Sunday
Jan302011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Teacher training
Jan 30, 2011 Climate: other Education Greens This is from CRU's local paper in Norwich.
Hat tip Dave B.
Jan 30, 2011 Climate: other Education Greens 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (56)
I'm certain the Jugend of Norfolk will be most grateful. Kein Druck!
Pupil: "Miss, can you explain the bit about how to hide the decline again?"
Teacher: "Haven't you got your notes on that?"
Pupil: "No, the man from CRU said don't bother with meta data or being able to show how you worked it out..."
If they wanted some of Europe's top energy experts, why didn't I receive an invitation?
Will they using 10:10 kill fst to show them what happens to those that refuse to take in the meassage ?
Bish or Dave B, do you know which paper this was in and the date?
The local paper for CRU would likely be the 'Eastern Daily press' or 'Eastern Evening News' both published by the same group. Website is http://www.edp24.co.uk
It would be interesting to know if there are actual teachers attending this little jamboree or is it just half a dozen free lunches to go with an attention seeking headline.
Late breaking additions to the agenda:
Phil Jones : Data Archiving for Dummies
Trev Davies: Greasy Poles - A View from the Top
The Hon Edward David Joseph Lyon-Dalberg-Acton FRHistS: - Networking - the way to career advancement
Paul Dennis: Honesty and Integrity in Science - A Beginner's Guide for Climatologits.
Closing Remarks: Graham Stringer BSc, MP - 'You Can Run But You Can't Hide - AGW in today's political arena'
It would be interesting to know if there are actual teachers attending this little jamboree or is it just half a dozen free lunches to go with an attention seeking headline.
I find the tone of Alison Thomas quite unpleasant: "We are ambitious for Norfolk's children and young people ..." Is this really what the education system was meant for?
I guess the experts are tired of having to deal with adults.
Wiki stuff!:
The nearest airport is Norwich International Airport. The town has a population of 3,550
The thought of Norwich Airport being snow bound for this event brings a smile to my face but Holt as a centre of Science does seen a little far fetched! Maybe they should try East Dereham or Swaffam or even my old stomping ground of Swanton Morely!
Propaganda for children? These are very sick people!
Shouldn't "top scientists" be teaching our kids about science?
Why are they "educating teachers to teach children to protect the environment?
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Josef Stalin
"The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense." - Karl Marx
They're not trying to get a foothold in the classroom because they're worried they'll all be looking for new jobs soon, are they??
@ Philip Bratby - it was the "Norwich Evening News" last night (29th Jan). It wasn't in the free online edition, but may have been in the full, paid for, version.
firing pupils' imaginations,
Synonyms: blasting, discharge, shot
Alison Thomas represents the enemy within.
The EU seems to be the at the root of it, and the Environment Agency also seems to be involved
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/126979.aspx
http://www.answerproject.eu/
Alison Thomas is probably completely innocent and oblivious of any dark motives of green indoctrination, shes just the local councillor looking after childrens welfare.
That quote by Alison Thomas will have been written for her by the officers in the PR department. She will probably have approved it but won't have thought anything insincere or questionable (unless she is a sceptic) about the wording and is probably so busy anyway that she will just have approved it.
What always bothers me so much is the number of officers in a council who are pushing the climate change agenda. It's not just having climate change officers who are there to help councils achieve their government driven emissions regulated (they have to have their current emissions logged and then they are committed to reducing them over the next few years in order to avoid swingeing fines) but the little moles in all other departments driving forward this agenda. Children's education is one such department.
I am a councillor, in case you hadn't guessed, and every report that is written has an assessment of various impacts, including "Environmental and Climate Change Considerations" as well as "Equalities Impact" (There are no negative impacts from the Council's climate change programme. Some of the positive impacts are as follows:- The Council's work to assess service delivery risks from future climate change will benefit vulnerable residents who are often the first to be affected by extreme weather events (e.g. flooding and heatwaves), and Community climate change projects will be developed in an inclusive manner, to reach out to those groups that are not usually involved in local environmental work.)
The "reputation" risk/impact is also considered and in the climate change paper to Cabinet officers say that "Residents expect the Council to lead by example in reducing carbon emissions and preparing for unavoidable climate change. Apparently, this evidence comes from a survey in 2007 which shows that panellists (ha, ha, a selected focus group, eh?) want the Council to take the lead in addressing climate change and support them to tackle climate change.
This sort of dross I can only compare with mycellium strands; it is all below the surface but is everywhere within the Council's group think. I hate it and try to do my damnedest to point it out but it is an uphill struggle as the Council, as in most matters, has had to follow government diktat. It will be interesting to see whether all this localism stuff will be able to change the supertanker nature of any council.
I haven't checked whether Norfolk County Council is Conservative, Lib-Dem or Labour run but it will hardly make much difference given the nature of the Government (current and previous) take on so-called unavoidable climate change. It will take years to unravel all this and so much damage will have been done in the meantime.
How exactly do we educate children to 'protect the environment'? Given that the teacher training is to be carried out by 'top climate scientists' I assume the emphasis will largely be on CO2 emissions.
As I point out with tedious regularity here and elsewhere, the UK doesn't emit enough CO2 in global terms for any reduction made here to have a measurable effect on future climate (assuming the consensus is right to estimate climate sensitivity as +3C).
Since this makes leading a 'low-carbon lifestyle' no more than an exercise in magical thinking, what exactly are the children supposed to do?
When is the climate establishment going to wake up to the fact that at least here in the UK we are completely powerless to change the game (or even influence it a tiny little bit)?
Two decades of self-aggrandisement and pontificating have blinded the lot of them to the irrelevance of mitigation policies.
All they can achieve (and they are well on the way) is the destructive distortion of energy infrastructure planning.
The self-righteous, innumerate buffoon on a mission to save the planet is truly dangerous.
I meant to add:-
Interesting that the survey of the panellists was done in 2007. I bet it would be different if done again now across the whole county.
More cherrypicking to support the agenda, perhaps?
biddyb
Our posts crossed. I couldn't agree more. I am not a councillor but I have a fair bit to do with our local council which is contemplating a truly hare-brained solar generation scheme.
The group-think and eco-twaddle is absolutely everywhere. It really is frightening.
Especially when children get involved.
biddyb
I bet that 2007 survey was done right after a stupendously dodgy 'audit' of the so-called Ecological Footprint (EF) of UK cities was carried out by the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University.
http://www.resource-accounting.org.uk/methodology-and-data-sources
This
botched, assumptive bag ofdeeply flawed study has been treated as gospel by credulous councillors and journalists ever since.And guess, if you will, who funded it?
Yup, the WWF.
What a surprise.
City ranking here: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/ecological_footprint.pdf
Full report here: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/city_footprint2.pdf
Thanks BBD, I'll have a look at it. Even if the survey wasn't carried out by SEI and was only a local questionnaire to a (select?) panel, we all know how easy it is to ask questions to give the "right" answer. I just thought it interesting that this had been done in 2007, 3 years ago, and if the same question had been asked in subsequent years, but had given a different answer which officers are now choosing to ignore.
I think the thing that angers me most is all the claptrap about fuel poverty, yet it is government policy that is creating more of it by adding this wretched penalty on all our fuel bills to pay for the most ghastly, financially inefficient forms of "green" energy, which a) aren't green at all, b) are inefficient, and c) are costing an arm and a leg while benefitting the better off who can afford to install PV or reap rents from windfarms. And I'm a conservative.
I have lived in the east of the country and recall long hot dry summers. I now live in the south west and it is noticeably wetter (and always has been) and warmer in winter (it always has been). The Met Office long-term predictions for climate change here are for milder, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers and because of these predictions, the Council has to plan to accommodate these changes and an increase in the annual average temperature. I notice that the extreme events that we are predicted to have are more hot days, fewer frosty days, more dry spells, increase in temp of warmest days and increase in precipitation on wettest day. Compared with what? When?
The climate change strategy includes eight themes for action:-
Waste
Transport
Water
Purchasing & procurement
Biodiversity and natural environment
Energy
Planning
Communicating environmental issues
Under the "communicating" section it mentions Engaging with schools and here we are told that "proactive engagement with schools provides an opportunity to educate children as our future generation into the reasons behind and the solutions to climate change" and to "engage with the wider community, as schools are a key focal point in the community and act as an interface with residents".
i.e. indoctrinate the childrena and then get them to shop their parents once we have made it a crime to "deny" climate change.
Does anyone remember Police Five? We used to call it "Shop Your Neighbour" and Junior Polce Five was "Shop Your Dad".
