Snowpiercer, Sustainability and the Battle with Ourselves

“Ah, the one with the train”

Said HMV guy. I asked him if he happened to stock Snowpiercer, although I knew it was unlikely. For reasons I believe that are related to artistic disagreements between Harvey Weinstein and Snowpiercer’s director, Bong Joon-ho, the film has had a fairly irregular international release. So irregular, that it’s still not been officially released in the UK. The one with the train, you’ll have to buy it on ebay or Amazon from a foreign country if you want to see the film with 100% legality. I recommend you buy it because it’s an excellent film. If you like your action with a slab of politics on the side, or maybe that should be the other way round, then Snowpiercer won’t disappoint. If however you need your story lines to be cast in solid-reality and logic then this might not be the film for you.

Set in the near future where a failed experiment to stop global warming freezes the earth, Snowpiercer is the laws-of-physics-defying-train that runs on a perpetual motion engine where the last humans now reside. Don’t take the premise too seriously, it’s not supposed to be a prediction of any sort. The train is used as a tool to explore the political systems of man, and indeed, man’s relationship with nature which I’ll look at later. It’s sort of like how the premise of Animal Farm is of course not literal. The powerful critique that the book represents and the analogy it drew to differing systems of economic organisation is what we paid attention to. Snowpiercer is no different.

Our hero is Curtis, played by Chris Evans (Captain America). You can tell he’s the hero because everyone in his part of the train looks like shit, except for him. And possibly Jamie Bell, who plays Curtis’ lieutenant, Edgar. Curtis and his fellow riffraff live in the rear end of the train and endure a harsh existence in which the people from the upper part of the train randomly take their children and give them blocks of black gelatine to eat, but apart from that it’s never made clear exactly why they all share the train and what the purpose is of those who inhabit the back. As we will see later, the very front of the train knows why they’re there, but if you’re one of those guys who’s been living there for 17 years, having escaped the global freeze, what you do with yourself and your time just seems bewildering. It’s a loose part of the plot that could have done with more development, but considering the film is about two hours long and has a lot to tackle it’s just something you need to fill with your imagination.

Nevertheless, even though the world has ended and you’re stuck on a train in economy class forever without even knowing why you’re there, you’ve still got the horn. ‘Train babies’ are naturally those born on the train and it is here that the story begins. Two central characters, one of whom is a friend of Curtis’ have their children taken away by people from the front of the train. Tanya and Andrew (who I named Crazy Scottish Guy until I read that it is actually Ewan Bremner, completely unrecognisable from earlier roles, most famously Trainspotting) fight, unsuccessfully, to get the children back, resulting in Andrew having his arm removed via frozen decapitation. His arm is placed outside the train via a hole that the train’s designer obviously thought would be necessary at some point.

During the 7 minutes it takes for his arm to completely freeze through Tilda Swinton makes her first appearance as the train’s sort of chief (subordinate to the creator Wilfred of course), Minister Mason. Channelling what can only be described as the ghost of Deidre Barlow and an inflated self-importance belonging to every ambitious bureaucrat, she gives a glorious monologue to the rear-enders, making it clear that they should know their place, quite literally. As Andrew’s screams fade away, she explains that you don’t wear a shoe on your head, you wear a hat. And she is the hat. They are the shoe. It’s our first introduction to the politics of the train. How did Mason become the hat and the others shoes? Because they are freeloaders that came uninvited onto the train. The rest bought their tickets. Thus, they deserve their place and not only deserve it, but should be grateful for their existence. Tied to Mason’s argument is a vague concept about these places also being pre-ordained. Wilfred, the creator of the train and the “engine” is praised as some kind of God-like figure in Mason’s speech. This can be perhaps interpreted as a reflection on religion’s role in society as a device to ameliorate the masses and accept their place in society. They might not have any respect for the cold logic of the free market (I buy my ticket, I have earned my place) but maybe they will if Wilfred can be portrayed as some sort of God?

