Last week there was a television programme that I especially wanted to see; a programme that, if the past was any indication, most commentators at this site would have deliberately dodged. The programme was Chris Packham, is it time to break the law? You will have missed something good and worthwhile. It gave a chance to evaluate a potential major opponent.
I was also interested in the programme because I had watched and, via Open Mic had strongly recommended watching, Chis Packham’s series Earth. This clearly established his ability to step into Attenborough’s shoes as a leading television personality with a mission to support wildlife and climate change. Also a potential major adversary of anything vaguely critical of catastrophic climate advocacy.
The programme fully lived up to my expectations. Packham came across as a dedicated advocate, someone very genuine (if misguided). His thesis was that for his entire life he had supported wildlife and warned about climate change. He was now discouraged because of a lack of any real response and was pondering engaging with groups (like Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion) that conducted quasi-legal (like slow walking and holding up traffic) or even illegal acts. Packham agonised over this conundrum, seeking advice here, there, and everywhere. He got all sorts of advice ranging from don’t break the law (from Lord Deben) to sabotaging oil pipelines. He tried to interview relevant Tory Ministers but to no avail. In the end Packham stated that he had come to believe that those who broke the law were engaged in laudable actions and that, after much reflection, he personally could break the law in support of climate change protests.
A fascinating and I believe very honest treatment of most of the entire subject. Personally I don’t believe he covered the rights of the general public to be free of public nuisance with sufficient detail. Also there was the nagging doubt as to whether Packham and the programme makers were engaged in incitement. It was noticeable that when the list of credits at the end of the programme rolled it was headed by their legal advisor.
So why am I suggesting you might benefit from seeking out the programme and viewing it? Well, I believe there has been a tendency to view those supporting climate catastrophe as not deserving our full efforts. They are treated as lacking in reason or knowledge. Packham stands as an example of those we so dismiss at our peril. He comes across as entirely honest, committed and knowledgeable, someone who cannot easily be dismissed and also one who will gather support. His only fault in the programme IMHO was to summarily dismiss Peter Lilley’s arguments regarding forest fires, waving his hands as he maintained that so much evidence (never given) supported the view that climate change was causing them to increase this year.
I found the programme fascinating and well worth spending the hour spent watching it. It also generated much discussion afterwards with “she who must be listened to”. We failed to agree upon a fundamental question: if you were convinced that climate change was a realistic threat, is it legitimate to break the law to support action to counteract it? I was jail-bait, my wife would promise to visit me.
Climate Scepticism 
Alan,
Thanks for provoking some thoughts. I’m afraid I think I’d be accompanying your wife, visiting you in prison.
Perhaps it’s because I’m a lawyer, but I don’t think giving oneself permission to break the law because of one’s “principles” is justified. We could all do that about some law or other, and if we did, anarchy would be the consequence.
During the covid lockdowns, I regarded the rule preventing me from driving a short distance to a nearby hill to get my exercise to be absolute madness. Up there, away from the crowds, my chances of contracting or spreading covid were nil. Instead I was forced to get my exercise in the house or by walking round the streets of my small market town for no more than an hour a day. Lots of other people were doing the same, because the law gave them no choice. The chances of our spreading covid to one another outside was vanishingly small, but it was still higher than if I took my exercise away from everybody else. I thought then that the law was crazy, and I still do. But I obeyed it, however reluctantly, because what if I was wrong?
I see the Guardian (natch) has a piece writing approvingly of Packham’s programme:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/sep/20/chris-packham-is-it-time-to-break-the-law-review-the-bravest-most-anguished-tv-of-the-year
They share your view that he’s the natural replacement for Attenborough, as well as sharing your sympathy for his plight. Despite the fact that the policies Packham and the Guardian believe in would damage the poorest in society the most (so I firmly believe), the Guardian thinks it’s right-wing people who oppose JSO/XR etc, so in Guardian-land that’s extra justification for them breaking the law. Of course, the Guardian is selective in its approval of law-breakers. Left-wing (sic) law-breakers good, right-wing law-breakers (Cummings, Trump – allegedly) bad.
You can’t pick your cause based on your politics and assess the validity of law-breaking on that basis.
That’s my take. I look forward to an interesting debate, and thank you for triggering it.
By the way, despite not having a TV licence I believe I could watch the programme on iplayer, because it’s on Channel 4. I don’t think I will though. Back in the days when I had a TV licence, Chris Packham was the reason I stopped watching Springwatch, Autumnwatch etc. I dislike his presentational style intensely. He strikes me (again, just my opinion) as intensely smug and self-satisfied.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, Mark (I haven’t watched the programme either, and doubt I’ll bother). I very much doubt Packham (or almost anybody else) would want to live in a society in which anyone was free to break the law if they held sufficiently strong convictions. We’re all ‘free’ to break the law, but must then face the consequences.
The Guardianistas always say “but suffragettes”. Well, the main point of the suffragettes was that (unlike members of XR) they had no vote and so no ability to influence laws democratically. Whether their campaign of direct action hastened votes for women or delayed it is debatable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
“You can’t pick your cause based on your politics and assess the validity of law-breaking on that basis.”
