Monday
Feb142011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Climate quango cuts
Feb 14, 2011 Climate: Parliament The Guardian is reporting that the Climate Change Committee, part of the plethora of quangos set up to provide sinecures for environmentalists, is tunder threat of losing its independence. This follows a series of cuts to similar quangos.
Why, we want to know, is it not being closed down entirely?
Reader Comments (91)
The death of neo-Keynesian 'Green Welfarism indeed...
http://breakthrougheurope.org/blog/2011/02/europe_in_crisis_part_i_the_ag.shtml#more
Blast - I had my eye on that one. Are there any safe quangos I can join?
From the Guardian article:
Lest we forget.
I'm going to be uncharacteristically optimistic and wonder if this isn't the first stirrings of resistance to the Climate Change Act. Since it binds the UK to unachievable, economically (and socially) damaging emissions reduction pledges, it will ultimately have to go.
Is it possible that a few of the shrewder politicians have recognised this fact?
If scary organisations like WWF or Greenpeace are concerned about its independence it must really be a "bad un".
Over at WUWT your Grace, Anthony has posted this on the MET hiding their CET.
Peter Walsh
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/14/the-met-office-link-buries-the-cet/
Dave W
The CCC is the bad 'un. It's the unaccountable, extremely influential body that provides the WWF, Greenpeace and all the rest of the uber-advocacy with a platform for dictating policy to whichever government is in power.
It needs to be dismantled post-haste, although I doubt that it will be that simple.
Mind you, the wretched Sustainable Development Commission was among the very first to fall, back last year.
So there is hope. A glimmer, at least.
BBD
Is it possible that a few of the shrewder politicians have recognised this fact?
I believe so, but they do have to cut the budget and better the quandos than social services. You will find the greens very much like cockroaches, however. They will scurry undercover quickly only to reemerge later.
Lovely irony of putting a quango on a bonfire - think of all that carbon released!!
Here's evidence of Ontario politicians waking up and smelling the coffee: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/14/lorne-gunter-the-growing-nightmare-of-mcguintys-green-energy-dream/#ixzz1Dwd4Ohz0
We in Scotland were promised a bonfire of the quangos years ago by the then Labour-Liberal coalition and then by the SNP (minority government) and we are still waiting. Meanwhile our politicians, closely advised by WWF and FoE, have set the most ludicrous carbon emission targets in the world - a 42% cut by 2020. The delusional politicians will probably have to create about a dozen new quangos just to think up reasons and excuses for why we fail to meet the targets. More details of the insanity here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/24/scotland-climate-change-bill
It's never been clear to me why the CCC has always been stated to be independent. It was stuffed full of alarmists from the outset, so the only thing it is independent of is the evidence.
It's a start I suppose, but the more expensive and more damaging Carbon Trust is so far escaping the bonfire.
Apologies to those who may have seen my post on another thread but I felt part of it could do with another airing.
I wrote thus to my MP, Jeremy Wright, about wind farms:
Eventually, I received a reply (partly quoted here). No prizes for guessing the line(s) that really set me off:
And this is from an MP, FFS! I have written back in response but I really feel like I'm wasting my time...
When it comes down to it the major problem is the 2008 crash and its affect on Govt revenues
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-needs-836422-trillion-to-meet-carbon-targets-2202576.html
Well Gordon Brown called Skeptics flat earthers but his mis-management of the economy will cause more damage to the Green Movement than any Skeptic could. He He He
"Well Gordon Brown called Skeptics flat earthers but his mis-management of the economy..."
Feb 14, 2011 at 3:52 PM | Breath of fresh air
Which bit was that exactly. The bit where he stopped the banks going under and created the model for dealing with the credit crunch that was copied by the rest of the World?
Terrible mis-management....
Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, the Tea Party has sharpened a few axes of their own
House to cut EPA
Of interest is the following:
Of course, what actually happens is to be determined.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/11/gordonbrown.economy
No return to boom and bust: what Brown said when he was chancellor
Oh, I forgot to note that Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds about 20% of the NPR radio and PBS tele shows. So with CPB gone, the American version of BBC will be no long publicly funded at all. So, see, it is possible to cut off BBC. Perhaps like PBS and NPR they will learn to be competitive. I personally contribute to PBS voluntarily. They produce some good shows, just as both BBC and RTE do.
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/11/gordonbrown.economy
No return to boom and bust: what Brown said when he was chancellor"
Feb 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Breath of fresh air
One inaccurate soundbite is not the same as mis-managing the economy. Why do you say he mis-managed the economy? Have you any basis for it?
Selling gold, ZDB?
Now, what's the budget deficit? Has it reached 10% yet?
We will pay £44 billion debt interest.
"Selling gold, ZDB?"
Feb 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM | Charlie
What - you mean not magically knowing in advance what the market was going to do? As an asset, it was sitting there earning nothing. If you're going to play that game, then in real terms, GB selling gold at a low, only had half the real cost of Thatcher failing to sell it at a high.
Terrible example of mis-management.
"Now, what's the budget deficit? Has it reached 10% yet?
