Another Lib Dem “Expert”, This time Getting it Wrong on Climate Change

Lucy Care, Lib Dem Activist and Climate “Expert.”

Lucy Care, Lib Dem Activist and Climate “Expert.”

On Friday 27th September 2013, I had an opportunity to speak to BBC Radio Derby, in an interview on Climate Change. Before the show, the station phoned and asked if I’d be OK to go up against “an expert”. Naturally I agreed.

I can’t say I expected Al Gore, but it did sound as if they had some serious scientific input (which I would have felt quite confident to deal with). I was all prepared with sound-bites: “Pay 1000 scientists to find evidence of man-made climate change, and they probably will”; “Hiding the hiatus”; “Defending the failure of computer models”; “Spurious precision of their 95% confidence figure”.

It turned out that their “expert” was Lucy Care of the Derby Climate Change Alliance. I recognised the name, as Lucy Care also stood for the Lib Dems in the Derby North Constituency at the last General Election.  I remember the campaign well, primarily because of the certainty with which Lucy seemed convinced she was going to win. She ended up being pushed comprehensively into third place.

After our interview had finished, it became apparent that her foresight on climate change was as ill considered as her electoral predictions in 2010.

One of the more astonishing quotes from Lucy came when she was quizzed on the science behind the flawed IPCC Report, which had been published earlier that day. She remarked “as individuals we don’t need to scrutinise that science, other people have done it for us, it’s very clear that they have come to conclusions and it’s a very authoratative report”.

In my recent blog post, outlining the cracks in the IPCC Report, I noted that a significant proportion of the IPCC “experts” were not scientists at all, but green campaigners and eco-activists.

So you’re right Lucy, other people have scrutinised the science for us, and published a report to suit their own preconceptions.

The job of responsible politicians and responsible political parties is to do exactly what Lucy Care discounted, to scrutinise the science for ourselves. Her opinion seems to echo the Lib Dem approach to our membership of the European Union, discounting the mounting evidence on why Britain would be Better Off Out, instead simply choosing to sing along with the Europhile chorus.

Not only are her predictions for the future wrong, but Lucy seems just as misguided about the current climate. “I dont think it matters how much you believe the science or not, we can see it happening around us” Lucy said. But the fact is that global temperatures have been flat for sixteen years.

Clearly Lucy can’t see whats happening around us, a problem shared by the majority of Lib Dems. Perhaps that’s the reason why the number of Lib Dem members has fallen below that of UKIP in recent months. As the membeship of three tired old parties continues to fall, UKIP numbers are growing week by week. Why? Because UKIP is a party who are not afraid to scrutinise the quetionable science of climate change. Who are not afraid to fight against our membership of the European Union. Who are not afraid to talk openly about the need to bring controlled immigration back to our shores. UKIP is a party of common sense.

Next year, I will be out campaigning in the towns and cities of the East Midlands, including Derby, for the European Elections. Our aim is to win those elections, and to put the Liberal Democrats back in their box.

Listen to the full interview below.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Another Lib Dem “Expert”, This time Getting it Wrong on Climate Change

  1. David H. Walker says:

    Back in 1995, the UN “scientists” said Earth’s mean atmospheric temperature could increase between 33 to 38 degrees Fahrenheit. Obviously there have been no observations to validate that “consensus”.

    Roger, it would be nice to witness the climate change pushers engaged in a conversation about the history of bad human behavior; about using fear and malice as the means to submit the people to the whims of the established and the aligned. That’s where we’ll find the real science of “climate change”.

  2. To be fair to her Al Gore is the ignoramus who said on TV that the temperature 2 km down is “millions of degrees” so she is perhaps little worse than him.

    Although Gore is probably wiser than her in continuously refusing any offer of debate in which 2 sides are represented – relying instead on the media ensuring none of that opposition stuff is allowed

  3. vanessa coleman says:

    Hi Roger,

    Just to say you were brilliant at the conference and that my hometown is Derby, now living in Bournemouth.

    I wish you all the best,

    Vanessa Coleman

    Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:53:01 +0000 To: vanessa847a@hotmail.co.uk

  4. Meanwhile, the UK is headed for the 2nd coldest year since 1996. Only 2010 is likely to be colder.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/england-on-course-for-2nd-coldest-year-since-1996/

  5. flinthesky says:

    Roger, as a fairly recent contributor to your blog I feel I must tell you my, to myself, absolute. There is no such entity as a climate scientist as a scientist must work to known variables. You can have a climate observer, a climate historian but not a climate scientist, there are too many unquantifiable variables for it to be called a science. What it should actually be described as is, at best, climate conjecture, what it really is, is politically motivated opportunism, on message or perish. It’s god’s gift to politics, make the electorate feel bad about itself with the bonus of tax revenue opportunity. Empires have been built, investments have been made and reputations have been staked and as such it’s not going to die without a fight, and it’ll be a big one.