You can and should assess the justification for ignoring hastily implemented laws based not on your politics but upon your evaluation of the available evidence and scientific data supporting the implementation of that law. I strongly believe that this is a moral obligation which is placed upon us all. It is also our duty to investigate the real potential for politics to intrude into so called ‘evidence-based’ law making. If we do this and find that the justification for the imposition of law is extremely dubious or non existent, then we should seriously consider violating that law, aware of the possibility that yes, we could be wrong, but also aware of the fact that by doing so, we are extremely unlikely to put others at risk or do harm to others.
The thing with the eco-catastrophists is that they claim to have rationally assessed the justification for breaking the law based upon the evidence (I claim that they cannot possibly have done that), BUT – and this is the important point – by breaking the law, their actions have significant and demonstrable impact upon others (criminal damage, wilful obstruction of traffic potentially putting lives at risk etc). So I would argue that they DO NOT have the right to break the law under these circumstances. If they want to break the law because they believe they are justified in so doing, then fine, but do it in such a way that it is very unlikely to inflict real harm upon others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘…a fundamental question: if you were convinced that climate change was a realistic threat, is it legitimate to break the law to support action to counteract it?‘
If you honestly believe that climate change represents an existential threat to humanity (and I think Packham does), if you believe that the British government, although they could do what’s necessary to overcome the threat, are manifestly failing to do so (and I think Packham does) and if you believe that, as demonstrated by the suffragettes, breaking the law could trigger the necessary policy change (and I think Packham does), then yes I think that breaking the law, although arguably not ‘legitimate’, is the right thing to do. Indeed I think it could be argued that it would be cowardly not to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The comments are at least as interesting as the article.
Picture this as a metaphor: there are those who are aware that they speak with an accent, and say we all do. Then there’s others who insist they personally don’t have an accent, but others do. Guardian readers are prone to being members of the second category — politically speaking.
For the good thinking class, their views are entirely free of political bias, in fact of anything as vulgar as “politics” at all. Only other people have political viewpoints, i.e biased, flawed and grotesque. They themselves have a perfectly neutral point of view. You catch glimpses of this all the time. That’s why, for example, the “culture wars” are always the fault of others.
Well, if you completely believe yourself to embody the light and the truth of transcendent ideological purity, then breaking foolish laws set by the unenlightened is a moral duty. It’s unsurprising the Guardian is all for it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ian, once again, the point is, they are not breaking laws set by the unenlightened, they are breaking laws which most of us can agree are reasonable and proportionate and have absolutely nothing to with climate change, e.g. keeping the highway clear of obstructions and the prevention of wilful criminal damage. The eco-catastrophists, like spoilt brats, have chosen to break these reasonable and proportionate laws (thus inconveniencing the public considerably and even putting lives at risk) in order to protest their annoyance that the government and society are not doing enough to prevent a climate catastrophe which they claim is ‘inevitable according to the laws of physics’ and which is demonstrably happening now in the form of bad weather. They are not the embodiment of light and truth (no person alive can claim that status); they are however, the embodiment of immaturity, assumed privilege and palpable ignorance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, I also used to avoid programmes with Chris Packham in them, partly because of his irritating presentational style. But I think he has mellowed somewhat and much of his style might be a product of his Asperger’s Syndrome. Certainly in the TV programme under discussion he reveals a different side to his character – one that is more questioning and less secure.
After viewing interesting programmes I commonly turn to Google to point me to newspaper reviews. The programme was reviewed by all national newspapers and not just the Guardian’s was favourable. With the exception of the Telegraph’s (which is behind a paywall) and I think the Mail’s which was critical, all more or less had the same impression as the Guardian, some even using similar words in praise of the programme and Packham’s role in it.
All his adult life Packham has valued wildlife. I strongly suspect that he values it above most human life. He believes it is under continued threat from climate change, from biodiversity loss due to habitat loss and other factors. He believes it is worth saving and to date his efforts have been futile. What to do? To him wildlife preservation could be sufficient justification for illegal acts to bring its plight to wider attention.
You argue that a person’s beliefs should not be sufficient justification to break the law. But what if you were South African living at the time of Apartheid? Would you break the law to draw attention to the appalling politics of the day? I believe from what I know of you Mark that you would stand up to be counted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I very much agree Alan. As I said in my comment above, if Packham truly believes (1) that CC is an existential threat to humanity, (2) that the Government could solve it and (3) that breaking the law could trigger the necessary policy change then, yes breaking the law, although arguably not ‘legitimate’, is the right thing to do. Indeed, as I said, it could be argued that it would be cowardly not to do so.
Of course he’s probably wrong about (1), certainly wrong about (2) and therefore he’s wrong about (3). It would be interesting to know how he would refute this.
LikeLike
An excellent riposte, Alan! I’m busy at the moment, but will return to the fray this evening. This discussion is living up to my expectations.
LikeLike
Unfortunately for Packham and his acolytes, the AGW hoax is coming apart at the seams, probably caused by the dawning realisation that Nut Zero just isn’t going to happen, and the roll-back on all the swingeing regulations to impoverish us all that are going to result in major civil unrest needs “Scientific” justification.