Thank you very much for those informed inside glimpses, biddyb. You have confirmed what I've long observed from without - that our local councils have been the victims of entryism and that it is very often council employees - as opposed to elected councillors - who are driving much of this nonsense.
In my own battles with a council whose website looks like it was created by the militant wing of Greenpeace, it has become very plain that most of the councillors simply go along with this stuff, more or less without pausing to think about it, while the real drivers are politically motivated council employees, happily gold plating diktats handed down from central government.
Biography
Paul Warde joined UEA as a Reader in Early Modern History in 2007, after a research fellowship (1999-2001) and lectureship (2001-7) at the University of Cambridge.
He works on the environmental, economic and social history of early modern and modern Europe. His interests focus in particular upon the use of wood as a fundamental resource in pre-industrial society; the long-term history of energy use and its relationship with economic development, and environmental and social change; the history of prediction and modeling in thinking about the environment; and the development of institutions for regulating resources and welfare support. In 2008 he was a winner of the Phillip Leverhulme Prize.
Paul runs two projects at the Centre for History and Economics, King’s College, Cambridge:
Thanks for the lead to Eastern Evening News, which normally prints what the Eastern Daily Press had in the morning.
I've tried to bring up the article from the Archant EDP24 website but success.
Both the EEN and EDP, I think, echo the Editors green credentials although he tries to suggest otherwise.
This idea that the teachers can instill a scientific methodology to their teaching about the environment leaves rather a lot to be desired as we all know the types of "expert" selected. Would the teachers necessarily be able to differentiate between the science of physics and the science of green propaganda from government-sponsored climatologists, Greenpeace, FoE, IPCC and WWF followers?
No doubt some of what will be taught will be by the proper science of physics but what is disturbing is the opportunity to propagandise green religion through the classroom.
Is there some way of mounting a legal challenge against that, (aka the challenge against Al Gore's film)?
I did not win the Lottery this weekend so cannot finance!
Whilst it is a tired old and cheap joke, NFN comes to mind.
However there is a distinct possibility that the chill east wind will feature strongly in the progress of this programme.
Today, at the back end of some eight weeks of anticyclones with some other stuff in between, I passed on the A45 today a windfarm - the blades lazily rolling round at about two revs a minute. Not a single watt - never mind a kilowatt - being generated.
WHEN will our beloved Department of Energy and Climate Change start concentrating on the first bit - and stop pretending that 'renewables' (i.e. highly-susidised wind farms) are any sort of a system to produce electricity..? WHEN will they admit that wind is a totally chaotic, unpredictable, erratic source of energy..? WHEN will they even START building nuclear power stations..??
I despair...
Another David, another inactive Norfolk wind farm. Monstrosity at Swaffham completely still at 4pm this afternoon when we drove past. There is clearly a parallel between an education system that can indoctrinate kids about global warming but can only get 16% of them through 5 proper GCSEs, and wind and solar power installations that tick all the green boxes but just don't happen to work.
One good thing if Gove gets his way is that a lot of these apparatchiks will be removed from school management - hard to see how they can defend themselves when they are up to nonsense like this.
It would be interesting to see the agenda/content.
Is it science-based or just a political spin with the teachers being obliged to accept that the science is "settled"?
If the latter it could well contravene the rules on promoting unbiased views as Norfolk Dumpling mentions above?
biddyb says:
Yup. The hypocrisy is sickening.
And solar PV is the worst offender for driving up energy bills as it attracts the largest FIT subsidy (which energy suppliers simply pass back to us by inflating our bills).
Ergo, the FIT is actually a stealth regressive tax.
Here's a particularly filthy example. Winchester City council is trying to ram through a scheme to install panels on 2000 council properties (homes, not offices). The greenwash is that it will 'end fuel poverty' for (a very lucky 2000) council tenants (on sunny days, if they are in). And of course reduce the district's supposedly sky-high CO2 emissions (un-validated assertion from dodgy SEI study mentioned above).
Except it won't - the claimed emissions reduction by the scheme is 2000 tCO2/yr, which is 0.0004% of the UK annual total. That's 0.000% and a tiny little bit.
The real killer though is the financing. It's... venture capitalists.
So what's really going on is that a council is allowing speculators to build a vast, privately-owned solar subsidy farm on top of its housing stock.
