make a climate story an interesting one? What is of interest at the present time? Dr Randerson: It is the same sort of test that we would apply to any science news story. Is it interesting to the readership? Is it surprising? There is an element of entertainment there as well, I suppose. What impact is this going to have on me? What are the potential policy implications, and so on? All of those things feed into a mix that is about newness and interest to the reader. Catherine Brahic: We tend to look at whether something is true to the best of our knowledge; whether it is verified and held up by the science; whether it is relevant to our readers; and whether it is something that they will be inherently interested in and want to relate to their friends. It is the factor of the conversation down at the pub. Is it something that is going to generate some kind of conversation? A lot of climate science fits the other two factors, so it will be true and verified to the best of our knowledge and relevant to everybody’s life, but inherently quite dull because it relates to a very small aspect of climate science, which is probably interesting only to the scientists themselves. So the third factor—interest—is important to a news editor as well. 3 Q156 Chair: I am not sure whether either of you is familiar with each other’s editorial processes. Are there differences in the way your two publications approach climate stories? Catherine Brahic: James used to work at New Scientist and so is very familiar with the workings of it. Dr Randerson: I have been at The Guardian for seven years, but before that I was at New Scientist. In many ways, it is similar in that we are generally working with the same sort of source material for many kinds of stories—new scientific papers and so on. The difference is in asking the question, “Will this be of interest to our readership?” New Scientist has a slightly more specialised readership, who are more interested in and tend to be better informed about many of the issues—not to a huge degree, but obviously to some degree. So there would be a slightly different editorial calculus going on. Catherine Brahic: Our readers tend to have a scientific background. They are not necessarily scientists; in fact, the majority of them no longer practise science, but they will often have a first degree in science. They read New Scientist in order to stay connected to the science; they already have an interest in it, so we do not need to captivate them probably in the way that The Guardian needs to. We also stick strictly to the science, so we cover less of the climate policy and probably some of the harder economic aspects than The Guardian. Our readers tend to be more interested in the science itself. Dr Randerson: It is probably worth saying that we probably do more domestic politics as well on the issue than New Scientist. Catherine Brahic: Yes. Q157 Chair: So the challenge of captivating people is perhaps the reason why some newspapers allow their headline writers to go a little wild on some of the science stories. Is that your suggestion? Catherine Brahic: I would not want to comment on the policies of other newspapers, but the purpose of a headline is to catch the reader’s eye.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Andrew Montford's the Hockey Stick Illusion Is One of the Best Science
    Andrew Montford‘s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph. I can remember when I first paid attention to the ―hockey stick‖ graph at a conference in Cambridge. The temperature line trundled along with little change for centuries, then shot through the roof in the 20th century, like the blade of an ice-hockey stick. I had become somewhat of a sceptic about the science of climate change, but here was emphatic proof that the world was much warmer today; and warming much faster than at any time in a thousand years. I resolved to shed my doubts. I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true. I was not the only one who was impressed. The graph appeared six times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘s third report in 2001. It was on display as a backdrop at the press conference to launch that report. James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. ―It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,‖ said the BBC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Climategate Inquiries
    T HE CLIMATEGATE INQUIRIES by Andrew Montford SPPI REPRINT SERIES ♦ September 15, 2010 The Climategate Inquiries Andrew Montford Foreword by Lord Turnbull The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Report 1 The Climategate Inquiries The Climategate Inquiries Andrew Montford Foreword by Lord Turnbull We have to take a self-critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the carpet. Some of the inquiries – like in the UK – did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust.1 --Hans von Storch, Professor of Climatology, 2 August 2010 ISBN No. 978-1-906996-26-0 © Copyright 2010, The Global Warming Policy Foundation London SW1Y 5DB, September 2010 1 Von Storch, H. Wir müssen die Herausforderung durch die Skeptiker annehmen. Interview with Daniel Lingenhöhl, Handelsblatt, 2 August 2010. 1 CONTENTS Foreword by Lord Turnbull 3 Summary and Conclusions 6 Part I Introduction 8 Part II The Parliamentary Inquiry 12 Part III The Oxburgh Panel 25 Part IV The Climate Change Emails Review 36 Part V The Penn State Inquiry 50 About the author Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008), a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://bishop-hill.net and has made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective. Lord Turnbull Andrew Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Eighth Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 24 March 2010 HC 387-I Published on 31 March 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science. Under arrangements agreed by the House on 25 June 2009 the Science and Technology Committee was established on 1 October 2009 with the same membership and Chairman as the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee and its proceedings were deemed to have been in respect of the Science and Technology Committee. Current membership Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham) Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry) Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole) Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire) Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South) Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West) Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point) Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles) Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley) Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152.
