Saturday
Mar082014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Davey stamps his feet
Mar 8, 2014 Climate: Parliament Ed Davey really is starting to turn into a big sulky kid isn't he? Yesterday flew into a complete temper tantrum about global warming sceptics, demanding that we just shut up, shut up, shut up. However, rumours that he also plans to scream and scream until he is sick are said to be unfounded.
Mr Davey told EurActiv, a Brussels-based news website: My recommendation to most politicians who want to talk about the climate is to listen to the scientists and listen to the evidence.
‘Of course you can question it, but when there is overwhelming evidence you should tend to shut it.’
Reader Comments (58)
Ha. You seem to have reached the level of the debate of our political masters. It takes time.
When it comes down to it, down 'to brass tacks' as the people of Yorkshire used to say (what a metaphor of former industrial times!), it is that there are no men or women anymore - or so marginalised that they are overwhelmed by the pusillanimity of this Establishment - I mean none of that clear eyed, courageous, four-square, standing up, looking in your eye honesty and manliness and womanliness. What the renaissance called virtu! We have, instead, a squint eyed, hunch backed, avoid the eye, shameful, spiteful, petty, vicious rancour and cowardice. European nihilism.
He any relation to bobby ward?
And the evidence is?
John Gummer aka Lord Deben is another who rambles on like this.
There is overwhelming evidence because these people say there is
as to what it is
it's on a need to know basis
and we don't need to know.
"My recommendation to most politicians who want to talk about the climate is to listen to the scientists and listen to the evidence."
If these ill-informed Alarmists or their supporters like the Met Office, were honest enough to have public debates then I am sure most of the sceptics would shut up more. However, since most avenues to assess and debate the issues in climate "science" has been closed to most of the sceptics, they will become evermore vocal.
A climate crisis underway, and it is bad that we will not discuss it with you. You have to believe us implicitly and unquestioningly.
If you do question it, you are an evil wanker in the pay of eviler wankers and should be silenced.
Don't blame Davey. Blame the civil servants who advise him and assure him that the science is settled. Don't forget the Met Office's culbability either.
Not on his potty, just potty. He was indoctrinated at Oxford and made his career on that basis. His little carbonista World is falling down about his ears. Next thing is that he'll be claiming that CO2 causes rape and pestilence (20 minutes in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Q4AUnKiJg&feature=youtu.be
Comments at the Daily Mail article seem to be overwhelmingly sceptic. A hopeful sign.
All this crapping on about The Science and Scientists by politicians.
One branch of science they need to pay more attention to is engineering. I've yet to meet an engineer who isn't at least slightly sceptical about the likely extent of global warming being proselytised and much more than slightly sceptical about the remedies proposed.
The difference is, unlike climate modellers, engineers get to find out in their own lifetime if their planes drops from the sky, building falls down, their roads aren't adequate or their oil well collapses, so they are acutely aware of what's real and what's not.
History of British Liberalism;
First they were for the Free Man.
Then they were for the Free Men to decide The Common Good.
Now they are for the Free Men to be informed of The Common Good.
Next will be that The Common Good requires that there be no Free Men.
Don't you DARE question the priest! Do you want to burn in hell?
God knows best, and I know what God wants us to do. Don't think, obey.
'Listen to the evidence'....
So - I assume that means that if someone says that its true, then that's 'evidence'.
I would have thought that 'facts' should carry greater weight...
Ed Davey has yet to grasp the policy problem. Britain is the only country in the world committed to an aggressive carbon reduction policy. The sum of actual carbon reduction policies in place globally will do practically nothing to offset the growth in emissions from emerging economies. If, as Ed Davey believes, the science is correct about the catastrophic consequences resulting from all these emissions, then he is faced with a terrible truth. Britain will incur hundreds of billions of pounds of cost over the next few decades, yet leave future generations to bear 99% of the climate change problem when compared to having done nothing at all.
If Britain wants to truly lead the way on getting a global agreement on carbon emissions, it should show that it is possible to successfully transfer to a low carbon economy for costs of 1% of GDP (as Stern claimed), and with zero impact on long-term economic growth. Britain's current policies are something any country would avoid like the plague, even if they had the same views on the "science" as Ed Davey.
The first part of my claims I discussed last month here.
Mar 8, 2014 at 1:16 PM | Stuck-Record
"God knows best, and I know what God wants us to do."
A very clear sign of a memeplex.
"Don't think, obey."
