Original URL: https://www.theregister.com/2008/01/24/philip_pullman_letters/

On Philip Pullman's grim eco-fantasy

Lucifer knows, he's miserable now

By Andrew Orlowski

Posted in Science, 24th January 2008 19:11 GMT

In a new book published this week, author Philip Pullman looked back with nostalgia at post-war austerity - and advocated the state cutting off your power as soon as you exceed your Carbon Ration. He also expressed his hope that Polar Bears would kill and eat lots of humans.

More nasty misanthropy from a millionaire, then? But it's no isolated example. Radiohead's Thom Yorke thinks we should go back to compulsory austerity too, citing our lifestyles. And a new book, in which Pullman's interview is published, is a kind of WW2-style manual telling us how to enjoy the new, low-carbon monochrome era: not so much a Protect And Survive, as a Shiver And Perish.

Some people just hate being alive, I guess.

Here are some of your responses to that piece.

Many thanks to Graham for finding this gem of a recent interview:

Thanks for yet another cracking article on the Reg.

I don't know what it is about having millions of pounds in the bank, but it does seem to turn you into a hypocrite quite quickly. You might be interested in this sycophantic drivel from the Times:

Pullman ... "has recently relocated. He has bought a detached, modernised 16th-century farmhouse in the rolling countryside of well-heeled Cumnor, just 10 minutes by car from Oxford station. A new Mercedes E320 estate stands on the secluded brick-paved driveway.

And a bit later:

He takes me to the kitchen - expanses of terracotta tiles, downlighting, new designer units, and a resplendent cream four-oven Aga. "We've been bending this house to our will," he tells me.

Of course, the eco-doubts are nagging away at him:

As I admired his car, he said a trifle hastily: "Yes. But it's diesel: 50 miles to the gallon on the long trip." As for the Aga: "Mmm... but I can't help worrying whether it contributes to global warming."

But not for long:

...he drives us in his new Mercedes E320 diesel into the bosom of Oxford to Walton Street, where he has booked a table at the Loch Fyne restaurant. As he quaffs an order of oysters...

What? Driving in Oxford, the most bicycle-and-park-and-ride-friendly town in England? The selfish bastard.

The URL is here.

I reckon the Government really should implement his loopy carbon rationing scheme. I might only make it to October, like he says, but I'd at least have the satisfaction of watching him freeze to death in March.

I suppose Pullman think he's "doing his bit".

I had always had a great deal of respect for Philip Pullman's stand against the irrational nature of organised religion. That respect has, sadly, now evaporated due to his equally irrational ranting on 'climate change' which, as you rightly point out, is mostly bollocks.

<sigh> Another public image bites the dust...

Regards, Mike


Thankyou thankyou THANKYOU Andrew for your insightful article against climate alarmism.

I look forward to more El Reg articles biting the hand (hoof?) of this most sacred of cows.

Eric

Cows... methane ... nope, best not go there.

Fantasy Authors Back Climate Change Models? And in other news ... Frank Carson Bids For General Secetary Job At UN. I'd stick more money on Frank than I'd pay to listen to Mr Pullman.

Andy H

You make the point that the 'carbon cultists' have driven any concern other than carbon off the environmental agenda. I agree and I think it's a particularly short-sighted approach that will cause us and our ecosystem great harm. It isn't something that gets discussed very often. Why do you think this is though? It clearly isn't in the best interests of the environment, so what's going on?

This allows .gov to appear to do something without affecting donations. The environmental lobby is just responding to that by applying the pressure where it will yield a result.

If that is the case then it's a big change in how environmental pressure groups operate. Historically they have always gone after corporate polluters: difficult, for sure, but it's where the biggest payoffs lie. They have always fought the hard, but genuine, fight. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Do you agree, or do you think I'm being naive and the environmental lobby has always been self-serving? Maybe you feel that the environmental movement been co-opted by practicioners of the lowest kind of jealous socialism (as espoused by the 'ginger winger')?