Besides a later excellent scene with some school children this idea isn’t much developed. No one seems to believe that Wilfred is in any way supernatural nor does this cult seem to have much effect on anyone apart from the children. It seems to be a brief, fanciful pop at the role of religion in society but the shallow nature in which the film tackles the issue doesn’t really add anything to the story apart from add a further edge of surrealism, which is perhaps part of its magic. The central point that Mason makes though, is that having forcefully made their way onto the train the rear-enders should be grateful, for they did not earn their place like the rest of the train. Rationally, what’s there to disagree with? You work for what you get. They did not contribute to the train, so what does the train owe them? This is the root of laissez faire economics and it’s a seductive ideology, as we see in our own world. In the world of Snowpiercer though, it’s not going to wash. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their origin, the rear-enders will not tolerate their condition in perpetuity. Their present state is simply too much to bear. So they do what every oppressed group has done once they have no other option, they turn to force.

When Tilda’s finished, Andrew’s arm is removed from the hole. Two menacing brothers/lovers/father & son – it is not made clear in the film but IMDb says they are Franco the younger & elder – destroy his arm with a giant mallet. Andrew’s in immense pain but this doesn’t seem to alter his mental state in any way and he returns to the rear with one arm and the scene is over.

Curtis, under the tutelage of Gilliam (John Hurt), has been planning a rebellion on the train. He is not the first though and we are told that there were other rebellions that failed. Curtis receives little notes hidden in the blocks of gelatine. These notes tell him that the security expert of the train is locked in the cell block, in a carriage a little further up. Earlier, Curtis had heard Mason tell one of the guards to “put away that useless gun”. Curtis suspects that they’ve used all their bullets in the previous rebellions. An opportunity presents itself and our hero tests his theory for himself. In the best moment of first part of the film Curtis points a guard’s gun to his head and pulls the trigger: he doesn’t die and the revolution immediately begins with the guard’s becoming overwhelmed. The film is now in full flow and this is where it really gets going.

The journey then takes its course through each carriage of the train. They find the security expert Namgoong (Song Kang-ho) who appears madder than Andrew. He’s addicted to Kronol, a drug made from industrial waste. He agrees to open the doors on the way to the train in exchange for the drug. Releasing his daughter, Yona, whose brain appears just as muddled from Kronol addiction, Namgoong gets to work. They go through door after door. Our hero discovers what’s in the black gelatinous blocks they eat: cockroaches. It’s a scene that compounds the horror in which the rear-enders have been living in. Curtis doesn’t share the information with his fellow passengers.

They continue on their way. The next carriage is full of hooded men, equipped with axes, and in what is one of the most surreal and creepiest part of the film, the men welcome the revolutionaries by gutting a carp. There’s a few theories for why they do this associated with religion from Asian and Christian cultures, to the more practical theory that the fish blood they dip their axes in will give diseases to the enemies they wound. They fight their way through the men, where in one bizarre passage the hooded men stop fighting, count down to 10 and wish everyone a ‘Happy New Year’. The hooded men then put on googles of some sort. Namgoong, hides Yona, telling Curtis he’s a fool. The train is about to pass through one of the longest tunnels on the route. The goggles are for night vision and without natural light to aid them the rear enders are slaughtered in what is truly hideous footage, shot through the green glow of a night vision camera.

But Curtis, remembering some matches that Namgoong lost to a small pickpocket, calls the young pickpocket’s name. Fire is brought to the front and the light enables Curtis and his class to overcome the hooded men, even resulting in the capture of Mason, although at the cost of Edgar, a choice that Curtis makes clearly making an allusion to all revolutionary sacrifices “for the greater good”. Before they move on, Franco the younger charges forward from his capture in a bid to take out Curtis. Yona trips him and he dies, impaled upon a spear, his last moments spent trying to strangel Yona with one hand. Franco the elder can only look on, subdued, cold fury etched into his face. We switch to Mason, who promises to help them get to the front in return for her life, and in a gesture of helplessness so nasty that even Andrew looks disgusted, she takes out her false teeth, accentuating her age and vulnerability. They pass through carriage after carriage, each one containing a different wonder. An aquarium, a meat freezer, a greenhouse, eventually stopping in a school. Here we learn how Wilford made the train and what happened to “The Seven”, the frozen seven that the train passes at the moment. We find out from Namgoong that his wife is one of them and that as an Inuit, she taught him all there was to know about snow. This explains her optimism in attempting to leave the train but it wasn’t enough. The seven remain frozen not far from the train, Namgoong’s wife leading them from the front for eternity.

