By Paul Homewood
Ed Davey, the UK Secretary of State for Energy, has made a speech attacking the press for reporting the views of climate sceptics, saying
“But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups. This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing. This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness. This tendency will seize upon the normal expression of scientific uncertainty and portray it as proof that all climate change policy is hopelessly misguided. “
My first reactions were:-
1) Astonishment that a government minister should make such Orwellian threats against the freedom of the press.
2) What platform? With an extremely few exceptions, the MSM have slavishly followed the consensus position, and their journalists have babyishly failed to check basic facts. (The Telegraph article, reporting the speech talks, of John Cook’s paper, stating “One recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. “)
Until the Mail’s David Rose published an article last year, pointing out that global temperatures had not increased in 16 years, most of the public would have been totally unaware of this fact. So much for “sceptical reporting”!.
So here’s my open letter to Ed Davey, explaining why there is a pressing need for more debate, not less.
Dear Ed
Having heard your call for the media to shut down their reporting of the views of those sceptical of the consensus position on climate change, can I offer you ten reasons why such a move would be wrong, and why there should be more public discussions of the topic, not less.
1) Global Temperatures
It is fact that global temperatures have flatlined in recent years. Current temperatures, for instance, during an ENSO neutral period, are lower than the 10-Year average. You claim that this is “misreading the evidence”, but surely the public have a right to see these facts, just as they would with, say, unemployment figures, regardless of how inconvenient they might be.
In any event, it is impossible to deny that this flatlining, whatever the cause may be, has huge implications for future projections of global temperatures. As such, this should be at the very centre of public debate.
2) Climate Models
It is also a fact that nearly every climate model has grossly overestimated global temperatures over the last two decades or so. There are many examples I could give, going back to James Hansen’s predictions in the 1980’s, but let’s look at a couple closer to home, produced by the Met Office, who you praise for their excellence.
In 2004, Vicky Pope told us that global temperatures would be 0.3C warmer within 10 years. Reality? Temperatures are actually lower.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/shock-news-vicky-pope-not-infallible/
And, more recently, in 2007 the Met were still making similar predictions. And again, they were abysmally wrong.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/
Are you seriously suggesting that the public do not have the right to be told about such utter failures? And do you deny that the failure of these and other models does not have huge implications for climate model projections in future decades?
3) Climate Sensitivity
At the heart of the debate over climate change, although you appear to deny there is any such debate, is the matter of climate sensitivity. The predictions of the IPCC, Met Office, and many others have been based around the concept that positive feedbacks will lead to much greater temperature rise than would otherwise be the case.
There is, in fact, little or no evidence to support this contention; it is essentially a product of climate modelling. There are many scientists, who fundamentally disagree with this conclusion, and it is not acceptable for you to try to marginalise these scientists, nor close down debate on the issue.
You say “Of course there will always be uncertainties within climate science”, but the matter of climate sensitivity is much, much more than “an uncertainty”. It actually goes to the heart of the matter.
4) Climate Projections for the UK
The Met Office has done much work analysing how the UK would be affected by climate change, and this work has been fed into government planning, via, for instance, DEFRA’s Climate Change Risk Assessment Report or the UK Climate Impacts Programme.
Not only have most of the Met’s predictions failed to materialise, but in many cases the opposite has occurred, e.g.
a) Winters have been drier, not wetter as predicted.
b) Summers have been wetter, not drier as predicted.
c) Heatwaves have become much less frequent, and summer temperatures have been declining in recent years, in total contrast to projections.
d) Similarly, annual temperatures are in decline. CET has been steadily dropping for the last decade, and is now well below the 1981-2010 average.
I realise that these are all relatively short term events, but they hardly inspire much confidence in the Met’s ability to predict future climate change. Again, it is utterly wrong to shut down debate in this area.
5) Extreme weather
It is frequently predicted that climate change will lead to more “extreme weather”, and it seems that, nearly every time an extreme event occurs, the media wheel out some expert, (often a representative of Greenpeace or the like), to tell us that this was what climatologists had predicted.
The reality is that there is no evidence at all to back up these claims, a fact that even the IPCC have admitted.
A good example of this is the recent EF-5 tornado in Oklahoma. I have yet to see any media outlet in the UK explain that the frequency and severity of tornadoes in the US is actually low by historical standards.
Far from suppressing debate on these issues, the press should be providing much more in the way of facts to the public.
6) Dissenting Scientists
You promote the idea that the “science is settled”. This, as you should know, is far from the truth. There are literally thousands of qualified scientists who disagree with the IPCC position. For instance, see here.
This does not necessarily mean that they believe GHG emissions will not lead to any warming at all. It does, though, mean that their views should be reported, because if they are right, it would have a huge impact on public policy.
