– Rupert – agree with you that calling the East Anglia emails debacle ‘Climategate’ is perjorative: as the guys over at Realclimate write, “All of these various “gates” – Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates.” I was mainly using the term for shorthand.

Also, thanks for the heads-up on the reports about reframing the narrative – familiar with Tom Crompton’s work but the rest definitely on my reading list.

– LadyMargaret – thanks for a particularly useful comment. You ask “Can we create a single consensus among such a diverse group?” Perhaps not. But I do think that we should try, and even if not everyone agrees on the same solutions (e.g. nuclear vs renewables), injecting some positive narratives into the public debate will surely be a good start.

– Niel – We definitely shouldn’t stop localised campaigning; it’s “retreat[ing] into purely ‘localised’ campaigning” that I’m worried about. There is a sense now that the international process is broken and national governments are powerless: the answer is to make both work better, rather than ‘drop out’. But campaigning on a local level remains as important as it’s always been.

– Danny, Lewis: definitely, we should be broadening our coalition much further.

– Comment is free: it’s be great to talk more about how adaptation to climate change can be given more of a hearing. And I agree with you that true sustainability must reconcile multiple goals – even if, like Rupert, I suspect ‘sustainable development’ has been hijacked as a term.

– OxfordKevin: thanks for the links to the climate data. MisterJabberwock, BillyBlofeld, hope you’ve had a read.

– As for the rather depressing picture — apologies, not my choice! 🙂

I also agree with Danny, that emphasis needs to be placed on forming alliances with organisations tackling a broader spectrum of issues. The Robin Hood Tax is one great example of something climate campaigns need to support. Climate Change is, after all, a symptom of the deeper rooted problem with our globalised neo-liberal society. Climate campaigns need to further the agenda in tackling the symptom (and you give excellent pointers on this) and support campaigns which tackle the cause…our inequitable and excessive patterns of consumerism. As you say, this crisis offers a real opportunity for the movement to expand, diversify and coalesce with other movements and I get the impression that campaigners are starting to get the message.

Spencer’s publishing record in determining temperature from microwave measurements is very impressive and is a very difficult technique to get right. On speaking about sensitivity he is speaking outside of his principle expertise and if we are to take him seriously on why he thinks climate sensitivity is about a third of what those working in the field think it is, then he needs to get himself published.

In other words I respect the work he does in the field where he has the demonstrated expertise and published papers but I’m far more skeptical when any specialist talks on topics outside of their direct expertize and where their arguments haven’t been tested in the peer review literature.

Kevin

At the broadest level, there are very real tensions between the technophiles with their big engineering solutions, and those who believe it’s big engineering that got us into this mess in the first place; between the anti-capitalists and the engaged corporates; between the trade unions and those who do not see this as a social agenda. And drilling into the detail more such clashes emerge.

It isn’t impossible, but a single, positive, vision shared by all in this ‘movement’ is a long way off. Are we ready for the shockwave of the current alliance breaking apart and reforming to create new alliances focused on the answers, instead of the problems? Can we create a single consensus among such a diverse group? Can we trust each other to stick to that consensus? And can we do it while under scrutiny from organised groups doing their best to destroy the public support the movement relies on?

Interesting times indeed …