It is then that a bald man passes through with a trolley of eggs, as does a man taken at the very start of the film with his violin, who starts playing. Everyone takes an egg, which is when Curtis finds a new message: ‘Blood’. The teacher (played with a wonderful mixture of religious fervour and sickening-sweetness by Alison Pill) brings out an Uzi from the trolley and shoots Andrew dead. Everyone dives for cover in the gunfight, and it takes a well-thrown knife by Grey (Luke Pasqualino, of four musketeers fame) to silence the teacher. Mason tries to grab the teacher’s gun but is stopped by Curtis. She barely has time to beg for her life before Curtis loses patience and kills her in cold blood. It’s the first real action we have from Curtis that hints at something deeper than what his pretty-boy good looks let on.

The team carry onwards, but so does the bald headed man in the opposite direction, carrying a basket of eggs. In it is of course an Uzi which he uses on the passengers left behind guarding the prisoners from the various fights. He releases the prisoners, and some of them go to catch up with Curtis. One of them is the Franco the elder. He pursues Curtis and nothing can stop him. He kills his own men, first-class passengers, Grey and Tanya in his quest to avenge the death of his progeny. The team manages to take him down eventually but now all that’s left is Curtis, Namgoong and Yona.

They go through the last stages, passing through carriages of opulence and debauchery that are unimaginable to Curtis and the world he knows in the rear of the train. Saunas, clubs, drug and sex orgies all exist for the enjoyment of the upper carriage’s members. This is again something the plot struggles to adequately explain – how have they been having parties with alcohol and drugs for 17 years? Once more, it’s not too important and it serves to highlight the disparity between these peoples, and of course, the disparity that exists in our own world. On the way Namgoong steals some drugs and fur coats that the drugged elite all seem to own. They make it to the end of the train, and it appears that there is one door they can’t get past. Curtis, dejected, sits down and tells Namgoong about himself, smoking the last cigarette in existence that is offered by Namgoong. Curtis tells him how the initial chaos of the train boarding took place, how there was no food or water and how the new passengers turned to cannibalism. Curtis tells us what he hates most about himself: he knows that babies test best. We also discover that Curtis killed Edgar’s mother and had planned to eat Edgar, that is, until Gilliam stepped forward and cut off his own arm in order to save the child. It was then that other passengers did the same as Gilliam and cut off their limbs for others to feed on. Curtis tried to do the same but he couldn’t. He wasn’t strong enough to do so, and now we understand an earlier scene where Gilliam inspects some scars Curtis’ arm and tells him that he must lead. Curtis thinks he is no leader because he could not make the sacrifices that Gilliam made. This too is an interesting concept used in the film and I believe reflects our dissatisfaction with our own political and economic leaders that like Curtis, enjoy all the benefits of leadership without any of the real sacrifices truly needed to earn it.

Namgoong though, then opens up for the first time and we see what it is he is doing in all this. He is not just some drug-addled loon, he has a plan too. He thinks it’s getting warmer outside. He has been collecting Kronol because it’s not just a drug: it’s an explosive. Rear end, front end, it doesn’t matter to Namgoong. He wants to be free. Free of the train and free of people, free in nature.

Then the door opens and a woman that took the children away earlier appears and shoots Namgoong, but it is not fatal. Curtis is ordered to come inside where finally, he, and we, meet Wilford (Ed Harris), and the most interesting part of the film really gets going. Wilford eats his steak dinner and talks to Curtis in a grandfatherly tone, explaining that everything on the train is in perfect balance, and it is the maintenance of this balance that he cares for. Wilford says that Gilliam was in on this and the two cooperated to keep the human population in balance, where regular revolutions would help to trim the population of all carriages, and also serve to keep each side in fear of the other. A screen showing a live feed is then shown, and the bald man executes Gilliam. He let things get too out of hand Wilfred says – the front suffered too many casaulties, so he had to pay for that. Curtis is distraught, especially once the bald man is instructed by Wilfred to kill all but 17 of the tail-enders, in honour of their 17th year on the train.

