From Climate Scepticism

BY ALAN KENDALL

Last week there was a television programme that I especially wanted to see; a programme that, if the past was any indication, most commentators at this site would have deliberately dodged.  The programme was Chris Packham, is it time to break the law?  You will have missed something good and worthwhile.  It gave a chance to evaluate a potential major opponent.

I was also interested in the programme because I had watched and, via Open Mic had strongly recommended watching, Chis Packham’s series Earth. This clearly established his ability to step into Attenborough’s shoes as a leading television personality with a mission to support wildlife and climate change.  Also a potential major adversary of anything vaguely critical of catastrophic climate advocacy.

The programme fully lived up to my expectations.  Packham came across as a dedicated advocate, someone very genuine (if misguided).  His thesis was that for his entire life he had supported wildlife and warned about climate change. He was now discouraged because of a lack of any real response and was pondering engaging with groups (like Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion) that conducted quasi-legal (like slow walking and holding up traffic) or even illegal acts.  Packham agonised over this conundrum, seeking advice here, there, and everywhere.  He got all sorts of advice ranging from don’t break the law (from Lord Deben) to sabotaging oil pipelines. He tried to interview relevant Tory Ministers but to no avail.  In the end Packham stated that he had come to believe that those who broke the law were engaged in laudable actions and that, after much reflection, he personally could break the law in support of climate change protests.

A fascinating and I believe very honest treatment of most of the entire subject.  Personally I don’t believe he covered the rights of the general public to be free of public nuisance with sufficient detail.  Also there was the nagging doubt as to whether Packham and the programme makers were engaged in incitement.  It was noticeable that when the list of credits at the end of the programme rolled it was headed by their legal advisor.

So why am I suggesting you might benefit from seeking out the programme and viewing it?  Well, I believe there has been a tendency to view those supporting climate catastrophe as not deserving our full efforts.  They are treated as lacking in reason or knowledge. Packham stands as an example of those we so dismiss at our peril.  He comes across as entirely honest, committed and knowledgeable, someone who cannot easily be dismissed and also one who will gather support. His only fault in the programme IMHO was to summarily dismiss Peter Lilley’s arguments regarding forest fires, waving his hands as he maintained that so much evidence (never given) supported the view that climate change was causing them to increase this year.

I found the programme fascinating and well worth spending the hour spent watching it.  It also generated much discussion afterwards with “she who must be listened to”.  We failed to agree upon a fundamental question: if you were convinced that climate change was a realistic threat, is it legitimate to break the law to support action to counteract it?  I was jail-bait, my wife would promise to visit me.