William Hogarth Election Celebration
This post is in response to a number of comments made by regular contributors to Harmless Sky on the Tory Environmentalism – is everybody listening? thread. Here, Here, Here, Here.
Geoff Chambers says, ‘There’s a fascinating debate to be had on the effect of the current global warming catastrophe on British politics and media coverage …’ And of course he’s right.
We’re approaching the first general election that is likely to bring about a change of government in over a decade, and the previously remorseless march of AGW alarmism is beginning to falter, so how could it be otherwise? It would be difficult to get a cigarette paper between the three main party’s policies on this subject, but opinion polls constantly show that the politician’s apparent certainty is not shared by the electorate. Something has to give.
Geoff then goes on to consider the role of politics on this blog, assuming that this area of discussion is entirely off limits. That is not the case.
What the blog rules actually say is:
Politics:
It certainly isn’t possible to discuss climate, the countryside and landscapes without straying into this minefield, although I wish that this was not so. Please try to be reasonably moderate in your utterances and avoid party politics altogether. There are plenty of other blogs that deal with such matters.
This is an un-moderated blog, but when I do occasionally step in editorially, it is almost always because discussion of a political aspect of climate change has drifted on to other unrelated political issues, got heated, and ended up a long way from the subject matter that Harmless Sky is intended to cover.
I have particularly requested that contributors should avoid party politics as there are few people who can conduct a party-political debate objectively, and a rough-house that creates much heat and very little light usually ensues. This kind of thing may be fun for those directly involved, but it tends to be tedious if you have to read it, and I do have to read it.
For at least the next six months (assuming that the election takes place in May) I’m prepared, in fact eager, to see comments drawing attention to any differences that may emerge in the various parties’ policies relating to climate change, or any other environmental issues for that matter. However that does not mean that discussion of the Labour Party’s latest green initiative will be allowed to become a knock-down-drag-out fight over the relative economic competence of the main parties, or whether the prime minister is attempting to subvert democracy. And I am all too familiar with the trick of rounding off a five paragraph rant about foreign policy with a spurious reference to alternative energy. Such efforts are likely to be snipped in toto.
You have been warned.
That said, I would not be surprised if the coming election campaign provides the opportunity for the blogosphere to really come of age. Time strapped journalists rely more and more heavily on recycling press releases without proper investigation, or consideration of the motives of those who provide them. This is leaving huge gaps in the spectrum of news and opinion that the MSM covers, and the range of opinions that it considers. There is so much that concerns people that rarely, if ever, receives any attention. Sometimes I think that large parts of the press are now like disk jockey’s who have become used to just reaching out to a carousel for the next disc , but never wonder when the contents of the carousel was last updated. We seem to hear the same old tunes over and over again.
As a result, there is an emerging trend towards the new web-based media influencing the news agenda. Just ask yourself whether Climategate could have happened without the blogosphere? Or whether the utter futility of the Copenhagen summit would have become apparent so quickly without there being an alternative to the deceptively up-beat spin flooding from governments and organisations that had most to lose as a result of its failure.
Geoff also says:
I’ve often felt the rough and tumble of blog discussions reproduces the long-lost art of political all-in wrestling, of the kind you see in Hogarth’s illustrations of 18th century election campaigns. The point wouldn’t be to score party political points, but to get some heat into the discussion …..
This conjures up an intriguing image, but I doubt whether he really thinks that political persuasion with the aid of a cudgel would reinvigorate political life. On the other hand, it does seem likely that this election will be very different from those since 1997, and there may be copious amounts of metaphorical Hogarthian blood on the carpet before the campaign is over.
There seem to have been two distinct types of election in recent history. Firstly, there are those where the electorate hardly seem to be interested in the outcome because they expect the status quo to be maintained regardless of who wins. Such elections are characterised by unremarkable political leaders and a desire to see no more than a minor touch on the helm of the ship of state. Then there are elections that take place when the whole nation is galvanised by the possibility of a major change in the fundamental priorities that determine public policy. The elections of 1948, 1963, 1987, and 1997 are examples. It seems possible that, in due course, 2010 will join their ranks, but in this case there may be one very important difference: important issues that concern the public may not being addressed at all. Blogs can help to prevent this happening.