So it is necessary therefore for the roll-back to be accompanied by some urgent ass-covering, admitting that perhaps “The Science” might not be as settled as claimed and we’re not in fact all going to roast alive before Christmas unless we revert to the Stone Age.
.
The IPCC is rowing back from catastrophism:
“In interviews with German media, Skea said it is wrong and misleading for climate activists to imply that temperature increases of 1.5°C posed an existential threat to humanity.”
https://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/content/sustainability/news/ipcc-chairman-rebukes-exaggerated-climate-alarm-329382719#:~:text=In%20interviews%20with%20German%20media,for%20'saving%20the%20planet‘.
And so is Bill Gates:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/why-did-bill-gates-make-sudden-u-turn-climate-doom-narrative?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1848
“On Thursday, Gates made a sudden U-turn on his climate doom narrative and now expects “No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”
LikeLike
Perhaps FF advocates will slow-walk or otherwise disrupt Packham’s travel arrangements.
When the likes of Packam choose to use lawfare, for example, to oppose say shale gas exploitation, then what’s good for the goose can be good for the gander.
LikeLike
I am not a Chris Packham fan but I certainly warmed somewhat to him as he presented the recent series ‘Earth’ on BBC and felt, very muck like Alan, that he is probably the natural successor to David Attenborough. I also thought the Earth series well balanced. I didn’t watch the programme Alan refers to so it is hard to comment in detail. However, as far as the principle is concerned I am with Alan and Robin regards breaking the law given one’s supposed conviction that climate change represents an existential threat to humanity and wildlife.
What is troubling, though, is the inability to have an informed and rational debate with the likes of Chris Packham, JSO and XR protesters. There is no element of doubt in their thinking climate change will have catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet. This absolute certainty precludes any discussion. So Robin I’m afraid we will never know how Chris Packham would refute your conjecture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Catweazle,
Apologies yet again. WordPress seems to have taken against you! I have released your comment now. Thank you again for persevering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philosophers have argued for aeons that ethical imperatives can transcend the imperatives of law. Each individual will use a personal barometer to judge where the ethical pressure reaches the point requiring disobedience. For example, I would happily shoot anyone who uses the word ‘preprepared’, and yet others would then say it was I who was in the wrong!
LikeLike
I think the suffragettes are not quite the right comparator here. They were demanding something that others already had. The JSO protestors are not demanding equal treatment. They are demanding, in effect, that their government takes unpopular measures against the rest of the people, as well as themselves. But we have a democratic way of selecting governments whose policies we approve of. If the JSO ideas were popular, there would be more people blocking the road than trying to use it. People would vote with their actions, and legislation curtailing their freedom would be unnecessary. And then people could even vote with their votes, and decide things by the tyranny of the majority.
There are occasions when the moral act is to break the law. Then as citizens we have to admit our guilt and take the punishment. There is an absolute standard of a moral illegal act which JSO’s road blocking comes nowhere near. Various factors come into play: the imminence of the threat, its seriousness, and the lack of an alternative course to breaking the law. I think the likes of JSO tick none of these boxes, Even they would find it hard to argue that they tick all three.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alan.
I think the strongest answer to your hypothetical situation regarding my response to Apartheid if confronted by it, is to remind you that in the UK we live in a functioning democracy (of sorts – I will return to its limitations below). As Quentin Vole said above when adverting to the Suffragettes argument that is often trotted out during discussions such as these:
That, I would suggest, is the difference with the situation of Apartheid South Africa. I freely admit that I am no Nelson Mandela or Robert Sobukwe. Nevertheless, I hope that when confronted by a system as evil as Apartheid, imposed by a proportion (possibly a majority, possibly not) of a minority of the overall population, which denied the majority the democratic right to influence policy, I would have something to say about it. More than that, in those extreme circumstances, I hope I might take direct action that involved breaking the law. Even if I wasn’t brave enough to do so, I would accept that such action would be justified if undertaken by others.
But that isn’t remotely the situation posited by Chris Packham. He lives in a democracy (of sorts – again, more on that below). Ironically, more to the point, it is in my view a democracy that has been subverted and taken over by the Green Blob. Hence the hysteria when the PM announced a slight slowing down of net zero plans – the Blob, with its control of Parliament (or so it thought), of big business, of the civil service, of academia, of much of the public domain, such as schools and libraries, thought it had the subject stitched up. Sunak wasn’t supposed to break ranks – voters weren’t supposed to be allowed a vote. Net zero was going to be imposed on them whether they like it or not, via a cross-party “consensus”. And its imposition was supposed to be constantly accelerated, not delayed.
The Guardian article I alluded to in my first comment on this thread, included this comment, which I assume is a reference to the line of argument advanced by Mr Packham:
Which is more than a little ironic given that those of us who oppose net zero would say “We haven’t been allowed to vote on this policy. Peaceful protest – including blogging – hasn’t worked. Rational debate – including writing to MPs and to newspapers – hasn’t worked. What now?”