  6. mst007 says:

    Listening to that interview was a perfect ending to a great week. Keep up the good work Roger!

  7. Richard111 says:

    Roger, may I add a question to ask when you have another opportunity to chat with a ‘scientist’?
    “How is it the atmosphere is capable of ‘heat trapping’ only with ‘greenhouse gases’ present?” This implies a ‘greenhouse gas’ free atmosphere is no longer bound by the laws of science governing conduction and convection. Very strange that.

  8. Please keep up the good work – we are all right behind you. Not only the Libdems are walking blindly into a very dark night.

  9. cosmic says:

    This Lucy Care comes across as rather a ditzy person.

    There’s not much need to criticise the “science” of the IPCC in detail when it’s perfectly clear that its scaremongering predictions have been shown to be worthless and much of its output is based on activists, in some cases WWF employees, quoting WWF literature. These are not by any stretch of the imagination scientists dispassionately reviewing the evidence and producing authoritative reports.

    I’d say we have reached the stage where the IPCC can be easily dismissed as risible. Anyone claiming its reports should be taken as the basis for far reaching actions, which disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable, can be presented accurately as both uncaring and easily deceived – dupes taken in by a scare story.

  10. Joseph Croft says:

    another good article Roger , i am sure Lucy recieves a wage from the climate change alliance , so its in her interest to keep this topic going , i read another article about climate and it said over 2 million years we have had 8 episodes of warming and freezing , and at times warmer than it is now ,

  11. Joseph Croft says:

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change
    cick on the link ,or cut and paste , and you will read about how Co2 used to be 15 times higher than now

    • Quite right Joseph. Although today’s atmospheric CO2 level is higher than in 1950 (and thank heaven it is — it promotes plant growth, bio-mass formation and crop yields), it’s actually very low by geo-historical standards. And over the longer term there’s no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. During the more recent period when there is such a correlation, the temperature change PRECEDES the CO2 change. So if anything, temperature drives CO2, not vice-versa.

  12. Me_Again says:

    Let me start by saying I am an AGW sceptic, more so after the last IPCC fabrication document.
    However, today is the second anniversary of my 4kw solar installation. I have many readings of its output over the 2 years and have slotted them into a spreadsheet which I will offer anyone as proof.

    I have a large house in which I live with my wife and two late teenage sons. Prior to our installation I was the grumpy git who was always saying ‘turn that light off!’ bit like the ARP warden in Dad’s army my wife tells me. Well we were using between 15 and 18 units per day year round with very little seasonal variation. Prices were rising [good old privatisation]. So I went for a free rent-a -roof installation [could not afford the then £26,000 it would have cost me]

    On the first anniversary, 6th Oct 2011, the daily average consumption had dropped to 5.93 units per day. I think it was a pretty poor year for sunlight hours on the whole. Today on the second anniversary with the sun still shining [I shouldn’t really take the reading until this evening but hey ho], the average daily consumption has gone down to 3.79 units per day. You have a maths degree so I won’t bother with the calculations, suffice to say a massive decrease in my domestic electricity bills. A total of near enough 8000kwh generated over two years [sorry I didn’t see the ‘cum’ reading last year but again maths will proportion it out]

    Now I lament that FITs have been paid to the company who rent my roof but I do not regret taking advantage of a scheme which is available, I only descry that it is available in this way.

    Not talking about carbon
    Not talking about renewables
    Just talking about ordinary people and their bills.

    If all these new builds had solar panels built into them with no FITs on offer, just usage, and there was perhaps generous non FIT assistance [low cost loans for example] to any who wanted them, a huge number of people could benefit now and in the future.

    UKIP should embrace what is good and practical about solar technology for domestic use. I advocate solar at least on domestic installations, I don’t advocate it for commercial [unless on the roof of a building already constructed or constructed with solar designed in].

    Given the Chinese have kicked the bottom out of solar panel costs I think much could be made of this for UKIP to show we aren’t fossil fuel demons, as painted by the media and our opponents, we are the reasonable ones, we are the practical and pragmatic ones.

    You have my email Roger, I am happy to send you the spreadsheet, I doubt there are many better sources of accurate info on this subject -untainted info that is

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s