And another thing…

UNUSUALLY, I found myself shouting at a co-panellist on The Westminster Hour on Sunday evening. In my defence, the co-panellist in question was Caroline Lucas.

The Green MEP and I were discussing the issue of climate change sceptics (I refuse to call them “deniers”) and the stupidity of scientists who undermine their own credibility by exaggerating the effects of climate change in order to create a headline or to scare politicians into action. The scientific basis for man-made climate change is already overwhelming; why undermine it by making ridiculous claims about the Himilayan glaciers melting in 35 years’ time when you know it not to be the case?

One of the exaggerated claims which I have found unhelpful in the past was Caroline’s, which she made during The Westminster Hour last July:

Climate change is killing 300,000 people every year, according to the latest UN report.

But two days ago, when I quoted this as an example of the same kind of scare-mongering, she responded:

I knew there were climate change sceptics in the Conservative Party. I didn’t realize there were quite so many climate sceptics (sic) in the Labour Party.

This is a very typical Green smear: accuse anybody who casts doubt on any apocalyptic predictions as a sceptic. That way, you can close down any debate without having to talk about the scientific facts, even though the International Panel on Climate Change has admitted that one of its predictions was untrue,

For a party which claims to put the environment at the top of its agenda, this is crazy. The public have to be persuaded to accept the scientific case for the causes – and cures – of climate change, not scared into accepting it by “facts” which turn out not to be facts at all.

The 300,000 figure Caroline had quoted previously is a case in point. It’s taken from the Human Impact report of the Global Humanitarium Forum, published last year. And it does indeed state quite unambiguously that:

every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead…

Case closed. Game, set and match to Lucas.

Except that, a little further on in the report, there’s this:

The human impact is still difficult to assess with great accuracy because it results from a complex interplay of factors. It is challenging to isolate the human impact of climate change definitively from other factors such as natural variability, population growth, land use and governance. In several areas, the base of scientific evidence is still not sufficient to make definitive estimates with great precision on the human impacts of climate change.

Recognizing that the real numbers may be significantly lower or higher than suggested by these estimates, they should be treated as indicative rather than definitive. (my emphasis)

Yet, listening to Caroline back in July, I got the distinct impression – and I’m quite sure this was her intention – that she was offering a definitive figure on the number of fatalities which result each year from climate change. She offered no caveats or qualifications and in doing so she misled her audience.

Is it possible that Caroline hadn’t read the report beyond the executive summary? No, of course not. I’m sure she read the whole thing more than once, including the bit that warned that the 300,000 figure should be “treated as indicative rather than definitive”. Then, not only did she start quoting it as being unambiguously definitive, she accused those who questioned that figure of being climate change sceptics!

If Caroline Lucas is one of the nation’s leading advocates of man-made global warming, then it’s little wonder that the sceptics have their tails up at the moment.

The public are not as thick or as gullible as Lucas would have us believe – they’re prepared to be convinced by fact and reason, not by scare stories and slander.

I DON’T own a 4×4 and I have no plans to buy one.

I don’t, however, have any objections at all to anyone else wishing to buy one. Neither do I think that there’s anything essentially wrong in owning one for city driving. Just because a vehicle is built for rough terrain doesn’t actually mean you’re obliged to use it that way.

People buy cars for different reasons. if you’re wealthy enough, you’ll buy it because you like the look of it. If you’re environmentally conscious, you’ll buy something that’s slightly less damaging to the environment. If you’re less well off, you’ll buy something you can afford and worry less about the image.

But I cannot go along with the intense and rabid snobbery felt by so many against the drivers of so-called “Chelsea tractors” (a phrase which itself betrays the class-oriented nature of the criticism).

Comedian Alan Davies was at it today, according to the Evening Standard’s Paul Waugh. Davies, during a rant against Boris Johnson for putting up public transport fares in the capital, said:

… and yet you know exactly what is meant buy (sic) 4×4s don’t you? The Chelsea Tractors get on everyone’s tits…

Pardon the language. It’s not mine.

