David Cameron wakes up to a second day of bad headlines

It's not often that British Airways and Virgin Atlantic agree on anything but they are united in opposing Tory plans to raise taxes on air travel.  Yesterday's right-leaning Sunday newspapers were all deeply sceptical about the Tories' green tax plans and today has given the dailies their first chance to comment.  They don't make comfortable reading for the Conservative leadership.  As illustrated in the graphic above - the Express, Sun, Telegraph, Mail and Times are all negative.  Even on the much greener, left hand side of Fleet Street there's division.  The Mirror describes the Tories as "air-heads" but the hypocritical Independent is supportive in its main leader.

Interviewed on this morning's Today programme, David Cameron attempted to defend his approach:

• He began by stating that any green taxation of air travel will be replacement taxation.  Extra taxes on flights, he insisted, would be offset by lower taxes on families and business.  It's unfortunate that a tax-cutting and tax-raising announcements weren't made simultaneously.
• He also said that the Tory green taxes would focus on environmental improvement and not revenue raising.  He noted that it might be better to tax individual flights rather than passengers to discourage half-empty and inefficient flights.  The Tory approach to green taxation is certainly more targeted than that of Gordon Brown's although as The Times and John Redwood have argued there are probably even better tech-based ways of encouraging more environmentally-sensitive behaviours than through higher taxation.
• He said that there would be an air miles allowance so that the annual family holiday wouldn't be taxed.  The Sun disputes this this morning - pointing out that a 2,000 'green air miles allowance' would mean travellers to Greece, Turkey, Canary Islands and most certainly Florida would be taxed.
• He said that most effort would focus on discouraging environmentally-harmful travel where there was a sensible alternative.  Domestic rail travel should, he said, become more used than domestic air travel.  Was this the same party leader who took the aeroplane to Scotland earlier this year?

Editor's comment: "Mr Cameron's performance was assured this morning and he speaks with passion on the environment and it is no wonder that he has invited another green politician - Al Gore - to address the Tory frontbench later this week.  The danger for Mr Cameron is that his passion for the environment can easily start to resemble zealotry.  Al Gore has been ridiculed on the other side of the pond as Rev'd Gore - the high priest of the environmental religion.  David Cameron must be careful to avoid the same trap.  It's probably okay to catwalk in £65 Terry Plana footwear - made from recycled firemen's trousers and carseats - but his suggestion on the Today programme that an annual report on Britain's carbon footprint should be as important as the annual Treasury Budget borders on the messianic.  Most British people who are struggling to make ends meet in Labour's over-taxed, over-regulated, hi-crime Britain have more pressing priorities.  It is a brave politician - and a foolish one - who puts green issues above those priorities and makes it more expensive for people to afford their once-in-a-year opportunity to escape from their troubles."

11am: Text of David Cameron's environment speech (conservatives.com).

Comments

[Ted]

malcolm
agree the one flight for free looks a non-runner. I can see how it fits with the Border Police, Departure Registration policy and could be implemented but only at time you went through airport - perhaps what you do is give a refund on first flight of financial year? But looks too bureaucratic.

[RobinClash]

I now have grave doubts about Cameron and his baby faced shadow chancer, (oops, sorry) chancellor.

Even if a UK only energy tax was the right thing to do, and there are many other issues which are much more important: China, India, USA, etc it would be cars and trucks which have an effect not airtravel, which accounts for ~2-5% depending on whether you ask Jonathan Porrit or Michael O'Leary.

This is a big vote loser. Too many of the potential vote winners will probably not bother due to adolescent apathy.

[ToMTom]

TomTom, you’re quite right. The majority also rejected man-made global warming to begin with. Some still do.

Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 12, 2007 at 14:59

Oh Mark you are such an ideologue. the majority of the population still don;t understand General Relativity, Riemannian Geometry, or Sub-atomic Physics........with modern education I doubt many could spell Physics.

My "majority" referred to scientists not plebs. I merely pointed out that you sound like the USAF General I once heard talk about SDI or "Star Wars" when told that leading scientists would not take part.

His response was we'll get more of the less prominent scientists for the same fee.

You sound just like him

[ToMTom]

Even if a UK only energy tax was the right thing to do

The last Conservative Govt imposed VAT on Gas and Electricity - with 17.5% being reserved until after the 1997 Election.

Will Cameron and Osborne be returning to that "green" idea too ?

[Londoner]

I think "Thatcherite" is being rather ungracious in attacking me so vociferously on the "climate change denier" = "holocaust denier" equation when I already explained on that previous thread why I think "cc denier" is a perfectly reasonable label for some in this debate, whilst at the same time not implying that people are Nazis etc. When I was gracious enough to agree with him fulsomely on another thread on another subject (House of Lords), he ignored it. I am proud to be with him a "House of Lords elections denier".

