If you are the sort who likes to rummage through the grumblings of the sceptical ‘orc army’, you will be very familiar with a number of names that seem to crop up again and again. The current bête noire of preference seems to be Ed Miliband, but in the past there have been plenty of others over which an orc might choose to slobber. Take, for example, the self-proclaimed ‘all-star team’, comprising professors Sander van der Linden, John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes, all of whom have done their bit to promote the art of miscarriage. To that particular constellation you can add other, less-clustered climate alarmist luminaries, such as Joachim Schellnhuber and the one and only Michael Mann. But there is one other name that you won’t find mentioned nearly as often – which is perhaps surprising given the untold harm he has caused already. So let me see if I can now put that right.
The gentleman concerned is a certain Professor Nicholas F. Pidgeon, Professor of Environmental Psychology and Director of the Understanding Risk Research Group — a title that cannot help but attract the attention of a reprobate such as I. You can hear him in action here, taking part in an Oxford University podcast, and you can both see and hear him here, covering similar material whilst focusing on the UK’s National Risk Register. To see him in action you might wonder what all the fuss is about. He appears to know his stuff, as far as it goes; which admittedly isn’t that far in these particular presentations. At least he knew to point out that the most important risks are often the ones not on your register. He also seems to appreciate that deep uncertainty is best handled by making resilient decisions, by which I mean those designed to minimise regret. On the other hand, he does say that climate sceptics use uncertainty as an excuse to do nothing – proving to me that he has never bothered to properly engage with what climate sceptics actually say. But none of this would be enough for me to place him on a Wanted Dead or Alive poster. However…
Yes, however, there is such a thing as an organisation called Behavioural Research UK (BR-UK), and they are currently employing their stellar skills to investigate how behavioural insights can be used within a number of what they call ‘themes’, the first of which is ‘Environment & Sustainability’. If you look this theme up, you will find that Professor Pidgeon is one of the two leads, and you will also find the following introductory sentence describing what the theme is all about:
The world’s populations currently face existential threats of the closely connected climate and biodiversity crises, with people’s individual and collective patterns of behaviour at their heart.
Which rather invites an obvious question: Why is a much vaunted expert on risk describing climate change as an ‘existential threat’, even though the IPCC doesn’t? It’s serious enough, maybe, but ‘existential’ is not a word to be bandied about lightly. It certainly isn’t one ascribed to the climate-related risks identified in the UK’s National Risk Register, the subject of Pidgeon’s presentation to which I linked earlier. I’m sorry, but this isn’t a good look, and it rather raises the suspicion that we are here dealing with yet another so-called expert in risk who, upon closer inspection, is actually a psychologist who specialises in the psychology of risk perception and how it can be manipulated. I should have known when he started talking about the ‘social amplification of risk’.
But even if my suspicions are correct, surely this is still not enough for me to start printing that Wanted Dead or Alive poster. However…
Yes, however, there is such a thing as an organisation called the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC), and I think you will find that Professor Pidgeon has more than a little to do with its creation. Here is what the modestly titled Research Excellence Framework (REF) says on that subject:
Research led by the Cardiff School of Psychology first revealed a `governance trap’ hindering decisive long-term action by the UK government on climate change. Nick Pidgeon co-authored a Parliamentary Research Report that identified a solution to this problem, which was the creation of an independent expert Committee to advise the government of the day on long-term climate change targets and to evaluate progress. This recommendation was enshrined in the 2008 Climate Change Act, which formalised the scope and composition of the UK Climate Change Committee.
Now perhaps you can see the problem here. The REF goes on to explain:
The data synthesis conducted by the [Pidgeon led] Cardiff group and by the parliamentary inquiry team identified a series of constraints on government action. In particular, and despite good intentions and rhetoric, the UK government was failing to act decisively because it feared punishment at the ballot box if bold but unpopular long-term climate measures were adopted.
Just to ram the point home:
In the report of the APPCCG inquiry it was concluded that as a result of this neither citizens nor governments would act decisively without a significant restructuring of the UK’s institutional climate governance structures.
