A series of e-mails are hacked from a Science department at the University of East Anglia, and now all the people who make claims against ‘Climate Change’ can truly believe that they have ‘them’ on the run.

I’d heard something of the ‘story’ but first became aware that the topic was ‘hot news’ while watching Question Time last week. Here is a remarkable co-incidence – or a conspiracy even (1) - that Melanie Phillips should have been booked to appear on QT the week this story broke. The woman who is number three in George Monbiot’s top ten Climate Change Deniers given such an opportunity to let rip (2)

Actually that was something she wasn’t happy about. Being described as a ‘Denier’. She said this made comparison with Holocaust deniers. Now I write as an ‘Existence of God’ denier and an ‘Aliens live among us’ denier. I freely own up to both. I would say that all four things are connected only by denial (They just make a varying degree of sense.) That’s not an uncommon rhetorical devise - Make out that a description is just like another that is ‘worse’ means the initial description should never have been made. Its still baloney of course.

To me there is always a piece missing in the central theory of Phillipsism (in case she ever reads this I’d better stick to a safe albeit invented term). There is a basic truth that isn’t mentioned. The theory is all these scientists have a self interest in keeping the ‘Climate Change Myth’ going. Their grants depend on it, the argument goes. This line of thought conveniently ignores the fact that grants are available to take the counter argument - from oil companies, to the obvious example – that far exceed what governments are likely to pay out.

But let’s forget grants. Climate change is in nobody’s interests. Scientists, me, and you all love guzzling fuel, switching on lights, watching TV, heating our homes, taking cheap flights. Why invent a theory that stops one living the ‘modern high life’? (Of course I've heard the line that scientists came up with the theory so they could take all the cheap flights but unless someone comments on my blog to the contrary I can’t really find the enthusiasm for countering that)

Of course, governments have jumped enthusiastically on the Climate Change bandwagon because it gives them the perfect excuse to tax us more.

Except, of course, they haven’t. It’s taken more than forty years to reach the current consensus that something must be done, and that has only been possible since GW Bush left the Whitehouse. The psephological truism is that no government can be elected in a Western Democracy on a platform of more taxes. I know that well enough, as the member of a party often called ‘honourable’ for attempting the reverse(3). If there was the credible scientific research out there that Climate Change theory is a scam, then the modern democratic politician would be seeking it out. That there is a growing consensus amongst them that Climate change science is on to something is what I’d describe as ‘suggestive’

So, there is the psychological, psephological, motivational line of reasoning for why I don’t doubt that ‘Inconvenient truth’

And that’s even before I've started on the Science!

(1) Assuming Phillips wasn't a late addition to the panal given the news to discuss. Do the BBC do that?
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
(3) Remember 1p on Income tax for Education? Or 50% top rate of tax? Both positions I wholeheartedly supported by the way.