7) Natural Factors
The role that natural factors play in climate change, both that we have seen and expect to see, is one where there is a great deal of scientific debate. Yet, when the IPCC was set up, it had no remit to investigate this.
These are matters that should be fully discussed in the open.
8) IPCC
I believe it is fair to say that government policy on climate change draws heavily on IPCC reports. However, there have been a number of criticisms in recent years, about the way that the IPCC operates and how its reports are put together.
The press would be failing in its duty, if it did not publish these criticisms, and the views of scientists who disagree with the IPCC consensus.
9) Public Policy
It is a fact that climate change science and public policy are inextricably interlinked. To shut down debate on the former has the effect of also shutting down debate on the latter.
This is not acceptable in a democracy.
10) Energy Policy
You conclude by saying
“Those who argue against all the actions we are taking to reduce emissions, without any serious and viable alternative, are asking us to take a massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit,”
In doing so, you conflate climate science with energy policy. They are in fact two totally separate things.
Whether we agree or not on climate science, it does not follow that we agree with your energy policy. Indeed, there is no evidence whatever that it will make any noticeable difference to global temperatures.
Your own Department confirmed this to me last year.
In Summary
Many people in this country are concerned about what sort of country their children will inherit, if your policies are carried through.
On a matter of such import, I find it ludicrous and insulting that you seem reluctant for the public to be given all the facts, and to allow them to make their own minds up.
Far from being a hotbed of disinformation, the Media has, for the most part, been sadly lacking in its reporting of climate change issues, and the full range of scientific views.
I would have hoped that you would want to encourage the reporting of all aspects of this topic, rather than restrict it to the bits that are convenient to you.
Yours sincerely
========================================================
Related articles
- Ed Davey attacks papers who report ‘destructive’ climate sceptics (telegraph.co.uk)
- Ed Davey, the UK’s Energy Bully (nofrakkingconsensus.com)
- The Intolerance of Climate Change Zealots (iaindale.com)
- Long List Of Warmist Scientists Say Global Warming Has Stopped…Ed Davey Is Clueless About What’s Going On (notrickszone.com)
- Ed Davey makes the silliest speech ever (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Ed Davey has his knickers in a twist about climate sceptics (tallbloke.wordpress.com)
- Climate change sceptics are just ‘blinkered publicity-seekers’ blasts top minister (express.co.uk)
- Minister attacks climate sceptics (bbc.co.uk)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A good logic argument , sadly Ed does not do logic and cares little for any good but his own. Which is probable got the job in the first place .
Paul Homwood wrote: “I have though raised a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission against both the Mail and Telegraph reporting on “97% of 12000 papers blah blah…”
I would be surprised if the PCC uphold any complaint. They will simply say that the papers (reporters) reported accurately what the ‘experts’ had said.
Amen to that. Thank you, Paul.
kretchetov says:
June 5, 2013 at 10:55 am
They might as well have Ministry for Magic, or Ministry for Health and Shaman Relations, or Ministry of Defence and Religion. It is just irresponsible beyond all belief.
I forget where I read it, but our Department for Overseas Development recently spent quite a lot of our money setting up a consultation process, in an African country, between modern weather forecasters and tribal rain makers, because the rain makers were losing their former position of authority amongst the ordinary tribespeople. (sorry for the vagueness)
————————————–
Every time I see a press photo of Mr. Ed (Davey),* he has his mouth open. If a degree in PPE had taught him to keep his mouth shut and his mind open, at least some of the time, it could have saved us much trouble.
* Apologies for an insulting comparison towards a TV horse.
taxed says:
June 5, 2013 at 11:00 am
/////////////////////////////
Further to the above post, I consider that the letter should have highlighted that there is no such thing as ‘global’ warming/’global’ climate change. To the extent that there are changes, it is a regional matter and the effects of change are also felt on a regional basis.
Under section 4, the letter briefly touched upon CET. Irrespective of what might be happening globally, as far as the UK is concerned, the UK government needs to be alive to what is happening in the UK and thus the CET data set is paramount. I consider that more emphasis should have been placed on this.
Whilst this century, there has been no global rise in temperatures, as far the UK is concerned, it has cooled by 0.5degC during this period. This drop (0.5degC) is more than half of the late 20th century warming!
Of even more significance is the CET winter data. Since 2000 CET winter temperatures have fallen by almost 1.5degC (which is of course more than the 20th century warming!). Should this trend continue 9and the Met office are not forecasting a rise before 2017 at the earliest), it will have a significant effect on energy demands. Bear in mind that this Spring, the UK almost ran out of gas reserves and was only about 6 hours away from rationing industrial heavy users.