In another post, I mentioned an article by Matthew d’Ancona that castigated the political classes, and all parties, for arrogantly failing to engage with the public and acknowledge their views because they are inconvenient. The examples he chose were the MP’s expenses scandal and global warming. The days when MP’s could afford to ignore what is discussed on blogs is over, and the large proportion of new members that will be elected this year are far more likely to be aware of this than those who they will be replacing.
Just a year or two ago, bloggers endlessly discussed what was in the MSM, but had little impact on the news agenda. There was little or no sign that mainstream journalists and editors were interested in what bloggers said or did. As each month goes by the influence of the blogosphere is increasing because more and more of the public are seeking news and opinion on the internet rather than on paper, television or the radio. The MSM now have to compete for the audience not just among themselves, but with a whole new world of output.
In a blog post on the BBC website, Andrew Neil – as experienced a journalist as you can expect to find – has drawn attention to this point. His extremely hard hitting round-up of all the tribulations that have beset the once cosy and complacent world of mainstream climate science since the release of the CRU emails includes this obsevation:
The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops — and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up.
Wise editors understand what their readers want, either instinctively or by spending money on market research. Looking at where the heavy blog traffic is to be found can be much cheaper than commissioning opinion polls and focus groups. In the case of climate change, the mere number of web sites that deal with this subject from a sceptical point of view, and the traffic they get, must tell them something. They will also be aware that when they publish articles about global warming on their own websites, a large proportion of the comments they receive are sceptical.
Opinion polls show that the UK public rank concern about global warming very low in their list of priorities, but when it comes to policies that will lead to higher fuel bills, increased taxation, despoliation of the countryside, restrictions on travel and massive payments to the developing nations that is a very different matter. The public are very interested in these issues.
It is unlikely, if Matthew d’Ancona is right and politicians are so immersed in their own bubble that they have become divorced from the electorate, that climate change will play any greater role in the UK general election campaign than it has in recent by-elections, council elections and European elections unless somethng happens to dispel their complacency. If there is an outcry in the MSM against expensive proposals that will supposedly avert climate change, that would be something the main political parties would be unable to ignore.
Geoff is probably right, a rumbustious and widely populist outcry on the net could have an effect, not directly, but as a result of the message that it would send to the MSM, and if they fall into line then there is no way that politicians will be able to duck these inconvenient issues.
If Geoff’s dream of a truly Hogarthian election campaign comes true, I would not want to be part of it, but relying on the same period in history, there is a very obvious parallel that can be drawn between the 18th century pamphleteers and bloggers. In both cases radical voices became audible because concerned individuals were able to mobilise cheap means of mass communications to spread their views. And there is another similarity. Their pamphleteers ideas only spread because their publications were passed hand-to-hand, in much the same way that information on the net goes viral and spreads by links from site to site.
Although the notion of a rumbustious, rough and tumble 18th century style election campaign might have its charms, it would be unwise to take this analogy too far. Radical politics in the 18th century culminated in the French Revolution.
Now, where’s that guillotine?
TonyN
Thanks for giving us this opportunity. My reference to “the rough and tumble of blog discussions” and Hogarthian election campaigns was not to be taken too seriously, and I’m certainly not looking forward to a Reign of Terror. I finished: “The point wouldn’t be to score party political points, but to get some heat into the discussion and exercise our prediction muscles. Why should Warmists have all the best (i.e. worst) future scenarios?”
My main point was that if all political discussion, particularly speculation about the future election, was concentrated on one thread, it would aid dialogue and avoid contamination of the “mainstream” discussions on other threads.
I like to think I’m fairly knowledgeable about politics, but I feel baffled by the reaction to the global warming from our politicians. Why is all the scepticism up at the UKIP end of the spectrum? Where is the leftwing outrage at the Redcar closure? or the green outrage at the deformation of environmentalism into a parody of left-wing militancy?
My impression (admittedly from abroad) is that there is no discussion at all inside the political left, (as there was over unilateral nuclear disarmament, for instance), but that AGW scepticism is seen as being an apolitical eccentricity, like belief in flying saucers. I’d appreciate some enlightenment.
