Oct 28 2007
Beware of politicians using science as a shield
Some of you have written in with warnings about the way politicians can use science. How right you are.
This government sometimes shields itself behind science when it wishes to make a difficult or unpopular decision.
For example, this government has ordered the death of many farm animals during its time in office. Ministers always state that the science demands this, and prefer to let an official answer the questions on the media.
They use NICE to ration pharmaceuticals available on the NHS. They try to imply this is a set of “independent” judgements by experts which has nothing to do with Ministers. Yet in practise it is rationing based on an assessment of cost effectiveness so the NHS can try to stay within Ministerial budgets.
They tell us the scientific argument concerning the pace and origins of global warming is over - the science is settled. Yet what we are interested in is Ministerial decisions about what action the Uk should take in the light of the scientific opinions, which requires interpretation of the scientific evidence and predictions.
Ministers are there to assess all kinds of professional advice - legal, economic, scientific, military, diplomatic - and to make decisions based on it. They are not there to say that some kinds of advice are above their judgements. Their task is to seek to understand the thrust of professional opinions, deal with conflicts within it and between different types of professional opinion, come to judgements and then explain and defend them to the public. No one said it is an easy task but nor is it a task that can be ducked because some of the advice is “scientific”.
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
“Ministers are there to assess all kinds of professional advice - legal, economic, scientific, military, diplomatic - and to make decisions based on it … come to judgements and then explain and defend them to the public. ” (JR)
Are Prime Ministers there to get ( edited - expletives deleted) (former) tabloid journalists to ’sex up’ dodgy dossiers written 10 years previously by foreign students and present it at ‘intelligence’?
It’s little wonder no one believes their prophecies of doom anymore. It’s blatently obvious that over the pond the legal advice was assessed and the WMD story was deemed to be the only way to make regime change in Iraq legal enough to proceed.
Who knows what advice Blair received on backing the Americans. You can’t blame people for trying to look beyond what Ministers say and try to work out what advice they have been getting, so that they can make up their own minds on whether said Ministers are competent or not.
I for one have given up listening to this governments’ ‘explainations’ of the decisions it takes.
Dear Sir,
Good points.
As for science being misused by some, one only needs to look at the Kyoto/global warming crowd.
I am not saying that global warming is a myth; however, I strongly object to the statement that it is man-made and that this statement has been proved beyond all reasonable and scientific doubt.
People like Al Gore, for example, want to make us believe that we’re a scourge on the planet. There are plenty of accounts by respected and reputable scientists who have admitted that their ‘dissenting voices’ have been silenced by their ‘peers’. As a result, they’re afraid to publish their findings on global warming whenever they contradict the ‘Bible of Kyoto’.
In short, I don’t buy the ’science’ of man-made global warming. The Earth has always gone through cycles of hot and cold; we’re just at the beginning of yet another hot cycle — and it would have happened with or without us and our ‘emissions’.
With all that blather about Kyoto and global warming, we’re losing sight of the real environmental issues, such as the pollution of our air and water.
People need water they can drink and air they can breathe without suffering an asthma attack. Yet with all efforts being concentrated on dealing with ‘man-made global warming’ no one is paying enough attention to cleaning up our environment anymore.
The problem with the ’science’ of Kyoto is that it’s designed to destroy the capitalist economies of the West. But nothing in the Kyoto agreement or the ’science’ attached to it actually helps to render our air and water cleaner. All eyes are trained on the temperature (rising or no) of our atmosphere, but actual pollution (the kind that kills and/or harms people NOW, not in 50 or 100 years’ time) is being ignored.
Keep up the good work, Mr Redwood.
Sincerely,
Werner Patels
My apologies: I entered a wrong URL for my website before (as a result it will lead visitors to a Page Not Found error — very sorry!).
As with most things, politicians use science as a political football - turn to the scientists when it suits you in an attempt to bolster the credibility of your argument, and ignore the scientists if they can’t help your cause.
Will this ever change? Unlikely.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com/
The interchangeability of climate change and global warming is one of the tricks of the global warming scam. It means any weather event can be blamed on carbon dioxide, whether it be heat or cold.
Taking the Central England Temperature record from 1659 as an example, we do not have significantly higher temperatures than we had in the 18th century, but we have not had the depths of cold in Winter that were experienced during the Little Ice Age.
Therefore average temperature has increased, but not by very much and is likely largely influenced by urbanisation compared to earlier centuries.
There are scientists whose sole job description entails proving the link between anthropogenic emissions and perceived global warming. They trawl through the literature and select the “bits that fit”, a case of seek and ye shall find.
NGO’s are embedded in government science agencies and in Universities. Science funding is geared to the acceptance of anthropogenic global warming and the dismissal of the major knowledge gaps and uncertainties that are evident when you read beyond the executive summaries and press releases. There is a massive publicity campaign, (some may say propaganda), emanating from Defra and aimed at schools.
Yet the main reason for the need to scare us into lower energy usage is the forthcoming energy gap, as ageing nuclear stations have to be de-commissioned and nothing is there to take their place.
Pressure from NGO’s has delayed new nuclear provision and because of the hysteria about carbon, coal is the name that mustn’t be spoken. Reality dictates that coal will have to be a fuel of the future and as more wind farms are built more conventional power stations will have to be built to provide backup. This is happening in Germany right now.
Electricity Generation (World Coal Institute)
In 2005 the UK produced 409 TWh of electricity. UK electricity production has experienced 19.8% growth over the last 10 years.
Projected Electricity Consumption Growth
A variety of forecasts exists. National Grid expect an annual increase of about 1.5%. The UK Government is expecting zero growth over the next few years, but this is reliant upon the success of energy efficiency measures. (Hence the need for global warming and carbon footprints).
In 2005, total UK production was 20 million tonnes, Overall coal consumption was 61.8 million tonnes, up (2.3%) of which 44 Mt was imported from Russia, Australia, Colombia, South Africa and Indonesia. Coal burn in major electricity generators accounted for over 80% of total coal use and some 34% of electricity generated came from coal. (DTI)
Coal Reserves
The UK has proved coal reserves of around 220 million tonnes however total reserves could be well in excess of 1 billion tonnes. (World Coal Institute)
Unfortunately I have received no funding from any energy company for making these comments.