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.
As the resident of a former British colony and inheritor of the Westminster parliamentary system I was astonished to read a UK Minister of the Crown denying citizens the right to free speech. A frenchman, Voltaire, had a better grasp of democratic free speech than Mr Davey when he said “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Cheers from chilly Sydney.
All simply explained and clearly written. Nice.
Unfortunately politicians primarily talk to each other. Its a closed world. Think of them as the lords of four centuries ago. Lords talked to lords — not the peasants. Lords got their information from each other. Not till the peasants are breaking through the castle gate with pitch forks and torches in hand do the lords notice them. Today’s pitch forks and torches are the ballot box.
As we say in America — you got to throw the bums out.
Eugene WR Gallun
rogerknights says: June 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm
“…Has Booker moved from the Telegraph to the Mail?…”
————-
I don’t think so. It appears that he comments in The Daily Mail in addition to his usual commenting in the The Daily Telegraph.
I suppose that this is not surprising since he is freelance. I consider that this is good for climate sceptism since he gets to a wider audience by commenting in both Newspapers. Both newspapers are fairly conservative, and The Daily Mail has a wider audience.
The fact that Ed Davey is a bolts-in-the-side-of-the-neck-alarmist is self evident.
However, this is Ed Davey’s own description of himself.
For our American Friends, I will translate.
1. By taking a PPE degree at Oxford, Ed Davey demonstrates that he is intelligent, but not as smart as he thinks he is – the UK’s political establishment is littered with PPEs from Oxford.
2. He does not have a clue about any science.
3. He has never had a real job in the real world.
4. As a dedicated Liberal Democrat, he has to sign up to some of the goofiest ecoloon policies on the planet.
5. His MSc in Economics was obviously insufficient to provide him with the knowledge that promoting the highest cost electricity in Europe and looming brownouts and blackouts, the UK’s prospect for 2015 onwards, is unlikely to inspire economic growth and inward investment. It is more likely to inspire a brain drain and economic decline.
6. The UK’s current energy policy is totally insane. How can anyone imagine clear cutting the trees on the US eastern seaboard to burn as wood chippings in UK power stations is sane? What other country is goofy enough to legislate carbon policies which will make it impossible to burn natural gas after 2020?
My apologies for this rant, but Ed Davey stands for everything that embraces the alarmist cause and makes no economic sense whatsoever. The damage people like him have caused to western economies now runs into hundreds of billions of dollars and the sole result has been energy poverty for tens of millions of people and a smug, warm feeling for insincere politicians wanting to demonstrate their green credentials at any cost.
“I took a first class honours degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Jesus College, Oxford (1985-1988). Although I was not involved in any of the political societies at Oxford, I was active in a campaigning environmental group and was elected President of the College’s Junior Common Room. I helped organise Tactical Voting 87 in Oxford during the 1987 General Election, though I still had not joined any political party.
Post-University Career
After university, I became the Economics Researcher to the Liberal Democrats in Parliament, working in the Commons from 1989 to 1993, primarily for Alan Beith and Paddy Ashdown. I joined the party after starting work for them, partly because I was by then convinced the Lib Dems were the strongest mainstream party on the environment, partly because I realised I was really a “classic” Liberal and partly because Paddy Ashdown genuinely inspired me.
After becoming the party’s Senior Economics Advisor, I was closely involved in developing policies such as the penny on income tax for education and making the Bank of England independent. I was also in charge of costing the election manifesto in 1992. During this time, I studied in the evenings at Birkbeck College, London University, gaining an MSc in Economics.
In 1993, I left Parliament to work for a management consultancy firm called Omega Partners where I specialised in postal services. With Omega Partners, I visited 28 countries and worked on projects for Post Offices in countries such as Belgium, South Africa, Sweden and Taiwan. My work ranged from strategic market analysis to business forecasting.”
Paul
climate sensitivity does not exist, it is defined as how much temperatures change is produced by a change in CO2 levels.
Now unless changing CO2 levels actually do cause temperatures to change and are the dominant cause climate sensitivity has no physical existence.
CO2 levels have risen and temperatures have fallen for last 15 or so years – an existential problem for climate sensitivity.
There was a period when temperatures and CO2 levels appeared to go up together, some people postulated cause and effect. More recently temperatures have not declined whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise. So no cause and effect.
It seems most of this problem is caused by people expecting all relationships in nature to be linear.
Paul_K has post at Blackboard explaining in detail how he has identified cycles in temperature record.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-occams-razor-oscillatory-model/#more-22572
As they say in financial adverts “what goes up may come down”
Ed Davey was quoted as 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,”
Even if global warming were a real threat, his policies are utterly futile. Even if the UK disappeared down a black hole, our CO2 emissions would be replaced by China and India probably in a few weeks. China is engaged in a massive program of building coal powered stations, and they will be building 70 new airports in the next few years – and good luck to them. CO2 is the gas of life and increased levels are already bringing huge benefits to the world and humanity.
Of course, they’re always going on about our children. If Davey has his way, our children will inherit a nation that squandered its wealth on vast wind farms that don’t work most of the time or are actually rusting away. And the effect of this idiocy on the global climate: exactly zero.
Several decades ago Margaret Thatcher also talked about our children in a speech about climate change. But, years later, she came to realise that it is a scam based on bad and sometimes fraudulent science. Hopefully Ed Davey will eventually follow her. But I’m not holding my breath….
Chris
Delingpole on Ed Davey Makes the Silliest Speech Ever
Climate extremists like Mr. Davey will use the same tools of extremists have used throughout history, if they get the chance: Suppression of counter views, censorship of communication, harassment of those who disagree, creation of insider deals to enrich fellow believers and their pals.
Ed will be there on Rememberance Sunday wearing his Poppy withe the Queen and the rest of the British Cabinet.
Honouring the people who fought and still dying for Free Speech and Democracy in our country.
And our Ed wants to ban Climate Skeptics and Democratic Debate.
ED DAVEY also said on a BBC RADIO 4 program vs NIGEL LAWSON
Ed Davey:” Well, no, he is wrong on that. Let me take the science point that Lord Lawson said. Climate science suggests that there will be periods where the temperature does not rise. There will be pauses. That’s happened in the past. It happened in the beginning of the last century, happened in the 1950s, but these plateau effects, where you have a period where the average global temperature of the surface does not seem to rise, is actually expected in the science. But if you look what is happening in the temperature of the oceans at the moment, over the last 10 years that Lord Lawson was referring to, if you look at what is happening with the Arctic ice for example, you look at the sea levels, you see evidence that climate changing is continuing; ”
It is difficult to understand how we can still have a global temperature rise of 4 degrees C by 2060 which his government and Met Ofiice predict and still have no global warming until at least until after 2030/2040. It is just not going to happen. We are due for 20/30 years of flat or cooling global temperature s.[not the one 8 year period that Met Office models predicted over a 100 years ]. These past 20/30/40 year major cooling perods were never in their models. These happen every 60 years . There is a possibilty that there will be two cooler periods before 2100
Global SST have been flat for 16 years and show a decline during the last 10 years
Arctic Ice extent is recovering as the global temperatures cool
Ocean or sea levels show no abnormal rise [ rise at about 3 .3 mm/year]
So where is this evidence that he claims that exist for continued global warming. His government should instead focus more on how UK will survive the pending global cooling that will impact UK much more in the near term than some yet undefined situation 100 years from now.. The weather of December 2010, the March 2013 and the spring of 2013 are just the beginning and warning signals of much cooler weather for Uk in the decades ahead.
Ah, he is worth googling.
Liberal Democrat politician ( aka a lefty) he is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change since 2012
Attended Nottingham High School (in common with MPs Kenneth Clarke! , Geoff Hoon!! and Ed Balls) in the year above Ed Balls, where he was head boy in 1984. He furthered his education at Jesus College, Oxford where he was awarded a first class BA degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics in 1988.