Geoff:
My post isn’t intended to be taken too seriously either.
I’m baffled too and I hope that others will explore these points. By what strange alchemy has AGW become a matter for proclamation and censure, but not for discussion or dispute within political groupings? It really is very strange. You can see the same behaviour even on the net; each side of the argument gravitating to a sympathetic blog where there will be few, if any, dissenting voices.
AGW is one of several lockstep issues where the 3 main parties all march in step. There is an unwritten rule/assumption that if any party breaks ranks on any of these issues then the others will pile-in on them – and the other parties will be joined by the BBC.
They’ve painted themselves into a corner on this topic.
Maybe the best way to shift the politicos is for everyone to try different things – some attacking the”science”, others the motives, or the hypocrisy – and some asking just how practical the current ideas are.
And don’t expect too many damascene conversions – a good outcome is for the pols to quietly shelve their barmy “war on carbon” ideas and slink of to do something else. And pretend they never stood there mixing the Kool Aid and filling the plastic cups…
TonyN you ask “By what strange alchemy has AGW become a matter for proclamation and censure, but not for discussion or dispute within political groupings?”
I have 2 theories about this.
One is that I believe that we have lost our democracy, and have been ruled by elected dictators, (I don’t mean the traditional meaning of dictator) aided and abetted by a complete overreaction to 9/11, that has resulted in some extraordinary draconian legislation and a false sense in our politicians they can do anything they like. We in fact have far too much legislation, as if this is the only way to change and run the country, and paid too little attention to the detail of running the country and getting value for money. Far too much emphasis has been placed on technology to solve our problems. This is all now coming home to roost, and the fact that we have suffered the worst recession in our history demonstrates just how far our leaders have taken their eyes off the ball, and is contributing in no small measure to why the wider public and not just those more informed, are becoming more sceptical of everything politicians say, and not just climate change.
We have had extremely poor performance from our main opposition parties over the last 12 years that has seen steady growth of 2 alternate Parties to fill the void. So far, or at least until the Euro Elections last year these parties had been too small to have any real influence but as others have demonstrated they have had an influence far beyond their size already. And remember there were three influential elections last year and in none of them did Climate Change help any of the parties. One analysis by Richard North of the last general election shows how the Tories could have had 30 more seats if disgruntled Tories had not voted for UKIP. David Cameron I believe faces a much greater revolt this time around if he carries on with his current environmental policies.
The substance that allowed apathy in the electorate is the same lubricant that has corrupted science; money with greed as the catalyst. Clinton made a fundamental change to banking regulations before he left office, a change to regulations that had been in place since the depression after the Wall Street crash of 29. This allowed our Leaders to flood the market with money, and we all partook of the fest. There is much evidence to suggest this was a deliberately engineered attempt at redistribution of wealth and for a time our leaders believed they had cracked it.
Who was going to take any notice of those warning that it would all end in tears, when we were all feeling so wealthy, so wealthy that our leader thought it would be good to set in motion a fundamental change to our energy use that would allow our ruling class to control every aspect of our lives, removing choice that we had built into our society, choice being I believe the essence of our peaceful existence. I don’t have new cars and take flash holidays, but I buy expensive photographic gear and have spent vast sums on educating my children. My choices and everyone has been free to make their own.
That’s the political side.
Part 2 is Education. During this time a group has grown up that has had too much money and far too little education or sense. This is the 30 to 45 age group. Of course I am generalising but I’m appalled at the lack of critical enquiry this group is capable of. They are terrified of debating with anyone who may have knowledge of a subject, and resort just as the politicians and scientists have been doing to some sort of untouchable authority. In the AGW world this has been the IPCC or the peer reviewed literature.
This 30 to 45 age group has been very influential in terms of opinion forming as they have been so easy to mould, whereas the older age group has been either too busy with their own lives to care, taking advantage of the opportunity presented by Climate change, or sceptical but lost in the sheer numbers.
