Bishop Hill Lord Turnbull advises caution
May 16, 2011 Climate: WG3 GWPF has issued a report by Lord Turnbull advising caution over UK energy policy.
Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service (2002 – 2005), has called on MPs and ministers to consider more carefully the rising costs and economic risks of Britain’s unilateral climate policies.
In a dispassionate but devastating critique of current policies, Andrew Turnbull also criticises the blind faith in the propositions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) given that they do not bear the weight of certainty with which they are often expressed.
In his briefing paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lord Turnbull outlines the many doubts and disagreements that exist about key IPCC assumptions.
Reader Comments (43)
I'm sorry to say that the UK is now in terminal decline and when these energy policy's are seen for what they are, economy destroyers, it will be to late as the sheeple here int he UK do not have the will power to drag themsleve's onto the streets like say the Greek's.
I was going to do a simple Google search but don't have the time now to see if the numbers of people being taken to court by the energy compaines due to non-payment of bill's is on the increase?
As I'm sure poeple are aware round here that to comment on the political elite here in the UK is a folly, since Blair turned the political landscape into the X-Factor and they all went along for the £££.
Thank you for this link. It should be required reading by all MPs and members of the House of Lords. Unusually for this kind of report from such a person, he uses blunt language to make his points. It is a devastating critique.
I have only read the summary in full, but skimming though found this excellent critique of the IPCC on page 14:
==================
At the heart of the present debate is the IPCC. It likes to portray itself as an objective
and independent source of advice on climate change. It is, in fact, no such thing. Its
stated role is:
“To assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest
scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected
impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
A body with these terms of reference is hardly likely to come up with the conclusion that
nature trumps man. If you go to Barclays inquiring about setting up a bank account you
are hardly likely to be advised that you should go to NatWest.
==================
This report should be essential reading for all politicians and civil servants in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast and Brussels, before they waste one more penny of taxpayers' money on climate change bollocks.
The problem with Lord Turnbull's statements is that they are eminently sane, sensible and accurate and will thus fall on the deaf ears of the politicians of all three major parties in the UK . What needs to be trumpeted from the rooftops is the reason the UN set up its globull warming advocacy branch, the IPCC and the papers written be Green advocacy groups who pass their alarmist.nonsense off as science, with the active support of both lazy and Green journalists, either too idle or too committed to their cause to bother with truth.
There are so many problems with British politics and there is a huge gulf (and disconnect) between the political ruling class and the ordinary citizen. 40 years ago, who would have believed that the majority of the labour party and liberals would be multi-millionaires. Politicians of all parties have no idea what the ordinary citizen has to endure and how they struggle to make ends meet, because politicians with paid for houses, cars, travel, tvs, porn channel subscriptions, new kitchens, bird baths, tin openers etc just do not live in the real world.
Most politicians have never had a real job and, unfortunately, there appears to be no accountability for mistakes. Politicians should be held accountable for their decisions and in extreme case possibly even with manslaughter charges. One would need to give careful consideration to the standard of negligence, dereliction of public duty/office that would need to be established against the politician. There could of course be a variety of sanctions, not simply fines or compensation orders but addiutionally for example those involved in selling off 50% of the UK's gold reserve at record lows and advertising in advance to the market that the UK wished to dump half its gold thereby further depressing prices could perhaps be debarred from holding political office for X years, I am not saying that we should go down such a root but it would make politicians more careful if there was some personal consequence to the decisions that they make.
Perhaps we should be much more like the Swiss and have a referendum on all major issues that will significantly affect the way of life. This could be done by the internet. Every registered voter given a secure number and password and then we could vote on line (obviously one would have to accept that the government spies would know how each perion voted but this is probably already done since every ballot paper has a number and when you identify yourself at the polling booth they record that number against your name. I once questioned this and was told that 'they do not cross check and it is used merely to check that there are not too many ballot papers put in the ballot box'. So much for secret ballots).
I am convinced that this policy will lead to much hardship and deaths.The UK already has about the worst old age mortality rates in Europe. This is no doubt due to a number of factors such as cold and damp weather, poor and old housing stock, very low old age pensions and the break down of the extended family. About 8 to 10 years ago, I recall reading a report inot this and what factor cited was high energy costs and old people not being able to afford to properly heat themselves.
Increasing fuel costs will inevitably lead to an increase in these mortality rates. Intermittent fuel supply will further exacerbate this problem. Anyone who has looked at wind energy will know how little power was being produced (between 1 to 8% of designed capacity) over a period of about 3 weeks at the height of the cold in the 2009/10 winter and the 2010/11 winter.
