Liberal Vision

Sexed up documents, personal attacks on their critics.. no it’s not Iraq.. it’s Global Warming

A cause for celebration! Reports that the the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 have been greatly exagerated. Well totally made up in actual fact. 

I thought hard before deciding to post on this. I have posted on this subject  before (“I am trying very hard not to be a climate change denier “). My concerns have surrounded the over-reliance on “computer models” to predict apocalyptic circumstances; the lack of clarity on what assumptions have been input into these models, based on what ground research and with what level of confidence ? These questions have not been answered. And not only have they not been answered – but those asking these and other questions have been accused of  being “flat earthers”, “climate change deniers” and worse. We have been told that there is a total scientific concensus on global warming and those that speak out are mad, malicious or on the payroll of some multinational.

But in reality I did not have to think about it very long. Indignation got the better of me. Because I do actually care about this planet and think the way to getting to the right course of action on the issue of climate change is with hard science, reasoned debate and honesty. Not by governments or its institutions thinking that they can short cut this because they know the problem and the answer and the rest is just media management.  

So it was with fury and frustration, not satisfaction, that I learned that the scientist behind the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report in 2007 has finally publicly admitted that the line about disappearing glaciers was nothing more than a bit of “sexing up” to put political pressure on world leaders. No evidence at all to support the notion. Nada.

This makes old Alistair Campbell’s attempts during the Iraq affair look positively amateurish by comparison. If you missed the coverage over past few days, it went something like this… Two magazine articles appeared in 1999 stating that glaciers were set to disappear by 2035. This information was then recycled by WWF in 2005 without any fact checking. The IPCC then used the WWF report as the sole basis for its assertions in 2007 because they thought it would “impact policy makers and politicians to take some concrete action“. Never mind the truth.

This was a report from the revered IPCC (“the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences”), involving an esteemed working group and reviewed by 500+ external reviewers. So what went wrong?

Well the Global Warming Policy Foundation (Nigel Lawson’s new group) will publish an analysis of those 500 or so formal review comments tomorrow. But in essense a good number of highly regarded indidivuals and institutions did raise questions, ask for clarification, query the level of confidence and indeed urge the IPCC group to withdraw the assertion of glacier melting as patently untrue. As far as one can tell from the information available to date, they were simply ignored. 

Worse than that. And here’s another bit of  indignation… A report published by the Indian Government just last November written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, stating that “Himalyan glaciers have not in anyway exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat” was dismissed as “voodoo science” by the chairman of the IPCC  who said “With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”

Last week the IPCC was forced to withdraw its claim over the melting glaciers as it has no scientific foundation. The WWF has likewise issued a retraction.  

Heads should roll over how these claims of glacier melting ever found their way into the IPCC report. But what is almost worse is the assertion by the IPCC when questioned that “everything has been established years ago”.

Yet again it calls into question the whole issue. Who should we trust? How do we even know who we should trust? How much more of the “scientific concensus” on global warming and its causes is built on so-called science “established years ago”. As I post this I learn that another IPCC claim linking global warming to natural disasters has now also come under question. Oh dear…….

Tags: climate change, glaciers melting, global warming, Global Warming Policy Foundation, IPCC, WWF

Now we want to ban the word “regular” in coffee shops!

Like all bad habits, it started as a occassional indulgence and has grown into something approaching an obsession. Reading Early Day Motions that is. I wonder if there is a Govt dept that can help me with this addiction?

I do however commend this activity to you. It provides an interesting insight into MP’s real concerns and motivations. It also throws up some shockers.

Take this one from Greg Mulholland, Lib Dem MP for Leeds Northwest. EDM 620

“That this House supports the Plain English Campaign on its attempts to prohibit the use of the word regular in coffee shops and cafés; notes that this term is a meaningless description creating confusion; regrets the Americanisation of the English language in this country; commends the Plain English Campaign for its efforts to promote clear language in public life; and calls on all coffee shops and similar establishments to use English terms and one standardised and universally understood system of measurement, such as small, medium and large.”

PROHIBIT the use of the word “REGULAR” in coffee shops?

Oh come on Greg. What is that all about? The word “regular” is confusing? Just do what the rest of us do and ask to see what size cup you get for a regular, or ask for your coffee in “one of those big fat mugs” or point at a cup and say “that sort of size”. And to say that coffee shops should be forced to use “English terms” – whatever that means – is frankly worrying.