The millions claimed in FIT over the next 25 years will go directly into the investors' pockets.
The same amount they carry off will be added to the national energy bill. This edges the elderly, the low-income further into energy poverty.
All so a bunch of speculators can play the system and make a killing.
Told you it was nasty. Apologies to those just about to eat.
"Winchester City council is trying to ram through a scheme to install panels on 2000 council properties" - Norwich is trying the same thing:
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/free_electricity_for_5_000_norwich_homes_1_704696
I'm not sure if it's using this company, though:
http://www.local-solar-panels.co.uk/?p=solar.panels.norwich
Jan 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM | Latimer Alder
"Climatologits"
Don't know if that was intentional, however it was/is hilarious. One for Josh perhaps?
Dave W
The news coverage is so similar for what I can find for the Winchester scheme the articles could have been written by the same hack.
Clearly both councils are reading from the same page.
Both councils misrepresent the electricity as 'free', neither admits to the negative consequences of large FIT claims, and nowhere does the phrase 'venture capitalist' make an appearance.
Funny that.
Can anyone name the practical ideas, predictions or policies that have come from the climate science community?
[Snip]
arbeit macht frei redux
Steady on.
Remember Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Councils are an interesting creature to study from a psychological perspective. I've worked in an Australian Local Council (as a technical officer) for 25 years now. I'm sure the UK Councils work similar, so I'll give you a little insight to how they work. Though I must say, I have zero interest in politics and ignore it an every opportunity.
There is a body of permanent employees to the Council, and a set of community representatives who rotate in and out every couple of years (the Councillors).
When a new council is elected they go through an intensive 3 month education program to bring them up to speed with everything a Council does and what it all costs. I'm sure that is a bewildering experience. Councillors are simply a member of the general public put into a position of representation to their local area. They are not necessarily smart or wise.
For this reason there is a set of permanent employees who run the council and who maintain continuity of policy and processes. (So that a new council doesn't change thought and direction every election).
The real problem is within the management structure of Council. There are two principle things I've noticed. The pay is poor for a professional manager; therefore if you are a good manager you will earn double in the private sector. This pay scale means the only managers which stay with Council are the ones you don't want there. Secondly, there is a significant power struggle between the managers for reason of ego (authority and number of employees, footprint within the building, authority in any given matter over other managers of equal level, and much more). This is the one I find most destructive to the organisation and employees in general. This is likely also the reason for this type of pro-active re-education programs proposed by Councils. It’s an ego and power trip by an upper manager. The councillor involved would not be familiar enough or capable of unravelling the reasoning behind it all, but they would recognise the theme as being a community significant subject, and would approve of it for simple reasoning.
I hope this isn't off subject too far.
Greg C's post from an officer point of view is amusing and probably sums up the difference between councillors and officers. Most councillors have been elected and re-elected a few times and the education (indoctrination) programme is usually aimed at the new bugs, the old lags keeping away. Even though I was pretty sure that it is the officers who push things along, I was under the impression that it is the elected Members who are supposed to be setting the political agenda and officers write the policies accordingly, so Greg's paragraph that, "For this reason there is a set of permanent employees who run the council and who maintain continuity of policy and processes. (So that a new council doesn't change thought and direction every election)." rather made me smile to myself. So much for councillors being the political force.
Greg's other comment, "Councillors are simply a member of the general public put into a position of representation to their local area. They are not necessarily smart or wise", was a bit of an eye-opener. Gosh, is that how officers view councillors? No wonder they're so devious at pushing their own agenda if they view us councillors with such contempt. We are there to represent our local areas. We are also there to direct the work of the council and to feed that back to our communities. And a lot of very clever people who are retired or still working and who are councillors might just take exception to be likened to being "not necessarily smart or wise". Having worked in a business that is not local government we are often deeply horrified at the stultifying work ethic that pervades local councils, the many reasons that are put forward why you can't do something, usually a simple solution, or if it can be done it takes months to introduce it because it has to go to so many people for consultation and then a policy has to be written before the said simple solution can be introduced.
I am sure that is why many councillors seek re-election, because something that you might want to see through takes so many years to get actioned that you have to be re-elected to make sure it happens.
I digress........