Tim

I expect every lobby group to be jostling for the attention of government - that's just what lobby groups do. It's very unusual for a lobby group that desires wholesale lifestyle changes to capture the government's ear. It's also most unusual, but not unprecedented, to find policy directing the science so explicitly. Especially when the science is in its infancy, as our recent look at particulate forcings points out.

I think you're onto something, Tim. A government that voluntarily implements the kind of top-down austerity program that Pullman and Yorke want to see wouldn't stay in office for very long. So may be it is all for show? Either that, or the politicians are figuring out a way of implementing it and not have to get elected to stay in power.

But as I expected, there's an ear-bashing for daring to question the "consensus"

First, it reads very much as if you are a carbon sceptic. Now there is nothing wrong with carbon scepticism per se but a balanced article would attempt to see both sides of an argument and, hopefully, understand the science. Phrases like "carbon cultists" sound as if you're just trying to wind people up - hence the comment that what you're written includes some parts which appear to be flame bait.

Now to the points:

1)"One of the two diminishing populations, in Baffin Bay, is declining because the air is getting colder - not warmer"

This is predicted by climate models (and evidence) which show quite clearly that any climate change, in this case global warming, does not affect all areas equally and can lead to temperature variations both positive and negative in localised areas. For instance, deviation of the Gulf Stream for whatever reason (an unlikely possibility IMO but it does exist theoretically) could reduce temperatures in the UK whilst not massively affecting the overall temperature of Europe.

2)"Secondly, even NASA is reluctant to attribute a warmer Arctic to "Global Warming". It's a local, regional phenomenon"

This is just wrong, based on your own link. Specifically phrases in that link such as "Recent dramatic changes in the Arctic climate - melting sea ice, warmer ocean, green fields in place of icy wilderness, etc - might not all be directly related to global warming.". Notice how your statement bears no relation to this one. Or this "Morison adds that although the recently observed changes are more likely due to the variations in the current than directly to do with global warming, climate models do predict that a warmer world will have a stronger counter-clockwise circulation in the Arctic Ocean. This, he adds, means that the 1990s may have been a glimpse of the region's future.".

Essentially, there are multiple causes for region specific climate variations but identifying one does not automatically mean none of the others are having an effect, which you don't address in the slightest.

3)David Whitehouse - although a respected scientist - is still only one voice and his speciality is astrophysics not climate. It is interesting seing the response that New Scientist themselves give to his article here http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011 including this "I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average. ".

You seemingly give no credence to contrary views from experts in the field - which David Whitehouse is not btw. Essentially it reads as though you've read his article and simply trusted it without investigating further, or you've investigated further and then chosen to believe the article that already agrees with your beliefs. Either way, poor journalism and poor science I'm afraid.

Pete

In other words, when journalists are correcting false arguments, they should always quote additional misleading information for "balance". Journalists should not draw citations from outside the small number of "experts" who are acceptable as sources.

OK, I'll do my best.

Here's another -

I was less than impressed by your article "Philip Pullman: Kill humans and ration heating". My grandmother died of tuberculosis in 1947. By 1949 such deaths were significant decline as the National Health Service provided care to those who previously could not afford it.

I guess you have no data for STD infection rates immediately post war compared to today. You are slapdash (?drunk?wired?) in you approach and the fact that you use the increase in life expectancy, that is principally down to improved health care and better safety measures, as an argument for deriding Philip Pullman is shabby in the extreme.

From the other things you write I suspect you were (a) not alive in the years immediately after WW2 and (b) have very little experience talking to people who were alive then about what it was like. To illustrate (b) it was common in the 40s/50s for people to have healthy teeth removed, so as to have the "superior" dentures fitted (it was sometimes a 21st birthday present from parents).

Before dismissing what Philip Pullman says I suggest you open your mind and get some facts into it. Your current sources make Wiki look gold standard and your poor journalistic standards reflect badly on The Register.

Regards,

John Winney

Sorry John, but if "superior dentures [were] sometimes a 21st birthday present from parents", then you had posh parents.

Pullman's assertion that the nation was healthier in the post-war years is clearly, demonstrably wrong. His argument, based on this assertion, that returning to the post-war rationing era is therefore desirable, is also wrong.

We're glad to be of service. ®