Memes are indeed a substitute for thought. Interestingly this is true as much for the elite as for anyone else, so in a very real sense they are 'obeying' too. The agenda is an emergent property, albeit supported by accumulated self-interest.
Mar 8, 2014 at 1:39 PM | Sherlock1
"I would have thought that 'facts' should carry greater weight..."
Unfortunately not, which is why we are in this pickle. In any domain where there is significant uncertainty and enough interest within the populace, narrative success is rewarded more than verifiability (factual content). Even more unfortunately, once fantasy narratives dominate, they will via noble cause corrpution, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning, keep *perceived* uncertainties high, plus suppress work on bounding uncertainties (which if allowed would increase factual content). This is probably why there has been so little progress on climate sensitivity over decades, and even now the latest work that narrows uncertainty bounds, is resisted.
ssat:
Nicely said. Do you have a citation or do I cite you?
The really alarming thing is how the political elite in Britain – I use the term loosely, of course – seem to have been captured in their entirety by the Global Warming high priests and, I am quite certain, are simply unaware that there are any counter-arguments.
Bit off-topic, but don't know where else to put it...
Sky News the other evening was trying to have a doomfest over the number of trees brought down by the recent gales - stating in a doom-laden voiceover that it constituted the greates loss of trees 'in a generation'...
Well - one assumes that a 'generation' is 25 years, or thereabouts. The Great Storm of 1987 was just under 27 years ago - so - one has to shrug and say: 'So what..?'
Actually, their reporter, stood in a wood somewhere, finished by saying in effect that it wasn't all bad - there were loads of primroses in evidence on the forest floor due to the increased daylight penetrating the canopy - and anyway 'nature has a way of repairing itself..'
Amen to THAT..!
Andy West and agouts - with you 100%....
The question over at WUWT and I believe the one we should all be writing and asking our MP's is......
"What is the perfect temperature of Earth? I’m assuming that climate change-related taxes will be used to bring our planet back to the perfect temperature, and I need to know when that has been reached".
It really comes down to this , the liberals know that signed up to pack with the ''the devil' and that come the next election their dead meat . So people like Ed are desperate, if for no other reason they to keep their very good jobs, to be seen to have clear yellow water between themselves and the Tories.
At the same time to keep them on board , for now , the Tories have handing to the liberals positions are are fairly meaningless and in practice have little power or are in fact poised pills where they can simply do nothing but wrong. But which allow them to feel 'big and important.
So its with this background that Ed's rantings come from, a person that knows that in fact a dupe and wants to be all powerful but at the same time knows that if they don't 'strike out ' then their in effect ex-MP's and how else would give them a job.
My late father was a member of Toc H between the wars and I can remember the phrase 'As dim as a Toc H lamp'. I guess the modern day equivalent has to be 'As dim as an Ed Davey lamp'.
Re "overwhelming evidence:" when eminent thermophobes are demonizing their opponents, specifics are not required.
Harry: +1 for 'As dim as an Ed Davey Lamp'!
bernie1815
Just a thought long in my head but Davey is one of the inspirations for the conclusion. You are welcome to it as are all liberals that are currently disenfranchised.
Yes, 'As dim as an Ed Davey Lamp' is very good. But I'm interested in theduke's 'thermophobes'. I'm not sure that's really true. Aren't they really sceptiphobes? Just one question that suggests you don't believe every word and you're consigned to denierville, then the ghetto therein, and so on. We're that dangerous. It's not that warming is dangerous: I think many of these guys have come to realise it isn't. No, asking questions is.
Mar 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM | Martin A
Blame both. DECC does seem to be manifestly unfit for purpose, and will likely remain so until the CC component is expunged. But it is incumbent on Davey, as SofS, to understand his brief. Is there any evidence at all that he's made the slightest effort to understand the objections that have been made to the CAGW meme? This is why I regard him as negligent rather than merely incompetent.
Something else Ed Davey reminds me of - and it may be in poor taste (so apologies), it's not meant to be - is that his cause is empty, devoid of any real 'proof' (pace Patrick Moore); it is hollow. But Ed Davey will dispute this; he is, it seems, a 'Hollow Cause Denier'. (Goose, Gander, good for....?)