To summarise, the CCC was invented to overcome a ‘governance trap’ that existed because of the need to adhere to the principles of democracy. That’s not me saying that, it’s the APPCCG inquiry, instigated in response to the Cardiff School of Psychology research. The formula is very simple. Although Nick Pidgeon was not a sufficient cause of the CCC he was certainly a necessary one: With no Pidgeon there is no 2008 Climate Change Act. As the REF puts it:
The ability of the government to pass this legislation and take decisive action is a direct impact of the recommendations published by Pidgeon and his co-authors in their analysis and report for the APPCCG inquiry into cross-party consensus on climate change legislation.
It is bad enough that the CCC was set up specifically to overcome the ‘hindrance’ of the ‘ballot box’, but it is worse still that its anti-democratic intentions should have been made so explicit at the time. I say shame on all who went along with this egregious idea, but even more so, I question the sociologist-cum-psychologist-cum-risk expert who gave the parliament of the day the idea in the first place, before persuading them what a marvellous stunt it would be. Not that the Institute for Government needed any persuasion:
The Institute for Government has conducted a retrospective evaluation of the evolution of the 2008 Climate Change Act, and the setting up of the Climate Change Committee, as an exemplary case study of UK policy success.
So the next time you feel the need to vent your spleen with Ed, save a little of your orc slobber for the innocuous looking Professor Nicholas Pidgeon. He now has an MBE, awarded for his services to ‘climate change awareness and energy security policy’, but in light of the carnage the 2008 Climate Change Act is now wreaking, I can think of a far more appropriate recompense.
Climate Scepticism 
Bloody hell. So, Pidgeon’s the democracy dodging CCC is now headed by arts graduate Pinchbeck – a self confessed ‘expert in whole economy decarbonisation’ – who is busy preaching to us proles about about our flying habits, heating habits and eating habits. Meanwhile, Pidgeon’s communication of the ‘existential risk’ of climate change is having a limited effect on the public who are all for renewables out at sea (where I ‘can’t see the turbines without me glasses on’) but nonetheless are against them when they are sited on pretty fells in their own backyard. There’s a limit to the ‘social amplification of risk’, it would seem, so the CCC is going to have to recommend that the government takes out some big sticks. And we sceptics are going to have to invest in even bigger pitchforks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
People are now more aware of climate change than they should be and in particular too afraid of it, so alarm-spreaders should be given negative MBEs, if anything. Existential! We no longer have any understanding of the word. Or “decimate.” Or “fascist.” Or several other words that I could add, but won’t.
Politicians are supposed to fear the ballot box. That’s how you make them do what you want. The quangocracy does not have such fears. The CCC does not have such fears.
It’s interesting that we managed to “achieve” so much in relation to climate change (and have coincidentally slid into poverty alley on our backsides). Why were not these ballot-box-proof measures put in place – I don’t know – to solve the perennial social care problem, or to pay off the national debt, provide Britain with an army, cut the benefits bill, or reform healthcare?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I wrote speculatively in my article regarding the true nature of Professor Pidgeon’s expertise, but there really is no need to speculate. One only has to look at his extensive list of publications to get the general idea.
Unfortunately, the list does not give access to any of the papers, and most don’t even provide an abstract. Nevertheless, the titles are quite revealing in themselves. Titles such as: “Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research”, “Social amplification of risk: models, mechanisms and tools for policy”, “Public perceptions of risk and preference-based values of safety”, and “Climate change – psychology’s contribution”.
Look, I’m not saying that societal values and risk perception are not important subjects, and I am certainly not questioning Pidgeon’s expertise in those areas. But what I am saying is that risk management is not just about the management of perception, and one must never lose sight of the scientific basis for a risk assessment. When a professor of risk comes out with statements regarding the ‘existential threat’ of climate change, one has to wonder whether the individual concerned has become lost in their own perceptions. Also, despite his mathematical background, I don’t see any hint that he has explored the limitations of probability in capturing uncertainty. There is certainly nothing in his portfolio regarding non-probabilistic techniques or evidence theories.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve tracked down the report that Professor Pidgeon co-wrote which led to the formation of the CCC:
Is a Cross-Party Consensus on Climate Change Possible – Or Desirable?
Microsoft Word – Final version.doc
I’ll read it later.
LikeLike
Interesting report in your last link, John:
Is a Cross-Party Consensus on Climate Change Desirable?
Of course!
With few exceptions, contributors favoured at least some degree of cross-party consensus.