It is interesting that this row on "green air miles" seems to be another case of pre-spinning because if you read Cameron's actual speech today through the link provided on this site, you will note that he is entirely unspecific on this airline tax point, but had lots of other interesting, if slightly less controversial, things to say on the general subject. All of the latter are likely to be (or have been) ignored because of the pre-spinning - it has echoes of the "Toynbee not Churchill imagery" debacle. In the relative poverty debate, I think there was much defective with the whole idea behind the actual speech which obviously I don't think this time; but it does seem as though the pre-spinners may have again been over-eager.

The cynical may say that he pulled the relevant passage from the speech, but if you look at the whole tone of it, this seems unlikely.

Earlier on I did attempt to state how "green air miles" could work in practice - I agree it may not have been totally convincing but then I had only thought about the possible mechanics for 5 minutes. What I absolutely stand by is that several long haul flights a year, and lots of cheap City breaks, are no-one's inalienable right. Look at it this way, why should the rural motorist for whom car use may be an economic and practical necessity pay though the nose for their fuel on green grounds, whilst the feckless metropolitan hedonist pays no fuel tax at all on the much more harmful emissions caused by his week-end jaunt? I post as someone much more likely to meet the weekend metropolitan jaunter than the poor rural motorist.

[Londoner]

Sorry, my attempt at stating how "green air miles" might work was at 12:42 on today's general news comments thread rather than on this one.

[jorgen]

Fulford: Jorgen, your argument reminds me of Intelligent Design

No, those who claim there is global warming and that it is man-made are the ones to come up with the proof(s).

[TomTom]

whilst at the same time not implying that people are Nazis etc.

I am sick to bl@@dy death of hearing about Nazis. Can we have the word expunged from this Blog. I think some people have clockwork minds with an unhealthy obsession with a German political party from the first half of the 20th Century..........why not talk about Jacobins or Levellers or something else instead of the mind-numbing inanity of the NSDAP ?

It is like being locked in a cell with a drunk repetitively slurring his speech and muttering expletives all night.

[Simon Chapman]

Mark Fulford at 1606:

It would require information about every flight you take within and when leaving Britain. It might require information about every flight any British taxpayer takes anywhere - how would that IT work? See my questions at 1206.

Our critique of Gordon Brown is in theory on the basis that we need a simpler, less intrusive, enforceable and cost-effective tax system that, where it seeks to incentivise or penalise particular behaviour, can be targetted accurately at the people and organisations that it is intended to affect.

This idea seems to run counter to pretty much all of that.

[G U (Given Up)]

When were the likes of George Moonbat, all the Lib-Dums, the Al-Beeb, Tony Blair etc right about anything....

Now all of a sudden they were right about GW and yet still wrong on everything else. As a consequence Green Dave goes into a Green bidding war, with them all.

He even invites the Shadow Cabinet, to be lectured by that total fool the Rev. Al Gore, who before he became Mankinds GW Messiah, claimed he invented the Internet and that he and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story....the man is first class fruitcake. He should be locked up, in a secure institution, not consulted.

[Andrew Woodman]

How much of this is flying a kite to see what the reaction is. We can't on one hand dismiss ID cards and road pricing as a technical nightmare, and then start measuring peoples air miles. Giving incentives to Airlines to cut their emmisions through modern aircraft would achieve far more imo rather these socialist measures.

[Richard Tyndall]

Philip,

the French build their high speed links in nice straight lines by the simple expedient of compulsory purchase on all the properties along the route irrespective of local opposition. If you house is knocked down then you do get compensated. But that is simply not the way we do or should do things in Britain. The idea that we should be forced to sacrifice our homes for some greater good is simply not one that I - nor I suspect most Conservatives or even most of the public - subscribe to.

Incidently I do think the same applies to airports.

[Richard Tyndall]

"The last Conservative Govt imposed VAT on Gas and Electricity - with 17.5% being reserved until after the 1997 Election."

TomTom they had no choice.

It was an EU rule. And we must all do what those really very nice and clever people in Brussels say.

[Londoner]

TomTom, quoting me "whilst at the same time not implying that people are Nazis etc." then says: "I am sick to bl@@dy death of hearing about Nazis."

I hope he is not attacking me, but "Thatcherite" as it was he who suggested that by using the term "climate change denier" that I was equating it with "holocaust denier". I never brought up anything to do with the holocaust or the N**** at all.

That's at least sorted that one out then. After that, reversing global warming should be a cinch.

[Bridget]

Either Cameron's fervour for all things green has developed into full blown religious mania and/or he is politically inept. Taxes and charges already account for almost half of many air fares particularly for that group most beloved of politicians "the hard-working family."Little will be accomplished in the way of reducing carbon emmissions and I doubt that the revenue raked will ever make it's way back to those who pay it in the form of tax reductions as has been suggested. It would be a deceitful tax: horribly authoritarian and socialistic in nature. It could have been thought up by Brown - perhaps he is too canny to suggest it openly. What ever happened to the old Tory idea of allowing the public the freedom to spend its money as it chooses? If there is one thing that the British Public holds almost as dear as the car it is their holiday abroad. There may be a nasty electoral backlash from this.