Humanity is doomed
But Ed Davey can save it
With central planning
It really is sad that a person such as Ed Davey can be a cabinet minister in a UK government considering the choice of words he uses and his lack of objectivity. But then he is not the only cabinet minister to have addressed his "adversaries" in the climate debate as "deniers". I believe that Gordon Brown (as PM) and Ed Miliband are equally guilty of this type of behaviour. I wonder if they could actually be accused of indulging in "hate crime" and be charged in a court of law? Problem is they do not actually name the objects of their derision in their shameful pronouncements. One has to guess and that is not good enough in a court of law. Perhaps one could write to them and ask who they are specifically referring to? Lord Lawson I presume.
You're on a roll Harry......:o) Reminds me of an Aussie saying. Davey is a Boong because that's the noise his head makes when it hits the bull bars.....
Let us not forget the famous statement from the armchair socialist himself, Ed Miliband:
“Opposition to wind farms should become as socially unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt.”
Alarmist politicians seldom disappoint with their level of stupidity.
A Man's A Man For A' That
Burns
Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an' a' that;
The coward slave-we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a' that!
For a' that, an' a' that.
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The Man's the gowd for a' that.
What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin grey, an' a that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
A Man's a Man for a' that:
For a' that, and a' that,
Their tinsel show, an' a' that;
The honest man, tho' e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that.
Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.
A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that;
The pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.
Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
He certainly comes across as a low-information buffoon. I wonder if he admires the sterling green efforts in Germany, and I wonder also what he might make of this report of Lomborg's lack of admiration for them:
See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/08/lomborg-congratulates-germany-for-e100-million-climate-change-delayed-37-seconds/#sthash.blSC0KbK.dpuf
I think the 100 million is an absurdly low estimate of German losses. So does Pierre G who goes on to note:
We are cherries in a "diabolical cocktail", especially if we support UKIP, or Eurosceptic Conservatives!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/13/climate-change-policy-britain-at-risk-ed-davey-environment-secretary
This article Who pressed the pause button? in the Economist is of great importance, because it brings the issue of the pause to the attention of many senior politicians and civil servants around the globe via a publication that previously had earned a reputation for unquestioningly supporting the climate science agenda.
Meanwhile, the Chinese have laid it on the line: they want the West to close down even more industry and pay out to developing countries (that China plans to plunder for their resources), so China can grow its GDP faster than its CO2 emissions. Reuters reports
I guess they can't see through all that smog in Beijing.
As the old definition of a fanatic runs:
"A fanatic does what God would do were He in possession of all the facts."
If Ed Davey was any thicker, he'd set.
Describing Ed Davey as "a clot" is not an ad hominem. It is a simple observation of fact.
I can only see a gene-splice of Rooney and Shrek.
If Davey could actually deliver some of the global warming that he keeps threatening us with he would probably be one of the most popular and successful British politicians ever! However, like the rest of our out-of-touch leaders, he thinks that combatting global warming is the key to popularity.
"Davey stamps his feet"
No worries, tis but "One Amp" on an attempted charisma kick!
Doubt we will ever be "Blinded By The Light"
Are food scientists and climate scientists by any chance related?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/sugar-definitely-worst-thing-say-same-people-who-said-it-was-definitely-fat-2014030684360
Davey, Gawd help us attended one of the most hallowed educational institutions in the country.
True enough and OK the degree - PPE was, is
Political gobbledegook for numptiesan academic pursuit of negligible use but all said and done, he was accepted and did enough to have been accredited with the award of a junior degree.Setting aside questions about the Oxford Uni' entry requirements and the then current standard of intake - the reason why I find Davey such a detestable and vexatious pustule is as follows.
Even if and I certainly do not believe it to be so, but even if Davey honestly and adamantly does believe in the 'science of MMGW' - why does he feel so threatened? Surely, if the 'science' is irrefutable then he'd be enthusiastically forthcoming with the evidence?
Alternatively, he should bloody well know better, telling people to shut it and we know just who he is raving about, one [among others] is Mr. Lilley, a man who has a physics degree, Professor. Richard Lindzen notwithstanding.................
Davey's pomposity coupled with his vehemence - either he's been bought or, he is another - who has a messiah complex and making him a very devious and dangerous man.
[Snip. Raise the tone please.]
So did Ed support striking miners 30 years in his younger radical days when global warming was still an urban myth
Harry Passfield (Mar 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM): that was good! (Sorry I didn’t see it earlier.) What do you have to apologize for? Indeed, perhaps we ought to use it more often; the “cause” (a term used in many of the “Climategate” e-mails) is empty, and they are in denial of that fact.
' ... shut it...' ?
Charming.
No, Davey - *you* shut it. We pay your wages.
I've looked for evidence of confirmation bias and I find it almost everywhere. Hm?