A Few Occasions for Praise and Thanks

My thanks to Andrew Platt, who has honourably apologised for and withdrawn his suggestion that I 'regularly dismiss' scientific evidence. We would all be saved a lot of time and trouble if some other contributors here were as willing to admit faults and say sorry for them. it takes some courage to do so, and should be applauded.

Incidentally, events in another part of the electronic forest have also taken a pleasing turn. A site devoted to lofty, self-righteous attacks on conservative mid-market newspapers and their journalists recently launched a rather virulent and cocky assault on me. In the course of it, the site's host repeated and intensified a claim he had made some time ago, that I had said something which I hadn't actually said, about the influence of politicians who are themselves unrepentant former drug takers. He placed the distortion inside inverted commas and attributed it directly and unequivocally to me. After a period of claiming that this was legitimate, he eventually acknowledged that it wasn't. Good for him.

(I may have cause to discuss the actual subject of this soon, with reference to an interesting incident involving Ann Widdecombe and the then Shadow Cabinet when she bravely tried to stand against the drug legalisation current.)

I'm working on it.

 

 

Anyway, compare and contrast these two postings by this person, separated by three days:

March 19th
'Funny, isn't it Peter, how everybody who engages with you seems to "misrepresent" what you write, when all they are really doing is quoting you (word-for-word) and commenting.'

March 22nd
'I apologise, unconditionally for copying and pasting what I did and introducing the whole quote as if you had said every word. That was careless and misleading.'

So not 'word-for-word' after all, then?

I'm grateful for the apology and have forgiven the person involved, though I note that in all other respects he and his followers continue to treat me as I were some kind of monster. Well, let them. It obviously gives them pleasure, and in this rough old world who'd deny them that. A man must have some enemies, and these are the ones I've got.

But the third cause for rejoicing is far greater than these. It is an article by George Monbiot in Tuesday's Guardian, in which - with considerable guts - he follows the logic of his own position. Mr Monbiot believes that the burning of fossil fuels is endangering the planet. I think him mistaken, but I respect the learning, passion, coherence and persistence of his position (we once discussed this amid a forest of whirling windmills in mid-Wales, in a conversation in which I found him to be engaging, intelligent and not without humour).

The logic of this position, it seems to me, must be that we embark on a major programme of building nuclear power stations. But the self same people who get into a passion about man-made global warming tend to have a near-superstitious fear of nuclear power. This superstition is encouraged (for example) by the alarmist coverage of the recent Japanese nuclear problems. These are plainly serious for those working there and living nearby ( as is the case with the many coalmine disasters which plague China each year), but any sensible person can see that the fact that this rather old station was hit successively by a giant earthquake, and a huge tsunami, and that the consequences were as limited as they have been, speaks well for the safety of nuclear power.

Mr Monbiot begins:'You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

'A c****y old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.'

And he concludes : 'Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.'

I think this is intellectual courage and honesty of a high order, and we could all do with more of it. We must learn to challenge our friends and allies when we think they are mistaken, and to value changes of mind, and admissions of error, far more highly than we do. If we don't, we are probably finished. I apologise to Mr Monbiot because I know my support will not help him at all with his Green allies, but in fact do him harm. But it needs saying, despite the costs.