Steve Davison is a founder of Politics in Pubs, a network we’ve joined. Steve also writes and releases videos as Baffled by Science. We speak to Steve about these and more.
“One of the things that stood out was how conservatives, socialists, libertarians and even communists, could enjoy a drink together and have a healthy, friendly debate – something increasingly unusual today”
We first meet you through Politics in Pubs, can you tell our readers a bit about the group and how you got involved?
Certainly. Politics in Pubs is a free speech group that meets monthly in pubs around the country to discuss topic political and cultural issues. Our members come from across the political spectrum and in general feel that the current political system is broken.
The founding members were involved in the Manchester Leavers of Britain campaign and forged a great relationship during that time. One of the things that stood out was how conservatives, socialists, libertarians and even communists, could enjoy a drink together and have a healthy, friendly debate – something increasingly unusual today.
When the referendum result came in, we wondered whether there would be a way to keep the group going. After discussions over a BBQ one afternoon, t’committee (as we came to be called) decided that yes, we really valued the forum and wanted to keep it going.
However, we couldn’t be called “Leavers” anymore, particularly as we wanted to grow the group irrespective of political affiliation and Brexit preference. The name “Politics in Pubs” fell out of a brainstorming session during the BBQ. It answers two obvious questions: what do we do and where do we do it? We also really wanted to help preserve our pub culture when the hospitality industry is under threat as never before.
Our members value the freedom to question and to speak openly – we don’t record meetings or name individuals if they prefer us not. Many of our members are active in other areas such as voluntary community groups, campaigning groups and a variety of political parties. These are people who do give a damn and want to have an impact on Britain’s future direction. We look for opportunities to influence, learn from each other as well as network with groups and organisations across the country who share similar aims to our own – which is how we met your group.
We carried on meeting in a variety of pubs around North Manchester, beginning in November 2021. We struggled at first because with the referendum over we didn’t have a focus for discussion but kept the meetings going with members leading discussion on topics that we chose at each meeting. Then in January 2023 we had our first guest speaker, and this became the model for future meetings. Attendance grew to a regular 20-30 people, and we started a new group in Newcastle which has become very popular.
In terms of people on t’committee, we have a great chairperson who keeps meetings running smoothly. We also have an amazing secretary who produces engaging write-ups of every meeting and a keen treasurer who looks after our funds which all come from voluntary member donations. My background is in IT, so I put together our website which acts as the hub for communicating with members and subscribers around the country.
What have been some highlights from your discussions and debates?
That’s a really hard one. We are very lucky to have had some fantastic speakers leading really challenging debates on a wide variety of controversial topics including the pandemic response, gender identity ideology, 15-minute cities, Net Zero, trust in the media, assisted dying, devolution, the future of NATO and voting reform.
We have also provided a forum for political parties to let us know what they are up to and have been following Reform UK and the SDP for some time. We have struggled to get speakers from the mainstream parties – though they are very welcome. That said, we do have a meeting with Graham Stringer coming up, but he’s a bit of a maverick in the Labour Party, someone who isn’t afraid to speak his mind.
Our most recent discussion on whether AI can save democracy was fascinating and caused a lot of heated debate. However, there have been disappointments. A local humanist came to tell us that god doesn’t exist. He also said we should follow the experts who say the world is doomed by climate change. He just couldn’t see the irony!
“there is plenty of evidence contradicting the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming. This was the first time I really came to appreciate how much we are lied to by the media and politicians”
You have a Substack and YouTube channel ‘Baffled by Science’ what’s the idea behind the channel?
At the moment “Baffled by Science” is more a vehicle to help me maintain my sanity than a serious attempt to influence the world! I have been interested in climate change for over 30 years. I studied physics at university, gaining a D.Phil. in physics in the 80’s. Although my area of research wasn’t directly in climate physics I worked in related areas and have a good grasp of the issues involved in analysing data and building climate models.
For quite a while I went along with the mainstream narrative because I just hadn’t had time to look at climate specifically. I didn’t need to – there was plenty of information out there and I had no reason to distrust it. That changed suddenly as a result of a challenge over a beer in the pub.
I suggested to a friend that we needed to take every opportunity to go skiing as a result of global warming meaning there soon wouldn’t be any more snow in the alps. This still makes me cringe when I think about this. Anyway, my friend was having none of it, simply saying there was plenty of data to the contrary if only I looked. I took the challenge and went off thinking how easy this was going to be.
I will never forget the shock of actually doing the research for the first time and very quickly finding multiple sources of data and analysis showing that there is plenty of evidence contradicting the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming. This was the first time I really came to appreciate how much we are lied to by the media and politicians. Once that happens you start to question everything you see and read.
This doesn’t mean that the climate isn’t changing of course. However, I found that it isn’t changing as much as the models predict and isn’t changing unusually – looking back over longer timescales. I also found that there are plenty of natural explanations for observed warming.