[ToMTom]

I hope he is not attacking me, but "Thatcherite" as it was he who suggested that by using the term "climate change denier"

If I associated you with it Londoner I apologise. My point was not to single out anyone in particular - simply that I am so bored by the subject of this particular political party - it has become so interminably boring and meaningless

[Gawain]

Cameron needs a reality check. Many people are getting a liitle tired of the green obsession. As a conservative I am a lttle suspicious of the axiomatic green "truths" he keeps spouting. As Bridget says it is almost religious. I am no scientist and cannot judge most of the claims but neither is Cameron in any better position. A little caution and a few qualifications would be advisable. I heard a comment somewhere the other week that the French refer to the environmentalists as the Khmer Vert, I hope thats not the destination for the Conservative Party !

[Michael McGowan]

I can't help noticing that the Ho Chi Minh of Eastleigh, Mark Fulford, has nailed his colours to the ManMade Climate Change Mast even though he cannot prove it. There are of course many dissenting voices on whether climate change is to any significant degree man-made, not just those who made the Channel 4 Documentary. Yet it is the same Mark Fulford who has nothing but contempt for those who believe in a God because they cannot cetgorically "prove" that God exists. I may be a bear of little brain but there seems a glaring inconsistency here.

[cleo]

Climate change is so important and the future of our world is at stake for future generations. Yes it needs international action but we have to do more at home and people have to change their behaviour.

I congratulate David Cameron for bringing this issue to the fore and for looking at ways to reduce carbon emissions. It is a difficult issue and the increase in cheap air travel has to be curtailed and of course cleaner aircraft and fuels are urgently needed.

Cameron's stance on the climate change bill too is absolutely right, we need annual binding targets that government, business and households all contribute to and an independent regulator to measure progess and hold government to account. This will guarantee action to reduce carbon emissions.

Finally we have a major political party with a chance of gaining high office that takes the environment seriously.

[david]

There was no EU rule requiring the imposition of 17.5%vat on domestic energy. The reason given at the time was to comply with the Rio agreement, reduction of co2. The only EU rule was that once VAT has been imposed on anything it cannot be totally removed, but it can be reduced to minimum which is 5%. Kenneth Clark decided to increase in two moves, the first 8.5% he achieved the second to 17.5% he could not get through the commons. Labour made it an election pledge to reduce to 5%, which they did when elected.

[Observer]

the increase in cheap air travel has to be curtailed

Why ?

Surely immigration and housebuilding should be curtailed and livestock slaughtered ....

Fewer people means fewer houses - houses create huge increases in radiated heat and remove vegetation, lead to increased asphalt and concrete, draw down the water table.

Immigration increases demand for cars, houses, transport to the country of origin. You really want to stop Pakistani families in Bradford visiting family in Lahore or Karachi ?

Chloe you should get up to speed and stop assuming it is only pasty white people with bucket and spade going to Benidorm - are you so unaware of multicultural Britain that you try to impose your Stalinist rationing on citzens wishing to visit family. You are obviously one of those ethnocentric types who cannot imagine that black people and Muslims have family ties which taken them back frequently to their extended families.

This policy you propose is racist in the extreme

[eugene]

I feel I want to let my Tory membership lapse. I cannot deal with busy bodies who iterfere in our lives. That was my problem with Labour and the LibDems. DC started with the silly ''Why don't WH Smith sell real oranges instead of Chocolate Oranges'' and now comes up with this Green nutter tax. There is no Party worth supporting anymore. They all follow a PC agenda and ignore what we REALLY want- low tax, tax cuts, self reliance, less government, independence and to be left alone.

[cleo]

Observer, my sentence ends in cleaner aircraft and fuels are urgently needed.

I completely disagree that my comments above are racist. I am not proposing that people should be prevented from flying to visit family oversees, wherever that may be. We have to change behaviours though and cheap air travel has increased frequent flying, and air travel continues to rise. Travel has to be cleaner and greener and I believe that taxing carbon is on way to do this.

Lots of European flying, for example, is actually unnecessary. I recently traveled to Germany on the train, it was fast and cheap and I arrived at the centre of my destination rather than at a far-away airport. Train trevel in continental Europe should be encouraged more.

[Denis Cooper]

"... or are you one of those people who cheerfully drops your rubbish on the floor?" Nope, but nor do I want jobsworths pouncing on anybody they think has dropped a sweet wrapper and slapping a totally disproportionate fine on them.

[Bill]

Well said Bridget at 18.05.

I am more concerned about a global pandemic a la Spanish flu and over-population than a global warming supposedly attributable to man made C02. What is Cameron's prescription for these other risks? To my knowledge he does not have any. But get him on the subject of chocolate oranges or any other fashionable trivia and ephemera and he could bore for England. The Tories really have lost the plot. It's almost as if this obsessive concern with evironmentalism (and sundry other issues) is in reality some form of reactive displacement activity.

[Mark Fulford]

" I may be a bear of little brain but there seems a glaring inconsistency here. "

Michael, I'm sure you'll remember that my mantra is seek the evidence.

Seeking the evidence, there’s a very high probability that man’s activities have significantly changed our climate. I have no self-interest for the evidence to point this way.

Seeking the evidence, none points to there being a god (in the traditional omnipotent-being sense). Somebody on ConservativeHome did tell me that I’d find evidence if I knew where to look, but he declined to tell me where that is.

How that's inconsistent and why it makes me "Ho Chi Minh of Eastleigh", I don’t know. You do make me laugh though.

[GU (Given Up)]

Cleo.

C02 is vital for all plant and animal life, it is not some demon gas, life as we know it totally depends on it and mankinds contribution is minute.

Man made Co2 represents 0.117 % of all Greenhouse gases.

The UK contributes 2 %, which is 0.0023% of the total. If we cut by 30%, 50 % more than Kyoto, that is 0.0000702 %.

That is less than 100,000 th of 1%.

For that we are supposed to need to "radically change our way of living", all at vast cost.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[cleo]

Yes CO2 is vital for plant and animal life but we are on the verge of massive changes. New evidence suggests that a 3 degree warming will mean that instead of absorbing carbon dioxide vegetation and soil will start emitting carbon, rapidly increasing warming. The Amazon, the 'lungs of the earth', will probably die out. See Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet by Mark Lynas.

[jorgen]

Fulford: I'm sure you'll remember that my mantra is seek the evidence.

Good idea! You go and seek the evidence and be quiet until you find someone who can present proof of 1) global warming and 2) that it is man-made.

[janet]

Why doesn't Cameron leave the name 'Conservative' for the UKIP to use and be honest enough to call the party he wants to lead by a new name. eg the 'We're really nice party' or perhaps the 'we just want to be liked except by our supporters party'.

[Mark Fulford]

Given Up, why should I trust geocraft.com, clearlight.com and Monte Hieb?

I prefer The World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases and their reports.

[GU (Given Up)]

Cleo.

The Earth has been far hotter than it is now, or 'may" be in the future and nothing much happened.

[cleo]

Given Up of course the Earth has been hotter before, climate has changed through the millenia, all the evidence suggests that. The point is that current warming is faster than ever before and to me the evidence is that we are causing it. If Britain wants the new economies such as China, India and Brazil to curb emissions then it has to take a lead itself at home and internationally.

[Bill]

Janet at 2050 is correct. That said the Conservatives do have (in relatively recent history) "previous" form in ignoring the wishes and best interests of not only their supporters but the nation as a whole. Throughout the post war period the Conservatives have acquiesced in much of our nation's takeover by gramscian marxists. Anything for a quiet life. Maggie's crime, albeit in limited but nevertheless vital areas, was not only to seek to but also to successfully reverse this process. What we are now witnessing is payback for a reversion from recent type.

[Goldie]

This proposal is inane. But I'm happy with. It's pretty obvious that Cameron and Osborne shouldn't get close to No. 10. It'd be bad for the country and disastrous for what is left for the future prospects of the Conservative Party, once upon a time the greatest political party in the world. No more, no more.

[Old Hack]

Just when it seemed doubts about DC and the whole Steve Hilton driven project were being laid to rest, DC was making the right noises about marriage and so on, this happens.

Look I understand the logic, superficial though it is to 'greenwash' the Party. But dammit, its just plain bloody naive and unsympathetic to stick it to the hard pressed taxpayer like this.

Fairness has to play a role in any system of taxation. This isn't fair, it won't save the planet and it won't win us new votes.

Did somebody spike Steve Hilton's spliff with something nasty like PCP? This is just a silly, silly idea.

[ToMTom]

nstead of absorbing carbon dioxide vegetation and soil will start emitting carbon

Always did.

Plants are made of carbon like all life forms.

Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen during daylight . In the night they reverse-cycle and absorb oxygen and emit CO2

[TomTom]

. I recently traveled to Germany on the train,

Good for you Chloe - now give the timetabling from Bradford or Halifax to travel to Germany by train

[TomTom]

BTW - it's around £140 return to London by train from Leeds and 3 hours.....you work out the timetabling - I reckon it would take 9-10 hours by train and cost close to £290 each way

[jorgen]

Did somebody spike Steve Hilton's spliff with something nasty like PCP?

What are you talking about? Hilton is one of the Green nutters and undoubtedly love this.

Fairness has to play a role in any system of taxation.

The fairest thing is to let us keep our money in our pockets. So stop talking about taxes: We should talk about tax cuts.

[James Maskell]

Just thinking about this in general terms, is what Cameron proposes another form of protectionism? Itll stop certain people going abroad to places they might want to go. Itll damage tourism in far-away places and certainly is against the spirit of free trade...

Camerons environmental policy seems rather under-developed, which sounds great but when you look at it, it just seems rather hashed. Labour suffer from the same problem. That said, I feel that if global warming is that serious, we cant really stop it and instead we should learn to adapt. For my heresy shall I burn for an eternity in hell...

[Michael McGowan]

Mark, I don't think there is a "very high probability" that man has significantly altered the climate. Saying so is dogma, not evidence but then you seem to pick and choose the evidence which fits the conclusions you want to reach. Man's activities may have had some impact on the climate which has been warming and cooling for many millions of years. It was very warm also in the Middle Ages when man's impact would have been minimal; and very cold in the 17th century when man's impact would have been much greater. You seem to discount to zero the impact of sun spots, volcanic explosions, the vast emissions produced by livestock, and so on and so on. Cameron's silly tax on travel is regressive and is all about raising revenue. It will have minimal impact on the environment. It is also anti-immigrant because it penalises the thousands of people living in this country who have family elsewhere in the world.

[ToMTom]

BTW - it's around £140 return to London by train from Leeds

Whoops...it is £175

To Germany

The beautifully-restored Reichstag in Berlin. It's easy to reach Berlin by train..!

The restored Reichstag, Berlin...

It's easy to travel from London to Germany by train. Take Eurostar from London to Brussels in just 2½ hours and switch to a Thalys high-speed train to Cologne in 2¼ hours more. Or take an early evening Eurostar from London to Paris or Brussels then the overnight sleeper train to Stuttgart, Munich, Hamburg or Berlin, city centre to city centre, arriving in time for breakfast. Some sleepers even have a private toilet and shower. This page will tell you the best train times, fares, and how to buy tickets.

London ► Berlin (by sleeper train):

* Travel from London to Brussels by Eurostar, leaving London Waterloo at 18:11 on Mondays-Fridays (arriving Brussels 21:34) or 18:43 on Saturdays or 18:47 on Sundays (arriving Brussels 22:07).
*

Travel from Brussels to Berlin by sleeper train, leaving Brussels at 23:41 and arriving at Hanover 06:00, Berlin (Hauptbahnhof) at 08:11 and Berlin (Ostbahnhof) at 08:20 next morning.

Cost £281 London - Berlin on the sleeper

So from Bradford to Berlin by Train costs £747 return and takes a total journey time of 14 hours each way

[GU (Given Up)]

Ultimately it is the kind of tax that a spoilt rich kid has no trouble paying, because his parents/trustfund picks up the tab.

Mark.

That site does not include Water Vapour as a Greenhouse gas....though it is 95 % of the Greenhouse gas' and is 99.99% natural ....

More to the point Co2 lags temperature change by @ 800yrs. Therfore it cannot be a contributor to temperature increases, so the whole GW thesis is bunkum.

[Ted]

Given uP - what are your scientific qualifications? Important to know as you are claiming certain things are absolute fact and several thousand highly qualified climatologists disagree regarding either the factual basis or that they haven't accounted for them.

[Richard Tyndall]

Don't know about GU's qualifications Ted but I am a geologist who specialised in Palaeoclimatology. And I believe that Anthorpogenic Global Warming theories are, to a large extent, garbage, based as they are on poor scientific evidence which fails to follow the basic scientific method which underlies all science.

Unfortunately in the present climate the fact that I work in oil exploration (actually on a rig right now in the Norwegian Sea) means I am immediately tarred as biased. The fact that almost every geologist in the world on all sides of the argument owes their degree to oil money means that they can all very conventiently be dismissed as biased if they diagree with the supposed new paradigm.

A shame, because they are about the only ones who can put some propoer perspective on the whole thing.

[Mark Fulford]

Richard, it's not enough just to say that the evidence doesn’t follow the basic scientific method. You have to substantiate that claim.

P.S. I'm challenging what you said, not where you work or how you trained.

[Ted]

Richard

You are claiming that some pretty well qualified and respectable scientists are "not following scientific method". Indeed this could be the case - Geologists rejected the theory of continental drift until well into the 1960's until Dietz & Hess and acceptance of plate tectonics despite mounting evidence as to its occurence from other scientific fields. So your speciality dosn't have a good track record in following basic scientific method.

So right to be sceptical and continue to be sceptical. However my reading of the contrary evidence is that it is far weaker and doesn't account for the late 20th century changes as well as those put forward by proponents of the theory.

[Ken Stevens]

I've been following this website for some time, honestly hoping to find a substantial reason to resume voting Conservative.

Not an inkling so far, just a variation on the other two major parties' philosophies.
No real choice, no longer a real Conservative Party. Actually, no longer any major party with a recognisable set of principles that clearly differentiate it from its competitors. Just lots of political market researchers constantly trying to devise a formula to gain power for its own sake.

A forlorn hope in continuing to read this site, so goodbye.

[Philip]

Richard Tyndall (March 12 at 17:46):
"the French build their high speed links in nice straight lines by the simple expedient of compulsory purchase on all the properties along the route irrespective of local opposition. If you house is knocked down then you do get compensated. But that is simply not the way we do or should do things in Britain. The idea that we should be forced to sacrifice our homes for some greater good is simply not one that I - nor I suspect most Conservatives or even most of the public - subscribe to.

Incidently I do think the same applies to airports."

But what about motorway building? I'm not aware that the motorways haven't involved sacrifice of homes, and local opposition and so on. A high-speed rail line would involve much less land-take than a motorway and maybe a large part of a route could follow existing transport corridors, minimising impact. This, and the noise of high-speed trains being far less than a motorway (see my post 1436 yesterday), the environmental impact of a line would be minimal.

[Richard Tyndall]

For both Mark and Ted, (this is long so apologies)

What you need to bear in mind is that I do not say that AGW (excuse me using the acronym but it saves time) is absolutely not possible or not happening. The problem is that what most people don't realise and most scientists choose to forget at times (or increasingly with our education system are not taught) is that there is a specific and carefully defined system which must be followed for any theory or idea to be considered valid science. Simply because the work is carried out by a 'scientist' does not make his work scientifically valid.

You should alsobear in mind that I am something of a zealot over this. Not something that is necessarily a good thing but about as close to religion as I am ever likely to get.

The best place to follow the stages of the 'scientific method' is here:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

The key is the four stages:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

As the author explains the predictive quality is of vital importance. What he doesn't emphasise perhaps enough is that of equal or greater importance is the ability to eliminate any and all other influences which might change the result of the experiment or the theory.

It is this last which is where AGW drastically fails. It fails to deal with the cyclical nature of climate and temperature. It fails to deal with the fact that the earth has been substantially warmer and cooler than at present and has had higher CO2 concentrations (whoever earlier was talking about plants stopping absorbing C02 when it gets too high was absolutely wrong. In Geological terms CO2 concentrations have been dramatically higher and plants flourish). It also fails to deal with the effects of solar radiation and the 'new' work -which has actually been known for many years but generally ignored on clooud formation.

Added to this a number of key scientists in the process have falsified or misused data. The 'hockey stick' graph being the best known example. I don't tend to dewell on this too much as this happens in all walks of life and science is perhaps worse than most and such activity is not limited to one side or the other. But there are key pieces of evidence and theories which are still used now by politicians and pundits even though they have been conclusive proved to be wrong.

The earth is undoubtedly heating up. Those who ry to coyunter AGW theories by claiming there is no change in temperature do their cause no good. But that doesn't in any way change the fact that there are massive political decisions being made the world over ased on 'bad science'. That does not mean the people producing that supposed scientific work are bad, necessarily wrong or not striving to do their best. But this is not an subjective discipline. There is no 'wiggle room'. Either the theories fullfill every stage of the criteria to be considered scientific or they don't. If they don't then they fail. They are simply not science.

Now someone try explaining all of that to a politician.

[Michael McGowan]

Ted, I may be showing my age but didn't three hundred economists write to the national papers to state that Mrs Thatcher's economic policies were a disaster? So I am rather wary of politicised academic consensus.

[Richard Tyndall]

Just a quick addition Ted,

your example of Continental Drift is a poor choice. It shows exactly the scientific method at work. It was not until the actual mechanism that drove continental drift could be clearly identified that it could or should have been accepted as a valid scientific theory. As such my discipline was simply following good scientific practice.

Though like all other disciplines there are often occasions when it does not.

By the way if you want to know how wrong scientists can get things go read the history of Eugenics.

[Ted]

Richard

Can I recommend to you the web site I posted earlier
http://www.realclimate.org/
This is only one site and it does start from predication that AGW is the most likely explanation. However it comprehensively displays that for each of the isues you raised the scientific method is being displayed.

There is observed phenonema. There have been hypotheses to explain a causal relationship to these. These have been tested on the best obtainable models and as more data becomes available and results of previous tsts or a new hypothesis accepted these have been added to the tests. These have been carried out by a huge number of people independently in universities and scientific institutions globally.

The results of these enquiries have been that the huge majority (not merely simple majority but closer to nearly all) of investigators in this field are convinced that humman activity is having a significant effect on the earths climate.

There has been considerable evidence of the effect on weather (in terms that weather is short term realisation of the climate) from pollution, deforestation and other localised activity for some time.

I used example of the theory of continental drift because there was a general refusal to investigate or hypothesise. Paleontologists and other natural scientists had found evidence but geologists as a body treated any discussion as heresy for decades. I studied geology in the late 60's and well remember textbooks still in use which dismissed it, and often in damning terms.

