There is more discussion of climate change taking place in the UK than ever before. At the same time, challenging the dominant view on climate change is fast becoming taboo. Academics and lobby groups who argue that the dangers and extent of climate change are being over-exaggerated are being labelled ‘climate change deniers’ and have, in some cases, been directly compared to holocaust deniers. There have even been calls to make the denial an offence, equating the questioning of scientific theory with a crime against humanity. For many, this has been seen as preemptive censorship and a hindrance to rational debate. Furthermore, there are worries that the public is being given access to only one side of an ongoing debate. Report by Hayley Dixon from Index on Censorship

The sceptics are not unanimous in their views; they range from those who believe that the increase in temperature is manageable to a minority who deny that global warming is occurring at an unnatural speed. Whatever the view, those who dissent from the mainstream have been consistently criticised.

Misleading the public?
Many major news organisations have recently adopted a pro-action stance on the issue of climate change and there have been calls for a consensus view from the media. The midterm elections in the US on 7 November saw Republican Senators James Inhofe and Richard Pombo, both known for their sceptical views on climate change, replaced by Democrats as the heads of environmental committees, leading to hopes that the Bush administration will now be forced to accept the caps and targets for cutting emissions that it has so far avoided. But there are fears that sceptical organisations such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute, which responded to Al Gore’s recent film An Inconvenient Truth with advertisements welcoming the increase in carbon dioxide, will step up their opposition in the face of new climate change reports. Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, speaking on BBC radio on 18 January, claims that his new book, co-written with S. Fred Singer, cites 100 examples of peer-reviewed studies claiming that the current warming process is part of a natural cycle.

Lobby groups such as Friend of the Earth, as well as scientific groups like the Royal Society, believe that these sorts of sceptics will mislead the public and hinder the process of political action. Tony Jupiter of Friends of the Earth claims that questioning the model of climate change is both ‘dangerous and socially unacceptable’. Those who refute the validity of giving platform to competing theories on climate change often view confusion as a significant danger, and threatens efforts to minimise damage to the environment. This anxiety is evident in environmental campaigner Mark Lynam’s argument against publications such as Avery and Singer’s Unstoppable Global Warming. Perhaps the reaction against these unorthodox debates arises from a belief that questioning orthodoxy and challenging the pessimistic view increases the chances of continued high level emissions and therefore perpetuates ecological disaster. But as Charles Jones, Professor Emeritus at the University of Edinburgh, points out ‘It is disconcerting that the public is given the impression that the current global warming model is the sole interpretation possible of the available climatological data.’

Royal Society voice opinions on funding
In September 2006, British scientific academy The Royal Society wrote a letter to Exxon-Mobil, questioning the oil company’s motives for funding ‘denier’ lobby groups, such as the UK-based International Policy Network. The group allegedly ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’.
In response to this, an open letter was sent to the society signed by, among others, Tim Ball, a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. The letter points out that ‘The beauty of science is that no issue is ever “settled”, that no question is beyond being more fully understood, that no conclusion is immune to further experimentation.’

-Out of step, out of arguments and out of time
According to environmental campaigner Mark Lynas, 2000 climate change experts subscribe to the view that climate change is manmade and increasing at a dangerous rate. On 30 November 2006, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told a conference in Nairobi that ‘The question is not whether climate change is happening, but whether, in the face of this emergency, we ourselves can change fast enough’. He claimed that ‘A few diehard skeptics continue trying to sow doubt. They should be seen for what they are: out of step, out of arguments and out of time.’ At the same time there have been claims, notably by foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, that giving voice to those who deny climate change is creating unbalanced debate. In a speech on terrorism delivered at the Royal United Services Institute on 9 November Beckett claimed ‘I´ve seen it so often in the long-running debate on climate change: wheel out the resident skeptic, however unrepresentative or discredited, to generate tension and voice provocative views in the name of editorial balance.’ Beckett’s view echoes that of Scott Pelley, who, when questioned about the lack of climate change scepticism in a report aired on US television programme 60 minutes in March, claimed ‘There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible’.

The International Policy Network asserts ‘that policies allegedly designed to address climate change may negatively impact on the institutions of the free society.’ For those working in the free expression community, the quest for fast political action is running up against cherished liberal values such as the free flow of ideas. As writer John Mortimer points out, ‘the denial of information is, of course, a form of censorship. A public who knows nothing is not free to criticise or denounce injustice.’ 

The above quote by John Mortimer was taken from Index on censorships the a-z of free expression for some of Mortimer’s view on free speech see

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000053A2.htm
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1161596135654
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brendan_oneill/2006/11/a_climate_of_censorship.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1963224.ece
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html
http://www.policynetwork.net/main/content.php?content_id=1
http://www.cei.org/