Whether it’s true that Gilliam cooperated with Wilfred is questionable. Why would a man that cut off his own limbs to help people then agree to their managed slaughter? It could just be part of Wilford’s attempt to dehumanize humanity in Curtis’ eyes, which he nearly succeeds in doing. We find out, that Wilford wants Curtis to take over from him since Wilford is aging. Again the theme of sustainability is present: everything in perfect balance, the new replaces the old one for one.

Outside Namgoong is wounded and fending off hordes of attackers, angry at the theft of their drugs, on a small bridge before the final door. Franco the elder now reaches the bridge and the two battle it out. The woman who serves Wilford is sent out and the door is now open. We see the people fighting, the braying, crazed mob hungry for violence and it is here that Wilford wants to make Curtis see humanity for what it really is. Savages unable to think for themselves, only interested in their immediate desires. Curtis knows this already but had thought that some men, like Gilliam, are good. Whether true or not Wilford has crushed his belief in the good people that Gilliam represented.  Yona now runs to Curtis and begs him for help. For a moment, Curtis pushes her away and it seems that he is considering Wilford’s offer. Whether it’s the rear end, the front end, whoever it is, things will always be the same. It might as well be him that rules over them. But then, something happens. Andrew’s son, taken away at the beginning appears, now shaven headed and working the internal machinery of the infinite engine. Wilford explains that parts are hard to come by now, but luckily the rear end produces a steady supply of small children that can fix the inside of the engine. It’s an act of cruelty too far for Curtis, who feels especially guilty for his crimes against children already, and he turns on Wilford. He then sees Tanya’s son but can’t get to him, the machinery is blocking his arm. He then realises that to save Tanya’s son he needs to sacrifice one of his arms, to jam the whirring gears, and use the other to rescue the boy. Curtis finally becomes a true leader and sacrifices a part of himself for the greater good, the life of a small boy.

Namgoong lights the bomb with the last match, having dispatched Franco the elder at the bridge and our three heroes plus Tanya’s son embrace each other before the bomb goes off. Wilford is back at his seat and says, reflectively, “nice” as the bomb explodes. The train crashes, some carriages fall of a precipice, others mount up in a tunnel and others crash into the snow. Yona gets up with the boy. Everyone else is dead. She takes the fur coats her father seized, and wanders out to the snow with Tanya’s son. It’s warm enough for them to walk it seems, and there they see a polar bear. The bear roars and the film ends.

I can’t say enough how much I enjoyed this film. I like my action films, I like my dystopian films, and I like my sci fi and I like my politics. This has all of that, an excellent set production and some great actors. John Hurt’s an old hand at dystopian sci-fi films but Tilda Swinton really stole the show in this. Her character is as truly detestable as it is memorable. The plot might have its holes but the story acts as an interesting way to analyse our own world and in what direction our own train is maybe headed.

One theme that immediately slaps you in the face, but I haven’t read much about on from the internet commentariat, is that of sustainability. Man’s attempt to control global warming fails, plunging them into a frozen oblivion, except for the survivors on the train. The train itself is a closed ecosystem, and as Mason explains, everything has its place on the train. Infinite energy is provided by the engine, water is provided by the train breaking up ice at the front and filtering it through an internal system. The populations of fish, people and animals has to be carefully managed. It’s clear what the train represents. Earth. The train is our earth, and outside for them is frozen death, but also likewise for us. The cold of space is all that awaits us outside of our atmosphere. The train runs on an infinite energy source, its perpetual combustion engine. Ours is essentially the sun which as far as we are concerned might as well be infinite, although physically it’s not.

