DeSmog UKโs epic history series looks back at the conference that marked the first major event where climate sceptic views were promoted inย England.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of Britain’s first major climate denial conference. You’ll never guess who attended โ and who paid forย it.
In October 1995, John Blundell โ the newly appointed director of free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) โ opened his second major conference Environmental Risk: Perception and Reality at the four-star Stakis St Ermin’s Hotel on Caxon Street inย London.
The advertised speakers included Blundellโs old friend Fred Smith, the founder of the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who had flown over from the United States along with the coal-funded sceptic scientist Dr Patrick Michaels.
Piers Corbyn, a former Marxist student radical and increasingly eccentric climate sceptic, was also among the panellists with Mike Fisher, IEA trustee and the son of the libertarian think tank founder Antony Fisher.
The conference was the first major event where climate denial was promoted in England, but they were included among a series of other environmental issues for which scientific findings had prompted public health officials to recommend tough newย regulations.
A Lavishย Affair
The ยฃ160-a-ticket event was a brilliant example of the strategy set out by the American tobacco companies where industries united in their opposition precisely because single-issue campaigns by vested interests would be distrusted by experts and members of theย public.
One attendee remembers: โIt was fairly lavish for an academics type of conference โฆ a decent amount of money was splashed onย it.โ
The lobby of St Ermin’s Hotel. Photo: St Ermin’s Hotel via Creative Commons
Among those named on the attendee list were: Richard Ritchie from BP
The representatives of Britain’s most deadly industries were about to experience a masterclass in publicย relations.
The conference presented the most convincing and compelling arguments for why businesses should be allowed to continue to produce products that endangered the lives of their customers and posed a serious risk to the naturalย environment.
โBusy-Bodyย Regulatorsโ
Blundell had imported from the United States the latest arguments against state regulations in Britain, where the European Union was about to impose limits on tobacco and where support for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and climate mitigation was almostย universal.
Blundell and his cohorts presented safety regulations as the imposition of busy-body regulators consumed by their own ambition andย power.
The programme from the event gives an indication of how this was done. It stated: โHazards exist all around us. Each day we make numerous judgements as to the level of risk posed by the hazards with which we come into contact โฆ even the scientific community often lacks consensus as to what levels of risk areย acceptable.โ
It went on to ask: โWhat are the implications for business, which must respond to the continual changes in our perception of risk and the responding regulatory climate? And how do we craft policy in the face ofย uncertainty?โ
Fred Smith’s talk was titled โIs the precautionary approach itself risky?โ He set out the highly counterintuitive arguments that asbestos should not be considered dangerous, that airline safety standards were resulting in more deaths, and that huge American cars should be promoted as beingย safer.
โDeath byย Regulationโ
He told the audience: โAt the CEI we are promoting this more balanced viewpoint, seeking out examples of overregulation that are, literally, lethal. We refer to the project as our ‘death by regulation’ project to dramatise the effect that the failure of government to consider the risks that are created by regulation areย serious.โ
He concluded: โRegulating ourselves into poverty isย tragic.โ
Michaels gave a talk shortly after lunch titled โAre claims of man-made climate change exaggerated, or are the risks as significant as predicted? Is there really scientific consensus on globalย warming?โ
He had recently published The Satanic Gases: Political Science of the Greenhouse Effect. During this talk, Michaels set out the arguments that would be used by British sceptics repeatedly over the comingย decades.
Dangerous Climateย Change
He complained that the treaty signed in Rio just three years prior failed to define โdangerousโ climate change and demanded emissions must be cut if Bangladesh were to be badly hit โ โeven if the net benefit is positiveโ around theย world.
He said the document โallows the United Nations to dictate energy policy to sovereign nationsโ and was โdesigned to transfer massive quantities of wealth from producer to non-producerย nationsโ.
He said the IPCC procedures were โclearly a recipe for scientific disasterโ because reviewers and lead authors were often funded by the sameย agencies.
He introduced the allegation that the average global temperatures recorded by Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), could have been distorted by the fact thermometers were surrounded by growing towns and cities, which produced their own localisedย warming.
This argument would become a favourite attack on climate science and provided much of the ammunition around Climategate almost 15 years later when leaked emails from UEA found their way into the hands of climate denierย bloggers.
Significantย Warming
Michaels added: โGiven the volume of arguments about recent global warming, one remarkable fact emerges: even in the global land based record there is no statistically significant warming from 1978 toย 1993.โ
The fact that global warming progresses in fits and starts was pointed out by the IPCC‘s firstย report.
However, this argument would be used again and again by the sceptics. Lord Lawson and his climate denial charity the Global Warming Policy Foundation repeatedly state that there has been no warming from 2000 to 2013 without acknowledging the long-term warming trend and the fact we are experiencing the warmest decade on record.
Hired by Blundell to head up the IEAโs new Environment Unit, Roger Bate wrote in the IEAโs in-house journal published in conjunction with the conference: โPatrick Michaels considers the huge uncertainties surrounding global warming and the risks we actuallyย face.โ
โHis assertion that the risks are negligible is supported best by his discussion of scientific impropriety at the [IPCC]. Michaels repeatedly asked for the data resulting from the much heralded latest forecasting model. He alleged it was still predicting too muchย warming.โ
The war that would explode in the Climategate hacking scandal many yearsย later.
Funded byย Coal
It was unclear whether the conference delegates were aware that Michaels was funded by coal companies. But the programme did thank Procter & Gamble, ARCO Chemical Europe and Virgin Atlantic Airways for sponsoring academic bursaries for theย conference.
BHP Minerals, which mines coal, copper and iron, was recognised for โtheir generous contribution to this eventโ. Bateโs close friend Julian Morris and his IEA colleague Mark Pennington were both named among the โARCO Chemical Europe Inc. Environmentย Fellowsโ.
The event was considered by many delegates as a huge success, although many failed to recognise the significance of Michael’s contribution to attacking climateย science.
Bate, however, used the conference as the perfect spur to a new round of fundraising efforts, writing to tobacco, oil and chemical industry representatives that attended theย conference.
Bate’s assistant wrote to Dr Sharon Boyse of British American Tobacco sending his Wall Street Journal article attacking global warming and inviting her to lunch at the IEA on Valentine’sย Day.
Next time on our epic history series, the romance between Bate and Big Tobacco continues. We reveal how the affair becameย public.
Photo: Owen Billcliffe photography via Creativeย Commons
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts