David Davis: right on torture, wrong on climate change

Have you read his denialist nonsense in the Independent?

I'm a big fan of David Davis on civil liberties and human rights issues, especially his bold stance in opposition to torture and our alleged complicity in barbaric practices.

But on climate change, he is hopelessly wrong. His cornucopia of distortions, exaggerations, smears and half-truths in the Independent today makes for a depressing read.

I don't have time to fisk every line -- and, believe me, every line is worth fisking! -- but I will take issue with two of his points:

1)

The row about whether global warming exists gets even more virulent. The case is not helped by the fact that the planet appears to have been cooling, not warming, in the last decade.

Really? Who to believe? Davis, with his "BSc Joint Hons molecular science/computer science" degree, or the globally renowned, peer-reviewed climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre? From a press release in December 2008:

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2°C warmer than the average for the decade 1990-1999.

Dr Peter Stott of the Met Office says our actions are making the difference: "Human influence, particularly emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of having such warm years. Comparing observations with the expected response to man-made and natural drivers of climate change it is shown that global temperature is now over 0.7°C warmer than if humans were not altering the climate."

2)

Last week, the row was fuelled after a hacker revealed emails between the world's leading climate scientists that seemed to show them conspiring to rig the figures to support their theories. So it is unsurprising that more than half the public no longer believe in global warming.

Davis gets his timeline wrong. Polls showing public scepticism on the climate change issue preceded and predated the so-called Climategate row and the release of the University of East Anglia emails. The reason "more than half the public" no longer believe in global warming is because right-wing free marketeers like Davis, lacking in scientific credentials, have distorted the arguments and undermined the evidence.

The really scary point is this: had David Davis beaten David Cameron in 2005 and become Tory leader, Britain would now be on the verge of electing the only climate-change-denying leader in the G7. One for Dominic Sandbrook's What If . . . columns, eh?

By the way, before all the deniers and "sceptics" crawl out from under their cold, non-warming rocks to object to the evidence cited in this post and scream "cover-up", let me point you in the direction of a story in the Telegraph showing how climate-change sceptics get things wrong, too.

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Emmanuel Macron can win - but so can Marine Le Pen

Macron is the frontrunner, but he remains vulnerable to an upset. 

French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron is campaigning in the sixth largest French city aka London today. He’s feeling buoyed by polls showing not only that he is consolidating his second place but that the voters who have put him there are increasingly comfortable in their choice

But he’ll also be getting nervous that those same polls show Marine Le Pen increasing her second round performance a little against both him and François Fillon, the troubled centre-right candidate. Her slight increase, coming off the back of riots after the brutal arrest of a 22-year-old black man and Macron’s critical comments about the French empire in Algeria is a reminder of two things: firstly the potential for domestic crisis or terror attack to hand Le Pen a late and decisive advantage.  Secondly that Macron has not been doing politics all that long and the chance of a late implosion on his part cannot be ruled out either.

That many of his voters are former supporters of either Fillon or the Socialist Party “on holiday” means that he is vulnerable should Fillon discover a sense of shame – highly unlikely but not impossible either – and quit in favour of a centre-right candidate not mired in scandal. And if Benoît Hamon does a deal with Jean-Luc Mélenchon – slightly more likely that Fillon developing a sense of shame but still unlikely – then he could be shut out of the second round entirely.

What does that all mean? As far as Britain is concerned, a Macron or Fillon presidency means the same thing: a French government that will not be keen on an easy exit for the UK and one that is considerably less anti-Russian than François Hollande’s. But the real disruption may be in the PR battle as far as who gets the blame if Theresa May muffs Brexit is concerned.

As I’ve written before, the PM doesn’t like to feed the beast as far as the British news cycle and the press is concerned. She hasn’t cultivated many friends in the press and much of the traditional rightwing echo chamber, from the press to big business, is hostile to her. While Labour is led from its leftmost flank, that doesn’t much matter. But if in the blame game for Brexit, May is facing against an attractive, international centrist who shares much of the prejudices of May’s British critics, the hope that the blame for a bad deal will be placed solely on the shoulders of the EU27 may turn out to be a thin hope indeed.

Implausible? Don’t forget that people already think that Germany is led by a tough operator who gets what she wants, and think less of David Cameron for being regularly outmanoeuvered by her – at least, that’s how they see it. Don’t rule out difficulties for May if she is seen to be victim to the same thing from a resurgent France.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.