Supposing its an Italian or French cafe? And even if it isn’t, so what if its a pretentious American cafe that prefers the word “Venti” to big or huge? A Starbuck’s venti is, in actual fact a twenty ounce coffee drink (about a pint) – from the Italian word for twenty (at least that’s what they told me when I asked many moons ago). Strikes me thats far more descriptive than “large”, which means (to the common man at least) “bigger than average” . How does that help anyone?

In any event I dont think its my place, and certainly not an elected MP’s place to start telling businesses what to call their products – no matter how silly. If customers dont like the word “regular” they will soon let them know. 

Putting this mini rant into context, only 14 others joined Greg in signing this motion –  7 Labour MPs and 4 Lib Dems (only 1 tory). Hmmmm. And we are supposed to be the home of liberalism? This sounds more like a sketch from Little Britain.

To be fair, Greg did redeem himself to some extent a couple of days later (20th Jan) with EDM 666 calling for the House to support the second reading of the Live Music bill (which will create an exemption from licences for small venues such as pubs).  Getting rid of bureacracy and needless red tape..that’s more like it.

Overall however, could do better.

UPDATE: In response to an email – the Lib Dem MPs that signed the banning of the word “regular” in coffee shops were: Mark Hunter, Mike Hancock, John Leach and Stephen Williams.

Tags: early day motion, EDM, Greg Mulholland, regular, Starbucks

Government lecturing is ruining my weekends

As is quite common these days, my much-loved weekend of sport was once again intermittantly interrupted with Government messages attempting make me a better citizen, protect me from my own stupidity, or both. I am not sure if this is a reflection of the fact that football fans have been profiled as well below par on the intelligence scale, or if its that something approaching 90% of my TV consumption is either sport or news and such ads can be found in equal abundance elsewhere.  

I know that I have moaned about this before – but the sheer volume of these ads – and the absurdity of the content seems to be getting worse. And frankly they are beginning to spoil my weekends. This weekend I was informed by those that know better, that if I kill a 5 year old whilst driving my car it will haunt me for the rest of my life; leaving my valuables in plain sight of burglars in my home is asking for trouble; taking the battery out of my smoke alarm means it doesn’t work as well (ok doesnt work at all); that I should take a clamidya test; learn new skills; visit Gov.co.uk; join the navy, or the marines;  and that I can save the planet if I will only drive my car 5 miles less each week. And I am sure I have missed some……

Television shares must surely be set to take a  tumble as it slowly dawns on people that we cant actually afford to subsidise broadcasters in this fashion any longer (just last Spring it was reported that the Government was bombarding us with 10,000 ads a day and was set to become Britains single biggest advertiser.)  I thought that I had read that Government was set to slash spending on this nonsense, but when I ask you. When?

It’s hard to say which of these many ads is most annoying. But the one that strikes me as easily the most hypocritical is the last of these – the one about driving 5 miles less each week.

Take the Foreign Secretary David Milliband. Up until May last year ceratinly this was the man seeking to hire his own private jet for overseas visits rather than catch a charter flight like the rest of us. This weekend I read that the same minister – and avowed atheist – is now sending his first born to a Church of England School some 2 miles away.  In making his selection , he has spurned a top notch (secular) state primary school just 80 yards from his home with an “outstanding” OFSTEAD report (and presumably within easy walking reach) in favour of a  faith school some 2 miles away (which I very much doubt will be reached a la foot).

The choices that parents make for their children’s education is a private matter of course. But I for one an getting a bit tired of being lectured to consistently that I should do MY bit for the environment and then witness ministers swishing around in their black limosines, put out tenders for private jets and ignore perfectly good – genuinely local – schools in favour of some school some 2 miles away with slightly better results.

More generally I am just tired of all of them. The ads I mean. They are variously partonising, tiresome, threatening or meaningless (and in some cases all of the above). Give me the Meerkats, the Evian roller babies, or Cadbury’s gorilla any day of the week.

Tags: David Miliband, faith schools, Government advertising

Photographer not a terrorist

If you are at a loss as to what today, you could do a lot worse than make your way down to Trafalgar Square with your camera 1200 til 1300..

There is a protest going on calling for the government to repeal the idiotic  anti-terror legislation that has resulted (amongst other things) in reasonable law-abiding folks, doing nothing more threatening than taking snaps of Britains beloved sites, being subject to harrassment, search and arrest. 

Much to the annoyance of professionals – bemusement of the few tourists left in this country – and indignation of those that care about our civil liberties – you hang around an urban area with a camera these days and chances are you will find yourself explaining to aggressive men in blue who you are,where you are from and what the hell you’re doing.  

