Political ideology is polarising climate change discussion
By Wojciech Kosc
Few topics of discourse today are more subject to ideological interpretation than the theory of global climate change. One result of this is that much so-called "debate" about climate change centres on whether or not a debate should be taking place in the first place. In Poland, for example, one anonymous blogger - though clearly a scientist - is battling to persuade readers that climate change isn't simply a leftist myth created by Al Gore to drain people's pockets.
No matter how fuzzy the margins of political left and right have become in Europe after the Soviet Union's collapse, it is usually safe to assume that one's stance on climate change determines on which side of the left-right political divide an individual sits.
Right-leaning political forces and media in Poland typically frown upon calls for action to mitigate climate change. In the country' nearly 100 percent coal-driven economy, any talk of need to curb or cut greenhouse gas emissions appears dangerous both to jobs and the economy as a whole.
There are, of course, several big CO2 emitters willing to jump on the emissions reduction bandwagon by getting involved in pilot projects for carbon capture and storage - provided, of course, that EU funding comes into the picture - but climate sceptics tend overall to suspect leftist manipulation and unconvincing science. And the climate-sceptical press now quite often replaces the word 'theory' with 'conjecture'.
The aforementioned blog (it's mostly in Polish, though the author most often refers to sources in English, assuming that readers can read it) offers a very fine defence of global climate change theory, where 'theory' is taken as something understood, rather than (as defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."
In an academic, matter-of-fact and logical manner, with numerous references to peer-reviewed content from such journals like Science and Nature, the blog literally destroys the naïve, shallow and ideologically laden notions that Poland's right wing uses to discredit the claim for needing a global pact to keep temperature growth below two degrees Celsius.
Those in Poland most keen to deny climate change frequently rely on statements like the following from leading right-wing columnist Rafal A. Ziemkiewicz (from an article published last June in
Rzeczpospolita):
"The summer holidays, say the meteorologists, will only be summer in name. Even going away doesn't guarantee heat, because the year is exceptionally cold. No one even needs meteorologists: everyone will admit that there hasn't been a summer this cold for years. [...] Personally, I'm not freezing. I'm full of admiration. Anytime I think of it, I shake my head, and think that no bigger trick has ever been played on everyone by anyone in the history. I'm thinking, of course, about the global warming hysteria."
With considerable cheek and ironic 'sensibility', the author parrots typical misconceptions and ignorance about climate change - for example, that lower temperatures in Poland or throughout Europe in June of one year can represent temperature drops globally.
'Denialist' publications also refer continually to the scientifically disproven legend that Greenland derives its name from its actually being green in the Middle Ages - allegedly the result of the Earth being warmer a relatively short time ago. They also claim that there were periods, such as the neo-proterozoic (500m to 1bn years ago), when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere but the planet was deep-frozen: alleged proof that CO2 is a totally negligible factor when it comes to explaining global changes in temperature - if one doesn't take into account a colder Sun, of course.
The Doskonale Szare blog might not be enough to counterbalance the kind of nonsense that penetrates mainstream discourse on climate change. What's a blog, after all, against a wealthy paper or a television station? One could argue, however, that it could have a greater impact in the long run than, say, Greenpeace actions, which tend towards the ephemerally theatrical. Perhaps a more in-your-face attitude with links to hardcore data from world's top science journals will work?
