Further response to Philip Circus' opinions on climate change

by Andrew Skudder

Two weeks after it appeared, Philip Circus' column about climate change is still attracting responses in the letters page of the West Sussex County Times.


First there was a letter from a C. Morris of Horsham, given the title "Has Mr Circus got his head in the clouds?". I won't reproduce it in full, but here are a few choice quotes from it to give the flavour:

It is good that Mr Circus has made clear his controversial opinion that there is no global warming threat. We need to be warned that there are still a few people in responsible positions who turn a blind eye to the evidence that science offers.

And

Mr Circus states 'carbon dioxide is vital to our survival'. So is water - but too much and we drown!

After that is my own letter, which I will reproduce in full despite it being rather less to-the-point than C. Morris' effort. It was sent in the previous week, but presumably lost in the battle for space with all the other irate letters about Philip Circus. The snappy headline was added by the paper...

In tune with the opinions of the majority of grassroots in the Tories

In your editorial last week you wrote about having a clear statement from Francis Maude on development at Gatwick airport, while also referring to Philip Circus's "voice of dissent".

Mr. Maude may be repeating the official Conservative party line, along with David Cameron, but I fear that within the wider Tory party they are the dissenting voices. A recent survey by the Fabian Society of the top ten Tory bloggers (as identified by Total Politics magazine) found that all of them either believe that climate change is not a threat or that it has no human cause. All of them reject David Cameron's view that the issue should be an urgent priority if their party were in government.

In this respect Philip Circus is more in line with mainstream Conservative opinion when he refers to a 'global warming bandwagon' and 'the bad science of global warming' and dismisses anybody who thinks otherwise (like his party leader and local MP?) as 'eco-fascists'.

For example, Iain Dale (aspiring Tory MP) says that he is 'unconvinced by the Stern report', Douglas Carswell MP talks about a 'lunatic consensus on climate change', and Dan Hannan (MEP and darling of the Tory party) asks why we should let the Met Office 'speak with such sacerdotal authority about what the temperature will be a century from now.'

These people are all influential in the Conservative party and, like Philip Circus, are in tune with the opinions of the majority of grassroots in the party, who will be represented by many backbenchers who need to be accommodated should the Tories control government.

Incidentally, I do hope I am not the only reader to sincerely hope that when he is wearing his lawyer's hat, Philip Circus pays more attention to evidence and expert opinion than he does when scribbling his weekly column.

Andrew Skudder
Labour Party prospective parliamentary candidate (and eco-fascist?)

That was pasted from my original e-mail so there are a few small changes where the sub-editors have adjusted for style and corrected my reference to their 'Comment' as an editorial. No complaints about that, but I am a shade disappointed that they left out the "(and eco-fascist)" from the signature.

As you can see, my one point of disagreement with C. Morris is that they are optimistic that Circus is a maverick within his party, while I take the more pessimistic view that he is actually a lot more representative of the rank-and-file membership that Maude & Cameron would have to keep happy should they ever form a government, which I am still optimistic they will not be in a position to do.