He’s right, of course: Chelsea Tractors do get on everyone’s… nerves. They get on mine, too. But then I have to take a step back and ask myself why. After all, they take up about the same amount of road space as family-sized saloons. Their fuel consumption efficiency is obscenely low, but all that means is that their owners have to pay through the nose for the privilege of driving one – and quite right too. Same with road tax. Chelsea tractor owners pay a lot of money for their indulgence, and surely that should be enough for the rest of us?

Why do we feel such hostility towards them? They’re seen as status symbols, and the (mostly correct) assumption is made that their owners are relatively well off. Is that what drives our resentment? If so, then that resentment is entirely unjustified.

I know of quite a few ordinary working people who either own a 4×4 or who would like to own one. Fine. If they want to pay for a car that does 12 miles to the gallon, let them.

The argument that 4×4s are overly indulgent, that people therefore shouldn’t buy them because they’re too large or too inefficient, leads us to the conclusion that no-one should buy a car that is above and beyond the basic specification they need for their day-to-day usage. But that’s absurd. Most people buy the “nicest” car they can afford, and the car industry – not to mention the many thousands of jobs dependent on it – is grateful.

If 4×4s are in some way socially unacceptable, what about people carriers (my own vehicle of choice at the moment)? What about turbo-charged sports cars whose maximum payload of two people each bear the guilt of a hefty carbon footprint? What about old, inefficient but cheap and small cars? Are we really going to compile a list of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” vehicles?

So if you want to buy a 4×4 and make a generous ongoing contribution to the Exchequer, be my guest.

THE BBC have apparently wet their pants at the prospect of legal firm Carter-Ruck getting annoyed at them over their Newsnight report about James Bond villainesque company, Trafigura. They removed this video so that the big boys wouldn’t steal their dinner money and give them a Chinese burn.

So here it is. Worth a look.

THIS IS what I like about my constituents – they don’t beat about the bush. Straight to the point, no messing. I received this by email yesterday…

I can’t see a bloody thing. It is dark outside and we have run out of light bulbs that have anything other than a glow. I am stuck with a 60watt bulb in a room with a ceiling that an athlete couldn’t reach. Which bunch of well meaning but utterly misguided idiots decreed that to have 100watt conventional light bulbs was bad? It has to be longlife low-light bulbs or nothing.

My solution is to borrow my wife’s spotlight that she uses for sewing and have it on as well. So now instead of having 100 watts, I am burning 2×60 i.e 120 watts. As you must be aware half the nation has stockpiled 100 watt bulbs, I am part of the other half.

Without being too hasty, I promise you my vote if you bring back proper, enlightening, illuminating lightbulbs.

It is these little things, as well as Iraq etc that make the difference between a good MP and an other kind.

Regards

PS thanks for the Christmas card
HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY

Sadly, I wasn’t far-thinking enough to stock up either. I wish I had, then I could at least have lent my constituent a couple of them to see him through. As it were…

MY ATTENTION has been drawn to this rather ingenious idea for using valuable car parking space in busy city centres.

It’s the brainchild of Brazilian designer Baita Bueno. Who knows – is this how we’ll be parking in the not-so-distant future? It would certainly force you to tidy up your CDs before you parked, I suppose. And I wonder if high-sided vehicles (my people carrier and 4×4s, for example) would incur an extra charge?

OKAY, he didn’t quite say that, but he might as well have.

“Give up meat to save the planet“? I don’t think so, old chap. I love meat, me: I rarely eat anything that didn’t once have parents.

If the government and its advisers want to get the public onside in the battle against climate change, they’re going to have to accept a few reailities of life. The first of these is that as poorer countries become wealthier, the more they tend to eat meat. China is the most dramatic example of this. Beijing slaughterhouse is like Piccadilly Circus at rush hour these days, or so I’m told. Except with more blood and entrails, obviously.

Similarly with the effect on jobs. Don’t waste your breath telling someone who’s lost their livelihood that their sacrifice will help save the world. He won’t care, and neither should he. If we can’t find a strategy that allows us simultaneously to curb our emissions and grow our economy, then the battle against climate change is already lost.

