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?
He’s a complete fool, and he was the government’s chief scientific adviser for seven years!
That might explain a lot! My view of David King’s pronouncements is similar to that of Harriet Harman’s, viz. that the correct interpretation will be almost always be the diametric opposite.
Is this a wobble from the Grauniad (or even the government)?
Link
Probably not, but I’m ever hopeful…
Richard Norths description of Ed Miliband today leaves no one in any doubt about whats he feels. I fear poor Ed has shot himself in the foot, and certainly seems have shot down any chance he had of becoming leader in the near future.
I have no experience of the workings of Government but his lack of knowledge of the current state of the science is dangerous. Is this another case of Labour not listening to their science advisers, and acting out some sort of preconceived plan based on what they perceive as a popular move?
I wonder if there are any Political Historians out there that can recall another time when the ruling class were so far removed from those eligible to vote. It would be interesting to compare what happened then with what is happening now, and are there any parallels.
And if Team Cameron are watching this, it is bound to cause them some discomfort. They will probably know they should jump in and strike whilst Ed is down and under pressure, and many will wonder why they do not, but coming off the back of a U turn of sorts on cutting the deficit and the attendant poor publicity they are best to shut up.
What they need to do is somehow prompt the Lib Dems into saying something in support of Ed and gauging the reaction. Boy what a mess for the electorate to sift through and make a decision on how to vote.
JamesP #27
No, it’s not a wobble from the Guardian. It’s just a regurgitation of what everyone knows thanks to blogs, and which therefore can’t be denied, even by the Guardian’s Environment Head (that’s the journalist’s official title), interspersed with a desperate face-saving exercise in the form of an interview with an anonymous senior government official, who says:
.. the [IPCC] review process … relies on thousands and thousands of papers that have been peer reviewed through scientific journals… They need to communicate that 99% of the science on which they base [their work] is peer reviewed.”
Yet another senior government official whose image of the workings of science seems to come from a bad science fiction movie. What do they imagine goes on at IPPC HQ? Hordes of boffins poring over papers muttering “This one’s peer-reviewed” “So is this one!” “We’ve got thousands of them, we’ll soon have the answer!” “Here it is, yes! It’s one point six degrees! Or six degrees. Or something in between. Probably”.
Every attempt by the government or their minions at the Guardian to communicate merely demonstrates their pitiful ignorance of the science, of the scandal, and of the state of public opinion.
ps On another of today’s threads in Guardian Environment a comment by orwellwasright has just been deleted by the moderator. Really.
Geoff
I see that the original Miliband article in the Observer (i.e. the Grauniad on Sunday) is keeping the moderators very busy. Rather like the suppression of emails, I suspect it does little for their cause.
peter geany #28 is right to ask whether the current gap between rulers and ruled is unique in history (at least in democratic times).
When the government loses touch with the electorate, it’s normally a matter of being out of step with popular feeling. Blair, bless him, did much to remedy this failing by the use of focus groups and by pandering to the readers and owner of the Sun. In the present case, it’s not popular feeling, but informed educated opinion which is rising up – a phenomenon that escapes the radar of the modern political marketing men.
The people expressing their rage on blogs throughout the political spectrum are precisely the sort of opinionated, concerned citizens who should be the backbone of political parties and other activist groups. The sort of people who, twenty years ago, would have been knocking on doors are now sitting at home hammering on their keyboards. We’re probably not numerous enough to figure on a Yougov poll as a distinct socio-economic grouping. Maybe we never will be.
It could be that the election will pass by without even noticing our existence. The thing I notice is that the ridiculous Miliband is being given a free ride by the media, not because the journalists are rooting for Labour, but because they are in thrall to a dubious scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsity cannot be tested at the polls.
I’d like to hear more on Peter’s question as to whether this is a unique situation in the history of democracy. There have been other examples of mass hysteria in modern politics, for sure; Prohibition – but alcoholism was a real problem; McCarthyism – but communist infiltration existed, and it was a political issue, resolved by the political process. And you can say what you like about Stalin, but at least he never made Lysenkoism an election issue.
Positively my last word on Mr Miliband’s famous last words:
“It’s worth saying that no doubt when the next [IPCC] report comes out it will suggest there have been areas where things have been happening more dramatically than the 2007 report implied.”
Mr TonyN, please could we have a thread for Edited Highlights from the 2012 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report?