I am of the view that the letter should have coupled CET winter data with windfarm performance during winter periods when it was extremely cold and frigid with little wind due to a blocking high sitting over or near to the UK. The minister needs to be alive as to how much energy is produced by windfarms during such conditions (the last few winters suggest that during such conditions rather than producing about 23% of the installed/base plate capacity, the windfarms were producing only about 3 to 5% of installed/base plate capacity). This has serious implications on UK energy policy, particularly due to its increased vulnerability brought about by the recent closure of several coal fired power stations, and this should be brought to the minister’s attention.
Finally, on this point, the letter could have coupled the falling CET winter temperatures with the increased winter mortality rates and made the minister reflect upon the effect, in human terms, that his energy price stratergy is bringing about..
Ed Davey is a tw*t in the northern English understanding of the word.
“…portray it as proof that all climate change policy is hopelessly misguided. ”
And the down side is?…..
Great letter.
Not only is the UK’s carbon output so low that it will make no significant difference to global carbon output whatever our energy policy, the nation simply cannot afford the economic lunacy of it’s existing ‘green’ policy.
In a table of ‘Climate change performance’ published recently by ‘Germanwatch’ the UK was ranked 7th in the world, with the USA 33 places below. In the UN table of GDP per capita, the UK is an abysmal 22nd. We may be up among the prize winners in the green beauty contest, but the economy is demonstrably failing to generate the wealth needed to support our education, health, and welfare services in the face of an aging population. Yet we indulge in green stupidities such as a carbon price floor, subsidised wind power and the decommisioning of economically viable coal fired power stations with no planned replacements to keep the lights on.
Fortuitously we are sitting on massive reserves of shale gas and although their discovery is an inconvenient truth for Mr Davy and his henchmen, they have the potential to generate the wealth that the UK so desperatey needs and, if quickly exploited, to keep the lights on.
This should go to the media, too. Might wake some of them up.
This is the same Ed Davey who, in his previous ministerial position at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, wished to introduce a simplified form of business accounting which included the same figure twice and a balance sheet which did not balance.
What hope do we have for a sensible energy policy in the UK with someone like this at the helm?
Of course he might be better than his predecessor who has recently been released from prison (subject to electronic tagging) having been convicted of perverting the course of justice – possibly slightly better than trying to pervert the course of truth.
Contrasting climate stats with employment figures. Moronic. Employment figures are just about the most politically manipulated numbers going!
The reason for the desperation is because the media in the UK have begun to break ranks. This was invevitable. Climategate, lack of warming – what does Ed expect. The media have to consider “what that if the sceptics are right afterall”.
Ed Davey, the jig is up.
Paul
Further to my post at 01:14pm which mentioned a couple of points which I consider that your letter ought to have addressed, it would have been a good idea to have raised the false assumptions made by DECC as to the potential savings that consumers will receive.
DECC estimates that the consumer will save some £166 per year due to more efficient products and better insulation. Leaving aside how much money the consumer would have to fork out to acquire those more efficient products (eg., cost of new boiler, washing machine, fridge etc), it appears that the governments estimation is wildly over optomistic. A report has recently been prepared by Consumer Futures which assesses the annual savings at just £31. See the Daily telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10100797/Green-measures-will-only-save-31-by-2020-says-official-consumer-protection-body.html
Linked to this point is the additional costs that UK consumers are already paying as a consequence of the government’s renewable policy and other government initiatives. This is something that is not widely known since it has not received much attention in the MSM. The cost of energy supply represents only half the total electricity bill. The other half is made up by subsideis paid for energy from rewables and government initaitive in subsidising home insulation and fuel poverty.
The head of Scottish & Southern Energy was recently interviewed on HardTalk by the BBC. He clearly stated that the cost of supply was only half the bill, 25% was accounted for by subsidies for renewables amnd 25% for government policies such as subsidised home insulation and providing help for those in fuel poverty.
If the average annual electricity bill is say £600pa, the consumer is already paying £300 per annum because of government energy policy. If one is not a dual fuel user and has electric heating then the average annual bill will be about £1470 of which some £720 goes to paying for the governent’s green energy policy. It is ironic that if energy prices had not been driven so high, there would be less people in fuel poverty and thus the 25% which added to the bill (so that those who can afford to pay help those who cannot afford to pay) could actually be removed.
Of course, electrity bills will rocket due to the carbon tax (floor price £16 per tonne with escalators going up to about £500 per tonne according to Mark Reckless) and because the cost of supply is being increased by the decommissioning of coal fired generation.
These are points that ought to be pointed out to Mr Davey.