This same 30 to 45 age group has no idea how anything works, no idea how food gets to their table or how the car they drive or train they ride works, or how it even gets produced. They are terrified of speaking out and rocking the boat. 10 years ago there was a revolt over fuel prices, and so worried was Blair that he caved in. Now we have fuel prices and domestic energy prices through the roof and some from this age group think they should go up more? The removal of money is going to see a rapid return to reality. A new group of MPs will perhaps bring a greater sense of reality with them to Parliment
Tony I hope I have given some political insight without being political.
Tony, it’s good to have this political thread, in a year that promises to hold some highly significant climate-related political events, in the UK and US at least (and maybe others?) Writing as someone who was a vaguely left-ish person in my youth and now contemplating voting either UKIP or (with some serious reservations) Conservative, the last half decade or so has been a bit of a surprise, to put it mildly. I agree that the polarisation around the climate issue has been extreme and is difficult to fathom – the divide seems to have taken on some of the bitterness of a civil war or a religious conflict, and no doubt the vitriol being splashed around by commentators such as George Monbiot and Joe Romm has played its part to polarise the situation. Who among us hasn’t been incensed by being called a “denier”? The same, I concede, for moderate members of the other camp, being labelled an “eco-fascist”, “greenie” or “watermelon”.
It’s clear to me that the old left-wing/right-wing model is becoming increasingly meaningless, but what might replace it? Control vs liberty? Human-centred vs environment-centred? Glass-half-full vs glass-half-empty? None of these seem to fit entirely; perhaps there is some new paradigm struggling to emerge, but I don’t see it yet. Certainly your comment, Peter Geany, about dictatorship is apt – not a dictatorship of fluttering banners, jackboots and torchlit rallies but one of faceless quasi-governmental organisations and their legions of busybodies pushing for ever more micro-management in every aspect of our lives, as if administering death by a thousand paper cuts. The whole “carbon footprint” idea is a godsend from the busybodies’ point of view, as it provides a ready-made justification for bringing all of our activities – including how we use energy, how we travel, where we travel, what we buy, what we eat and what we throw away – within their purview.
Away from the heated rhetoric of the debate, I think that none of us, on either side, appear to fit easily into neat boxes. For example, although I flirt with science, I’m arts-educated, more at home with literature and history than with equations and graphs, find myself (within reason) recycling, re-using stuff, composting and living a fairly frugal life (as I dislike waste and don’t have many expensive habits, except for driving) and also feel motivated to preserve the countryside, wildlife and biodiversity. A natural believer in AGW, really. And yet I’m not – my reading of history and psychology leaves me sceptical about groupthink-prone organisations and about millennialist movements (the Old Testament package of fire, brimstone, sin, guilt and retribution in its old and new guises), which much of the AGW camp strongly resembles, also aware that warming trends, cooling trends, sea level rise and extreme weather events are nothing new and have occurred throughout historical times.
Although I would side with the Green Party on some local issues (e.g., preserving West London’s green spaces), I emphatically do not share their overall vision of a civilisation geared up, in my opinion, to “decarbonise” itself into stagnation and penury. Ditto re the current green-tinged vision of Brown’s Labour, Clegg’s LibDems and Cameron’s Conservatives. Which, for me, leaves UKIP, and possibly a Conservative Party should it lean towards some of the old-school Tories who talk sense on climate issues such as Lord Lawson and Peter Lilley (a personal development that my student self, back in the early ’80s, would probably be mortified by!)
It will be truly fascinating to see what changes of tactics, new alliances, backtracks and U-turns will start to take place, as the IPCC totters and as we head inexorably toward elections…
Alex, our paths have crossed before, so you won’t be surprised to hear that I agree largely with your political and cultural analysis, and shared your attraction towards UKIP, (since I agree with their assessment of Europe – I should know, I live in the place) until they came out against the burka/tchador (I’m not taking mine off for anyone).
But I disagree entirely about the old left-wing/right-wing model becoming increasingly meaningless. With the gap between rich and poor increasing by a magnitude in a couple of decades, and the disappearance of the unacceptable face of socialism with the fall of the Berlin wall, it is a mystery to me how the democratic left has managed to dissolve itself, if not commit suicide, almost everywhere in Europe.