There was also broad agreement that any such consensus should stress the seriousness of the
problem, and the need to tackle it upon the basis of the scientific evidence. Many felt
consensus to be essential to achieve sufficient action on climate change, with one common
concern being that if urgent action isn’t taken the climate may reach a ‘tipping point’. For
some, climate change was seen as too big an issue for partisan dispute...
…There was concern that the decisions we take now will shape the planet for future generations, and that if we don’t take urgent action now, the consequences of climate change could become unmanageable, some risks uninsurable, and economies and societies in some parts of the world unstable. Several contributors expressly stressed the need to convey this seriousness to the UK population, and that Parliament and the Government should take the lead in this…
Clearly the current hubris is nothing new. There seems to be absolutely no recognition whatsoever that nothing the UK does can make any difference at all to the global climate. It couldn’t then and it can’t now. The major difference between then and now is that it’s even more obvious now that the rest of the world isn’t interested, yet still the government doubles down and bleats about the lack of consensus, now that Badenoch has dared to speak the truth that net zero by 2050 isn’t feasible.
The contempt for democracy in the document is clear:
The following submission from Colin Challen MP, the Chair of APPCCG, clearly expresses this dilemma:
“Until a binding consensus is reached, there will always be the danger that any party proposing the really tough measures necessary to tackle the problem will face a prisoner’s dilemma, with the strong likelihood that another party will present the electorate with a ‘get out of jail free card’ for their own electoral advantage…. There seems little point drawing together a consensus that is merely promoting motherhood and apple pie. It is clear that the purpose of the consensus is to overcome the severe tension between short-term electoral politics and long-term climate change goals, a tension which has to date resulted in the triumph of short-termism.”
A binding consensus is necessary, otherwise the voters might rebel. Interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Had a quick search for “Colin Challen MP, the Chair of APPCCG“
From 2007 BBC NEWS | England | West Yorkshire | MP quits to back climate campaign
Partial quote – “In a letter to party members, he said: “The world must grasp the nettle and take very serious and urgent action to address the climate change problem.””
From 2009 – a book Too Little, Too Late: The Politics of Climate Change: Challen, Colin: 9780956037008: Amazon.com: Books
Snippet from the blurb – “Colin Challen MP condemns the inability of political parties to form a consensus around a meaningful response and suggests ways forward.
He believes that action will need to be bottom-up as well as top-down but fears catastrophe may play a role in shifting policies to a level adequate to the task. He warns against ‘displacement’ activities, such as building a new fleet of nuclear power stations, and calls for a massive expansion of renewable energy as well as personal carbon allowances.”
It gets 1* from the only review –
Simon Loveday1.0 out of 5 stars Too long, too loose Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 15, 2011
Verified Purchase
Mr Challen has set out to convey some useful information but the book does not live up to expectations (mine, anyway). It is more of a brain dump about the experience of climate change negotiations. Of course it is interesting (if unsurprising) to have confirmation about how difficult and complex it is to get any kind of consensus in politics – whether that is national politics or international, economics or defence, trade or environment. But those hoping for any evidence that Mr Challen understands the science will look in vain. The book rides on assumptions which are never questioned. It would also benefit from a thorough edit, since there is little sign of a larger plan or of any kind of pruning or selection of the material before inclusion.”
Seems Mr Challen had a big influence on things.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Cross-Party Consensus on Climate Change Desirable?” A real eye-opener and revelatory about public reaction (absence of) as much as political policy making ever since. It left the same sick feeling as the Behavioural Insights Team (nudge unit) publication on pushing green behaviours on the back of climate catastrophism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I haven’t read the APPCCG report fully yet because it is 55 pages long and, quite frankly, after getting half way through I started to lose the will to live. However, I have the following initial impressions to report:
Self-contradiction
The report is taking the imperative for emergency action as a given. Much is made by the report’s authors of the scientific consensus, and the public’s support, for such action. No explanation is offered as to why a supportive public would then use the ballot box to punish any party that attempted to implement the necessary measures. This is a deep-seated contradiction within the report’s basic logic.
Tipping points
Tipping points get more than one mention, for example:
Note: “a strong sense” rather than “strong evidence”. Given the pivotal role that tipping points have in setting the mood for the report, one would have hoped for some solid science supporting the necessary risk assessment, rather than just waffle.
