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?
Geoff, I’ve been sidetracked by lots of non climate-related stuff this evening, so haven’t yet had the chance to take part in what could be a very (double) meaningful debate over there…
David Davis is coming out more into the open by participating in this debate
This may set the cat amongst the Tory pigeons. I have it on good authority that representations to Tory MP’s and prospective candidates is not at all in line with the Tory Leaderships views. And because more and more people are realising just how much more they are paying for energy this winter, and hearing how the science is not settled, they are asking questions and not getting any answers.
I have written to the prospective Tory candidate in my area myself and have been invited to meet him to discuss Climate Change, but as yet he has not set a time or place. This is at the very least an improvement on my sitting MP who wrote to me calling me a denier.
Cameron has had another constituency revolt that turned messy in Westminster North this last week, and he is going to have to get with it very soon and understand the mood of the country or we are going to end up with a 3 way split in Parliament, and maybe a 4th party making further ground.
A rather sobering blog about Conservative energy policy today on EU Referendum, which has a link to a Channel 4 News article here.
“They want windmills on top of your house, solar panels on your roof…”
Personally if I had a house on a hilltop in the Pennines, or bang next to a mill stream, I might be excited at the idea of microgeneration; could be a nice earner, and the notion of being self-sufficient would appeal. But living in a typical London terrace and on a tight budget, I just don’t have that option, and neither do most people.
I don’t think this really helps the Conservatives much (pre-election), or the country (post-election, should they win); a future DECC under Cameron/Clark (unless or until there’s a Tory revolt) seems likely to resemble our current DECC under Brown/Miliband – the same global warming dogma, the same unrealistic expectations from renewables, possibly the only slight difference is going to be that they will need to keep a closer eye on the pennies!
Alex #53
The genius of Thatcher (there’s four words I never thought I’d utter) was to realise she could do anything she wanted in her first year (e.g. raise VAT 5%) and nothing could stop her. Similarly, a cash-strapped Cameron could announce a (temporary) moratorium on all climate change spending, drop the CC from the DECC, and stockpile Mitsubishi’s windmills on the Suffolk seafront to keep out the wet. A Tory Chancellor could bring the house down by simply listing the vast number of ludicrous green projects which will no longer receive taxpayer support. (Thanks to Robin Guenier, TonyB and others for the examples).
Whether this happens or not probably depends less on sensible science or economics, and more on what Cameron thinks of Davis and Lord Lawson. Politics was ever thus.
Alex:
This evening a BBC news report finally admitted that one of the reasons that gas prices are not falling in line with wholesale prices is because Centrica needs the cash for offshore wind in order to meet renewables targets. Sooner or later that really must filter through to the conciousness of consumers, and when it does some of Geoff’s dreams just might begin to come true.
Geoff, re your #54, a timely reminder that what we are led to expect before an election is not necessarily what we’ll get after all the dust has settled. It will be instructive to read this thread again in about 12 months’ time!
Tony, very interesting re Centrica – definitely a story to watch. Just found a story in the Mail that echoes the BBC report. Centrica’s Sam Laidlaw: “…the energy sector will have to invest up to £200bn in new infrastructure over the next decade, which requires a chunky balance sheet.” And I seem to remember a figure of £60 billion needed for offshore wind parks alone…
Times are getting very interesting. I have been struggling to keep up with all the developments and have had very little time for Blogging at present.
Anyway as Alex alludes to I don’t think anything the parties say before the election will become reality due to the financial state of the country. Watch out for our recovery to stop and the public finances to be worse than people think.
There is nothing like a severe lack of money to kill AGW. Sterling took a pounding today and the markets are starting to make a point.
Re David Davies and the possible views on AGW of a future Conservative government I would remind you of this.
Maybe I haven’t read this blog correctly but it strikes me that it all about the Conservatives.
Aren’t there are other political parties too. The biggest at the last election was the Labour Party. And the Lib Dems made a sizable showing too. The two parties combined would still just about have a majority of votes.
I do have this sneaking suspicion that you climate change deniers are all right wing Tory , UKIP and possibly BNP types. However, I have been assured quite categorically that this isn’t so.