What I took from this film is how it attempts to highlight this comparison. Not many people truly understand that our earth is just like the train. It was Boulding that first popularised this image with his notion of ‘spaceship earth’ but that didn’t really capture the imagination of people outside of academic circles in environmentalism. I wonder, did Bong Joon-ho’s Snowpiercer manage to convey this to the audience? Did people walk away from this film thinking, maybe for the first time, that we only have a limited space in which to inhabit? The train is the only home the passengers have, just as Earth is the only one we’ll ever have. Although future population projections show that we might stabilise at 9 billion people by the year 2050, even if we do, will we be able to all have the material wealth of an average European, let alone North American? Will we be able to develop a good quality of life for all of Earth’s citizens within the limits of the planet or will we maintain a permanent underclass of cheap labour in the East and the South? The answers that Snowpiercer offers to these questions is not particularly optimistic. A bloodbath will ensue if those at the bottom can’t get their share of the cake.

And even when a new system distributes the cake differently, can it deal with the ultimate source of the cake: nature? Snowpiercer insinuates that whatever our interaction with nature, it ends in disaster. We caused global warming and it threatened to destroy us. So we tried to control global warming, and we then destroyed ourselves. What’s left of us on a train is too busy destroying itself to exist in balance and harmony. The last survivors, Yona and Tanya’s son may be all that’s left of the human race, either ready to start again or tread the path of countless species before us into extinction. The warming planet and the polar bear’s roar tell us what the director thinks. Nature will always be there, our own place within it is less assured. We must learn to live as a part of nature instead of constantly seeking control over it, for it cannot be controlled. Wilfred’s calculated plan to control the population goes awry, Curtis’ quest for justice results in nearly everyone dying, Tanya and Andrew’s search for their children yields only bitter fruit. The travails and the ambitions of all our characters passes into nothingness.

Does the director only offer us a dystopian, nihisltic vision of humanity? Perhaps. I did however see an interview with Bong Joon-ho, and in it he says that he hopes humanity can start again at the end. There may be other survivors still from the train. Certainly there’s nothing in his film to suggest that we have to be self-destructive to the point of mutual oblivion. There is goodness in some of the characters. Gilliam and eventually Curtis himself sacrifice their own limbs for the benefit of infants. Tanya and Andrew’s love for their own children carries them further into the train than they could have ever hoped was possible. There is a scene right at the beginning where an elderly violinist tries to protect his equally elderly wife who is brutally assaulted by guards. He is taken away but shouts back to her, reassuring her that it’ll all be ok. Love is a present theme in the film, and it is where this love for our fellow human beings is, is where we see the most goodness in the characters.

This is juxtaposed with the prevailing badness of the characters, where they commit brutal acts against one another as they vie for control of the train or to satisfy their own physical needs. When we seek to control each other, then love goes out the window and in the end, we all lose. When we use love to even overcome our baser needs such as hunger, then we can triumph in a way that is not possible without love. Before he saw Gilliam cut off his own arm, Curtis was merely surviving. After Gilliam’s self-sacrifice he was living for something.

Can Yona and the others that are (maybe) left choose a different path, or is humanity doomed to make the same choices? Is Wilfred right about us, are we really violent savages that will do whatever we can for control, or can we love more and control less? The film doesn’t answer these questions, but it makes for a supremely entertaining way to ask them.

The recent “pause” in global warming and Typhoon Haiyan

It can be pretty difficult to get to grips with climate science. The climate is big and confusing, there are lots of unknown variables, and predicting the future will always be a tricky business. There are some very understandable misunderstandings but also some less forgivable basic errors that get routinely published. Let’s look at the two most common.

The IPCC Predictions

Much has been made in the past few days about climate change has supposedly ‘stalled’. For the record , it didn’t get colder. The planet is still a good 0.8° C warmer than it would have been without human activities. NASA calculated that and the last time I looked they weren’t funded by the fossil fuel lobby or the secret international consortium of wind farm enthusiasts. (wait a minute…) [1]. The reason warming has stalled in the last 15 years is because 1998 was an unusually warm year, much warmer than the years before or after it. So of course if you measure the temperature in the last 15 years you don’t see an increase from the base year of 1998. Actually, there are many individual years in the past 100 that you could pick to make the same point, but it doesn’t change the long term trend. skepticalscience.com makes this point extremely clear with the following two graphs.

warming combo

http://skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking-guide.html

There are also articles claiming that the IPCC predictions were completely inaccurate, and that the current temperatures are much lower than predicted. This is quite wrong. The IPCC gives a range of predictions based on different scenarios. Since 1990 global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of around 0.15°C per decade which is within the range of IPCC model projections from 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. There is also a “multi-model mean” which average together all of the different model simulations. What many newspapers did in the past couple of weeks was only show the model averages, such as Der Spiegel here.