As a teenager he worked at a Pork Pie factory ……
The thing is, that as Minister for Climate Change’, he must be congratulated on his performance as there has clearly been NONE during his tenure.
My political views coincided with much of those of the Liberal Democrats about 15 years ago: their views on mixed economies, localism and supporting the low paid curry favour with me.
I left that party when it became clear that it was a front for climate zealots, ‘wimmin’ and EU fanatics.
I am not against European cooperation in any way whatever, I am however against an undemocratic, anti-business corporatist oligopoly run by self-serving twits.
I am not against women doing very well: ask Condie Rice, Hillary Clinton and Theresa May for starters. I can’t abide all this surrogate marxism portrayed as victimhood.
Finally, I”m very much in favour of the earth surviving, human beings surviving and thriving and preparing for whatever variations, extremes and historical blips that come our way.
I do hope Mr Davey realises that more and more people agree with my three positions above.
He won’t be very long for politics if he can’t…..
Most ecogroups have moved beyond NIMBY and are now BANANAs. Build Absolutly Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
Ed Davey is surely a betrayal of The Enlightenment. When is this country going to stop his ilk from from getting into parliament? What is his constituency doing about it? Surely there must be sensible people there?
The letter does not mention the Oregon Petition, with 31,000+ signers – a lot more than the 1,m000 cited, and representing a far larger majority of skeptics over believers..
MR Davey said “Climate science suggests that there will be periods where the temperature does not rise. There will be pauses. That’s happened in the past. It happened in the beginning of the last century, happened in the 1950s, but these plateau effects, where you have a period where the average global temperature of the surface does not seem to rise, is actually expected in the science. ”
The problem is one of degrees . The models only project a decade or so in a century . Historical climate records show that between 1870 and 2010 , a period of 140 years , there was no net warming happening during 90 of those years . In another words during about 2/3 of the time there was no warming like 1870–1925 and again 1945-1980. So there is a big surprise coming to these climate models if they fail to understand the real climate and waht causes these major pauses. There is a possibilty that there waill be two such pauses before we reach 2100, which may void all their model projections .
why do you not cover the effects of Chemtrails?
[Reply: see the site Policy page. “Chemtrails” can easily get out of hand. — mod.
He’s not listening; like all LibDems he was born with all the knowledge he needs.
Facts just impede the implementation of the programme. (the programme is detailed in his weekly orders fron the EU Commission.)
I take a very British perspective on Ed Davey’s comments. He is a member of the minority Liberal-Democrat party, formerly the Liberal Party.
My late father (whose views I respected but do not share) voted for the Liberal party for over 50 years. He saw the Liberals as seeking the middle ground, by drawing on the best of the other parties, along with some independent ideas of their own.
Ed Davey, following Chris Huhne, seems to have betrayed that tradition, along with some other British traditions that have enriched the modern world.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/06/09/ed-daveys-anti-science-anti-british-and-anti-liberal-attack-on-climate-sceptics/
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,”
***************************************************************************************************
I see this all the time with regard to the “inheritance” threat. I suppose some people (mostly liberals/progressives) consider it ok to leave the huge public debt that is currently being run up, to future generations to pay back, but I don’t. Why are they so pious about a few ppm CO2 when they’re not worried about such massive debts. This is the really massive gamble. Blackmailing, guilt tripping hypocrites.
Steve T
I have put together a site to continue Daniel Curtis’s site http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html which stopped updating last year, http://www.ukpowergeneration.info. I’m in the process of final data validation, please take a look and let me know of any comments. The site was a great source for viewing and comparing the sources of UK power generation, hopefully my site can provide a similar and improved functionality
What an excellent facility, quite an eye-opener. Not sure off the top of my head what extra info would be useful but I’ll give it some thought.
Would mean daily temperatures be available?
Thanks John, that is my next plan to add in CET as a clickable option.