My response to those who say that voting hasn’t worked is that if the democratic majority don’t agree with you, then you don’t get to break the law with a view to imposing your minority views on them, however sincere you are and however strongly you hold your views.
The riposte to that, I suppose, is that our democracy is a very weak and shabby one, extremely frayed around the edges. The continuing existence of the unelected House of Lords is an affront to democracy. The lack of proportional representation in our voting system means that parties enjoying a minority of the votes can get to form a majority government (whether or not that is justified depends on your take around arguments like the benefit of political stability within the system, etc). Arguably (though thankfully not to the extent experienced in the USA) our democracy is tainted by money – whatever the rules around election spending limits, I think it’s wrong that donors get to influence elections and – maybe worse – to hire MPs and members of the House of Lords, paying them huge sums of money for what are supposedly a few hours of “work” a month. I suspect that often they are paying not for “work”, but for influence, and for help in finding their way around the corridors of power. The fact that these payments are disclosed (“transparent”, in the jargon) doesn’t make them acceptable to me.
Thus, our democracy is perhaps not fatally flawed, but certainly imperfect. Does that mean that the Suffragettes and Apartheid arguments can be held to apply to the case put forward by Mr Packham? In my view the answer to that question is still “no”. Our democracy is not so flawed that breaking the law because one is dissatisfied with the outcome of its processes is justified. If the issue is a poor democracy, campaign to improve it. Funnily enough, that’s an argument I rarely, if ever, hear, from those who would break the law. They don’t, by and large, argue that the law is illegitimate, rather that they not happy because they’re not getting what they want, like small naughty children throwing their toys out of the pram.
I hope that deals with the fundamental question raised by both the programme and Alan’s article on it. On the question itself, of course Robin’s analysis puts to bed the argument very soundly. Mr Packham’s concerns about climate change, leading him to agonise over the merits of breaking the law to try to achieve change in UK government policy, is fundamentally irrational. The suggestion of law-breaking on those grounds is not merited once basic logic kicks in.
One final thought – he may have spent all his life concerned with wildlife. I can’t quite go that far, but I have spent much of my leisure time in wild places, and I too care deeply about nature. I am every bit as frustrated as he appears to be about the damage being caused to nature by government policy, but for completely opposite reasons to those that motivate Mr Packham – the very policies I believe he advocates – more renewable energy, etc – are, I believe, profoundly damaging to nature.
I appreciate the final two paragraphs have wandered from the basic question posited by the article, but I feel the points in them did need to be made by way of a rounded answer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In a democracy free speech and movement, the right to protest, are enshrined
citizen freedoms but vandalism, violence, putting other citizens at risk and denying
them their right to free speech and movement are not enshrined.
Shame that the mainstream media are so often purveyors of a single view instead of
allowing diversity of opinion. Like Socrates is said to have said, ‘We can’t always ‘know.’
LikeLike
Re the vandalism, attacking classic paintings, pulling down statues, paint spraying
buildings, this behaviour is not democratic but bullying and destructive. The agenda
is not always the environment but political as Christine Figuerez admitted.
LikeLike
Mark. There may be a misunderstanding between us. When I argue that I have some understanding of the rationale of protesters who deliberately break the law, this does not mean that my “sympathy” extends to arguing that they should not be subject to the full force of the law. No, throw the full book at them. This is what they profess to desire; to get maximum exposure for their “cause “. Let’s give it to them and clear them from our streets and art galleries.
The recent leniency of magistrates and judges, in some cases letting miscreants off because they deem the offences committed excusable, suits no one – those affected by the offence nor those committing the crimes (although I suppose the very act of leniency broadcast the perpetrator’s actions and causes).
Mark I hope we can agree that in a democracy people have the inherent right to protest, even to the extent of breaking the law, so long as they are prepared to face consequences.
LikeLike
John please don’t shoot yourself because you, with intent, deliberately used the word “pre***pared” (I don’t wish to suffer the same fate!).
LikeLike
Alan,
It seems we aren’t so very far apart in our views. Of course, in a democracy freedom to protest should be sacrosanct, and I fear it is under attack. To that extent, however, the protestors who go far damage the cause, since others who would respect the rights of others while protesting, might find their own rights curtailed by an over-zealous government, thanks to the OTT activities of Packham’s mates.
The reality is that these people don’t just cause physical damage and disrupt the lives of others trying to go about their business, they are also leading to a tightening of the rules that does the rest of us no favours. A plague on them, say I. Selfish, deluded narcissists.
As for breaking the law in the hope of being sent to jail so as to max out publicity for their “cause”, I dislike that as a tactic. Let’s be fair, they’re not exactly short of publicity as it is.
We do agree that the book should be thrown at them, even if that does generate the publicity they crave. I have been left bemused by light sentences being handed down because the defendants are supposedly acting from the best of motives.
LikeLike
Alan,
Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to place the offending word in quotation marks, and so I only need “shoot” myself.