However, it’s unlikely that the climate will follow the average, especially in the short-term.  As Dana Nuccitelli explains on Skeptical Science, “If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.” If you average the models together, then the random natural variability in the individual models is cancelled out. But the climate only behaves like a single model simulation, not an average of many. [2]

The natural factors that are currently slowing surface warming include the oceans, which go through regular natural cycles of heat exchange with the surface. Right now, measurements show that the oceans are absorbing more heat. When this cycle changes, surface temperatures are going to get a lot hotter, as they did in 1998, which was one of the largest El Ninos on record.  Thus, nothing we’ve witnessed is unexpected, at least not if you were reading the IPCC reports.

Now could this extra heat that is being absorbed by the oceans also drive more powerful storms, more frequent storms or both? Haiyan has sparked a fierce debate in the scientific community about tropical storms and our warming world. As I read in an article on Slate, a 2008 article argued that all things being equal, warmer water will make more powerful cyclones.[3] However, the warming climate can change any number of variables that will then affect each other in ways that we have not yet been able to account for. Some will contribute to more powerful cyclones and some weaker. For now there is no consensus that climate change will lead to more powerful storms: more evidence is needed. Let’s hope that it’s not the case for the sake of the people living in cyclone regions. I wouldn’t bet on it though. In 20 years time with more plentiful and accurate data it’s likely that a strong causal link between climate change and powerful storms will be established. That excess energy in the oceans has to go somewhere….

Major Fallacy: Human C02 Emissions Don’t Cause Warming

Another common mistake that I read on the internet is that we produce so little C02 that it cannot possibly contribute to the warming of the planet, so the warming must come from natural factors. It’s true that humanity produces a tiny percentage of all C02 in the atmosphere. However, the C02 naturally produced is also naturally absorbed. For example and for the sake of simplicity, the C02 produced by forests is absorbed by the oceans. So nature produces many gigatonnes of C02 but also absorbs this. This left us with an amount of C02 in the atmosphere equivalent to around 280 parts per million (ppm). What we’ve done is add to that, and natural forces haven’t been able to absorb all of what we’ve added. So now we have 400ppm. Thus, we are trapping more heat, as observed by the recorded global temperature increases. It’s like compound interest, it starts off small, but that little percent builds up over time. If you’re a student from the UK you’ll probably know what I mean. C02 isn’t the only greenhouse gas of course but I use it here just for simplicity. Just about all other greenhouse gasses have increased too though, mostly because of human activities.

I say that the increase in greenhouse gasses has caused this temperature increase. To make it clear, it’s very likely that the increase in the global temperature is due to the rise in greenhouse gasses caused by us. But anyone looking for 100% certainty is going to be disappointed. That’s not how science works – there’s never 100% certainty in anything since there could always be something out there we haven’t discovered yet which could put our theories on their heads. It’s possible that something else is causing the warming, however there’s no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Anyone who wants to say otherwise needs to show that evidence they’ve been keeping secret from the world. For years some people have tried to say it’s the sun or this is all natural warming. In the case of the sun, it can explain some of the warming from the last century (a very small amount) and in the past 35 years, the sun has actually been cooling whilst temperatures have been increasing. The climate has of course always changed throughout history. But if you want to say that the current observed warming is purely natural, then you need to account for how the extra gases we’ve produced have somehow not trapped any heat?  And if that’s not causing the warming, then what on earth could be (since we’ve established it’s not the sun)?

Nothing I’ve written here is new. But some people reading this might have not read this information before. Many people on the internet certainly still insist that we can’t possibly be warming the planet because our C02 contribution is tiny. Even supposed journalists, e.g. James Delingpole, Dominic Lawson, Donna Laframboise etc make this very basic mistake. But I guess you can find just about any belief on the internet – check out The Flat Earth Society by the way, they’ve been promoting free thinking since 1999!

