Andrew Neil has written a comprehensive response to all the critics who got so upset with him doing his job properly. I did explain to him on Twitter that the rules of the climate game are that one should only have interviewees who espouse alarmist views and that they should only be asked softball questions.
Strangely, Neil seems to differ:
Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.
This was neatly summed up in a Guardian blog by Dana Nuccitelli, who works for a multi-billion dollar US environmental business (Tetra Tech) and writes prodigiously about global warming and related matters from a very distinct perspective.
He finished by saying: "[Andrew] Neil focussed only on the bits of evidence that seemed to support his position".
This is partly right. We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a "position".