Your claim is that climatologists are refusing to accept the evidence of geologists just as the latter refused to accept the evidence provided by paleontolgists (simplification). That may well be the case, though evidence is that it is not but that there remains a spirit of enquiry. While many scientists are wedded to their pet theory and defend these robusly, in part for recognition and respect, the number of people active in the field means competition for new and better thesis to explain the observations.

I agree that Eugenics is a good example to hold in mind as to science being misused by politicians. The underlying scientific theories about human heredity and presumption that "bad" traits could be bred out, was demonstrable and supported by evidence through animal and plant husbandry. In last century the genetic causes underlying these have been much beter understodd as scientific enquiry continued. However a pseudo-scientific basis to social philosophy called Eugenics was used by politicians and others as a basis to suport their prejudices.

The New Age Greenery has similarly latched onto the science to support their philosophy of Gaea, of neo-paganism and other new age ideas. As with Eugenics the philosophy is, I believe, wrong but IMHO the underlying science is not. The association of this philosophy must not blind us to the danger that we most probably are affecting a major change in our climate and endangering the well being of our decendants.

It is equally important we do not let the pseudo-religion drive our solutions in the ways the proponents of Eugenics drove mankind down inhuman paths. We need the sceptics. We must be sceptical regarding the solutions our politicians propose. We must test these as to their viability and consequences.

[Richard Tyndall]

Ted,

the realclimate website shows exactly what I am talking about when it comes to confusion over what should be considered as proper science, as does your response.

First, testing against a computer model is NOT experimentation that would be acceptable under the scientific method. The computer models are best guess fits and unfortunately follow the same basic principle of all computer systems which is 'garbage in, garbage out'. That sounds harsher than might be fair but the bottom line is there is no way of quantifying how accurate a computer model is. The model itself is what should be tested by experimentation, it should not itself be the test against which scientific validity of a theory is measured.

It is the misuse of these models and particularly the inability of scientists to understand complex statistical analysis that has formed the basis of a number of attacks on this whole system of research. Basically you cannot set up a computer model which is supposed to demonstrate you own particular predictions and biases and then use that model as a benchmark against which to measure the success or otherwise of your predictions. It is exactly this sort of basic misunderstanding of both computer modelling and statistical analysis which so comprehensively undermined the infamous 'hocky stick' graphs.

The numbers of scientists involved in the pursuit of these theories and the fact that they are all working alongthe same track is no measure of the validity of the science itself, only a measure of the willingness of governments to throw money at research which provides them with the right political answers.

I rasied the point of eugenics not only for the reasons you gave but also because there was a similar comprehensive 'scientific' concensus that the theories were correct. Those who argued against this paradigm were hounded from office and ostracised by the scientific community. They were simply considered 'bad' scientists. It shows that it is entirely possible - actually given the way in which reearch is conducted and funded entirely probable - that when such a large and apparently comprehensive theory is accepted by the establishment, even if wrong in its basic foundations, it will give the appearence of inviolate scientific truth.

Not a good basis on which to make policy which will affect the lives of billions of people.

[Graeme Archer]

I saw Janet Daley at it again in the Telegraph yesterday. She can't write six words without reminding us that (a) she was once a marxist and that (b) there is diversity of opinion on climate change, before her hurrah-conclusion that therefore (c) the Conservatives are MAD to talk about climate change. I would have thought (a) and (b) wouldn't necessarily entail (c) but Ms Daley seems to have left the planet on this and almost every other Tory issue. When a once-favourite columnist starts writing the same column every week, and you can predict its tone and most of its content before you start - it's a shame.

Some things that occurred to me on reading the new policy idea and then the predictable as ever, Doc-torrrr stuff here.

You can't do an experiment to prove or disprove the climate change hypothesis. I keep reading that "the science isn't proven" or "I don't believe it" or "the zealotry of the environmentalists" as though theirs is a faith with no evidence to support it (which is funny coming from a site which is so pro-religion). Climate change is a hypothesis (note: this does not mean we cannot examine the evidential basis for its support). Where, exactly, do those people who keep clamouring for a scientific proof, prior to the taking of any precautionary action, expect us to locate a suitable control group? That would be, erm, another planet like Earth and another Sun like ours, where we could interfere with the entire ecosystem and wait a few millenia to compare the outcomes with ours. OK ... there will be no "proof", not in the way that the people like Daley keep demanding it, as I suspect she is all too well aware.

In that situation scientists build models to explain the data they have seen, and look for contradictions on some of the auxiliary hypothesis implied by the model, and see which subhypotheses have the greatest evidential support. Yes, there is therefore a danger that the model will become so all-encompassing that nothing will ever lead to its fundamentals being challenged, and there is quite definitely scope for a more sceptical checking of what's going on within these modelling groups, but I don't believe that people are being awarded PhDs in atmospheric physics on the basis of shite models they've flung together in order to "prove" the worst nightmares of Jonathan Porrit are true.