You might say that was low of me, but anyone who basically denies science in this way is comparable to someone that thinks the earth is flat, because they do exactly the same thing. Don’t get me wrong , you can be as sceptical about the future impacts of climate change. You can be sceptical about spending money on renewables instead of fossil fuels. You can be sceptical about the IPCC. But you cannot deny evidence. Are we really going to have to explain to our grandchildren in 50 years that we spent well over a decade arguing about recording temperatures and elementary physics?

Beware The Trojan Horse.

The Climate Wars could be entering the ‘end-game’ here if a new strategy deployed by the ‘denier’ lobby is successful. Denier is a term often used here to denote an individual who denies the science behind climate change. That will all change now.

Professor Richard A. Muller, head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project and physics professor at the University of Berkeley, has just written an article in the New York Times declaring his “conversion” to what has been mainstream science for a long, long time. Professor Muller has even gone one step further and declared that “Humans are almost entirely the cause” of global warming as opposed to IPCC reports which suggest that human industrial activity may only be one cause, in combination with natural cycles. (Check out the article here)

Excellent news, no? The war between sceptics and believers is over. All are agreed that climate change is caused by human activity. Natural sciences departments in universities across the world have rejoiced. UNEP offices will witness many a sunrise and dark moon as cleaners put them back in working order. Professor Michael Mann, vilified by the engine of denial and its boot-lickers, magnanimous in victory has congratulated Professor Muller for behaving like a “good scientist”. Blogs of poison can cease. Quite terrible name-calling is needed no more. Finding the solutions for a bright new world with a planetary temperature of no more than a two extra degrees can begin.

Sadly not. What we are witnessing instead is a very cunning shift in denier strategy. That game is up. No longer could they deny the science brought together by the IPCC and nor could they come up with a better theory as to why the planet was warming. They could not even keep on pretending that the planet was not indeed warming. They have, however, shifted the goal posts. Rather than deny that the basic science is accurate, they will now deny that climate change poses any threat to human well-being. This is nothing new but merely a shift in emphasis. Professor Muller’s article is the perfect Trojan Horse and could be the final tactic that makes sure this war is really over.

Muller’s article is uncontroversial except for the part where he predicts warming to increase to a level above IPCC predictions. That was worrying, but not as worrying as the paragraph where he essentially states that the threat of climate change is overblown, unsubstantiated or just plain false. He then goes on to list several examples to support his point. I’ll deal with those, courtesy of Skeptical Science, at the bottom of this page. For now though let’s focus on the New York Times article.

It’s written in a very clever way to achieve what the main objective of the denier lobby has always been – to delay meaningful action on climate change for as long as possible. Muller points out that the BEST methodology is indeed the best; better than the IPCC’s. He argues that his data is superior and therefore gives better results. It is important to link this to what I’ve written above. By framing the article in this way Muller seeks to position himself as the true scientist, the one with integrity who didn’t go leaping to conclusions just like those inferior scientists from the IPCC did. Now that Professor Muller and his team have truly, scientifically established that humans are warming the planet, he can now go on to find out what the negative effects from this warming will be. Do not trust what the IPCC has to say, for their methodology is weak and inferior. Wait for us to provide the real answers. It’s the waiting, as the sea ice caps melt and the deserts expand, that Muller wants. It’s the waiting which is what the oil industry needs, more and more time to extract that oil before those bothersome scientists obstruct their work.

If this is the case then it could signal a slight shift in the debate from one that argues over what was fairly established science, and thank God for that at least, to one that is certainly less established – predicting the future. We cannot know what the future is, but good science can help us to make good predictions. The war will now rage over what is good science in this department and what makes a good prediction. But before these new battles commence we have to beware this Trojan Horse sent to us by Professor Muller. It would be a disaster for progress if climate scientists were to come out en masse and congratulate Professor Muller, or not to challenge the inevitable news coverage, because it would give him legitimacy, therefore making it easier for the “sceptical” lobby to employ the argument I outlined above. Muller has been the closest thing to legitimate that the denial industry, filled with crackpots, has. For the scientific community to ignore what is blatantly a new way to further delay investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency and wholesale system change is to allow it to succeed.