The elephant in the room
Whilst the logic for a necessary cross-party consensus may seem sound, to be effective the political consensus must apply both nationally and internationally. The former without the latter will not achieve anything. This seems to be understood but glossed over in the report without any serious discussion. So we just have this:
Clearly the new way of working proposed by the report does nothing to address the problem of international political consensus. Somewhat pathetically, the report has only this to say:
Might? For God’s sake!
Selection Bias
Basically, the report claims to be a summary of advice given to the authors when they solicited experts and representative members of the public. However, it isn’t at all clear what measures were taken by the authors to ensure a balanced representation. Shockingly, they admitted this:
What is obvious, however, is that Greenpeace had a major role in providing the input. Also, after the report’s foreword praised the Independent newspaper for its support in campaigning for a cross-party consensus, the authors say in the body of the report:
Whatever they say here, the likelihood of selection bias is starkly obvious. At one point, the report says:
Who can be surprised that such opinions were rare, given the egregious selection bias?
Democratic deficit
It should be obvious to the authors that a major risk behind their proposals would be the potential for a serious degradation of democracy. In a report running to 55 pages, the only reference to this concern was as follows:
And that’s it! Only a ‘very small minority’ moaned about loss of democratic choice. So that’s alright then — its obviously a minor concern!
A war footing
By way of justifying loss of democracy, much is made in the report of the need for a war footing. Comparisons are made to World War II and how well the cross-party consensus worked then. The attitude seems to be that the public understands about giving up democratic powers when faced with an existential threat, and climate change is just one of those. I find this logic to be terrifyingly glib. They introduce a non-democratic measure that can only be justified in the context of an officially declared war (e.g. WWII), but they fail to officially declare such a war to the British public. They knew not to do so because the public are not that stupid as to accept such a half-baked analogy.
Playing down the UK’s lack of contribution
In 55 pages the only recognition that the UK cannot do anything much on its own is this:
And set against the above, we had this:
Yes, the authors are seriously saying that the world meeting its global temperature target rests upon the UK meeting its emission targets “within the context of a global contraction and convergence regime” — whatever that means. Honestly, the stupidity here is breathtaking.
And that’s as far as I got before giving up. This really needs more time, ideally resulting in another article. But do I really want to waste any more time on such a miserable farce as this?
LikeLiked by 3 people
And thus we set forth on the incredibly crass and dangerous cross-party consensus and denial of democracy. It is truly terrifying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s still ongoing:
From the Parliamentary Energy and Net Zero Committee:
“Building support for the energy transition
Inquiry”
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8941/building-support-for-the-energy-transition/
The ability of the Government to make difficult decisions and to change the way in which energy is generated and used in the UK will depend on being able to bring people along with it.
A vocal opposition to ‘net zero’ – including the energy transition – has grown in strength, political consensus has fractured and with it potentially the will to carry it through.
The Committee is launching a new inquiry to assess whether the Government is communicating effectively so the public has the same understanding of the objectives and benefits of the transition.
The committee wants to hear your views. We welcome submissions from anyone with answers to the questions in the call for evidence. You can submit evidence until Tuesday 8 April 2025.
There’s more (but not a lot more):
The committee is now inviting evidence from individuals and organisations on any or all of the following questions:
Judging by those questions, they aren’t interested in views that challenge the narrative. However, it seems they are aware that the narrative is increasingly unpopular, hence the focus on seeking ways to counter that unpopularity. So much for democracy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think it may be worthwhile reflecting upon what happened exactly regarding the APPCCG ‘inquiry’.
Firstly, a group of MPs who were sufficiently spooked by the climate change problem that they became convinced that a war footing style of cross-party consensus is required, set out to gather ‘evidence’ that can be used to persuade their colleagues. So they turn to a social psychologist who is steeped in the dark art of behavioural science (Pidgeon) and who talks of the ‘social amplification of risk’ as though it were a desirable approach to risk management. He teams up with a guy whose only relevant credentials are that he owns a renewables technology company and is a Professor of Sustainable Construction (Mark Whitby) and an ex plant biochemist who now works for the Environment Research Council (Helen Clayton). Together they set out to solicit the views of academia and the general public on the topic of the desirability and achievability of cross-party consensus, but they do so in a wholly unscientific manner that heavily focuses upon those who are in agreement with the objectives of the MPs. They then write up a report, full of anecdote and specious argument, referring to its content as ‘evidence’. Lip service is played to the legitimate concerns that should have been fully explored but instead were airily dismissed as those of a ‘rare’ minority. This shoddy piece of work is put before parliament and no one has the gumption to call it out for what it is. Why? Because contrary to the claims made in the report, the real problem getting in the way of open debate is not a fear of being punished at the ballot box, but fear of prosocial censorship for speaking out and making statements that are already considered within the corridors of Westminster to be toxic and anti-science. Thus we see the recommendations accepted without a whimper, followed by much adulation and self-congratulation despite the heinous harm they have caused to democracy.
