Antarctic rescue shows climate ignorance - Monmouth MP David Davies

South Wales Argus: Antarctic rescue shows climate ignorance -  Monmouth MP David Davies Antarctic rescue shows climate ignorance - Monmouth MP David Davies

THE fate that befell a voyage to the Antarctic shows scientists don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change, says Monmouth MP David Davies.

The politician said world temperatures haven’t increased for 16 years and stressed he found the situation – where a group of scientists, journalists and others on a stricken ship had to be rescued by helicopter – quite funny.

The Conservative MP was reacting to comments made by Labour Monmouth candidate Ruth Jones about his stance.

Mr Davies said: “Ruth obviously speaks to a lot of members of the Labour Party in Monmouth who are no doubt unhappy I represent them.”

He added: “Perhaps she can explain the group of eminent scientists who went off to the South Pole got stuck in a wall of ice and had to be rescued.

“I think it shows that the scientists don’t know what they are talking about.

“They (temperatures) haven’t increased for 16 years. I just think it’s just quite funny. It’s indicative of the sort of foolishness of those who pretend to know what the weather is doing at the moment.”

l In a column for Total Politics, Mr Davies has claimed anonymous Tory MPs briefed against ex-chief whip Andrew Mitchell MP over the ‘Plebgate’ row.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:15pm Tue 7 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion...

Gosh - what a toughie...
hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion... Gosh - what a toughie... GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Frankfurt says...

I thought that the evidence of climate change was of a long term trend and gathered over a long period of time. Not to be dismissed on the evidence of one single incident at one moment in time. In fact increased ice floes may be a sign of warming (glacial ice falling into the sea as glaciers retreat).
I thought that the evidence of climate change was of a long term trend and gathered over a long period of time. Not to be dismissed on the evidence of one single incident at one moment in time. In fact increased ice floes may be a sign of warming (glacial ice falling into the sea as glaciers retreat). Frankfurt
  • Score: 1

7:11pm Tue 7 Jan 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

oh dear oh dear...Does David Davies do anything other than make bonkers and bizarre right-wing statements? feel sorry for the people in his constituency
oh dear oh dear...Does David Davies do anything other than make bonkers and bizarre right-wing statements? feel sorry for the people in his constituency BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: 2

8:14pm Tue 7 Jan 14

DavidMclean says...

What an idiot! So because there is still ice there isn't a problem. He'd only be convinced if there was no ice.

David Davies frequently bangs on about immigration. Fair enough Davey Boy, but when I last stopped in Monmouth I didn't meet one person with a foreign accent, therefore there isn't a problem and this 'shows the ignorance' of the anti-immigration lobby.

You certainly can't fault the logic Davey Boy. It's the same 'logic' you use when spouting your claptrap about the Antarctic.
What an idiot! So because there is still ice there isn't a problem. He'd only be convinced if there was no ice. David Davies frequently bangs on about immigration. Fair enough Davey Boy, but when I last stopped in Monmouth I didn't meet one person with a foreign accent, therefore there isn't a problem and this 'shows the ignorance' of the anti-immigration lobby. You certainly can't fault the logic Davey Boy. It's the same 'logic' you use when spouting your claptrap about the Antarctic. DavidMclean
  • Score: -4

8:34pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Limestonecowboy says...

The only idiots are the ones on the ship who went to see how cold the Antarctic is - yes its cold & didn't have to travel there to find out !
The only idiots are the ones on the ship who went to see how cold the Antarctic is - yes its cold & didn't have to travel there to find out ! Limestonecowboy
  • Score: 7

8:37pm Tue 7 Jan 14

whatintheworld says...

this guy is a bloody idiot.

it's like saying the chilean miners who got trapped in their mine obviously weren't very good at their job...
this guy is a bloody idiot. it's like saying the chilean miners who got trapped in their mine obviously weren't very good at their job... whatintheworld
  • Score: -3

9:26pm Tue 7 Jan 14

manofponty says...

Oh dear. Words fail me. Mr Davies would be best advised to stick to commenting on what he actually knows about. As for what this, well, answers on a postcard...
Oh dear. Words fail me. Mr Davies would be best advised to stick to commenting on what he actually knows about. As for what this, well, answers on a postcard... manofponty
  • Score: -4

7:52am Wed 8 Jan 14

bodlondon says...

DD was in favour of immigration when he married his Hungarian wife....

Man is a total idiot - feel sorry for the people of his consituency
DD was in favour of immigration when he married his Hungarian wife.... Man is a total idiot - feel sorry for the people of his consituency bodlondon
  • Score: 3

8:20am Wed 8 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

manofponty wrote:
Oh dear. Words fail me. Mr Davies would be best advised to stick to commenting on what he actually knows about. As for what this, well, answers on a postcard...
Warmism may be superstition , along the lines of "there's been a lot of deformed babies born in the village; therefore let's drown a couple of old women"
It may be a genuinely held belief i.e. "despite the evidence of fluctuations in temperature since records were kept, I am satisfied there is a NEW trend discernible to me and which cannot be attributed to anything but the use of carbon fuels since the Industrial Revolution"
I don't suppose it matters much, though all the ad hominem nitwits above clearly belong to the superstition group and would have had a merry time in Salem, no doubt.
I suppose what matters is what the warmists believe the remedy (apart from drowning old ladies or building more chapels) is. And if it includes silly windmills and energy taxes, then be off on your broomsticks.
[quote][p][bold]manofponty[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. Words fail me. Mr Davies would be best advised to stick to commenting on what he actually knows about. As for what this, well, answers on a postcard...[/p][/quote]Warmism may be superstition , along the lines of "there's been a lot of deformed babies born in the village; therefore let's drown a couple of old women" It may be a genuinely held belief i.e. "despite the evidence of fluctuations in temperature since records were kept, I am satisfied there is a NEW trend discernible to me and which cannot be attributed to anything but the use of carbon fuels since the Industrial Revolution" I don't suppose it matters much, though all the ad hominem nitwits above clearly belong to the superstition group and would have had a merry time in Salem, no doubt. I suppose what matters is what the warmists believe the remedy (apart from drowning old ladies or building more chapels) is. And if it includes silly windmills and energy taxes, then be off on your broomsticks. Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

10:00am Wed 8 Jan 14

_Bryan_ says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion... Gosh - what a toughie...
The scientific method involves adapting a theory to fit the facts. The global warming lobby instead seems intent on ignoring the facts that don't fit their theory.

Climate change has now become a matter of faith rather than science, complete with believers and deniers, both sides trying to twist facts to fit opinons.

At least the green lobby are unlikely to burn heretics at the stake...
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion... Gosh - what a toughie...[/p][/quote]The scientific method involves adapting a theory to fit the facts. The global warming lobby instead seems intent on ignoring the facts that don't fit their theory. Climate change has now become a matter of faith rather than science, complete with believers and deniers, both sides trying to twist facts to fit opinons. At least the green lobby are unlikely to burn heretics at the stake... _Bryan_
  • Score: 3

2:20pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

_Bryan_ wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion... Gosh - what a toughie...
The scientific method involves adapting a theory to fit the facts. The global warming lobby instead seems intent on ignoring the facts that don't fit their theory.

Climate change has now become a matter of faith rather than science, complete with believers and deniers, both sides trying to twist facts to fit opinons.

At least the green lobby are unlikely to burn heretics at the stake...
No, just give them hypothermia with senseless "green" fuel taxes.
[quote][p][bold]_Bryan_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion... Gosh - what a toughie...[/p][/quote]The scientific method involves adapting a theory to fit the facts. The global warming lobby instead seems intent on ignoring the facts that don't fit their theory. Climate change has now become a matter of faith rather than science, complete with believers and deniers, both sides trying to twist facts to fit opinons. At least the green lobby are unlikely to burn heretics at the stake...[/p][/quote]No, just give them hypothermia with senseless "green" fuel taxes. Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

3:23pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Gareth says...

Frankfurt wrote:
I thought that the evidence of climate change was of a long term trend and gathered over a long period of time. Not to be dismissed on the evidence of one single incident at one moment in time. In fact increased ice floes may be a sign of warming (glacial ice falling into the sea as glaciers retreat).
I don't understand how glacial ice falling into the sea is caused by a retreating glacier. Surely it's the opposite?

Glaciers move downhill and forward; pushed along by gravity. So when the tip reaches the end of the land, it has nowhere to go but down.

It's just doing what glaciers do! Water does the same thing and we call it a waterfall; and we don't say that these are caused by the river retreating, do we?

What am I missing?
[quote][p][bold]Frankfurt[/bold] wrote: I thought that the evidence of climate change was of a long term trend and gathered over a long period of time. Not to be dismissed on the evidence of one single incident at one moment in time. In fact increased ice floes may be a sign of warming (glacial ice falling into the sea as glaciers retreat).[/p][/quote]I don't understand how glacial ice falling into the sea is caused by a retreating glacier. Surely it's the opposite? Glaciers move downhill and forward; pushed along by gravity. So when the tip reaches the end of the land, it has nowhere to go but down. It's just doing what glaciers do! Water does the same thing and we call it a waterfall; and we don't say that these are caused by the river retreating, do we? What am I missing? Gareth
  • Score: 1

5:51pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

Gareth wrote:
Frankfurt wrote:
I thought that the evidence of climate change was of a long term trend and gathered over a long period of time. Not to be dismissed on the evidence of one single incident at one moment in time. In fact increased ice floes may be a sign of warming (glacial ice falling into the sea as glaciers retreat).
I don't understand how glacial ice falling into the sea is caused by a retreating glacier. Surely it's the opposite?

Glaciers move downhill and forward; pushed along by gravity. So when the tip reaches the end of the land, it has nowhere to go but down.

It's just doing what glaciers do! Water does the same thing and we call it a waterfall; and we don't say that these are caused by the river retreating, do we?

What am I missing?
I think it's faith you're lacking.
Vitalstatistix has only one fear "that the sky may fall on his head tomorrow";
The Chief in Asterix would undoubtedly have been a warmist.
[quote][p][bold]Gareth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankfurt[/bold] wrote: I thought that the evidence of climate change was of a long term trend and gathered over a long period of time. Not to be dismissed on the evidence of one single incident at one moment in time. In fact increased ice floes may be a sign of warming (glacial ice falling into the sea as glaciers retreat).[/p][/quote]I don't understand how glacial ice falling into the sea is caused by a retreating glacier. Surely it's the opposite? Glaciers move downhill and forward; pushed along by gravity. So when the tip reaches the end of the land, it has nowhere to go but down. It's just doing what glaciers do! Water does the same thing and we call it a waterfall; and we don't say that these are caused by the river retreating, do we? What am I missing?[/p][/quote]I think it's faith you're lacking. Vitalstatistix has only one fear "that the sky may fall on his head tomorrow"; The Chief in Asterix would undoubtedly have been a warmist. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

6:04pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Hywel Jones says...

How can anyone have confidence in this MP? But, for some, voting in a muppet puppet might have some advantages . . .
How can anyone have confidence in this MP? But, for some, voting in a muppet puppet might have some advantages . . . Hywel Jones
  • Score: 5

2:23pm Thu 9 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

_Bryan_ wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion... Gosh - what a toughie...
The scientific method involves adapting a theory to fit the facts. The global warming lobby instead seems intent on ignoring the facts that don't fit their theory.

Climate change has now become a matter of faith rather than science, complete with believers and deniers, both sides trying to twist facts to fit opinons.

At least the green lobby are unlikely to burn heretics at the stake...
Just plain wrong. The IPCC has stated that global warming is unequivocal. That's their word, not mine and by definition isn't open to any ambiguity. The only thing that was in dispute is whether or not the rise in temperature is a result of natural cycles, or manmade. The IPCC also announced last year that they are 95%+ certain of the latter. Now, that means that either there's a huge conspiracy being perpetrated by the entire international science community, and supported by a long list of governments, who for years have been pouring billions into geoengineering projects to absorb CO2, or deflect the suns radiation, in order to combat the rise in temperatures, (which neatly accounts for the slower rise in the last decade) - or - David Davies is a twonk who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm no expert on global warming, and certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn it's all an elaborate conspiracy - but I think that Occam's Razor applies pretty well here, and the truth of the matter is that Dopey Davies is just a twonk, who likes to say ridiculously over-the-top and controversial things in public to get himself noticed. This being just another example. I used to think he had a bit of an Alan B'stard fetish - but now I'm starting to wonder if it isn't Piers Fletcher Dervish he has a thing for....

As for the scientific method adapting e theory to fit the facts - err, yeah... that's kind of the whole idea. Or did you miss the significance of the word 'facts' in your statement?
[quote][p][bold]_Bryan_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: hmmm... science and the scientific method against the tory twonk and his opinion... Gosh - what a toughie...[/p][/quote]The scientific method involves adapting a theory to fit the facts. The global warming lobby instead seems intent on ignoring the facts that don't fit their theory. Climate change has now become a matter of faith rather than science, complete with believers and deniers, both sides trying to twist facts to fit opinons. At least the green lobby are unlikely to burn heretics at the stake...[/p][/quote]Just plain wrong. The IPCC has stated that global warming is unequivocal. That's their word, not mine and by definition isn't open to any ambiguity. The only thing that was in dispute is whether or not the rise in temperature is a result of natural cycles, or manmade. The IPCC also announced last year that they are 95%+ certain of the latter. Now, that means that either there's a huge conspiracy being perpetrated by the entire international science community, and supported by a long list of governments, who for years have been pouring billions into geoengineering projects to absorb CO2, or deflect the suns radiation, in order to combat the rise in temperatures, (which neatly accounts for the slower rise in the last decade) - or - David Davies is a twonk who doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm no expert on global warming, and certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn it's all an elaborate conspiracy - but I think that Occam's Razor applies pretty well here, and the truth of the matter is that Dopey Davies is just a twonk, who likes to say ridiculously over-the-top and controversial things in public to get himself noticed. This being just another example. I used to think he had a bit of an Alan B'stard fetish - but now I'm starting to wonder if it isn't Piers Fletcher Dervish he has a thing for.... As for the scientific method adapting e theory to fit the facts - err, yeah... that's kind of the whole idea. Or did you miss the significance of the word 'facts' in your statement? GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 1

3:23pm Thu 9 Jan 14

_Bryan_ says...

Because the IPCC have said it is so we have to accept this as fact. Much as previous generations accepted the existence of the devil and witches because the Vatican said they existed.

A look behind the politically motivated conclusions of the latest IPCC report shows that the document is based on flimsy data, using climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate, whilst they also disregard any data which doesn't conform with the preconceived notions that a) there is global warming and b) this has a man made cause.
Because the IPCC have said it is so we have to accept this as fact. Much as previous generations accepted the existence of the devil and witches because the Vatican said they existed. A look behind the politically motivated conclusions of the latest IPCC report shows that the document is based on flimsy data, using climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate, whilst they also disregard any data which doesn't conform with the preconceived notions that a) there is global warming and b) this has a man made cause. _Bryan_
  • Score: -1

3:44pm Thu 9 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

_Bryan_ wrote:
Because the IPCC have said it is so we have to accept this as fact. Much as previous generations accepted the existence of the devil and witches because the Vatican said they existed.

A look behind the politically motivated conclusions of the latest IPCC report shows that the document is based on flimsy data, using climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate, whilst they also disregard any data which doesn't conform with the preconceived notions that a) there is global warming and b) this has a man made cause.
So it's out with the tin hats then is it?
[quote][p][bold]_Bryan_[/bold] wrote: Because the IPCC have said it is so we have to accept this as fact. Much as previous generations accepted the existence of the devil and witches because the Vatican said they existed. A look behind the politically motivated conclusions of the latest IPCC report shows that the document is based on flimsy data, using climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate, whilst they also disregard any data which doesn't conform with the preconceived notions that a) there is global warming and b) this has a man made cause.[/p][/quote]So it's out with the tin hats then is it? GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 1

6:31pm Thu 9 Jan 14

welshmen says...

The weather is hard to predict, I would have though so is climate change, your either for or against what scientists come up with, scientists, they have £ Grants to compile the data, so the ones who give the grants might want the data saying it's getting warmer or others it's getting colder, from that information Governments are able to take more of our (money) TAX off us....
The weather is hard to predict, I would have though so is climate change, your either for or against what scientists come up with, scientists, they have £ Grants to compile the data, so the ones who give the grants might want the data saying it's getting warmer or others it's getting colder, from that information Governments are able to take more of our (money) TAX off us.... welshmen
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree