Climate Denial

Yesterday evening I attended an event at the Abbey in Bath called ‘Climate Change: A Public Debate’ to which over three hundred and fifty people from Bath and the surrounding areas also turned up to listen.

Yet, for the organisers to call the speaking event a debate was incredibly (and probably purposefully) misleading because in fact all members on the panel of so-called ‘experts’ were in complete agreement and therefore there was no actual debate of any kind at all. Not once did they disagree.

This point was starkly illustrated within the first five minutes of the ‘debate’ fully beginning. The first question put to the panel by the Chairman of the event, Roger Nunn, was something along the lines of ‘where are we in the Climate Change debate’ and could the panel briefly explain Climate Change.

This was put first to Professor Anil Markandya who is, it should be noted, a lecturer in Economics at the University of Bath (ie. not an environmental scientist) and also a member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Professor Markandya proceeded to tell the assembled audience that Climate Change was caused by human activity in releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that there was a consensus among the scientific community on this supposed ‘fact’. The other three panellists unsurprisingly agreed entirely.

Yet, how exactly can something firstly be called ‘fact’ when it is scientifically disputed, and secondly where is the consensus when many scientists still profoundly disagree with the theory (for it is only a theory) that man-made CO2 production is the main component of global warming?

Click here to continue reading the article…

A Conspiracy Against The Public

It seemed like more than just mere coincidence that on the day chosen by I Want A Referendum to stage a mass lobby of MPs in Parliament, lunatic eco-fringe protestors decided to scale the Houses of Parliament.

As it now turns out, it was probably not a coincidence at all. It’s suspected that the eco-protesters were given access to Parliament by either an MP or researcher - an act that was no doubt purposefully staged to divert media attention away from our Referendum Rally taking place below.

This cunning ruse of course worked like a charm. The media (always desperate for scandal and sensation) rapidly made the rooftop protest their main news item. As I returned to Paddington station after the rally, billboards advertising the Evening Standard claimed to have exclusive photographs of the eco-protest. No mention of the far larger and more important EU Referendum rally.

Be that as it may, the Referendum Rally and Lobbying seemed to go well, though obviously the likelihood of us obtaining a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty looks increasingly slim. When I arrived in Westminster just after lunch the day’s events were already in full swing. While the eco-morons chained themselves to the Parliament roof railings, those participating in the Referendum Rally below and waiting to lobby their MP engaged in that most British of things: they formed a long and orderly queue.

Elsewhere at the Methodist Central Hall I listened to a number of speeches by various campaign group leaders including trade unionists, MEPs, and the Director of the I Want A Referendum. The best among these speeches were probably those by Roger Helmer MEP (who gained quite a few laughs from the audience) and the Sunday Telegraph Columnist, Christopher Booker.

However, as Dr Richard North commented on his EU Referendum blog yesterday:

When today’s day return tickets to London are tomorrow’s waste, the issues will still be there. When the Lisbon treaty is ratified, they will still be there. When the European Union brings out its next treaty – which indeed it will – the issues will still be there.

He is completely correct. We need to remember that this will be a long and protracted battle to regain the freedoms and liberties of the democracy our country once was. Today was only one such battle – there will be many others.

Some Thoughts On Conway

The media will no doubt inundate us tomorrow with their analysis of this scandal just as they did with Peter Hain the other day, however, I thought I would point out a few things that others seem to be missing or not highlighting.

Now, this is not a new story. In fact The Times covered Derek Conway’s abuse of Parliamentary expenses back in May last year – therefore why has it taken so long for the Conservatives or the media to call him to account?

Well, obviously there is the fact that quite a few MPs have recently been caught breaking their own party funding rules or having their snouts shoved in the trough – so this is perhaps just another story to keep the bandwagon rolling. Yet, I also see on ConservativeHome that Tim Montgomerie is calling for Derek Conway to stand down at the next election, which he has now just done as I write this post.

What Tim Montgomerie says on ConservativeHome can sometimes provide a good insight into what higher echelons of the Conservative party are thinking. I suspect therefore that a number of higher ranking Conservative MPs are behind the scenes probably calling for Derek Conway’s resignation. Couple this with a recent increase in discussion on how to remove bed-blocking MPs from their seats and you begin to see that there may be something more to this than it would first appear.

No doubt some new, modern, liberal Cameron-clone Conservative was or is being lined up to take over Mr Conway’s nice safe seat. The latest media furore has no doubt given the party hierarchy an opportunity to achieve that aim.

War Weariness

Does public opinion affect the focus and judgement of media coverage, or ultimately is it the other way around and do the newspapers largely influence what people believe?

It is an interesting question, and personally I am more inclined to believe that it’s the latter – that the print and broadcast media can and do often sway the beliefs of the general populace.

Take the report delivered by US General David Petraeus in Washington this morning on the effectiveness of the military troop surge implemented by President Bush. In his report General Petraeus commented that the objectives of the surge were largely being fulfilled, though further time would be needed for a better analysis.

I must say, in depth the report did not particularly interest me, as is no doubt the case for many other people. What was of interest was not necessarily facts and figures, but the overall picture that was painted. Was the surge working: yes or no? The answer seemed to be yes, it was.

Yet, as I watched the broadcast media’s coverage on General Petraeus’ report; that of Sky, ITV and the BBC, I was left with the distinct impression that even before it had been delivered, the journalists had set out to find fault with it from the beginning and to claim that it ‘did not represent the situation on the ground’, as one ITV reporter put it, because it did not fit their world view.

Click here to continue reading the article…