So I was just wondering how many of you UK residents might be either a Labour or Liberal voter?
Robin #58
I take your point that Davis doesn’t believe that Tory policy on Climate Change will change, but then you’d hardly expect him to say that he expected his good friend Cameron to make a major U-turn as soon as he’s elected. New parliaments are full of people jostling for media attention, and journalists love to point up subjects of contention and dispute (in politics, but not in science for some reason). Surely some MP must step out of line and say he agrees with majority opinion! I’m afraid too many members and supporters of the Labour party would rather die than say they agree with the Daily Mail.
Tempterrain #59
No, we climate change deniers are all not all right wing Tory, UKIP and possibly BNP types. If you look at sceptical comments on blogs at Guardian Environment, you can see by the colour of the skittles next to comments that there are sceptics of all political persuasions.
We left-wing sceptics don’t have the comfort of an overarching theory to explain the hold AGW has over our political class.
I suppose a government which got all-party support for a war to destroy weapons which didn’t exist, made up of MPs who pay themselves thousands to furnish second homes which don’t exist, finds Climate Change a natural policy option.
PS I’m a natural Labour supporter.
PeterM:
You seem to be strangely obsessed with trying to establish a relationship between climate science and politics. But, as I mentioned only yesterday, political affiliation can have no bearing on the validity or otherwise of a scientific hypothesis. Hitler’s views on smoking (link) are just as irrelevant to the science as are Osama bin Laden’s views (link) about dangerous AGW.
Robin,
As I’ve said previously, any claims from you guys that you’ve worked your way through and understood the scientific evidence on the AGW issue and decided the IPCC have it all wrong is stretching credibility much too far.
So what is your real motivation? I’m not the only one to have noticed a political connection. As Geoff Chambers asks “why is all the scepticism up at the UKIP end of the spectrum?” Good Question. In the UK it strikes me that most Tories , apart from the leadership, are more in line with UKIP than with their own party. Its the same story in the USA and Australia.
I notice that Geoff says he is a “natural Labour voter” without saying he’s going to vote for them. The BNP , who are also climate denialist, also receive their support from “natural Labour voters”.
PeterM
You wrote to Robin (62):
And then continued with:
As a Swiss, I am neither a Tory or Labour voter so I do not have the “political connection” you have “noticed” (or imagined) with geoffchambers and Robin (BTW, who are the others you mention that “have noticed a political connection”?)
Yes, Peter, I have “worked my way through and understood the scientific evidence on the AGW issue and decided the IPCC have it all wrong” based on the biased and sloppy science, rather than for “political” reasons (as is now being borne out by all the recent revelations).
We (including Robin, geoff and others) have gone through a lot of this on the NS thread, but for a comprehensive critique of the IPCC’s “scientific evidence on the AGW issue”, see the 2009 NIPCC report:
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/ClimateChangeReconsidered.pdf
It is not quite as tedious as the IPCC report, but gives a new slant on things and would be well worth reading for you.
It’s always good to see the other side of the story, Peter.
Max
Peter
I remain completely baffled as to what you think my political motivations are for disbelieving the AGW theory.
Could you please clarify?
tonyb
Manacker,
I might just remind you of what you recently wrote on the Spectator Blog:
Keep those “tea parties” humming.
If enough people become aware of what the “renewable energy bill” really means (“cap ’n trade = carbon TAX), they will certainly reject this concept and let their Senators know to do the same.
Right now it’s taking back stage to the health care plan.
Are the two linked?
You betcha!
After promising all Americans earning less than $250,000/year a tax cut, the Administration needs lots of bucks to finance another campaign promise: health care.
What better source could there be than the well-camouflaged “cap ‘n trade” bucks? After all, it’s only the big, bad oil and coal companies that have to pay this
“Liberty is what it’s all about.”
It all sounds very political to me. Aren’t the “tea parties” very much run by right wing Republican supporters?
PS Are you sure you are Swiss?
PeterM
Why why why do you look for endless reasons why we are sceptical of AGW other than the obvious one. As has been told to you over and over again we have looked at the science and it has come up short. I don’t see any politics in that.