We will pay £44 billion debt interest."
Feb 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM | Alexander
You seem to have confused the mess left by bailing out private banks, with normal management of the economy. In real terms, the debt of the Labour govt. just prior to the crash was much lower than that inherited from the Tory party in 1997.
This is my last reply as we are drifting off topic, just put Gordon Brown boom or bust in google and the sheer volume of articles is huge, not a 100% validation but as you seem to think the volume of AGW supporting peer reviewed garbage supports I will take it on this one.
This one is near the top and is a good summary of his mismanagement.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article4944288.ece
zeds...Borwn's major feat of mismanagment was by continuing deficit financing of the economy while he should have been running a budgetary surplus - as prescribed by Keynes. Even by Keynsian standards, he mis-managed the economy. Next. And stop trying to derail the discussion.
ZedsDeadBed: Of course Mr Brown didn't mismanage the economy, he took over an economy from the tories with a national debt of £22Bn pounds and after 13 years he'd managed to keep the debt at £140~Bn through superb handling of the economy. Under his stewardship Britain came within a whisker of being the world's best economy, if it hadn't been for the disastrous drop in manufacturing output and the diversion of £billions from the productive to the bureaucratic part of the economy (another masterstroke!) he would have led us to the green open uplands of an economy without poverty. However through circumstances way beyond his control the poverty gap actually increased during his tenure of Chancellor. After 10 years he finally got the job he'd been born to do, PM. Here again he excelled in foreign policy, leading the rest of Europe in signing the Lisbon treaty, so popular a PM was he in Europe that the Commission asked him if he wouldn't mind signing the treaty in private after the other leaders. Even President Obama was so overwhelmed with his "charisma" that after only 5 requests for a meeting from the Great Saviour of the World's Economy, he decided that he'd give this colossus amongst men 15 minutes in the kitchen of the hotel he was staying in. Mr. Brown will go down in history for his magnificent handling of the economy and his decisive leadership, no doubt about it ZDB, no doubt about it.
But it was increasing with a budget deficit even before the bust of 3%.
Breath of fresh air
This is my last reply as we are drifting off topic
Funny how she does that.
Breath of Fresh Air.
I can't get your link to work. Regardless of that though, you've failed to give a concrete example of mis-management of the economy by GB, let alone sufficient examples that one could clearly say that it describes his overall period as CotE.
As regards consensus, I base the 97% figure upon the two published papers which provide it. If you're able to provide a published paper which gives a different figure for consenus amongst climate scientists, then I'll take note. If you can't, I'll go with what information we have.
That you don't seem to understand that putting a biased search term into Google, isn't the same as looking at published papers, speaks poorly of your ability to qualitatively assess evidence.
Excellent stuff Zed, I never really credited you with a sense of humour before but it's really shining through today.
"zeds...Borwn's major feat of mismanagment was by continuing deficit financing of the economy while he should have been running a budgetary surplus - as prescribed by Keynes. Even by Keynsian standards, he mis-managed the economy. Next. And stop trying to derail the discussion."
Feb 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM | diogenes
Gosh - and there's me thinking that the UK had proportionately the 2nd lowest level of debt of the G7 countries just prior to the crash. If you knew better than the G7 countries at the time, you should have bet against it on the market.
And talking of knowing better, could you point me to the Tory policy of the time where they were saying the Brown should reduce debt? Or did they not say a word about it back then?
Geronimo.
You seem to be another one that doesn't understand the difference between managing the economy, and having to save it due to the disastrous effects of private banking.
Meanwhile, back at the thread........
How much Quango money, and other govt funds go to greenpeace, FOE, WWF etc? These are quango's in their own right, taxpayer subsidised.
Without them, Louise Gray and Guardian journalists would have to do their own research. Based on this evidence they are incapable of independent thought
Pathetic: The 97% consensus figure was from a sample of 75 hand-picked people.
Between July 1999 and March 2002, Gordon Brown sold 415 tonnes of gold (half the nation's reserves) at an average price of $276 per ounce (less than £200/oz) - having warned the markets two months in advance that he was going to do so. Doh.
http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf
"Pathetic: The 97% consensus figure was from a sample of 75 hand-picked people."
Feb 14, 2011 at 5:01 PM | Alexander
You weren't able to see that I made reference to two papers in my comment then?
Pathetic.
Feb 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM | Charlie
Charlie - scroll up to my comment on this. It's chicken feed compared to the same mistake made by Thatcher.
Speaking of quango bonfires and evil NGOs - I had a brilliant idea.
Why don't we scrap the tax-exemption for supra-national charities, like WWF and Greenpease and such, as well as the extra thingie added to donations by tax payers?
Nice little earner for Mr Osborne, methinks ...
Place a link for the second paper in unthreaded please Zed, and lets get back to topic please!
Thank you
"Without them, Louise Gray and Guardian journalists would have to do their own research."
Feb 14, 2011 at 4:57 PM | golf charley
Because James Dillingpole and the other Hilly Billie-favoured journos produce nothing except their own original research.