Your remark about “Human-centred vs environment-centred” suggests that you have taken on board the Climate Resistance analysis of environmentalism as being a fundamentally anti-humanist programme, despite the fact that it has become a major plank in the platform of left-wing parties everywhere. So have I, somewhat unwillingly, since I still want to believe in the possibility of a humane green movement wirth a fundamentally aesthetic interest in our planet, far from the arid calculation of carbon bootprints.
As for not fitting into neat boxes, that is the great advantage of this blog. I find myself largely agreeing with a number of obviously very disparate individuals, without bothering who they vote for. (And if I extend my view to the other active British sceptic blogs, like C-R, Omniclimate, and Bishop Hill; the political diversity becomes positively vertiginous). Can Big Oil really be financing all of us?
A blizzard of paper has hit my desk in the last 24 hrs which requires thought as well as action. I’ll come back to the comments addressed to me eventually
In the meantime let’s not forget what the focus of this thread, and this blog, is.
Tony, Geoff, everyone, not much time right now, but I just wanted to post this link which looks useful, as you can see highlights of the Lib/Lab/Con election manifesto documents. In the “Energy and environment” section, you can see that Labour and Conservative both favour nuclear, but the LibDems completely reject the nuclear option. Also, while Labour and the LibDems include emission reduction targets, there is nothing from the Conservatives about these. Obviously these are only bite-sized summaries, but if accurate, would indicate to me that the LibDems would pursue a strategy little different to the current government to date (commit to stringent CO2 targets/renewables) but without the safety net of low-carbon nuclear energy, and that the Conservatives, while talking the talk on renewables and smart grids, could also be giving themselves some leeway on emissions targets and Kyoto 2 (might be wishful thinking on my part, but if they don’t declare upfront their commitment to CO2 targets, it will be easier to delay, reduce or ignore them later on.)
More to say about points raised earlier but will try and carefully put together a comment later on, which hopefully won’t get too close to infringing blog rules.
Alex;
How would the Tories, or other party for that matter, square going slow on carbon emission reduction with European targets?
Tony, I hadn’t thought of that (today was busy), and of course the UK, being a province of the EU, would be legally obliged to comply. The answer is surely that they couldn’t. It’s a tough one – the next government (and the one after that) may well be caught between the rock of EU legislation and the hard place of domestic chaos if they comply with said legislation.
There’s probably a tricky middle course they could steer, involving dodgy accounting practices to make the UK’s emissions appear less than they actually were and/or finding loopholes in the law where possible, that would enable them some wiggle room. How effective these tactics might be, I have no idea.
The Guardian has a couple of very recent articles here and here, which hint at the sort of predicament our next crop of leaders might be facing.
It’s the government after next which might be truly up against the wall IMO when the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive takes effect in 2016.
TonyN, Alex Cull.
Nigel Lawson on question time last night suggested one of the simplest ways of saving money to help with reducing the deficit was to drop all the climate change legislation and reduce energy costs across the board. Now would he have suggested this on such a high profile program in the face of Cameron’s green agenda, if it was not being discussed within the Tory leadership, or was he just flying a personal kite? Has there been some realisation that being green is not just about reducing CO2 emissions.
The Tories need something tangible to offer the electorate that differentiates them from the others. One of the common comments coming from the audience was that they have no choice and no one to vote for. I think that is short sited and wrong, however it is entirely understandable given the mixed messages coming from all the parties One of the overriding impressions I got from the program was that both the Lib Dems and the Labour Party are publically at least, underplaying the depth of the cuts that must come after the election if this country is to get back on track. High taxes on the productive side of the economy as being suggested are detrimental to increasing output, a very necessary part of reducing the deficit. Everyone agrees nothing should be done to damage the recovery, so the cuts must all be in areas of cost or in the non-productive public sector. Watch this space for something interesting near to the election. In the meantime climate gate would play into the Tory hands giving them many options and a way out of a previously entrenched position.
The other thing to ponder is that not one single emission’s target has ever been met by any Government, anywhere ever. The only emissions targets that work are those that limit particular pollutants such as NOx and CO in internal combustion engines for example, where the target has been properly engineered and legislated for, and importantly is measured against a unit of energy delivered in combustion, rather than against some sort of notional overall useage. Therefore it follows that not one single EU country is going to meet any of its CO2 targets, especially if its political leaders want to retain power.