The 2009/10 winter was thought to be an aberation, a 1 in 30 year event. However, it was quickly followed by this winter which was a 1 in 100 year event. Just imagine what would have happened had the UK been dependent for 30% or so of its energy needs on renewables such as wind. There would have been rolling power cuts of 8 to 10 hours a day in freezing conditions. One or 2 days of this would have been bad enough but for a continuous period of about 3 weels would have been a disaster. There would have been a huge number of old age deaths.
The local councils would not even have been able to evacuate these people from their homes due to problems with road gritting. I really wonder what the government's contingency plans are for dealing with a repetition of such conditions when renewables are supposed to be producing 30% of our needs but are unable to do so due to blocking highs/adverse weather.
Unfortunately, there is little grown up thinking in governments nor an ability to learn from past events (as the problems of last winter showed).
Economically, the policy is a disaster. The evidence coming in (Scotland and Spain) suggests that for every new green job between 2.7 and 4 jobs are lost from the heneral market place. Higher energy costs will mean that UK industry will become less and less competitive and in actual practice, it is probable that any new technologies will not be developed and patented in the UK but will be bought in from abroad probably from China helping sustain China's economic growth.
The present policy is likely to fail in almost all respects and in 10 to 15 years time it will be seen to have been a catastrophe, but by then it will be too late (no country ever recovers industries that it has lost just look at the UK experience when it was once the work shop of the world making motor cycles, cars, ships etc).
Here is the Mission Statement of the IPCC. It is supposed to be open and transparent and on a scientific basis
What a load of cow***t
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change"
HERE'S THE WEBSITE SO YOU CAN READ FOR YOURSELF. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
"There are so many problems with British politics and there is a huge gulf (and disconnect) between the political ruling class and the ordinary citizen. 40 years ago, who would have believed that the majority of the labour party and liberals would be multi-millionaires."
Around 80 years ago, various countries tried an experiment: one person one vote. Later on, Thatcher and Reagan decided to call that "democracy" (as opposed to East European Democracy which literally meant ordinary people in government)
So, our modern experiment is only 80 years old, or around 20 elections. That is just about long enough to have gone through the various stages of hope of a new system, bedding in, finding fault, making improvements, finding more faults, trying harder and harder to make do and mend ... and finally getting to where we are now ... a system which we all know is far from perfect and which has singularly failed to deliver the real democracy: as in giving us ordinary people the government we want.
The simple fact is that we tried this one model of "democracy" and it has singularly failed to do anything other than create a new elite: the political elite, who are probably even more difficult to remove from power than the previous lot: the class elite rulers.
Mike - that's an interesting perspective and I fear you may be right.
Whilst this may be an excellent report, I'm afraid it will have no bearing whatsoever on the governments policy, even if it comes from a distinguished source. I spoke to a senior conservative MP who admitted that there was considerable dislike of Huhne and that many on the coalition benches were on the opposite side of the debate to Huhne. But nevertheless there are agendas in play and ego's to be soothed, so Huhne, Clegg and co will probably get their way. The only hope is for a back bench rebellion, but bear in mind the Labour "luvies" are in favour of eco-fascim as well so it will be carried through parliament.
I liked it, I hope a paper picks it up. Turnbull has some gravitas that can be used...
Huhne, Toady from Whitehall, brrmm brrmm, peep peep, will be one of the chief culprits held responsible for the hardship that is about to be unleashed on our children.
There will come a time that the history of the UK will register the transition from superpower to a state in Europe that is dependent upon other states for the produce that it requires, the goods that it desires and the energy that it needs. London may well retain the mantle of financial centre of Europe but that will be the sole extent of our once great nations contribution to the world. Outside of the home counties should be renamed serfland.
Perhaps we will be granted a holiday to remember the industrial revolution that raised billions of lives from abject poverty and increased life expectancy.
Are we the last generation of independant Britains? Will the history books record a transition from the mighty to the fallen or from an age of waste to modern enlightenment.We live in interesting times and they certainly are changing.
If Australia can overturn their governments commitment to this green lunacy then it may be time for a move before this gang of thieves and liars take us back to the times of the robber Barrons.
The report states (page 7)
I hate it when someone makes claims about other people. I for one do not agree that CO2 has greenhouse properties.
Otherwise, not a bad report (so far).
I am sorry to be off topic, but I am writing a blogpost about the so-called "independent" confirmatrions of the Hockey Stick.
I remember reading a post here at BishopHill or at ClimateAudit, where all these so-called "independent" studies were listed, and where all the different proxy series for each study was ticked off, or listed, so you could compare which proxy series were used by the different studies.
Despite hours of searching, I have not been able to locate this post again.
Could anyone help me here..?
[BH adds: It's in the Hockey Stick Illusion, but I got it from the Wegman report (or perhaps the Wegman reply to Stupak - can't quite remember which).
May 16, 2011 at 4:16 PM | richard verney
Good points, re secret ballots I always complain to the returning officer at my polling station that it is not a secret ballot and say it in a loud enough voice for anyone else about to hear. Also agree the gold sale was a crime against the nation.
Recognising that politicians have woeful grasp of Earth Sciences, I have for years vacillated between the conclusion that they mean well, but suffer from naive susceptibility to an organised environmental cabal which they themselves have unwittingly nurtured and encouraged, and the more sinister conclusion that they themselves have directed the script from the get-go. I have no doubts about the UN, and its attempt to secure funding for self aggrandisation via their IPCC humbuggery. There has by now been sufficient water under the bridge in debate to ring alarm bells in even the most gullible- the lack of significant increase in temperatures, the recognition of significant natural climatic oscillatory processes, the acceptance that most of the important cereal crops evolved in and are best adapted to higher ambient CO2 concentrations for high crop yields, the increasing indications of the importance of the solar/cosmic theory in cyclical climatic variation, and so on, and most importantly, concerns of widespread massaging, torturing and manipulation of data to support exaggerated environmental alarmism in pursuit of radical sociopolitical goals. So I must inevitably conclude, with heavy heart, that the body politic is now best summarised as a chronically infested multifaceted medusa of nefarious corruption.
BWW,
I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but CA had a few posts regarding the Hockey Stick in mid-late March. Start here and see if this is what you are looking for.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/21/hide-the-decline-the-other-deletion/
Sorry, don't know how to enter links. Look at some of the follow-up posts also.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
The IPCC was created at the behest of governments at the time they were in thrall with the beauty of the newish green faith. As part of the creation process, the new organisation was furnished with a mission statement consisting of the usual pious platitudes for the benefit of the faithful and the confusion of enemies and that was safely remote from day-to-day intentions and tasks.
Since then, governments have funded the people who write the papers that go into the IPCC's reports and the time of those who author the reports and so on.
He who pays the piper calls the tune and so governments will, I expect, be rightly pleased with what the IPCC has achieved for them.
As administrative matters, the IPCC made rules TO HELP IT DO ITS JOB. When it was found that some of these were more a hindrance than a help, they were simply ignored or rewritten on the hoof. Those like, I suppose, McIntyre and McKitrick, who objected, simply missed the reality that the rules were intended to serve, and not obstruct, the IPCC's purposes, and so were rightly ignored.
In due course, the IAC came along with its main conclusion that the Fourth Assessment Report had served society well, together with seven pages of recommendations about better means of achieving the IPCC's main purpose next time. Nothing substantial about changing the objective so governments would have, I think, no trouble endorseing that. A good job well done and the great and the good agree!
What I cannot understand is why people take the IPCC or its reports seriously. The IPCC is a mere extension of government. Nobody expects government to do serious science about climate change since policy is already cast in stone. Why different for the IPCC? Its reports are merely sermons to the faithful. or polemics to invigorate the troops. Why do not the officer corps on the skeptical side of the war use these undoubted facts as principle or major offesive weapons, again and again and again?
Why is not the
The acceptance of the AGW dogma is worrying in what it reveals about the infantile, magical thinking of many people who wield power.
First, there is the logical fallacy: "Climate change will cause bad things, and climate change is happening. Therefore, if bad things happen it is due to climate change."
We saw this about the cold winter, hot summer, tornadoes, droughts, floods etc etc....
Second, there is the time-travel aspect, where the effect comes before the cause. For example, the IPCC marks the start of AGW at 1950. Greens say that AGW causes glacier melting. Yet glaciers have been melting since 1750, and so the effect (melting) predates the supposed cause (AGW) by 200 years.
So, yes, we should be very cautious about any policies suggested by these people and their advisors.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Oh! The Mission statement:
To the Political Establishment,
This or that government
Since there was so little ‘scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change’, we, in the IPCC, have exaggerated the importance of the little bits we had, biased the bits that could be made to help and ignored the bits that couldn’t, and have made the best stab we can at ‘assess[ing] on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis’, the ‘risk of human-induced climate change’ in the way we think you wanted, and we trust that our efforts will be appropriately rewarded. We crave your forgiveness for the compromises that performance of the task has necessitated with the lordly ideals you gave us at the time of our establishment.
Urs, etc
in the Land of Oz, we now have the spinning of the following report. why the Economist Intelligence Unit and GE should be doing this survey is another question. the MSM has it that business is okay with the carbon tax and getting on with the job:
Cleaning up: Australia’s readiness for a low-carbon future is an Economist Intelligence Unit report, commissioned by GE…
Elizabeth Fry was the author of the report and Sudhir Vadaketh was the editor. Gaddi Tam was responsible for design. The cover image is by David Simonds.
We would like to thank the following interviewees for their time and insights (listed alphabetically by organisation):…
http://digitalresearch.eiu.com/cleaningup/report
yes from the EIU press release, we get:
16 May: Press Release: Policy uncertainty hindering corporate Australia’s low-carbon strategy
There is little corporate consensus about the impact of climate change. Surprisingly, many Australian executives still question the science of climate change—40% of respondents say that the impact of carbon emissions on global warming hasn’t been sufficiently established to warrant wholesale changes in corporate strategy or behaviour. Respondents are also split on whether the opportunities created by introducing a carbon price will outweigh the risks in the long run...
http://www.ethicalmarkets.com/2011/05/16/policy-uncertainty-hindering-corporate-australia%e2%80%99s-low-carbon-strategy/
love the insertion of "surprisingly"!
As far as the UK is concerned, all of the above admirable comments are, I am afraid, tilting at windmills (pun intended).
From the Turnbull report:
"Summary
The UK Government has put in place an extensive and ambitious set of measures as partof a programme to reduce CO2 by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. This is a unilateral undertaking, enshrined in a legal duty by the Climate Change act 2008."
That is the nub of the problem.
Until such time that CCA 2008 is repealed, then the current madness will continue.
However, for this to happen, more than 326 MPs (current HoC has 650 seats) will have to vote in such a way as to show the voters that a mistake was made by 463 MPs who voted "aye" in October 2008.
Of the 463 deluded loons who voted "aye" in 2008, 347 of them were re-elected in May 2010 namely, 112 Conservative, 182 Labour, 42 LibDem and 11 Independent.
Non of the three main party leaders has a track record of admitting mistakes, so the likelihood of going back on CCA 2008 is remote, however compelling the reasons.
From page 14 of the report:
"From our politicians we need open-mindedness, more rationality, less emotion and less religiosity; and an end to alarmist propaganda and to attempts to frighten us and our children. Also we want them to pay more attention to the national interest and less to being global evangelists."
With the notable exception of the 5 conservative who did not vote "aye" in 2008), the current crop of MPs embody the exact opposite of all the characteristics which the Noble Lord regards as desirable.
It is incredible that the author of the report, with a working lifetime spent in the political arena and 11 years experience at the very top of that game, indeed as Lord Lawson says "Lord Turnbull has had unsurpassed experience of policy-making at the highest level under governments of both parties.", should be so blind to the reality of the situation in the House of Commons.
No one questions that CO2 has greenhouse properties
Yes, in high concentrations in Greenhouses it enhances plant growth.
@Philip Bratby
I am curious about your comment on CO2 not having "greenhouse properties".
Do you agree that the absorption bands of CO2 molecules overlap with the roughly black-body radiation emission spectrum of the earth and so electromagnetic waves radiated from the earth excite the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, thereby trapping heat in the atmosphere which would otherwise have radiated into space.
This phenomenon is what I understand is known as the greenhouse effect and is solid science.
This report is very useful.
It's clear. concise and comprehensible without an advanced grasp of the science.
Because Turnbull was head of the Civil Service, he can't be dismissed as an ignorant crank, a pressure groupie or an ex-politician with an axe to grind.
I'm sending it with a letter to my ( rather staid, traditionalist Tory) MP explaining that I am convinced by Lord Turnbull's arguments and won't be voting Tory again until I get an assurance that he will campaign for a reversal of the legislation.
@Fred Bloggs
Philip Bratby is correct. There is no "Greenhouse Effect".
The fact that "absorption bands of CO2 molecules overlap with the roughly black-body radiation emission spectrum" does not lead to the "trapping of heat in the atmosphere". There is no such physical effect in the radiative sense. For a complete demolition of the "Greenhouse Effect" see 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effect Within The Frame Of Physics', Gerlich & Tscheuschner, published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B and available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.
Do you agree that the absorption bands of CO2 molecules overlap with the roughly black-body radiation emission spectrum of the earth and so electromagnetic waves radiated from the earth excite the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, thereby trapping heat in the atmosphere which would otherwise have radiated into space.