As for urging us all to go veggie… yeah, good luck with that one, Your Lordship. You couldn’t get me a Bic Mac meal with strawberry shake while you’re out, could you? And go large…

I WAS reading Ronnie a bedtime story tonight, entitled, “How to Drown Bunnies”.

It’s quite an original tale, set in a strange land where it occasionally doesn’t rain. Very strange indeed. Anyway, all the grown-ups in this land are evil and enjoy nothing better than killing their children’s pets, then standing around pointing at the dead carcases and laughing as their children burst into tears.

“Does it have a happy ending?” asked little wide-eyed Ronnie.

“Not really,” I said. “Unless by ‘happy’ you mean grown-ups will have to spend less time cleaning out rabbit hutches.”

Ladybird books have gone right downhill since I was a kid, if you ask me.

WALKING into the Commons a few minutes ago, I saw the Greenpeace protesters on top of Westminster Hall, and suddenly it struck me: they’re right!

It’s time to change the politics. And, while we’re at it, save the climate too! The details can wait.

And there was me thinking that these illegal and self-indulgent roof protests were a waste of police time and resources. If they hadn’t gone to such efforts I wouldn’t have had my epiphany.

So, thanks, Greenpeace!

CONSERVATIVEHOME have leapt to the defence of David Cameron, who was pictured drinking Champagne (shock! horror!) at the Tory conference last night.

I was given a chance this afternoon to add a quote to the story, expressing outrage at Cameron’s hypocrisy for such triumphalist shenanigans – an opportunity I declined, since I enjoy the odd glass of bubbly myself and wouldn’t want to be called a hypocrite next time I’m quaffing away in Strangers or anywhere else for that matter.

But the more intersting point of the conhome story is editor Tim Montgomerie’s justification for his party’s ludicrous opposition to Heathrow’s third runway:

I don’t think one vote will be changed by that photo (of Cameron drinking Champagne) but the story on opposing Terminal Three (sic) will win seats along all Heathrow flight paths.

So there we have it. Screw the economy and screw the environment (because the party has admitted it doesn’t oppose aviation growth elsewhere in the country) – so long as they can win some anti-Heathrow seats, then job done.

Such short termism and short-sightedness is more typical of an opposition party than a government in waiting.

UNLESS you’re a climate scientist with a record of publishing learned academic papers, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. So says Mehdi Hassan in the New Statesman this week.

He’s writing about the rather entertaining row that has erupted between The Spectator and environmental journalist George “Yay for the recession!” Monbiot over the latter’s refusal to debate the science of climate change with the magazine’s latest hero, Ian Plimer.

In response to new Spectator editor Fraser Nelson’s mention of “the US Senate list of 700 scientists who dissent over man-made global warming”, Hassan writes:

they’re simply wrong, in a tiny minority and not even qualified to proffer an opinion on the subject: the vast majority of them are not climate scientists, nor have they published in fields relevant to climate science (my emphasis).

So the question arises: is Mehdi Hassan a pubished climate change scientist? If not (and I suspect he isn’t, but if I’m wrong I apologise) then why is he offering an opinion on man-made climate change, one way or the other?

For the record, I’m not a published climate change scientist (so I hope Mr Hassan will forgive my expressing an opinion), but am inclined to accept the views of the overhelming majority of the international scientific community and accept that climate change is man-made and can therefore be ameliorated through policy.

What really gets on my nerves, though, is how this debate has been polarised along political dividing lines: with very few exceptions, those on the left believe in the Al Gore analysis and are utterly dismissive of those who disagree with it, contemptuously and arrogantly dismissing them as “climate change deniers”. This is an offensive and stupid term, seeking to associate even those with genuine doubts about the scientific consensus with neo-Nazi holocaust deniers.

Similarly, if you’re of a right-wing bent, you’re more than likely to dismiss the “man-made” factor of climate change and categorise all environmental campaigners as unreformed Marxists using the issue as a Trojan horse with which to destroy capitalism.

The row between Monbiot and Nelson/Plimer is infantile. A lot of people would be interested, I think, in watching an informed and civilised debate between the two camps, if they can only bring themselves to get off their high horses and start showing a bit of tolerance and respect for the other side.

Sh*t, I’m starting to sound like a LibDem…