Now I’m sure it hasn’t escaped even your attention that we have an election coming up here in the UK. What is exercising the electorate at present it the lack of differentiation amongst the Parties.
The Tories are in a difficult position as when Labour came to power the public sector in this country was 37% and had fallen as percentage of GDP for the previous 5 years. Since Labour came to power the public sector had risen to 53% of GDP, a feat only matched by Hitler’s Germany.
It is the above figures that I believe will ensure AGW dies on the vine, as there is no money to sustain it. Everyone is in denial mode about the perilous state of the UK finances, but reality will set in. Even Cameron will come around. However what we won’t get is a great deal of honesty or courage in the run up to the election, and this is what the electorate is seeing through.
Peter Geany,
You ask “Why why why do you look for endless reasons why we are sceptical of AGW other than the obvious one.”
Not “endless reasons”. Apart from a few cranks out there who, just for the sake of it, like to dispute any kind of science, Einstein’s relativity theory is a popular one, 95% of the opposition to AGW is politically motivated. Maybe 5% comes from those of a religious disposition who would argue that God wouldn’t have created vast reserves of coal and oil if it wasn’t safe to burn it.
And the “obvious one” is that you’ve studied the many scientific papers written on the topic and have decided they contain flaws? Go on then, write up a scientific critique of the last IPCC report and we’ll see how much you really understand.
PeterM
You referred to the public opinion on AGW in the USA and to the “tea party” movement there.
As I have been informed, the so-called “tea parties” include people from all political sides of the spectrum who are disenchanted with the current US administration: there are a few Democrats (who voted for Obama), a few more Republicans (who voted against him) and mostly independents (who gave Obama his victory).
The poll results I have seen show that over 70% of the public is dissatisfied with the job the US Congress is doing.
The US public seems to be mostly concerned with the high and rising unemployment rate in the private sector, but the administration appears to have other priorities.
Right now the debate is apparently focused on health care reform, where almost everyone wants reform but the bill proposed by the Obama administration is opposed by a majority of US voters. The dissent appears to have less to do with universal coverage and more with the fact (a) that those who are already covered with so-called “Cadillac plans” plans will be taxed if they retain their current coverage (unless they are union members or government employees, who will be specifically exempted from this tax), (b) that the current Medicare plan for seniors will be severely cut in order to help finance the plan, (c) that the current proposal does not permit purchasing health insurance across state lines to lower costs, (d) that there is no provision for malpractice tort reform in the bill and (e) that the plan will cause the colossal US deficit and debt to become even more gigantic.
I am currently in the USA and am following this all with interest. Switzerland went through a health reform process a few years ago and chose a mandatory private plan which is costly but works fairly well.
As far as “cap ‘n trade” is concerned, this has even less public support, and it is very doubtful that this will become a real issue. People are intelligent enough to realize that taxing energy companies will only result in higher costs to the consumers. It does not look like Obama will push too hard on this.
Brute can probably give you more info on this.
The Climategate revelations of fudged numbers, sloppy science and outright lying by IPCC and the pro-AGW climatologists, which are now being revealed even by the MSM, are certainly having their effect on the public’s opinion on the whole AGW debate (in the USA as elsewhere).
With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, AGW has become a big business and, by definition, very political.
For me personally, the primary issue has always been the “science” (or lack thereof) supporting the whole premise that AGW is a threat.
The political issue is secondary, but follows automatically.
Massive government spending plus the growth of the “public sector” are also alarming for many US voters (see article below):
http://kerstenblog.startribune.com/kerstenblog/?p=631
Peter Geany has expressed this very well for the UK situation, which is not basically different from that in the USA (or Switzerland, for that matter).
The high unemployment rate in the private sector versus the low rate in the public sector is cause for alarm, as is the fact that public sector employees are earning more than those in the private sector:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/two-americas-public-sector-vs-private.html
http://www.mackinac.org/12077
Switzerland suffers from this same disease (as does most of Europe).
As public awareness of these problems increases, so will voter reaction. As the one article points out the “elected officials” must “realize that the private economy does not exist to provide for the political class”.
I believe that’s what the “tea parties” in the USA are all about.