And they’re off! The first party political leaflet mentioning a 2010 General Election landed on my doormat today, and it was from Mary Macleod, prospective Conservative candidate for the Brentford & Isleworth seat. On one side a message from David Cameron re fixing “broken Britain” – dealing with the jobs crisis, the debt crisis and the political crisis surrounding MPs’ expenses, in that order. On the other side, in eight different sections, the issues on which Mary will be campaigning, including rebuilding the economy, local issues such as Gunnersbury Park and Mogden sewage works, also the matter of the Heathrow third runway, which is also a local issue as we’re directly under the flight path here. The Conservatives are against the third runway, and the leaflet mentions aircraft noise, traffic and pollution.
Nowhere in this A3-size leaflet is there any mention of: climate change, CO2 emissions, low-carbon economy, renewable energy, green jobs, the environment or sustainability.
Not a word.
TonyN
Not sure if this belongs here, but don’t know if you have seen this.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/fingers-in-pies.html
It would explain the BBC bias and also doesnt augur well for objective reporting of the election campaign. You have a much better knowledge of the BBC than I do so can advise if this account is at all plausible.
Tonyb
TonyB, Peter Dunscombe seems to be one of several influential figures behind the scenes at the BBC with strong business reasons to push the Act on CO2 agenda; Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick appears to be another.
Also, anyone seen this story yet (h/t EU Referendum)? “The Conservative Party has recruited Lord Stern, the economist hired by Tony Blair to report on the impact of global warming, to help create Britain’s first environmentally-friendly investment bank.” “The influential author of the Stern Review will help create the Conservative vision of a bank designed to channel public and private money into funding green business plans and technologies.”
Perhaps David Cameron ought to have had a quick word with Peter Lilley before deciding to hire Lord Stern. And I don’t suppose this will help him win back votes from UKIP, either.
Quick update (again h/t EU Referendum) – the Conservative Party has apparently not recruited Lord Stern at all, according to Lord Stern himself (and he would know.)
Something tells me we’ll have plenty more of this sort of weirdness as the election draws ever closer…
Alex its a bit like the keystone cops at the moment. With this embarrassment and the U-turn on cutting the deficit I think they are too reliant on their focus groups and not getting out and listening to real people. Real people don’t work for quangos and fake charities so the have nothing to worry about upsetting that group.
I just can not fathom their obsession with the green vote. It did the Lib Dems and the green party no good at all in the euro elections, or the Norwich by election. Remember John Major and his soap box. He defied all the critics and won handsomely, in popular vote terms at least
TonyB:
I saw Robin Horbury’s Dunscombe story at BiasedBBC and I hope that someone will follow up on it. The situation seems to be a very strange one indeed, but whether it falls within the remit of the FSA I don’t know.
Climate change related investments haven’t been a huge success recently, and with the sudden loss of confidence in the IPCC the outlook for them long term must be pretty bleak. If I was relying on a BBC pension I would be asking questions.
The trustees of a pension fund have a clear responsibility to invest the money for the long-term financial interests of its members and nothing else.
Using the pension fund for political or social or other purposes is a breach of that duty.
All 3 big parties talk about “smart grids” and “smart meters”. Do either of these terms mean anything ?
The conservative “8 benchmarks” document says
Networks ? Plural ?
Just love to know the details of this – if the wind stops blowing and it’s very cold then how will it conjure up the increased supply?
This is what happens when you let hippies and trustafarians write your policy.
Note this is not a political point – the Lib Dem policy is just as emotional and irrational, and we know what Labour want ‘cos they’re already doing it.
Jack, there appears to be a question mark hanging over smart meters; they’ve been put on hold in the Netherlands, due to privacy issues being raised. Here’s an article citing a recent report by Datamonitor which raises some concerns in the UK too.
“Privacy groups and consumer advocates in the Netherlands said that information gathering every 15 minutes paints an accurate picture of when a household is empty or when new gadgets have been plugged in.
Smart meters are equipped with technology that allows them to share information and receive instructions. All of the UK’s 26 million households are supposed to have a smart meter installed by 2020 as part of a scheme that carries a £8.1 billion price tag. Smart meters are intended to revolutionize how energy is consumed and generated but their deployment has been delayed because of a lack of standardization.”
As a vote-winner, I think that smart meters are a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they offer the promise of saving on energy bills, by giving consumers a breakdown, in real-time, of their energy usage. On the other, they threaten to open a kind of electronic backdoor into people’s homes for energy companies, possibly the police and insurance companies and maybe criminals too. Also, if some sort of re-nationalisation of the energy supply ever took place in the UK, I wonder whether this backdoor could conceivably be open to central government as well.
Jack Hughes
One of the problems with the large power grids of the industrial world is their inefficiency and losses incurred transmitting the power to where it is needed. Small grids with local generation are an essential part of improving efficiency and to being able to use waste heat from these stations to provide heating to hospitals and schools etc.
Also the smart meters in addition to what Alex has mentioned are part of the 2 way transfer whereby if a house has solar power a small turbine or one of the exciting fuel cell generators that can use natural gas, and the house hold is generating an excess it can be used by the grid.
Ho ho. How do they think it works at the moment then?
Why do politicians and their writers never get technical stuff proof-read by people who know the subject?
Further confirmation of Piet Hein’s lament:
Why do bad writers win the fight?
Why do good writers die in need?
Because the writers who can’t write
Are read by readers who can’t read.
Today’s Independent has the headline “Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers” next to a photo of Steve McIntyre. Today’s Sunday Times has a lachrymose interview with Phil Jones, in which he makes diffamatory remarks about McIntyre (which are shown to be lies by replies from Mosher, Wilkinson and Holland). The editorial in today’s Observer, like a similar one in yesterday’s Guardian, refers to “deniers” throughout. McKie in the Observer has a particularly nasty exchange of e-mails with Benny Peiser, in which he positively spits rage at Deniers.
The political parties are wedded to their belief in catastrophic global warming. Cameron can’t change, even if he wanted to, since he has to consider the possibility of a post-election reliance on Liberal support. Labour won’t deviate from the Guardian line. The major democratic nations are going to continue to pursue ruinous policies at odds with science and common sense, and there seems very little rational folk can do about it.
Geoff:
But did you notice this in the Observer?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/07/climate-scepticism-grows-tories
Geoff, Tony, reading some of these articles, the shrill tone is very much suggestive of those who are losing the argument, and losing it badly. Re the AGW-supportive gridlock in the 3 main parties, I think the best thing we could all do, probably, is write or e-mail to the prospective Conservative candidates in each of our constituencies (apologies to Geoff, as I know that you’re not resident in the UK, although do you have a postal vote?) I’m writing to Mary Macleod, who will be challenging Labour incumbent Ann Keen for Brentford & Isleworth. She has been relatively quick off the mark in leafleting the neighbourhood – it’s well into the new year and nothing yet from any of the other parties – and would appear (at the moment) to be the candidate best poised to be our new MP. Will let you all know how I get on.
TonyN
Yes I did notice the Observer article highlighting Tory discord – they would wouldn’t they? – and by the Policy Editor no less. (doesn’t the job title give you Orwellian shivers? She’s supposedly reporting NEWS).
It confirms my feeling that Labour will try to play on Tory divisions, causing Tories to hide them; and the recent avalanche of climate revelations, which has made nonsense of the policies of all parties, will have no place in the campaign.
Alex is right about the tone being that of those who are losing the argument. But where does that get us? The two changes I have noted recently are:
1) The warmists have given ground, being ready to sacrifice Pachauri and Jones for the sake of the cause, and have started to acknowledge the existence of serious sceptics like McIntyre and Watts, but only to traduce them.
2) A number of non-specialists with a certain weight, like Simon Hoggart and Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, have entered the fray in defence of scepticism. But since they know nothing, they simply muddy the waters, enabling the warmist press to claim that they are being even-handed, giving space to honest scepticism, while at the same time taking the Phil Jones line that the likes of McIntyre are just troublemakers financed by Big Oil.
I used to believe that the dozen or so full-time propagandists at Guardian Environment were loose cannon, and would one day be reined in by the editors on the grounds of free speech, common sense, and above all not offending the intelligence of their readership. I was quite wrong. The editorials in the Guardian, Observer and Independent make it clear that there will be no surrender. Environment Editor James Randerson said in a below-the-line comment that AGW was the Guardian’s editorial line. The propaganda war continues, and having the best scientific ammunition is no guarantee of victory.
Geoff:
My slant on it here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=264
The ususal suspects in the MSM may be reverting to form, but that still leaves the Telegraphs, Mail, Express, Sun and Mirror batting for the other side. Who wins on circulation?
Tony, Geoff, at the moment I’m optimistic, given that the whole “-gate” phenomenon has had only a handful of months make an impact; am now signing on with the Sun online to leave comments etc. Wot larks, eh!
Re my #46, I should really have said target any prospective candidate who seems to be in with a chance of winning, not just the Conservatives. At this stage we’re rather like someone visiting the supermarket late on Saturday after the hordes have descended – we might have to make use of whatever/whomever we can find, irrespective of the party they represent.
OK Alex, I’ll swallow the bait. Just what are you commenting on in the Sun? I’ve found their environment page, with an article on changing bird populations headlined “Tits out, woodcock in”. I’m sure Pachauri cites it somewhere, but in which oeuvre?