As a UK local councillor, I receive a little known publication called "first" - weekly news and views from the Local Government Association. On the back page is a lovely photo of Cllr Stuart Bodsworth, executive member for the environment (pictured, with Kate Eldridge, from Stockport Friends of the Earth) because Stockport council has signed up to the FOE @Get serious about CO2@ campaign. The council is pledging to reduce Stockport's CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020, from 2005 levels, to help tackle climate change. Said Cllr Bodsworth, "We are determined to reduce the borough's CO2 emissions by 40% over the next decade. Reducing emissions will bring many benefits locally, including the creation of green jobs in the economy. Householders will also see a big reduction in their fuel bills".
Kate Eldridge said, "It's fantastic that the council is listening to hundreds of people in Stockport calling for a serious target to cut emissions as part of FoE's campaign".
Ok, so Greg's comment that councillors are not necessarily smart or wise might be true!
A quick trawl of Stockport council's website doesn't tell me how many people live there but given that there are 63 councillors and each ward could be 3,000 voters that makes 190,000 voters. The website boasts "Stockport has a vibrant, diverse economy and a skilled workforce, employing over 120,000 people in at least 12,000 businesses" so perhaps even more people, but, according to Kate Eldridge the council has listened to "hundreds of people" as part of FoE's campaign. Hardly representative of the majority of voters, is it? Probably most of the people calling for cutting emissions are the poor indoctrinated school kids.
Greg C's post from an officer point of view is amusing and probably sums up the difference between councillors and officers. Most councillors have been elected and re-elected a few times and the education (indoctrination) programme is usually aimed at the new bugs, the old lags keeping away. Even though I was pretty sure that it is the officers who push things along, I was under the impression that it is the elected Members who are supposed to be setting the political agenda and officers write the policies accordingly, so Greg's paragraph that, "For this reason there is a set of permanent employees who run the council and who maintain continuity of policy and processes. (So that a new council doesn't change thought and direction every election)." rather made me smile to myself. So much for councillors being the political force.
Greg's other comment, "Councillors are simply a member of the general public put into a position of representation to their local area. They are not necessarily smart or wise", was a bit of an eye-opener. Gosh, is that how officers view councillors? No wonder they're so devious at pushing their own agenda if they view us councillors with such contempt. We are there to represent our local areas. We are also there to direct the work of the council and to feed that back to our communities. And a lot of very clever people who are retired or still working and who are councillors might just take exception to be likened to being "not necessarily smart or wise". Having worked in a business that is not local government we are often deeply horrified at the stultifying work ethic that pervades local councils, the many reasons that are put forward why you can't do something, usually a simple solution, or if it can be done it takes months to introduce it because it has to go to so many people for consultation and then a policy has to be written before the said simple solution can be introduced.
I am sure that is why many councillors seek re-election, because something that you might want to see through takes so many years to get actioned that you have to be re-elected to make sure it happens.
I digress........
As a UK local councillor, I receive a little known publication called "first" - weekly news and views from the Local Government Association. On the back page is a lovely photo of Cllr Stuart Bodsworth, executive member for the environment (pictured, with Kate Eldridge, from Stockport Friends of the Earth) because Stockport council has signed up to the FOE @Get serious about CO2@ campaign. The council is pledging to reduce Stockport's CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020, from 2005 levels, to help tackle climate change. Said Cllr Bodsworth, "We are determined to reduce the borough's CO2 emissions by 40% over the next decade. Reducing emissions will bring many benefits locally, including the creation of green jobs in the economy. Householders will also see a big reduction in their fuel bills".
Kate Eldridge said, "It's fantastic that the council is listening to hundreds of people in Stockport calling for a serious target to cut emissions as part of FoE's campaign".
Ok, so Greg's comment that councillors are not necessarily smart or wise might be true!
A quick trawl of Stockport council's website doesn't tell me how many people live there but given that there are 63 councillors and each ward could be 3,000 voters that makes 190,000 voters. The website boasts "Stockport has a vibrant, diverse economy and a skilled workforce, employing over 120,000 people in at least 12,000 businesses" so perhaps even more people, but, according to Kate Eldridge the council has listened to "hundreds of people" as part of FoE's campaign. Hardly representative of the majority of voters, is it? Probably most of the people calling for cutting emissions are the poor indoctrinated school kids.
Looks like a lot of fodder here for another Josh cartoon...maybe something like the Gov't CO2 zealots fiddling while Rome, er UK economy freezes...