(The flipside to the Janet Daley Nightmares of this world are the Jeremiahs of the Independent who would prefer not to debate the issue at all because "all the scientists agree", as though scientists are drawn from some sort of extra-Earthling cast and are imbued with ultra-objectivity ... it's clear (to me) what substitute these Indy-type people are looking for, same letters as "D O G", but I don't think they'll get it from any collection of scientists ... however that's their problem, and the cast of mind of an Independent editorialist, and his/her passion for the gloomier prognoses, do not affect, at all, in the slightest, the evidence about climate change).

There's also the strategic interest, which I thought would have appealed to Conservative Home (because even the Republican Religious Right seem to have cottoned onto it), that it just makes sense for the west to reduce its reliance on carbon based fuels.

So: should the party accept the large evidential base that supports a hypothesis of climate change, and craft policy accordingly? Yes (so should any rationalist). Does this have a geopolitical strategic benefit? Yes. Does it have a tactical benefit in our target seats? Yes. Does a personal allowance in a carbon footprint -- ultimately one which you can trade in -- contradict, or conform to Tory principle? The latter.

Vote Blue: Go Green.
Vote Yellow: Get Brown.

It's a winner baby.

[Richard Tyndall]

Graeme

I see you are resorting to the other fallback of green zealots once they realise they can no longer claim the scientific high ground. Commonly known as the precautionary principle it is a piece of pseudo environmental mumbo jumbo that should have no place in politics or science. It is funny to see you claiming it should be the position of 'rationalists' since it is a completly irrational position.

What you are in effect saying is that even if there were no scientific evidence for something we should all run round like chickne licken believing that the sky is going to fall and should craft our whole political and economic debate around the idea that, in theory, something might, possibly happen even though we can't prove it.

You are also wrong to say that you can't do an experiment to 'prove' the anthropogenic global warming theory. You may not be abloe to do one overarching single experiment but you can at least look objectively at all the scientifically collected data and see which bits agree with and which bits disagree with it. As I said before science is made up of experiments - lots of them. Some big, some small. It is a sieady accumulation of knowledge which helps to refine theories. It is not a leap in the dark in pursuit of proof for a political agenda. You may not like it and it may not suit your own personal bias but I repeat, if it doesn't follow the scintific method then, plain and simple, it ain't science.

By the way, how does your quasi reløigious belief cope with the latest news from the Mars Explorer that the ice caps there are melting?

Has our CO2 developed the ability to cross interplanetary space or could it be something to do with that great big yellow hot thing in the sky?

[Ted]

Richard
Neither Graham (from what he writes) or I are zealots - either for or against the great Climate Change Debate. What we are trying to do is reach a rational conclusion.

The point about Eugenics is it was never a science - it was a philosophy. The New Age Greenery who declare climate change scpetics heretics are also a philosophy, and IMHO, a dangerous one for in their zealotry and exaggeration they open the field to those who are equally zealous in their own theories, whether cosmic rays or sun cycles, as the sole causal effect.

The complexity and singlarity of the earth mean that modelling is the only way experimentation can take place. It is a proxy and like all proxies is subject to error. That is why I welcome the number of people in the field and develoment of alternative models.

We have even less understanding of the climate of Mars - could be that solar heating is the only reson for ice cap melting but that can only be confirmed by measurements and modelling.

It undermines any rational argument you are making to accuse your opponents of being "quasi-religious" because they disagree.

[Graeme Archer]

Richard

I probably explained myself badly since I was trying to draw a line between my dislike of shrieking Independent headlines and (what I see as) the inference that many here make based on that dislike that, therefore, there is nothing for humans to worry about w.r.t. climate change. I am well aware that this "precautionary principle" mumbo jumbo is often waived around by people with non-scientific minds in order to close down reasoning on matters that they dislike, so I'm certainly not promoting it here. I was making the (valid, I think) point, though, that none of this implies that the people who call for "proof" before we take any action are correct; (as you and I know) it is not possible to prove or disprove anything which relies on observation and statistical reasoning -- climate change being an almost perfect example of a statistical hypothesis -- all that we can do is to examine the evidence and weigh up, through likelihood-based reasoning, which hypothesis is most supported by the data. I am a statistician and not a geographer so I am not able to perform this calculation, but I do not believe that those atmospheric physicists who do the detailed work and have arrived at their conclusions can be waived aside because we (I'm guessing you agree with me here) dislike very much the shroud-waivers from the Independent.

TomTom made the point above that correlation is not the same as causation and of course he's correct, but that shouldn't prevent one from asking "Is the climate change hypothesis more or less supported by the observations made by scientists at the north pole etc etc". I think it's more supported than is its converse, and given some (very very basic) decision-theory I believe the utility of acting on the basis of the evidential support for that hypothesis is much, much greater than the (negative) utility of not acting (if the hypothesis be true; I do hope that the Stern report had access to some good Bayesian statisticians by the way).