If we take Germany for example, they are almost exclusively dependent on Coal for electricity, and even if there was an amazing about face today on nuclear power they could not reduce their carbon emissions before 2016 without a major reduction in economic activity. We know that despite their love affair with wind they have not reduced carbon emissions.
So despite the EU pronouncements and intensions there is so far no known way of reducing carbon emissions without reducing economic activity. Maybe only France will have any chance of affecting a standstill. Given this situation in the EU I don’t think the UK government whoever they are will be have any difficulty in ignoring the EU.
My belief is that we will have moved on by 2016 or be at war. I don’t think the EU will survive if it was to seriously attempt to impose a deep cut in CO2 emissions, especially as the US, China and India will not be following suit
@Peter
// The Tories need something tangible to offer the electorate that differentiates them from the others.
Their current strategy is the opposite of this. They are assuming that it is “their turn” this time round, and that dislike of Gordon Brown and a general feeling of dissatisfaction are enough to win power. Because of this idea that they are the default option to be the next government they have chosen to not have any stand-out policies that could frighten voters or be exploited by other parties including the BBC.
Interesting stuff, Peter and Alex, particularly the Lawson intervention. I’m mulling it over. Meanwhile TonyN’s prophetic concern about 18th century politics is already being overtaken by events. Delingpole has an article entitled “time for the tumbrils”.
TonyN: The Delingpole post is here, and in spite of the usual hyperventilation it’s a very clear sighted one.
Peter Geany,
You write: : “so far no known way of reducing carbon emissions without reducing economic activity.” Switzerland and France do very well in terms of standard of living, economic activity and low CO2 emissions. Its not impossible.
But even if it was, even if I was wrong in saying this, would that change in the slightest the way the Earth’s climate works?
Geoffchambers,
You ask “Can Big Oil really be financing all of us?” Not really – it all works in a much more subtle way – as I’m sure you are well aware. Max has a go at justifying his stance scientifically but the rest of you don’t want to get involved in that at all. Your motivations, like big oils, are almost entirely based on the political and economic implications of accepting that AGW is problem. The big guys provide the ammunition in the form of editorials in the WSJ, the conferences paid for by the Heartland Institute, innumerable contrarian websites etc and you lot repeat it all in blogs like this.
There seems to be some naive idea that that there can be a big debate on the issue of AGW. That it can all be decided democratically. As if! The next UK election may be interesting politically but the climate will do it will regardless of the result and regardless of which faction of the Tory party gets the upper hand after the election.
The emails from the Uni of East Anglia seem to have you convinced you all that you’ve somehow won a great victory. I agree that Prof Jones has made some poor decisions. He may even have contravened the law. However, I doubt if the legislators would have had in mind anything like the prospect of a University climate professor being constantly hounded by wave upon on wave of climate contrarians , ‘ignorant peasants’ as you call yourslves.
If Prof Jones breaking the law has made AGW go away – well good on him! Let’s make absolutely certain that it has gone well and truly away and make it a requirement that every climate scientist contravenes their local data protection act as often as possible. If they don’t exist in various countries, lets have new laws to create them. Its a much cheaper solution to the AGW problem! Lets have a referendum too. I’m sure that even James Hansen would vote to make AGW go away. Who wouldn’t?
This thread isn’t about making Co2 go away or the CRU emails. I haven’t snipped anything yet, but it’s likely to happen pretty soon.
PeterM
I’ll comment to your #15 here on the other site (as TonyN has suggested we do).
Max
The Delingpole article I referred to at #14 refers to the far more significant article by Phillip Stott at
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
Stott is more worried about the reputation of science than he is about the future of the planet, as I’ve been more worried by the future of democracy and a pluralist media (probably unnecessarily it seems). The media is probably coming to its senses (for obvious, commercial reasons). The Times even had a humorous article about Climategate today.