LikeLike
Packham, who advocates breaking the law for the greater good of humanity, the planet and all non-human species which inhabit the planet, is so far off target it would probably be impossible for his so called ‘ethical stance on law-breaking’ to be more unethical. He is wrong on three major counts:
1. As pointed out by Mark, the harms to wildlife created by the expansion of renewables are real and growing, whereas the hypothetical threats to wildlife supposedly posed by man-made climate change are not scientifically demonstrable now and are largely posited based on model projections.
2. As pointed out by Beth and myself, the law-breaking activities of eco-catastrophists consist of wanton criminal damage, vandalism and even putting lives at risk by obstructing and disrupting traffic.
3. As pointed out by Catweazle, the scientific justification for their supposed imminent Thermageddon or ‘happening right now’ extreme weather climate crisis is non existent. Roger Pielke:
“Kerry’s latest views on projected global temperature change has no doubt been informed by the latest net-zero assessment of the International Energy Agency, released to the public yesterday, which projects a median warming in 2100 under “stated policies” of ~2.4 degrees Celsius, as you can see in the figure below.
Kerry’s large change in outlook — from 4C to 2.5C or less — will come as no surprise to readers here, as for years I’ve been talking about the incredible shift in expectations for the future. Despite the growing recognition that our collective views of the future have changed quickly and dramatically, this change in perspective — a positive and encouraging one at that — has yet to feature in policy, media or scientific discussions of climate.
Right now, climate influencers are in a state of dissonance, grappling with the fact that our projected climate futures have become radically less dire while still trying to promote a public stance of “global boiling.””
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-new-climate-reality
Thermageddon isn’t happening and it’s not going to happen in the next century. It’s quite likely that the planet in 2100 will be no more than 2C warmer than it was in 1850. That is not an existential threat to humanity, the environment and to wildlife.
Needless to say also, the alleged ‘acceleration’ in extreme weather impacts due to climate change is dubious to say the least (which is why the Guardian got Alimonti et al retracted) and the attribution of extreme weather events to climate change is pseudoscience at best, deliberate disinformation at worst.
Packham has NOTHING with which to justify his moral crusade.
LikeLike
Jaime: I think you’re missing the point. Alan started this thread by asking what he described as a fundamental question: ‘if you were convinced that climate change was a realistic threat, is it legitimate to break the law to support action to counteract it?‘
In other words, the issue isn’t whether or not he has anything to justify a moral crusade but whether or not, if he genuinely believes that breaking the law could overcome an existential threat to humanity (and I think he does), would he be justified in breaking the law? And the answer has to be Yes. Of course he’d be quite wrong: even if there is an existential threat to humanity (and there probably isn’t), breaking UK law couldn’t possibly fix it.
In fact, we should welcome the possibility of such a high profile person breaking the law because it would be an excellent opportunity to show how he and lesser law breakers are getting it all hopelessly wrong.
LikeLike
As I said above Robin, if Packham has not bothered to interrogate the evidence closely for an imminent climate catastrophe (he has not) and therefore believes (wrongly), without question, that Thermageddon is due a week come Thursday, then he has some justification for breaking the law (inside his own head at least). However, choosing to break the law in such a manner as to knowingly and wilfully cause criminal damage – even to valued pieces of our cultural heritage (digging up Trinity College’s lawns, defacing works of art etc.) – and putting lives at risk by causing disruption to transport negates that justification in my opinion. Break the law for your ideological cause by all means, but do so only by placing yourself at risk, not others, nor by causing loss and damage to others. I really don’t think I’ve missed the point.
LikeLike
Jaime, Packham hardly “advocates” breaking the law, and as far as I know has not done so. This you would have concluded if you had watched his programme. Also, to my recollection, he did not use the term “ethical stance on law-breaking.”
Your (and Mark’s) point about the threats to wildlife of an expansion of renewables conveniently ignores the considerable harm done by using fossil fuels ( habitat destruction caused by open cast mining, air pollution). Also to criticise projected future harm being blamed entirely upon forecasts of models seems odd since we both know that the climate is so complex that the only way of forecasting is by the use of models.
To categorise Packham as an eco-catastrophist illustrates one of the main features that I tried to raise. We climate realists (or deniers)have a strong tendency to downplay the intelligence and reasoning of our opponents. If you had watched the programme I doubt if you would be so cavalier with your comments. The point is that Packham and the thousands (more likely millions) like him believe there is a crisis and that belief is supported and strengthened by an enormous and complex drumbeat from the majority of science. If you so believe then you will seek redress by opposing the continued exploitation of fossil fuels.
I agree with your (and Cat’s) third point that Thermageddon is unlikely and most unlikely to be imminent. But others disagree. You and I may agree that the attribution of extreme weather events to climate change is mistaken but our views (however well argued) are in the minority. You and Mark seem to argue that democracy requires that majority views prevail, but not apparently with regard to climate matters.
LikeLike
Jaime: if Packham believes, as he obviously does, that breaking the law is essential if it can save humanity from an existential threat, then breaking the law – even if it involves damage to our cultural heritage – must for him be the right thing to do. How (he might ask) can digging up Trinity College’s lawns possibly be worse than the ruination of mankind?
