Ed Davey plays the 97% consensus trick on BBC R4 in front of Lawson

Posted: June 3, 2013 by tchannon in alarmism, media, Politics, propaganda, sea ice, Shale gas, Uncertainty, weather

At about 22:30 BST, 4th June 2013 on BBC Radio 4, Davey and Lawson were together with the subject, well, you can guess.

Unfortunately Davey came across much better, sad to say Lawson sounded old, not up to it, he needs to take a back seat, find someone younger to match a young politician.

Lawson also failed to counter with information in support of what he said. Words are not enough.

The right individual could have wiped Davey because his first ploy was a 97% consensus, which if picked up would have been an immediate demand for details given there are at least two con-trick 97% “papers”, then the fun would have started. Lawson merely waved this aside as “old”, possibly not knowing of the recent item but which was Davey on about? If he didn’t know there is more than one…

Someone please find out who is tutoring and briefing Davey.

The ghastly BBC R4 web page is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ might be a recording. (the site has huge Accessibility issues)

Post by Tim Channon [edited slightly in hindsight]


[update: Rog has pointed out in comments I was mistaken over the identity of the 97% claim being used, sorry. I will make an excuse, was going from cold memory with no way of checking. –Tim]

  1. Scute says:

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks their web site is constructed so as to prevent people from listening. I gave up on it about 18 months ago when the new site was in beta. Went round in circles. To be fair I did just click on your link, then clicked ‘listen live’ and bang, it was streaming within 2 seconds. Impressive.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Lawson did sound old. Still has all buttons on though. With age comes wisdom in some. Got Davey to admit green subsidies are bribes. Lawson right on target with shale gas too. Agree he wasn’t up to speed with Cook et al 97% paper, but no worry, IPCC lead author Richard Tol is ripping it to shreds on twitter at the moment.

    Davey claims he wants to talk about the science, then immediately falls back on specious 97% consensus argument. Laughable. Obama has done the same. Tol’s final write up will be fun.

  3. vukcevic says:

    Lawson sounded old, not up to it, he needs to take a back seat, find someone younger to match a young politician.

    Nigella will do. 🙂

  4. tchannon says:

    Yes Rog, the bribe bit was a good move… shale gas though, lady presenter got the wobbles.

    Now, that is where I might be wrong, Lawson is a veteran and knew how to fix Davey.

  5. Paul says:

    I’ve always thought this about Lawson. His heart is in the right place but he seems incapable of putting forward a cogent argument. He tends to stumble and appears not too well briefed. Dellers might be a better alternative or perhaps the true master whose name I dare not say……..Marc Morano.
    Christ i’ve just said it.

  6. Lord Beaverbrook says:

    Direct link to program

    Starting aprox 33 mins in.

    Now that Ed Davey is on record quoting Cookes 97% it will be easier to get an MSM publication for a knock down of the paper.

  7. tchannon says:

    Careful M’Lord, I don’t recall him stating which 97%, might be Cook, might be the older one.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Tim, Davey stated it studied ‘12,000 peer reviewed papers’. It’s definitely the treehouse kidz paper he’s referring to.

  9. Lord Beaverbrook says:

    I get the sneaking suspicion that Davey is being set up for a fall, give a man enough rope etc. There may be moves afoot for a cleansing of certain departments in preparation for a more solid election stance.

  10. The trouble is that the 97% claim is being repeatedly spread across the media.

    I have seen it twice this week in the Mail and Telegraph, both almost identical wording

    ” A recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree that human activities are causing the planet to warm.”

    Whether Richard Tol and the rest of us tear it to shreds or not is irrelevant, the damage is done and will continue to be done as the lie gets repeated over and over again.

    I will be writing to the PCC today to see if they can force a retraction.

  11. oldbrew says:

    ‘Someone please find out who is tutoring and briefing Davey’

    Could be Damian Carrington? Davey cancelled an interview on LBC radio – Iain Dale comments:

    ‘This evening on my LBC show we discussed Ed Davey’s outrageous idea that newspapers and broadcasters should refrain from giving a platform to climate change sceptics. How very ‘liberal’ of him.’


  12. michael hart says:

    I never found Lawson a very convincing speaker when he was chancellor. That the BBC devotes so much time to attacking him and the GWPF only further convinces me that from top to bottom, with a few exceptions, the BBC is still utterly clueless about science. I think they probably believe many of the accusations that it is all paid lobbying by evil oil corporations.

    Ed Davey, well, what can I say? He is like a swimmer who has been swept out to sea by the tide. He knows he is out of his depth, and cannot even see dry land. No wonder he is happy to climb aboard a “97%” rescue-vessel piloted by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli.

    Unfortunately, like the Owl and the Pussy-cat, they also went to sea in a sieve, they did. In a sieve they went to sea.

  13. tchannon says:

    Rog, okay, I didn’t notice the 12,000 papers.

    This is why I was worried about writing the wrong thing, no way to check what had been said.

  14. Lord Beaverbrook says:

    “Ed Davey is a disgrace and an embarrassment – by some way (and it’s not like there’s any shortage of competition) the most damaging and dangerous minister in Cameron’s Coalition of the useless. Why is he not being called account for this farrago of nonsense? Why aren’t the true Conservatives in the Coalition demanding that he be sacked? How can any government which genuinely cares about the state of our economy, our countryside and people’s falling standards of living allow this anti-scientific, green ideological nonsense to hijack the political agenda?”

    That’s a good start.

  15. tchannon says:

    A surprising take from The Independent, h/t Paul Matthews, BH comments


  16. Brian H says:

    Both 97% papers used the same technique: shave down the cited population to get rid of contrary opinions, misinterpret most of the remaining responses, and misstate the residual.