Democracy will obviously survive, but how will the political parties fare? They won’t change their tune before the election, but after? Cameron will obviously be in a safe position to do a U-turn, saying “we were misled, windmills made in China won’t save the economy, the science is uncertain …”. The commentators will accuse him of playing the UKIP card, but the voters will forgive him, if it saves on fuel bills.
And if it’s against Euro rules, as TonyN and Alex point out, so much the better, in terms of winning back the UKIP vote.
Peter raises an important point about no Euro country meeting emission standards, and Germany’s (and Poland’s) dependence on coal. The Europhiles make a big deal about being bound by Euro-laws, but our Europhile press hides an important fact from the public: that no self-respecting Eurocountry south of the Alps or West of the Rhine gives a straight banana about obeying Euro-rules. I’m not suggesting that Sarkozy and Berlusconi are inveterate liars; it’s just that, in the absence of a widely read national press, there is no media or public opinion pressure in many countries to obey Euro rules. So a politician can promise whatever he likes about carbon emissions, or aid to Haiti, and never be held to account.
Obviously, Cameron will have a problem if his majority depends on Liberal support. Labour, I fear, will react to a Cameron U-turn on Climate Change by accusing him of putting the planet in danger, and ride to the rescue of CRU and Pachauri, since they seem to have no-one in their ranks capable of reading a graph.
So that’s Old Chambers’ Almanack for 2010. Tempterrain, you have my motivations wrong, but that’s for another thread.
I have just picked up that Ed Milaband has declared war on sceptics with an article in the observer. This sounds like desperation, and a step I’m struggling to understand. Leaving aside my obvious scepticism, I’m still able to understand where most politicians are coming from and what drives their motivation. But his timing has got me puzzled and the only thing I can come up with is that he is so arrogant that he believes this article will actually influence people to change their minds and accept the word of scientists and politicians who have been shown to be misleading the world.
The Miliband interview is extremely odd. as Peter #19 says, his timing is puzzling, and it sounds more like an off-the-cuff telephone conversation rather than a prepared interview, particularly as it finishes with an entirely irrelevant one- sentence quote from Lord Smith of the Environment Agency (and Advertising Standards Authority) to the effet that “your doggy may not drown this year, but he’s bound to one day” (or words to that effect).
Miliband sounds like someone far too busy doing his job of Minister of Climate Change to do anything as unrewarding as read the newspapers, or talk to voters. His arguments, if you could call them that, belong to the distant past of last November. On the IPCC he says:
“No doubt when the next report comes out it will suggest there have been areas where things have been happening more dramatically than the 2007 report implied”.
Amazing. Either he has no idea what is happening, or he has decided that Labour’s only hope is a hung parliament and a deal wth the deep green Liberals, thus throwing the Conservatives into the arms of UKIP. Is he utterly ignorant, or utterly desperate?
PS, I see the New Statesman is tipping him as next captain of the Titanic.
I think I may have a lead on why Ed Miliband has gone out of his way to declare war on sceptics today. In addition to his BBC interview and Observer article he was top story on Chanel 4 News tonight. Like his boss Brown who called sceptics flat earthers, Ed was very dismissive of sceptics, and completely committed to AGW. And he did not answer any of the questions put to him, and I thought he was going to swallow his tongue when asked about Phil Jones. He did not come across as having any idea about what is actually going on dismissing the whole sceptical movement as a couple of mistakes by the IPCC.
Today I find that our bumbling head of the IPCC R K Pachauri also reaffirmed his commitment to AGW and his words in the “The Hindu” today were almost the same words used by Miliband. And Ed was very supportive of Pachauri and wanted him to stay in his job and reform the IPCC.
Is this perhaps a co-ordinated effort to head off a complete revolt? Certainly with a good part of the MSM (Chanel 4 even gave hide the decline 15 secs) starting to “get it” maybe the Government is more rattled than we think. Ed sounded lame, and his failure to acknowledge the real issues uncovered by Climategate, Glaciergate and Amazongate will convince no one of his good intensions.
What I find disturbing is this government’s support for the IPCC and in particular Pachauri. Could it be that if Pachauri is forced out an enquiry into government funding of his many interests will be uncovered and may prove even more scandalous than we imagine.
Geoff, I think that “utterly desperate” might sum up Ed Miliband’s position best. Earlier I was wondering whether he, like his big brother back in October last year, was genuinely unaware of the mixed message he is giving out (on the one hand he warns of a “public backlash”, on the other he exhorts the public to “organise”.) But now I’m thinking he might be well aware of the contradiction but also that there is no other position he can take, given that he has painted himself into a very small corner. He cannot acknowledge the IPCC’s serious flaws, given that his own career as Energy and Climate Change Secretary has been built squarely upon the solid-seeming bedrock of the IPCC’s consensus. Also any hint of a climb-down now and he will be damaging his party’s chances even further at the upcoming election. To me he sounds like a man with very few options left and has decided simply to continue on the same path regardless.
Re the EU and compliance with EU legislation, I’m now wondering what the track record is for governments to be punished for failing to comply with directives? Is this something a future government need fear, actually? (I’m not all that well-informed when it comes to legal matters, especially where the EU is concerned. The only case that springs to mind is the recent Phorm controversy, which hasn’t been resolved yet.)
Peter, now that’s a very interesting speculation re the Pachauri connection; where indeed might the trail lead, ultimately? Given that TERI-Europe’s accounts are still a mystery, and Richard North has already uncovered some rather irregular transactions in that regard (“But there is something very strange about the British government when it comes to Pachauri’s outfits. It seems to have a strange urge to throw taxpayers’ money at them.”) I suspect you may be into something there.
I’ve now seen the Question Time episode with Nigel Lawson, and my impression (for what it’s worth) is that while he may well be voicing what huge numbers of Conservatives (and not just Conservatives!) are actually thinking, this has not yet registered with “Team Cameron”, if this letter, purportedly from his office, is representative.
The spin off policies from this less than thorough science need to be examined. Siting wind farms on food producing land is not the solution to human basic requirements. Planting trees where sheep graze and then releasing none native species eg Beaver is bizarre. Ed Millibrand also supports this policy of wilding/rewilding.
This is a small island with 70 million people on it – all of whom need feeding. In the majority of this country because of its Geography (GCSE level variety)we can only produce grass and therefore grazing and therefore it can only sustain sheep and cattle. It is not possible to turn this land in to mainly arable reason our weather it simply isn’t dry enough.
The exception to this is the flater drier parts in the Eastern regions. This situation has always been the case and is highly unlikely to change.
Ed Millibrand has just got to realise he cannot change the Geography of Britain. Apart from some pollution control from industry we can do little about climate change. What we can do is learn to adapt like others before us.
For example is there really any point in changing our light bulbs to the point people cannot read and eyesight becomes a problem. These bulbs although last longer contain mercury which is going to be put where exactly? These policies have to be thought through far better. These policies indeed need auditing.
Peter G, #21:
I’d go along with most of what you say. We don’t know what is in the Labour Party manifesto yet, but if they are relying on plans for a green recovery from recession to wow the voters then they really do have a problem if they can’t convince the public that the science is settled.
So far as your last paragraph is concerned, what about the implications for the government funding of participation in a flawed IPCC process. The IPCC budget is very small — about £10m I think — and participating nations fund their scientists to participate and also provide other back-room support. As you know, because our prime minister keeps on reminding us, the UK leads the world in the fight against climate change. It would be very interesting to see the books.
The most surprising thing about Miliband’s inept intervention is its total disconnect from public opinion. He’s got a front-page headline in a major Sunday paper, based, not on a carefully crafted policy statement, but a few disconnected phrases which fly in the face of half a dozen current news stories, and which provoke a tidal wave of readers’ comments, 80% of which are critical. For a man who apparently hopes to be leader of a major party in a few months’ time, this should be a public relations disaster. But it’s not, simply because the media are not reporting it.
Instead, the Guardian has an editorial this morning stuffed with falsehoods, fully supporting the batty line promoted by its bloated Environment Section. And the Independent trumps them with a lead story on how the Climatic Research Unit has been targetted by Beijing (or possibly Moscow) according to a former government chief scientific adviser. Read it. The man knows nothing about hacking, spying, politics, or constructing a proper sentence. He’s a complete fool, and he was the government’s chief scientific adviser for seven years!