LikeLike
Alan,
I am (like Churchill) a believer in democracy, on the basis that it is not a great way to run a society, but all the others are worse. I have never said that majority views should not prevail with regard to climate matters. My efforts here at Cliscep are aimed at lawfully encouraging people to think as we do about climate policies. I also question the endlessly repeated – but never validated to my satisfaction – claim that the UK’s net zero climate policies enjoy majority support. If the establishment is so sure about this, why do we never get to vote on it?
I don’t deny the awful damage caused by activities such as opencast coal mining. I do question the narrative that renewable energy is green and environmentally harmless or that it is “good for the planet”. I certainly question the invalidated claims that its use instead of fossil fuels makes financial sense.
LikeLike
Alan, you say: ‘I also question the endlessly repeated – but never validated to my satisfaction – claim that the UK’s net zero climate policies enjoy majority support.‘
In fact there’s a lot of evidence that validates the claim. Remember for example the recent YouGov survey that found that 71% of respondents support the Government’s aim to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 – only 29% oppose it. Various other polls confirm this. It’s only when respondents consider the policy in the context of their day-to-day lives and wellbeing that attitudes change dramatically.
LikeLike
Robin,
I think you meant to refer to me rather than to Alan. 😉
Opinion polls don’t count, so far as I am concerned. Even when honestly and robustly framed, they are often invalidated by the results of a subsequent election. The only polls that matter are election polls. And we haven’t been allowed to express our opinion on net zero via the polls yet.
In any event, as you say, attitudes change from positive to negative when the policy is put in the context of lives and well-being rather than when questions are asked in isolation. How we get to put the question in that context at a general election, I don’t know.
LikeLike
Robin,
“How (he might ask) can digging up Trinity College’s lawns possibly be worse than the ruination of mankind?”
Taking that logic to its extreme, Packham and Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion etc. might argue that killing a few people (tens, hundreds, even thousands) in order to save billions of human and animal lives, not to mention the land itself, the atmosphere and the oceans, is entirely justifiable. The more people the better I imagine, because that will definitely get the attention of the government.
LikeLike
Alan, no I haven’t watched the program. I don’t watch TV at all, but you say:
“In the end Packham stated that he had come to believe that those who broke the law were engaged in laudable actions and that, after much reflection, he personally could break the law in support of climate change protests.”
In response to my comment above, you state:
Jaime, Packham hardly “advocates” breaking the law, and as far as I know has not done so. This you would have concluded if you had watched his programme. Also, to my recollection, he did not use the term “ethical stance on law-breaking.”
Your statement in your articles suggest very strongly to me that Packham IS advocating breaking the law and his description of XR and JSO’s criminal activities as “laudable” suggests to me that he thinks their actions are ethical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘[I]f convinced of [position X], is it legitimate to break the law to support action to counteract it?’
Obviously the State has laws and the means of enforcing them, so any action contravening those laws is ‘illegitimate’. It is of note, however, that certain ‘protest’ movements—not just climate activists but BLM and Woke-Left in general—appear to enjoy considerable leeway from the various legal bodies charged with upholding our laws. The various Woke activists seem not ‘rebels’ but rather an extralegal arm of the State promoting extreme forms of politics that the State wishes to implement but is not ready to enact as official policy.
Whether breaking those laws is immoral is a question for philosophers, although the answer usually depends only on which side of a political divide one is on (as expressed in a Russell Conjugation: ‘I’m a freedom fighter, you’re a rebel, he’s a terrorist’; as sent up in Blackadder Goes Forth: Darling: ‘… Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.’ Melchett: ‘Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!’ D: ‘And, fortunately, one of our spies—‘ M: ‘Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!’; or as some simply cynically observe: ‘It ain’t wrong when our side does it.’).
Whether breaking those laws is a good idea… depends largely on who wins. It’s a tedious and false cliché that winners write the history, but they sure get to decide who hangs and who gets the statues.
Was it legitimate for Parliament and Puritans to rebel against Charles I? Worked out well for some, esp. Cromwell who became king in all but name. Similarly for those American Whigs rebelling against George III’s Parliament—some did well out of it (although not all, hence events such as the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion). Similarly for the Bolsheviks—Lenin got to ponce around in a chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce (not bad for a bourgeois failed law-student).
It ain’t about right and wrong, just who wins.
Although one must also be pragmatic—will extreme actions prove beneficial, detrimental, or neutral? So, e.g. another controversial topic: abortion. If one believes the unborn infant a human being, as entitled to life as anyone else, then any doctor performing an abortion is another Mengele; yet the assassination of actual Nazis accomplished little. Ernst vom Rath’s assassination in 1938 led only to Kristallnacht; Heydrich’s 1942 assassination resulted in the death of the two SOE agents along with over 1,300 Czechs murdered in reprisals. And did any other political assassination—Lincoln’s, JFK’s, Lenin’s attempted in 1918—result in a change of policy? So the pragmatic decision by even the most committed of anti-abortionists (or advocates of other causes) might be to reconcile themselves to being the ‘Good German’, not performing or actively contributing to what they oppose but only dissenting cautiously and legally (which, in some contexts, might leave no significant way).