Why don't we scrap the tax-exemption for supra-national charities, like WWF and Greenpease and such, as well as the extra thingie added to donations by tax payers?
Do they actually do charitable work, seems they have an agenda and are a campaigning vehicle and the donations do not go to charitable work.
Breath of fresh air
The charity work they do is providing incompetent journalists with unlimited copy for their articles
Bishop
Although I didn't see snow forecasted for Truro, it appears that ZDB is house bound and getting frantic. Perhaps you could start a special thread regarding Brown, miss management, etc?
This was an interesting thread until she showed up.
Thanks.
And whatever you did with regard to the server timeouts seems to be working. I apologize for my rant yesterday, but it was very bad a couple days ago -- almost as bad a being locked up in the same room with ZDB.
I take it now that ZBD has resorted to name calling again:
QUOTE: Because James Dillingpole and the other Hilly Billie-favoured journos produce nothing except their own original research.
He/she has lost the debate (again).
People, "Don't feed the troll"
Breath of fresh air
Should also have added the IPCC, and the climatologists who could/would not check the info supplied, that has made the IPCC so esteemed, and the science so settled.
re ZDB
It was better. Brown announced to the market what he was going to do. The market responded in typical fashion to an increase in supply and dropped the price of gold to a record low known as the 'Brown Bottom'. He was advised against this, but ignored the advice because he knew best. Thanks to this brilliant bit of post-normal economics, rules were passed to try and stop governments doing anything as stupid again, because Brown's actions devalued other governments gold reserves.
Assets are also known as securities, which could be borrowed against, help improve credit rating and reduce borrowing costs. But Brown didn't get that, so spent much of his 10 years turning assets into liabilities by selling off then leasing back state property. So we have empty schools that aren't needed, but still cost a fortune to run because they were built as PFI projects with their builders guaranteed future revenue and profits.
Brown's legacy continues with green pipedreams, like the insulation example quoted above.
"schemes such as the Green Deal could reduce energy bills by £550 each year and create 100,000 insulation jobs in the UK by 2015."
Ok, so a fair amount of the UK housing stock is poorly insulated and could be improved. But once you've insulated them, what happens to those 100,000 jobs? 90,000 redundancies because the work is done? We have the same pipedreams from the CCC and Carbon Trust for green jobs in the energy sector.
Offshore wind isn't really creating any because there are established installation and maintenance companies the other side of the North Sea. They're based in countries who are scaling back in wind power, so need work to keep their businesses running. How would new businesses in the UK compete when our costs are often much higher? Especially if those businesses are energy intensive. That's something manufacturing green technology would be, so baking carbon parts or foundrys or machine shops to build turbines or solar panels. How would start-ups compete against established businesses in Europe, or China where costs are again lower, and those businesses are often already subsidised?
The CCC has a few economists on board who must be trying hard to come up with freakonomic ways to make piling subsidy on top of subsidy show any kind of nett benefit to the UK economy rather than cost. There may be better areas to focus on, like nuclear where we used to have a bit of a technology lead, but thanks to opposition, we've lost most of it and are being rapidly overtaken. We have governments talking about 'investing in the future', yet don't invest in the people by incentivising our youngsters to study engineering degrees and then work in R&D. Instead, we put the costs up to study and make performing R&D in the UK more expensive.
The old Guardian has its knickers in a twist on the 40% CCC cut.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/14/carbon-trust-funding-cut
the current comments before the expected purge are mostly in support of the cut, love the one about the consultant who works for the CCC being paid so much he owns a gas guzzler and holidays long haul every month.
Gold now $1365/oz. Brown sold at $276/oz. Difference of $1089/oz
Peak price under eeevil Thatch: $850/oz, Feb 1980 - lowest price c. $245/oz, Jan 1979 (mind you, the country was still reeling from the Labour administration) Difference $605/oz.
Not sure how this makes Brown's actions 'half the real cost of eeevil Thatch not selling at a high'!
But I think it's the 'advance warning' bit that really qualifies as mismanagement.
Gordon Brown's biggest achievement was to keep the UK out of the euro. He did that against what Blair wanted. And by succeeding, he saved the UK great hardship.
I think Brown was a lousy PM, and I did not vote for him in the last election. But give him credit where it is due.
ZDB:
The IPCC's predicted 3K climate sensitivity is based on an easily proven** mistake in optical physics dating back to the 1950s. The fact that a high proportion of people working in climate science agree with the 'consensus' may well be because after experiment showed no evidence of 'cloud albedo effect' cooling, on which that 3K depends, NASA published in 2004 a false scientific explanation of its cause, apparently to deceive the rest of climate science into accepting in in AR4.
**The optical physics in most models predicts that as pollution reduces the droplet size of thicker clouds, albedo increases. However, if you look at clouds just about to rain, they become much darker underneath, so albedo also increases. But rain clouds have larger droplets so should according to the theory have lower albedo. Therefore the theory is wrong.
Correct the mistake and you get 'cloud albedo effect' heating, another AGW. Until otherwise proven, it's quite possible that net CO2-AGW is kept at the zero level by something like a Miskolczi control system.