The campaign photographernotaterrorist.org  was started in the wake of a series of high-profile detentions of photographers by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the stop and search powers detailed in this act breached the right to privacy. But we all know it takes a tad more than that these days to get the message through to the powers that be.

So. If you get a chance, get along Trafalgar Square 1200.  Details here

Can’t get there? Spend 5 minutes in their online shop . The hoodies and T Shirts, bags and badges are seriously cool.

Tags: photographer not a terrorist, photography, protest, section 44, terrorism act

DAVID HUME (1711-76) ESSAYS MORAL, POLITICAL, AND LITERARY (1758)

David Hume was a great figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, even more so than his friend Adam Smith.  He was a great figure in the whole European movement and is one of the most influential philosophers who ever lived, as well as being a major historian, economist, and political thinker.

His contributions to political thought can be found particularly in the Essays, but also in sections of his two philosophical masterpieces, A Treatise of Human Nature (1740) and Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and the Principles of Morals (1748-51), along with his 6 volume History of England (1754-62).  His History of England was a best seller and the dominant history of England, or Great Britain, for decades.  Despite these dazzling achievements Hume was not able to have a university career, due to his open religious scepticism.  Fortunately his subsequent career as tutor to the aristocracy, embassy secretary, and freelance writer did not impede his great talents.

The general structure of Hume’s political thought was that human society progresses in history, though he was deeply aware of the great crimes and disasters of human history.  He thought that human rationality makes us able to learn the benefits of cooperation, and to learn from those benefits in further cooperation.  That is cooperation of a voluntary and dispersed kind, which starts with production and exchange within a small community, and which develops into a global human community based on trade, freedom of communication, and liberty.

The rationality in humans is very imperfect, but sufficient to learn how to cooperate in order to first make life more secure from hunger and violence; and then for human character, and society, to keep improving through better morals, finer tastes, and greater liberty.  These capacities interact with a natural human morality of sympathy (that Hume thought some animals share), in which we naturally, and inevitably, see ourselves in other people, and find that our pleasure is improved by their pleasure.

We should not see Hume as a one sided optimist who only saw the best in people; he had a melancholic side underneath a sociable and optimistic manner, and his writings certainly show sensitive awareness, and even anger, at human cruelty and irrationality.

His overall achievement is that he had important explanations for why some human societies have become more prosperous, more moral, more sensitive, more free, and more governed by law and less by violence.  On that basis, he had good reasons for expecting more progress of the same kind.

On the more detailed aspects of his political thought, he defended the British system of the time for achieving as good a balance as existed anywhere between ‘republican’ liberty and ‘monarchical’ institutional stability.  Again this was not a result of complacency, he noticed for example how the state bought support from the upper class through a national debt which benefitted wealthy holders of government bonds, while others had to suffer from higher taxes and a stifled economy.

He certainly saw the need for some to become much more wealthy than others – preferably without state favours – as increased general wealth can only come from property rights and the possibility of individual self-enrichment.

In his economic essays, he argued against economic protectionism, then known as Mercantilism, and for free trade.  He pointed out that the French state caused starvation when it banned the export of wheat.  Farmers grow more wheat when there is a demand for it, from anywhere in the world, and that would benefit the poor and hungry in France more than trying to stop wheat being ‘lost’ to foreign countries.  Freedom from want and increasing prosperity come from the widest possibilities of trade, not from governments trying to prevent supposedly valuable products from leaving the country.

He pointed out the error of thinking that accumulating more money – largely referring to the Mercantilist belief that governments should acquire gold – makes a country richer.  Production stimulated by trade makes a country richer, not having more bits of gold currency.  History shows that where countries suddenly acquire gold, or any kind of wealth, from conquest that it is all wasted on non-productive expenditure very quickly.  Only  freedom to buy and sell, under humane, rational and consistent laws, can lead to genuine increases in wealth.

Hume’s views on the politics of the time are determined by two somewhat contrary tendencies. As mentioned above, he valued both liberty and continuity of institutions.  So on one side, he regarded radical change with extreme suspicion –including challenges to the British monarchy – as leading to war and social breakdown; while on the other side, he had a plan for a perfect British republic balancing different forms of representation and strong legal institutions.  That republican idealism combined with a pessimistic belief that politics inevitably corrupts, as government has to find ways of buying off interest groups, ‘factions’, so that it can govern at all.  Examples of how Hume’s rich personality, and thought, comprise many of the various impulses of liberal thought in his time, and ever since.

Tags: David Hume