But if the cause one believes in (rightly or wrongly) has catastrophic implications (to the planet, be it from climate or nuclear weapons, or one’s race or nation), then some people are going to take extreme actions, and there is no deterrent effective against a genuine believer. However, many claiming they are trying to prevent one catastrophe or another are little more than poseurs. E.g. the Greenham Common protestors of the 1980s, ostensibly there to try and prevent nuclear annihilation, the threat of which they felt increased by the siting of cruise missiles at the USAF base—and how were they going to achieve their goal? By sitting around and singing songs—oh, and dressing up as teddy bears. Yeah, that’ll work. Their being only poseurs is further suggested by the activists’ camp continuing to exist 9 years after the missiles they were protesting against had been removed (prefiguring British BLM protestors chanting ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ while escorted by unarmed cops who couldn’t shoot if they wanted to). And similarly with the various climate activists:
The planet’s gonna die!
—Oh no! What should we do?
We must install insulation in everyone’s homes!
—Oh… yeah, fit some good loft insulation, that’ll save the planet. Maybe get some new wallpaper while we’re at it? Bit of recarpeting? As long as it’s for the planet!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Mark I intended to refer to you and not to Alan. My apologies to you both.
I cited the YouGov poll simply to illustrate the point that there is evidence supporting the activists’ claim that the UK’s net zero climate policies enjoy majority support. It’s true that poll findings are commonly not reflected in subsequent election results. But not I think when the margin is as wide as 71:29. In any case, good pollsters (e.g. YouGov) are clear that polls reflect today’s opinion and are not predictions of future opinion
LikeLike
Not related to Alan’s question, but since it’s about Chris Packham, here it is:
“‘Out of touch’ Chris Packham told ‘you’re talking absolute cobblers’ about Rosebank as he praises biggest polluter China
The environmentalist and TV presenter had described the green light for the oilfield near Shetland as an ‘act of war against life on Earth’ but was slapped down by Scots”
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/out-touch-chris-packham-told-31049664
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with Graham from Nairn. I bet he knows Douglas from Nairn too. Lots of sensible straight talking people in Nairn. Lovely town too.
LikeLike
The arrest of Laurence Fox for ‘conspiring to commit criminal damage to Ulez cameras and encouraging or assisting offences to be committed’ allows us to revisit this topic but now from the other side of the argument. How many either condemning or defending Chris Packham will similarly condemn or defend Laurence Fox?
(For myself, if I was on a jury trying Chris Packham or similar, I’d be pushing for a Guilty verdict and hoping the judge would ‘go medieval’, but on Laurence Fox’s jury I’d be pushing Jury Equity and Not Guilty; but I don’t claim any greater morality than the belief that my side, the ‘climate-sceptic’, to be the correct side of the argument.)
LikeLike
Good question. Assuming the facts justified a guilty finding, then if I were on the jury then I would vote guilty in both cases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the risk of derailing this thread completely, I was reminded of this story from a month ago:
“Sarah Jane Baker: Trans activist cleared of inciting violence”
and
and
My reading of these events is that there is a high bar to cross. I don’t know exactly what Packham said, and I have no idea what Fox said. But it could hardly be more extreme than Baker.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66676737
LikeLike
Scotched Earth has provided an interesting twist on this thread. The Guardian provides a version that can be seen and read, as it’s not behind a paywall
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/04/laurence-fox-arrested-over-comments-urging-people-to-vandalise-ulez-cameras
I haven’t seen the Chris Packham documentary which Alan K wrote about, and from Alan’s article I obtained the impression that Mr Packham simply mused as to the validity of breaking the law for climate change, rather than saying he would or encouraging others to do so. Based on the Guardian’s version of the Laurence Fox story, he (Mr Fox) appears to have gone further in his comments about ULEZ cameras. And being arrested is not the same as being charged and prosecuted.
It’s tempting to say that the law protects “green” law-breakers while hounding those who are (allegedly) breaking the law in an “anti-green” way, but at this stage I think it would be wrong to say that, since Mr Fox appears to have gone further than Mr Packham in his comments, and possibly to have over-stepped a line that Mr Packham approached but didn’t cross.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
LikeLike
Packham has deep psychological issues.
LikeLike
“Why BBC wildman Chris Packham just can’t stop ruffling feathers”
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/dec/10/bbc-wildman-chris-packham-attenborough-gary-lineker-carbon-commitments
Says it all?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“No 10 berates Chris Packham for ‘irresponsible’ Just Stop Oil comments
BBC presenter defends climate activists’ right to target MPs’ homes amid debate over politicians’ safety”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/04/no-10-berates-chris-packham-for-irresponsible-just-stop-oil-comments
“…Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”.
“I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday.
“They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future.
“The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.”
He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.”
Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest.
“That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.”…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My BBC Complaint About Chris Packham’s Daily Sceptic Slur”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/25/my-bbc-complaint-about-chris-packhams-daily-sceptic-slur/
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m sure he thought what he said was true. But he was making a bold assertion in the absence of any actual knowledge. Easy mistake to make but media personalities should be held to high standards.