This is a theory, it can be replicated in a sealed glass bowl in a lab but that does not prove that the same effect takes place an atmosphere open to space and only heated for 12 out of every 24 hrs on daily average. None of the lab experiments show what happens whern you turn the lights out after the experiment. Does the extra heat stay or does it dissappear.
At least The Daily Telegraph has printed an article by Lord Turnbull that deals admirably with his report. But, as we know, it will have no effect on this government or the opposition. I will draw the attention of my MP to the article. But I know from bitter experience that he will ignore the important points made, assuming he actually bothers to read it.
When a government wants your money, time, talent, and effort --as well as the same from your unborn great-grandchildren-- the wise ask "Why?". Not hearing a sufficient answer, they tend to get a bit roudy. That is, they do if they haven't already been pacified into total submission by gifts and sweets. Oh well! One day soon, London and New York will look and smell like Rome (in 500AD), no bout a'doubt it.
RV
"There would have been a huge number of old age deaths."
That probably needs to happen before the policy is abandoned, unfortunately.
(Zed - that's not a wish, merely an observation, as everyone else here will realise.)
>There is no "Greenhouse Effect"
Especially in greenhouses.. :-)
@Masius
I read the first half of the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner and skimmed most of the rest a year or so ago. What I recall is that it is one of the most bizarre papers I have ever read in a physics journal (and not a very well recognised journal either). It was so odd that I could not take it seriously. I would need to find the time to read it again if you want a more informed reason why I did not find it serious.
@James P
Yes. I think that was about the only comment in the G&T paper that I could agree with. Greenhouses are warmed mostly by trapping heat and not so much by the absorption spectra of the glass walls and roof.
I do not consider this to be a rejection of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. In fact it was a statement of the semi-obvious. A different name would probably have helped but it's too late now.
"A different name would probably have helped but it's too late now."
Agreed!
@Fred Bloggs
There are several definitions of the greenhouse effect. IPCC (edited) says:
HMG says:
Both these statements are complete bo££ocks. They are insulting to a physicist.
So-called greenhouse gases do not trap heat. They radiate energy out to space. They help cool the planet during the daytime.
Phillip
"There are several definitions of the greenhouse effect"
That's not a good start, is it? :-)
@james P
Yes it would be good if these organisations could state what the greenhouse theory is and then prove it (or not as we know).
@Philip
I agree that those definitions are sloppy and misleading.
Do you agree that a photon of energy leaving the warm surface of the earth with an energy which corresponds to one of the absorption bands - vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule - can hit a "cold" CO2 molecule in the atmosphere causing it to become vibrationally excited and "hotter". This increase in the energy of the CO2 molecule will be transferred through collisions with other molecules (or other mechanisms) causing some or all of the energy of the initial photon which was headed into space to remain in the atmosphere.
All other things being equal, the existence of this CO2 molecule causes the atmosphere to retain energy that it would otherwise have lost.
@Fred Bloggs (I can't believe you are really Fred Bloggs; are you sure you aren't Gordon Bennett?)
No, the excited molecule will not remain excited. It will lose the energy by collision or by convective cooling or by radiation. One way or another the package of energy will be radiated to space and radiative equilibrium will be restored. The process happens very fast and energy will not be "trapped".
Fred Bloggs
Why bother? Leave them to it. I've just wasted three days (see Jones Live Blog) achieving exactly nothing except a growing sense of despair.
@Philip
Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote
This increase in the energy of the CO2 molecule will be transferred through collisions with other molecules (or other mechanisms) causing some or all of the energy of the initial photon which was headed into space to remain in the atmosphere.
I did NOT say that the CO2 molecule remains excited.
I still disagree with you but am losing interest and it's O/T anyway.
@ Fred
Where does that some or all of the energy remain? Why isn't it radiated away to maintain the radiative balance?
Me too.
I don't know how many of those posting here watched Chris Huhne's statement this afternoon and the questions that followed it. Graham Stringer (predictably) was the only one who actually questioned the policy, based on reports about jobs created/lost and his question was waved away. It will take an earthquake to dislodge this policy, I fear.
The main intent of some questioners on the Opposition benches was to try to embarrass Huhne. If only they used their imagination (and well paid time) a little more creatively!
Its like watching a train crash in slow motion chained to a chair and unable to move. Years to go before the political elite get the fog lifted and start to do the right thing. By then it will be too late, I spent 30 years in manufacturing figthing a losing battle and what little is left will be given away to countries who will use their new found wealth on themselves (and who can blame them) .