Now they are increasingly worried that their noble cause is under fire so they seek to engage in a similarly flimsy exercise in propaganda, drumming up a phony consensus in their favour. And no doubt they will succeed, leading to a further deferment of the final dénouement, and making it all the more painful in the process. You’ve got to laugh lest you cry.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Greenpeace have just posted one of those UTube shorties showing a noble lady speaking in the House accusing three prior speakers of being in hock to those “Tufton Street” climate deniers. I suppose it’s recognition of a sort when a movement is identified by its street address. I’m not savvy enough to know how to find and link to an ephemeral clip.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is another major deficiency of the APPCCG report that I perhaps should have mentioned yesterday.
The decision regarding whether to ‘mitigate’ a risk (as the report would have it, although I do wish they would talk instead of hazard avoidance) or adapt to its consequences by accepting the likelihood of hazard but then put in place protective measures, is about as fundamental as it gets in risk management. As such, it should form the central discussion matter of the report, covering all sorts of factors such as economics, practicalities, stakeholder perspectives, etc. And yet the only time adaptation gets a mention is in the context of a very brief discussion as to whether the scope of the cross-party consensus should even include adaptation strategies. A very brief summary of public feedback is provided (including the dozy suggestion that adaption should not be considered since “Too much emphasis on adaptation may distract us from the over-riding need to make deep cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases, and soon”). And that’s it!
I suppose that’s what you get when you put a social psychologist in charge rather than someone with a strong background in actually managing risks for a living. Or rather, that’s what you get when you put a team in charge whose sole objective is to provide you with the conclusions you asked of them. So, yes, the whole country is just begging for a cross-party consensus on emissions targets, but adaptation? Meh!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark – had a look at “Building support for the energy transition Inquiry” link.
Since 17:00 on Tuesday 8 April 2025 is less than 2 days away, I wondered when the “Call for Evidence” was issued.
No date I can find. It also has this strange statement “Submissions should be no more than 3,000 words and should not include material that is already published.”
Wonder how people even know about this, apart from the usual suspects/NGO’s
PS – love the leading question “Is there a need for public campaigns to counter the anti net zero narrative?“
LikeLiked by 1 person
Has anyone managed a submission? Mine continues to be stymied at the submission Terms and Conditions page demanding I tick the agree box (which I have done).
LikeLike
Max – I managed to submit, after having to muck about to get acceptable format for my comment.
Thought I would be rejected, so decided to sound supportive to see what bias may be in place.
“I think the MSM/TV & print need to give more facts about the devasting effects of global warming that are happening now.
The government seems to be backtracking on UK commitments to be a Green superpower, this needs to stop. The only future for the UK & the planet is to press ahead regardless of naysayers. Humanity is on the edge of a tipping point if we do nothing.
It may be a difficult pill to swallow for now (to quote Trumpism) but in the long run we have to grasp the nettle now if only for our kids & grandkids.
Only other thing I would add. Think Ed Miliband is now a liability & should be replaced as he often comes across as clownish.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That would stick in my craw! The admin offered the opportunity to submit via an email which I’ll do tomorrow. My comments below:
It has improperly explained them; weather patterns persist within historic bounds so cannot legitimately be used to justify changes in how electrical and heat energy is provided. The normal social, technical and commercial forces that determine developments in these areas should operate with no additional burden of responding to a non-existent climate change forcing.
Costs: Far from clear as the cost gap between renewables and fossil fuels have routinely been hugely exaggerated. Of particular note are the omission of the various regulatory loadings on electricity bills arising from the imposed transition.
Public campaigns: should take the form of a straightforward account of pros and cons with correctives regarding costs as above, and clarity on the climatic underpinnings. The latter includes where policy departs from IPCC WG1 (which provides no support for trends in extreme events), dependence on models rather than observations, and the overarching role of the Precautionary Principle in policy making.
Engagement: See the above
LikeLiked by 4 people