And how does this all fit together? Oil money. It’s no secret that the Koch brothers have funded this project and it’s no secret that big oil has funded the denial machine, just as the tobacco industry did for lung cancer. People were shocked, and many environmentalists satisfied with the delicious irony, when the Koch-funded BEST project results came in and confirmed what was already known for a very long time. If big oil could fund a project that confirmed the scientific consensus then clearly we can now trust oil-funded research. Now it’s all very clear why this was done. It began the implementation of a long term strategy of delay. It is still not yet time to party – or it really will be game, set and match to the oil industry.

What Muller is probably wrong about in the article

Skeptical Science provides the rebuttal.

1) Polar bear populations are decreasing http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm

2) The Himalayan Glaciers will not be gone by 2035, but most are retreating. An excellent deployment of the cherry picking tactic. http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm

3) Hurricanes. Even if they are decreasing in frequency in the US, it is certainly not possible to claim with much certainty that they are decreasing globally. http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

4) The warming in the US is offset by cooling elsewhere in the world. It seems contradictory to ‘discover’ that global temperatures are increasing but then somehow imply that the warming witnessed in the US cannot be attributed to global climate change? Perhaps the BEST results are only for the US?

5) Medieval warm period. http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

The most important environmental article written in a mainstream newspaper…

…was written by Sunny Hundal in last weeks Guardian. I won’t post a link, because the Guardian doesn’t need the juice, but just type, ‘The climate change message is not being heard. Here’s how to change tack”‘ into google.

Here Sunny fluently explains what the green movement has been doing wrong about getting across the message to act on climate change. I’ve read one or two other blog posts a year or two back that said basically the same thing, but was extremely pleased to see that this message had made it onto a large newspaper in the UK.

If you’ve been following the climate change issue then you’ll have noticed that success hasn’t exactly been forthcoming. There are some massive obstacles in the way of progress. Big oil, big business, a system that won’t tolerate anything other than an increase in GDP per capita. There’s another one too – the environmental movement.

Look at one example. How many marchers were there in London just before the COP 15 at Copenhagen 2009? It was 50,000. 400,000 marched against the fox hunting ban in 2002. There’s a 7 year gap between the two, but it’s clear to see where the strength of public opinion truly lies when it comes to climate change, and other issues. To a city dweller such as me, that 400,000 could protest against a ban on a medieval practice of animal hunting seems absurd, but clearly this issue was extremely important to the people who live in the countryside and others.

So why doesn’t climate change – supposedly a threat to global prosperity and security – provoke the same sort of feeling? One reason is the environmental movement itself, besides the other challenges mentioned, and Mr. Hundal presents a few reasons why:

1) Doom-mongering – we don’t concentrate on solutions, we just bang on about how the world’s going to end. A crass generalisation about environmentalists from me, but the point would ring true for many I believe. Let’s be more positive and offer solutions rather than catastrophe.

2) Anti-capitalist – as Mr. Hundal rightly points out, we’ve been preaching to the converted.    It’s left-wing people that are largely behind the message to act on clmate change, but we’re losing the right, who are just as, if not even more, important than the left. Activists with dreadlocks threatening to smash capitalism isn’t the best way to win supporters from the right-leaning people.

3) Failure to address the economic argument – the right-wing tabloids continue to insist that green projects will cost the economy. Whether you believe in economic growth or not is irrelevant. Stopping climate change is one of the most important challenges the world faces – along with eradicating hunger and poverty. To do that there needs to be a broad concensus, or at the very least, a strong majority amongst the population on the need to act. We’re not there yet, and we should have been there years ago. Greens need to show how economic and environmental improvement can go hand in hand. Referring to arguments such as Potocnik’s here is a good example of this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/29/eu-environmental-resources-new-recession (ok I said I wouldn’t link to the guardian but never mind)

The UK government is largely committed, at least in legislation, to slashing it’s consmption of emissions. This was achieved largely because of the dedicated work of a number of brave and industrious activists and NGOs. But we can go further and we need to, as do our friends in the US and Canada. We would all do well to learn from Mr. Hundal’s article.