This sounds more like an extremist indoctrination school than anything to do with science.
Quick bring up a new generation in the faith before climate reality blows away our religion.
There should be a legal challenge to this.
@varco
I make lots of unintentional spelling mistakes, but 'climatologits' was intentional. Thanks for noticing! :-)
@Latimer Alder
Cheered me up. Certainly a more concise and relevent summary of the state of climate science than Paul Nurse was able to produce :)
Leading on from the comments about councils and councillors, our recent/current experience in Cambridgeshire says it all.
Between St Ives (Cambridgeshire of course, not Cornwall) and Cambridge was a disused railway line. The county council thought it would be a very ECO-FRIENDLY idea to turn this into a busway - ostensibly to get buses out of the hugely overloaded, dangerous and permanently congested A14.
The cost of this wizard wheeze (including various extensions to our big teaching hospital, etc) was put at £116m (not exactly loose change) - of which £90m was to come from us local suckers - sorry, council tax payers - and the balance from central government (still our money, of course).
SO FAR, amidst wrangles with the contractors over quality and design (the contract was 'design and build', which as everyone knows means 'cut as many corners as possible within the remit', the project has cost £180m. The council confidently expects the contractor to pay back the overspend. Yeah, right. Cue expensive lawyers and a court case taking months/years using - you've guessed it - OUR money.
SO FAR - the project is two years late. Not a single bus has run on the system for farepaying passengers. The bus companies, having bought expensive new buses, are spitting feathers.
NO heads have rolled. Statements from the officers responsible within the council seem remarkably sanguine about the situation - now they are bringing in OTHER contractors to put right the alleged faults with the track, etc - to be paid for by..?? You've guessed it - OUR MONEY. But of course they'll get these costs back from the original contractors...
This grandiose project was, of course, all in the name of 'reducing our carbon footprint' - getting us all to use buses between the two towns mentioned - because of course we mustn't sit in traffic queues with our engines idling. Never mind the TONS of CO2 produced in making all the concrete track sections...
That money would have upgraded the A14 for at least the distance between Cambridge and St Ives - but of course that's not 'eco friendly'.
Luton & Dunstable are planning to initiate a similar scheme - using the SAME contractor..! Don't say you haven't been warned..!
Bottom line - the people in these councils are just not up to the job of managing these major projects - and so-called 'eco frindly' projects usually turn out to be anything but.
re BBD "I bet that 2007 survey was done right after a stupendously dodgy 'audit' of the so-called Ecological Footprint (EF) of UK cities was carried out by the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University."
and, as you say, carried out on behalf of WWF.
Some "audit"!!! I particularly liked the section giving advice to people to get on the electoral roll and vote environment. So nothing political there then.
And poor old BBD living in Winchester, the worst performing city, according to the report, consuming 3.62 planets.
I'm shaking my head and laughing ruefully. Quite why, I'm not sure, because we have a similar application for a PV farm in my council area which I had better look into.
There is a huge effort going on to insulate those house with no cavity wall insulation. This bothers me too as this retrospective cavity wall insulation - ie injecting foam rather than fixing insulation panels to the internal skin - often has other repercussions, mostly in the form of damp penetrating the cavity across to the inner skin. If we're going to have milder, WETTER, winters (sarc) then that's a whole load more moisture to penetrate into houses. But what do I know? Unintentional consequences are just not thought through.
Part of the climate change drive in my council is to give grants to the poorer people to insulate their homes and also to improve the existing council housing stock. I hope that doesn't mean we are going to subject those people to damp in their properties. An opportunity for some slick lawyer to sue the council on behalf of those citizens for causing damp related illnesses............
biddyb at 12:46pm
Now you're thinking like a pro!
Please do look into your local solar PV proposal. There is a strong likelihood that it will be a scam, as outlined above.
David
What a miserable tale you relate about the Cambridge - St Ives busway.
I have come to the conclusion that corporate business regards any 'eco' project as an open door to the larder.
National and local government combine ideology with incompetent administration, and large sums of money are on the table.
What red-blooded capitalist could resist the temptation to take them - and so us - to the cleaners?
It's descending into nightmarish farce with the lunacy over windmills instead of proper plant capable of baseload generation. The FIT is so misconceived it beggars belief. Everyone's on the rob - and nobody says a bloody word.