Max
PeterM
You wrote to Peter Geany:
This is obviously unfounded BS, Peter. A major part of the skepticism to the dangerous AGW premise comes from the fact that it is supported by poor “science”.
You then added, concerning the reasons for being skeptical of the dangerous AGW premise:
No need to do this, Peter. For a good critique, which points out many of the errors, sloppy and bad science, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies in the IPCC report check out the NIPCC report I cited in #63. It’s all there.
Max
Max,
And who wrote the NIPCC? It wouldn’t, by any chance, be that well known bastion of right wing thought the ‘Heartland Institute’?
And what about Fred Singer who has tried to silence any threats to corporate profitability staring with reports on the health effects of smoking, and moving on to such other topics as acid rain, CFC degradation of the ozone layer, asbestos, etc. Has he had a hand in it?
Even now the Heartland Institute haven’t given up on the smoking issue.
This is from their current website:
“They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places. The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas.”
Sound familiar?
http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/
Max,
Instead of telling us what you “believe” the tea parties are about, why don’t you just show us a few of their protest signs like these:
http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/protest-signs.jpg
They are very anti the British NHS. I doubt if even far right politicians like Daniel Hannan would go as far as to say “People are left to rot in British Hospitals”
David Cameron knows that to even hint at dismantling the NHS would be electoral suicide.
Peter (62)
any claims from you guys that you’ve worked your way through and understood the scientific evidence on the AGW issue and decided the IPCC have it all wrong is stretching credibility much too far
I understand enough of it to remain sceptical, a position that owes nothing to politics, and remains open to persuasion. I certainly know more now than I did when I accepted the AGW party line a few years ago!
This doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to pollution reduction, or recycling, or even solar power where there’s enough sunshine – in fact I’m with the Liberals on most of this, but I happen to disagree with them over carbon. That’s the trouble with politics – who to vote for when nobody represents your views?
PeterM
I think the terms left and right are out dated for discussing the current Political landscape. For example.
The word Authoritarian is often used to describe right wing government, as much as liberal is used to describe a left wing Government.
In the UK the Labour party portrays itself as liberal and champion of human rights, and definitely of the left. However they are the most authoritarian government the UK has had for decades, have enacted so much legislation that has reduced the human rights of its subjects, far more effectively than terrorist ever could, and has overseen a widening of the gap between rich and poor that betrays the very people that are at the root of its support. (how they have managed this is no secret)
So your nonsense linking anyone wishing to rid themselves of this appalling government as being right wing and politically motivated and linking this to AGW belies a complete misunderstanding of the current poor state of representative politics in the UK.
We currently have authority without accountability or responsibility with our politicians. Any one in business who wields great authority without the responsibility is often despised. There is no reason why our Politicians should be any different.
Peter (62)
I notice that Geoff says he is a “natural Labour voter” without saying he’s going to vote for them. The BNP , who are also climate denialist, also receive their support from “natural Labour voters”.
Er, don’t think so. The BNP are hard right, mostly racist, thugs, although their PR tries desperately to make them sound cuddly. Labour is, or used to be, left-wing and concerned with social justice, which is probably why Geoff used the word ‘natural’, as Blair ditched most of the party’s principles in order to aggrandise himself, leaving its original supporters hanging in the air. Maybe it will restore itself when it loses the election, although I have to note that Macaroon is making hard work of winning it!
PeterM #62 is right when he says that The BNP receive their support from “natural Labour voters”. Both are essentially working class organisations. We are seeing a (small) part of the working class turning to the BNP becuse they feel that they have been let down by their “natural” party, precisely as many conservatives are deserting the Tories for UKIP.
I can’t vote in British elections because I’ve been out of the country more than 15 years.
Peter M repeats the question I asked earlier: “why is all the scepticism up at the UKIP end of the spectrum?” An obvious answer is that the UKIP and the BNP are the only parties not infected by Green political correctness, because Greens won’ t touch them because of their views on race and/or Europe, and because as “fringe” parties, they despise political correctness. But why is there no scepticism on the left? Heaven knows, there are enough mavericks on the left of the Labour party.
PS just been watching the Parliamentary Committee, which gives me some hope. The Labour Member Stringer was particularly abrasive in his interrogation of Phil Jones.