But these conditions are placed upon the British Consumer, by being forced upon Ed Davey (and his predecessor, the disgraced Huhne) in the following fashion…….
Davey gets all his information, not from his own views, which are irrelevant, but from the pseudo-independent Climate Change Committee. They tell us at their website just jow they receive their instructions and why they do then advise UK Government Miniosters accordingly.
“United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which sets out the framework for multilateral cooperation to tackle climate change. The UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol puts binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. All nations under the UNFCCC are working on a new protocol to tackle climate change by 2015.”
theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/
Then who are these UNFCCC people anyway ?
it’s our old pals ….. The EU Bureaucrats again ?
Just like the so called “Friends of The Club of Rome”,
The so called UNFCCC is based in Germany, and sets
targets for everybody, in Britain via this unelected
lobby group, with vested interest, and feeding Lord Deben
with vast reams of superfluous falderol, which he then passes
on to the vacuous mind of Ed Davy and his ilk !!!
UNFCCC secretariat
Haus Carstanjen
Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8
53175 Bonn
Germany
unfccc.int/2860.php
It is all based on some idea that we must still adhere to some international treaty which expired at midnight on 31st December 2012. These “directives” and all the so called Carbon restrictions, therefor have NO LEGAL FORCE WHATSOEVER, and thus no individual, company, or indeed Government has any obligation in Law to follow those diktats by the UNFCCC. In reality they are mere suggestions, nothing more. Everyone should refuse to comply with their fatuous wish-wash.
Leaving Ed Davey’s asinine and intolerant remarks aside, the BBC article is well worth reading for other aspects. There is, for example, this gem:
“Last week, for instance, the green-minded Tory MP Tim Yeo, who has laid the amendment calling for 2030 targets, was “outed” as a closet climate sceptic after saying there was a chance that climate change could be natural. Mr Yeo insists that he went on to say that the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is man-made, but this crucial fact was drowned out.”
Astonishing. Yeo’s remark was undeniably true. Climate change is, of course, perfectly natural. It is also affected by human activity, by how much we’re not sure. Guesses cover a wide range, and current measurements suggest even this range is inaccurate. And yet some are willing to burn Yao at the stake as a witch for a perfectly true remark.
The second gem from this article is that many parliamentarians — even tories — support a bill to accelerate Britain’s adoption of green energy sources. Not enough elderly die from energy poverty as it stands, I guess. It would seem that these politicians are deeply out of touch with their constituents.
Notice the stylish photo of smokestacks spewing black looking pollution out? Yeah, the good old black carbon. Quality journalism from the impartial BBC as ever. Hope you Brits all enjoy being forced to feed them.
He must have been staring too long at all those windmills going around & around & around…
What the hell……
Sent the link to news@Sky.com
@ur momisugly rabbit says:
June 5, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Unfortunately, science doesn’t even know the sign of whatever human effect there may be on climate, ie whether the net result of our activities is to cool or warm the planet. But in either case, the anthropogenic factor is negligible.
Boffill: Nymbyism I wouid venture to say, comes from Ninbim a city in northern NSW Wales, Australia which became famous for Pot smoking hippies from Sydney in the 80’s who no doubt are 100% behind AGW. Anyway as I postured here I think 10 years ago, the only thing that will kill AGW is the actual weather data and that is what is slowly happening but we will need to wait a further 5 years or so for complete disappearance of the AGW theory
As an aside I note that Mosher seems to has suddenly toned down his “support” for the AGW and I would not be surprised that Dr Richard Betts (re hashed mean world temperature based on GISS, Hadcrut etc…) has as well LOL Hope I is wrong! hahaha
Sorry Prof Muller
Keep in mind: the british govt is heavily invested in ‘green’ industry, which can ONLY succeed if a bunch of countries get together and decide that everyone needs to believe in the global warming, and translate that belief into govt mandates, making a sure market for supporting the retirement pensions of all of these govt employees.
The UK govt has this department largely to solidify the idea that there really is global warming, and certain things must be done as govt policy.
This department is one of the instruments for sustaining this irrational cult belief/investment scheme.
For starters, check out the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investing: UNPRI.
Also, check out Al Gore’s investment management business, Generation Investment Management. They manage 5 billion of green investment capital, limited to LARGE investors only.
http://www.generationim.com/
http://www.unpri.org/signatories/signatories/
Eliza, as someone said earlier “Nimby” is an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. Nimbin is only a small town in a picturesque valley, but no doubt it is full of Nimbys.
Has Booker moved from the Telegraph to the Mail?
————-
Davey is no doubt channeling what he’s read about skeptics on sites like SkS, think Progress, etc., and in the environmental-organization newsletters his dept. subscribes to. He’s swilled the swill.