None of this is communicated to the public but policy makers have channelled trillions of dollars into projects around the world, supposedly to save the planet. Many of these projects will likely make things worse since the renewable energy brings many issues, not least being expensive, intermittent and challenging to balance on the grid. And don’t get me started on EVs. Clearly many people support this with the best intentions but equally there are many people with vested interests making fortunes on the back of things like carbon trading and renewable subsidies.
Rather than try and convince people about the realistic state of climate science and its dismal communication, I decided to start blogging about the consequences of implementing policies based on a false premise. I have been highly influenced in this respect by organisations like the Global Policy Warming Foundation, the Renewable Energy Foundation, along with energy bloggers like David Turver, Kathryn Porter, Richard Lyon and Paul Homewood.
I don’t expect it to become wildly popular but the process of writing and video making, employing AI tools to assist with the research and video production, is a very creative and enjoyable experience. It will be some time before I have that gold plaque on the bookcase, but I’ll keep at it.
“This is interesting as a stress test, but clearly unrealistic as the most likely scenario. It is disturbing therefore that advocacy groups, the media and policy makers concentrate on this scenario. In the process we generate hopelessly unrealistic policy, such as Net Zero by 2030”
You have a new video on ‘Hot climate models and unrealistic assumptions’, can you tell us what it’s about?
This is one of the many areas where science results are communicated badly to the public, often deliberately so. Unless you have been involved in writing computer models it can be very difficult to appreciate how to respond to the results they generate.
A good case in point would be the pandemic predictions produced by Niall Fergusson at Imperial College. It turns out that his model assumptions were unrealistic. However, at no point did he make clear to policy makers the uncertainty inherent in his forecasts. It’s hard to estimate the incredible damage done by not challenging his assumptions. We need to appreciate that models are at best a method to better understand what might happen if certain other things happen.
Climate models are exactly the same. They are made up of physically based equations (our best guesses for how climate really works) as well as multiple assumptions about how different parts of the climate interact. These include thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiative transfer, cloud microphysics and geophysics (my specialism) plus a several more.
However, under no circumstances can they be regarded as providing an true and accurate representation of the climate – it is simply too complex. These models are refined regularly, but recently some of them were found to run hot, predicting unrealistic high temperatures. For the first time, scientists on both sides of the debate agreed that this is a problem.
On top of these equations, the models are also run under a number of scenarios which describe how socio-economic and technical factors will change over time. These scenarios are called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and describe future high, medium and low emissions scenarios. The worst-case scenario, RCP 8.5, imagines a future with continued high emissions including a massive increase in coal use. This is interesting as a stress test, but clearly unrealistic as the most likely scenario. It is disturbing therefore that advocacy groups, the media and policy makers concentrate on this scenario. In the process we generate hopelessly unrealistic policy, such as Net Zero by 2030.
The societal consequences of this will be profound as I discuss in another video “A Review of the iron law of energy”. Not only are we squandering huge resources tackling a non-existent problem, but we are also starving capital from projects that could make guaranteed improvements to human health and prosperity.
“the new wind farm is being developed to meet an arbitrary government target. It will produce very expensive energy as a result of public subsidies. It will have no impact on the global temperature”
Your involved in a big campaign against a new wind farm between Edenfield, Rawtenstall and Rochdale. What are your main objections to the wind farm?
Fundamentally the new wind farm is being developed to meet an arbitrary government target. It will produce very expensive energy as a result of public subsidies. It will have no impact on the global temperature but will do massive damage to our unique peat moorland – something the government has separately committed to protecting!
It will be located either side of and cross an old, cobbled road called the Cotton Famine Road. This is a reminder of the harsh times cotton workers had to endure during the Cotton Famine in their support of the abolition of slavery and is unique in linking the American Civil War to social changes in our own country. In order to alleviate the poverty, the mill workers were engaged in a huge public works project, laying over 300,000 stone setts across the moor. Walking or riding up this road is a really moving experience. The wind farm will completely destroy the peace and tranquillity of this incredible heritage asset.
Our local MPs, Labour, are strongly supportive of the proposals. This includes my own MP, Elsie Blundell, who described the importance of the Cotton Famine Road in her maiden speech! Both local councils, Labour controlled, are desperate for the funding that the wind farm would bring them. Draw your own conclusions!
Are there any last thoughts you would like to leave our readers with?
Nothing profound! I recommend finding groups like ours and yours to meet up and debate, learn new things and of course, simply to socialise. I have made many new friends through Politics in Pubs, all of them deeply concerned about the state of our country and keen to see things improve for the better.
The other thing I would say, as a counter to the too common attitude of “why bother voting”, is that we are demonstrably going through a period of profound change. The two-party system is dead – in fact those two parties are already on life support. They just don’t realise it. Who would have thought that even a couple of years ago?