    [Show full text]
  • December 12, 2015
    The Week That Was: 2015-12-12 (December 12, 2015) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project ################################################### Quote of the Week: “The prudent man always studies seriously and earnestly to understand whatever he professes to understand, and not merely to persuade other people that he understands it; and though his talents may not always be very brilliant, they are always perfectly genuine. He neither endeavours to impose upon you by the cunning devices of an artful impostor, nor by the arrogant airs of an assuming pedant, nor by the confident assertions of a superficial and impudent pretender.” Adam Smith The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) ################################################### Number of the Week: 3 Times and 4 Times ################################################### Dear Subscriber to The Week That Was, As you know, support for the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) comes entirely from private donations; we do not solicit support from industry or government. Therefore, we can honestly claim that we are not beholden to anyone and that our writings are clear from any outside influence. We are also proud of the fact that SEPP is frugal: no fancy offices, no employees, no salaries paid to anyone; in fact, we donate book royalties and lecture fees to SEPP. The past few years have been very productive: In collaboration with like-minded groups, we produced hard-hitting comments for the record and provided scientific testimony on proposed Federal climate and energy policy. We expect this material to surface in future litigation over excessive regulation. In 2016, we plan to be very active in upcoming litigation over Federal regulations that are not supported by empirical science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Eighth Report of Session 2009–10 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 24 March 2010 HC 387-II Published on 31 March 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science. Under arrangements agreed by the House on 25 June 2009 the Science and Technology Committee was established on 1 October 2009 with the same membership and Chairman as the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee and its proceedings were deemed to have been in respect of the Science and Technology Committee. Current membership Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham) Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry) Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole) Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire) Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South) Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West) Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point) Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles) Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley) Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152.
    [Show full text]
  • UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY Andrew Montford
    UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY Andrew Montford The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Report 16 GWPF REPORTS Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Academic Advisory Coun- cil members or its directors THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION Director Benny Peiser BOARD OF TRUSTEES Lord Lawson (Chairman) Sir Martin Jacomb Lord Donoughue Baroness Nicholson Lord Fellowes Lord Turnbull Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester Sir James Spooner ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL Professor Ross McKitrick (Chairman) Professor Deepak Lal Adrian Berry Professor Richard Lindzen Sir Samuel Brittan Professor Robert Mendelsohn Sir Ian Byatt Professor Ian Plimer Professor Robert Carter Professor Paul Reiter Professor Vincent Courtillot Dr Matt Ridley Professor Freeman Dyson Sir Alan Rudge Professor Christopher Essex Professor Nir Shaviv Christian Gerondeau Professor Philip Stott Dr Indur Goklany Professor Henrik Svensmark Professor William Happer Professor Richard Tol Professor David Henderson Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Professor Terence Kealey Dr David Whitehouse UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY Andrew Montford ISBN 978-0-9573880-6-2 c Copyright 2015 The Global Warming Policy Foundation Contents Foreword vii Summary ix 1 The ethical choice 1 The focus on ethics 1 The policy – market fixing 2 2 Technological...solutions? 2 Biofuels 2 Woody biomass 5 Windmills 6 Solar PV 10 CFLs 11 Recycling 12 3 International angles 13 Clean development mechanism promotes global warming 13 REDD and the rainforests 14 The EU Emissions Trading Scheme 16 4 The haves and the have-nots 17 Effects on the poor 17 5 Conclusions 18 6 Acknowledgements 18 Notes 19 Foreword by William Happer Has there ever been a movement in human history that did not present itself as an ethical cause? Ghengis Khan supposedly informed his victims: ‘I am the punishment of God.
    [Show full text]
  • December 6, 2014
    The Week That Was: 2014-12-06 (December 6, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project ################################################### Quote of the Week: “If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural biotechnology, they might actually precipitate the famines and the crisis of global biodiversity they have been predicting for nearly 40 years.” Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution -- H/t Margaret Wente ################################################### Number of the Week: 826,000 Short ################################################### THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) The Game in Lima: The annual December meeting of the UN Conference of Parties (now COP- 20) to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has opened in Lima, Peru. This is the last major conference, but not the only one, before the 2015 Conference of Parties in Paris next December. The purpose of the Lima conference it to lay the groundwork for a legally binding agreement at the Paris Conference. The intended purpose of a new agreement is to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which failed and has expired. Based on one’s belief of whether or not human carbon dioxide emissions endanger humanity by causing drastic global warming/climate change, these conferences can be described in various ways ranging from the last hope of humanity to a final effort to destroy modern, industrial civilization, which heavily depends on the use of fossil fuels. Western organizations that promote the dangers of human-caused global warming include the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Bank, the European Union, the US Administration, and various once notable scientific institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ian Castles' Contributions in Perspective
    22. Climate Change and Related Issues: Ian Castles’ Contributions in Perspective David Henderson Preface Ian Castles was a top Australian civil servant: the last two posts that he held were as Secretary of the Department of Finance and as Australian Statistician. He and I met in 1995, when we were both retired officials; and some years later, as recounted here, we became jointly involved, as close collaborators, on issues relating to climate change. This chapter tells the story of our collaboration. In doing so, it develops two related themes. First, it brings out Ian’s distinctive contributions in three related subject areas: inter-country measures of output and real expenditure; the continuing climate change debate; and - though this deserves a lot more space than I could give it here – what I call global salvationism, i.e., ways of thinking which combine confident over-pessimistic assessments and predictions with collectivist ‘solutions’. Second, it offers a perspective on the evolution of the climate change debate over the past decade. As compared with an earlier version, which has been widely circulated and posted on Andrew Montford’s Bishop Hill blog, the text that follows has a few changes. In particular, I have inserted an extra paragraph in the next-to-final section. It takes account of further messages from Ian to me, following our last meeting in Canberra, which came to light after the earlier text had gone out. First involvement: How it came about Ian Castles became seriously engaged with climate change issues in the latter part of 2002, and over the rest of his life those issues came to form his main single professional concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate: Public Understanding and Its Policy Implications
    CLIMATE: PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND ITS POLICY IMPLICATIONS Written Evidence To The Science And Technology Committee Andrew Montford The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Note GWPF REPORTS Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council members or its Directors. THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION Director Dr Benny Peiser Assistant Director Philipp Mueller BOARD OF TRUSTEES Lord Lawson (Chairman) Baroness Nicholson Lord Donoughue Lord Turnbull Lord Fellowes Sir James Spooner Rt Rev Peter Forster Bishop of Chester Sir Martin Jacomb ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL Professor David Henderson (Chairman) Professor Richard Lindzen Adrian Berry (Viscount Camrose) Professor Ross McKitrick Sir Samuel Brittan Professor Robert Mendelsohn Sir Ian Byatt Professor Sir Alan Peacock Professor Robert Carter Professor Ian Plimer Professor Vincent Courtillot Professor Paul Reiter Professor Freeman Dyson Dr Matt Ridley (Viscount Ridley) Christian Gerondeau Sir Alan Rudge Dr Indur Goklany Professor Nir Shaviv Professor William Happer Professor Philip Stott Professor Terence Kealey Professor Henrik Svensmark Professor Anthony Kelly Professor Richard Tol Professor Deepak Lal Dr David Whitehouse Climate: Public Understanding And Its Policy Implications Climate: Public Understanding And Its Policy Implications Written Evidence To The Science And Technology Committee Andrew Montford Andrew Montford is the author of ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corrup- tion of Science’ (2010) and of the GWPF reports ‘The Climategate Inquiries’ (2010) and ‘Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change’ (2012). He writes a blog special- ising in climate change issues at www.bishop-hill.net and made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • CLIMATE CONTROL Brainwashing in Schools
    CLIMATE CONTROL Brainwashing in schools Andrew Montford and John Shade Foreword by Professor Terence Kealey The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Report 14 GWPF REPORTS Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Ad- visory Council members or its Directors. THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION Director Benny Peiser BOARD OF TRUSTEES Lord Lawson (Chairman) Baroness Nicholson Lord Donoughue Lord Turnbull Lord Fellowes Sir James Spooner Rt Rev Peter Forster Bishop of Chester Sir Martin Jacomb ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL Professor David Henderson (Chairman) Professor Richard Lindzen AdrianBerry ProfessorRossMcKitrick Sir Samuel Brittan Professor Robert Mendelsohn Sir Ian Byatt Professor Sir Alan Peacock ProfessorRobertCarter ProfessorIanPlimer ProfessorVincentCourtillot ProfessorPaulReiter ProfessorFreemanDyson DrMattRidley Christian Gerondeau Sir Alan Rudge Dr Indur Goklany Professor Nir Shaviv ProfessorWilliamHapper ProfessorPhilipStott ProfessorTerenceKealey ProfessorHenrikSvensmark ProfessorAnthonyKelly ProfessorRichardTol ProfessorDeepakLal DrDavidWhitehouse CLIMATE CONTROL Brainwashing in schools Andrew Montford and John Shade Foreword by Professor Terence Kealey ISBN 978-0-9573880-4-8 c Copyright 2014 The Global Warming Policy Foundation ⃝ Contents Foreword 3 About the authors 5 Executive summary 7 Introduction 9 The sustainability agenda 10 How did we get to here? ......................... 10 Children as political tools ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Northumbria Research Link
    Northumbria Research Link Citation: Ruiu, Maria Laura (2019) Moral panics and newspaper reporting in Britain: between sceptical and realistic discourses of climate change. Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University. This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/42051/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/pol i cies.html MORAL PANICS AND NEWSPAPER REPORTING IN BRITAIN: BETWEEN SCEPTICAL AND REALISTIC DISCOURSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE Volume 1 of 2 M L Ruiu PhD 2019 MORAL PANICS AND NEWSPAPER REPORTING IN BRITAIN: BETWEEN SCEPTICAL AND REALISTIC DISCOURSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE Volume 1 of 2 Maria Laura Ruiu A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Research undertaken in the Faculty of Arts, Design & Social Sciences July 2019 Abstract This thesis provides the first attempt to empirically apply the moral panic framework to study British newspaper reporting on climate change by drawing upon a unique dataset of 958 news articles over three decades (1988-2016).
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN KILLING MACHINES the Impact of Renewable Energy on Wildlife and Nature
    GREEN KILLING MACHINES The impact of renewable energy on wildlife and nature Andrew Montford The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Report 36 GREEN KILLING MACHINES The impact of renewable energy on wildlife and nature Andrew Montford ISBN 978-1-9160700-2-8 © Copyright 2019 The Global Warming Policy Foundation Contents About the author vi Executive summary vii 1 Introduction 1 2 Meeting demand from renewables 1 3 Eco-disasters from eco-gestures 16 4 Playing with demand 17 5 Squaring the circle 19 6 Environmentalists plan the future 22 7 Conclusions 26 About the author Andrew Montford is deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. vi Executive summary Renewable energy has developed itself a reputation as being environmentally friendly. This report will show that this reputation is entirely undeserved. Far from improving the world around us, wind, solar, biomass and even hydropower can be highly damaging. A renew- ables revolution on the scale envisaged by global warming activists will see our landscapes desecrated, our fields industrialised or turned to monocultures, and our wildlife slaughtered. Far from making the world a better place, renewable energy will destroy all we hold dear. Is this really what environmentalism has come to mean? vii 1 Introduction Worries about global warming have led to a plethora of policy initiatives, but above all to demands that energy production shift from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources, and in particular to renewables. However, progress has been slow. The reasons are numerous, and include nimbyism, planning difficulties, problems with integration into distribution grids, and the very high price of energy from most renewable sources.
    [Show full text]