Some people have a bigoted attitude to a certain group of people without knowing anything real about them. Then when they meet someone from that group, they discover that they are perfectly normal and upstanding citizens, just like they are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two days before Packham was on the Kuenssberg show he presented this smug and babyish twaddle at YouTube: The Extinction Rebellion Porky Pie Press Awards for the Most Climate-Wrecking National Newspapers.
I don’t think he actually accused the newspapers (Sun, Telegraph, Mail) of having ‘close affiliations to the fossil fuel industry’ but he did say that they are promoting the industry’s interests.
Porky pies? Packham didn’t give a single example of the newspapers telling lies. His examples were about things like opposing Net Zero and ‘howling for anyone who protests to be beaten up and thrown in jail’. (I’m pretty sure the ‘beaten up’ thing is a porky pie. Which newspaper has ever called for that?) He did include a flawed estimate of how much Net Zero will cost UK households but publishing a wrong number isn’t lying if it’s in a news report that says who made the estimate and includes criticism of it by other people and, two days later, you add a prefix saying that the estimator has acknowledged the errors.
After Packham’s intro, we move on to a bit of street theatre featuring XR’s snobbish Dirty Scrubbers, who usually pretend to be chavvy cleaners but this time are wearing evening gowns (which perhaps better represent their real-life social status).
Fascinating fact of the day: the bloke with the bow tie at 12m55s was the lead guitarist for the first version of Adam and the Ants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vinny – thanks for that vid link, a must watch to see how Packham is now an activist & not fit to be unbiased presenter on any TV progs with any climate/nature links.
ps- the uninhabitable planet meme was repeatedly used, but it’s Big Oil, aided by the nasty press/websites named & shamed that will tell lie’s to make this happen.
Not a lawyer, but I would be tempted to sue if he said I’d lied?
LikeLike
“BBC removes Laura Kuenssberg episode after complaint over Chris Packham comments
Edition taken down from iPlayer after claim of ‘false and defamatory’ allegations”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/26/bbc-laura-kuenssberg-episode-chris-packham-complaint/
“…The BBC has also removed the programme from iPlayer.
Packham had been discussing climate change and arguing that recent floods in Dubai, plus high temperatures in the global south and wildfires, were a result of carbon emissions.
Writing about the discussion in The Spectator, Young said: “And to think the BBC launched a multi-million-pound department last year [BBC Verify] to ‘address the growing threat of disinformation’.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s a pity they were forced to remove it only over claims that DS was affiliated with Big Oil, not over Packham’s claim that ‘something called science’ explains why the Dubai floods were caused by/made much worse by climate change.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I just love the cavalier manner in which the BBC can brush aside criticism of their transgressions:
Of course, if this had been GB News, Ofcom would already be all over them like a rash.
LikeLiked by 3 people
dfhunter, Chris Packham would be more than tempted. He sued Country Squire Magazine when it accused him of lying and after he’d won he said: ‘My message is clear – if anyone publishes or perpetuates lies about me or my conduct I will challenge them and I will win.’
So should the newspapers sue him for accusing them of lying?
Probably not. Packham and XR would probably claim that it was all just a jolly jape, a bit of harmless satire.
(The Guardian might want to sue Roger Hallam, though. He has accused it of all sorts of things in the last few months, including lying, and he’s clearly very serious about it – you don’t swear like that and bang on about genocide and mass rape if you’re just having a jolly jape.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry folks been having considerable troubles with my iPad, most significant among them an inability to open this site and others. This accounts for the garbage posted this morning and for my recent absence. My granddaughter came to my rescue and sorted things out tout sweet!!
Reading recent contributions here makes me wonder if my reevaluation of Chris Packham was premature or even downright wrong. Nevertheless I did find the television programme that I wrote my article upon both fascinating and provocative. I had genuinely concluded that perhaps Packham was someone sceptics could do business with.
LikeLike
Alan,
Welcome back. I have deleted the duplicate comment and the earlier one that didn’t work. I hope that’s ok.
LikeLike
Sent from my iPad
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
LikeLike
“Chris Packham Packs on the Pseudoscience to Promote Climate Collapse “Terror””
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/05/04/chris-packham-packs-on-the-pseudoscience-to-promote-climate-collapse-terror/
The concluding paragraph:
The Earth presenter is a green activist and naturalist who holds the view that eight billion humans are wrecking the natural world in their attempts to sustain life on a difficult, dangerous planet. Some of his efforts to draw attention to the fragility of natural habitats are laudable. But as we have seen, he uses something called ‘the Science’ to promote the view that humans should stop industrial progress and return to a mythical natural state. The fact that the unexploited natural world could not sustain anything like eight billion souls is just one of the many reasons why his fantasies will never be adopted. His science starts with a pre-determined narrative, unlike the scientific process which draws conclusions after a ruthless examination of all the available evidence. Mainstream media such as the BBC have largely given up on the scientific process when it comes to climate change, and simply promote political messaging around the Net Zero project. In doing so, they ignore large swaths of scientific knowledge that are likely to trouble the ‘settled’ opinion. But then, this knowledge lacks the “terror factor” so beloved by Packham.
LikeLiked by 3 people