Bishop Hill FT on Turnbull
Jun 9, 2011 Bureaucrats Climate: Sceptics Sue Cameron, writing in the FT takes a look at Andrew Turnbull's report for GWPF.
Calling for “an end to alarmist propaganda”, Lord Turnbull says: “I am disappointed that so many of my former colleagues in the civil service seem so ready to go along unquestioningly with the consensus.”
So is he right? “It’s simply not true – Andrew’s got it wrong,” protested one senior figure. He added that officials covering transport, business and energy were being “very forceful” about curbing the greener instincts of Chris “Nul Points” Huhne, the climate change secretary.
Let us hope he is right that some senior officials are taking a sceptical view of the green agenda. Whether Lord Turnbull’s suspicions about his former colleagues are misplaced or not, he is right to call for more open-mindedness in Whitehall and less reliance on the prevailing orthodoxy.
H/T Benny Peiser
Bishop Hill
More in the Mail, with Turbull and Benny Peiser taking aim at the government's green policies. They've got a picture of the wrong Lord Turnbull though.
(H/T Matthu)
Reader Comments (60)
As no doubt are those concerned about Jobs, Growth, Crime, Justice, Security, Defence, Health, Immigration, Education, Pensions, Transport, Honesty, Integrity ...
The Daily Mail article is particularly good about bringing all the scams to the attention of its raders in a single article.
Not often they are all brought together like this ...
The quote by "one senior figure" is patently untrue. From letters that I and colleagues have received from ministers at DECC and other departments, it is totally clear that the ministers just sign what the civil servants put in front of them. The ministers clearly have no clue about the climate or energy. It is the senior civil servants who are driving the agenda, not curbing the ministers. I'm sure the senior civil servants are very pleased to have "dix plus points" Huhne as the gullible minister in charge and ready to be given the blame for when it is all revealed to have gone pear-shaped and the s**t hits the big rotating things in the sky..
Slightly OT, but best here. For those who love the Welsh mountains, there is a petition to
available at http://www.assemblywales.org/gethome/e-petitions/sign-petition.htmBenny Peiser's comments are also in the DT, placed right next to a short piece about Tony Blair's views:-
"...Blair paints a bleak picture of a future in which global energy demands could rise tenfold...risking a climate change 'catastrophe' and ... a profound effect on western economies."
Presumably he just can't imagine that anything else might also change.
'He added that officials covering transport, business and energy were being “very forceful” about curbing the greener instincts of Chris “Nul Points” Huhne, the climate change secretary'
Ooh goodie. I'm so glad that they are being 'very forceful'. Doesn't seem to have changed anything though. They are still imposing ridiculous policies by stealth on us.
What is the next stage up from 'very forceful'? And how does it manifest itself?
Reducing the minister to only one type of bikkies with his coffee and hoping he'll reform?
Writing 'very concerned about some aspects of your otherwise excellent proposals', rather than merely 'concerned about a few aspects of your otherwise stupendously magnificent proposals'?
That'll show him good and proper!
Phillip Bratby - Another petition, yummy. Signed.
But seriously, do I detect a slight change in the MSM towards a more sceptical view?
Apart from the welcome attention given to Lord Turnbull's report, the Torygraph published a very sceptical article about windfarms in a prominent position a few days back that attracted much favourable attention
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/8560346/Wind-farms-arent-just-a-blight-theyre-a-folly.html
It is also noticeable that their Greenpeace/WWF mole - 'Environment Correspondent' Louise Gray has been moved to other duties - writing about dustbins seems about her mark. While Geoffrey Lean, arch greenist - seems to have taken a much needed retirement from print.
I doubt that these are random events, and to have at least one serious newspaper adopting a more sceptical editorial line is welcome indeed. Our lords and masters will not be able to pull the wool over our eyes - nor delude themselves - when there is obvious public scrutiny of their actions.
There is hope.
There seems to be a new notion emerging from the dizzy Moonbat and his followers, that sheep are much more damaging to the environment than wind farms. Perhaps none of these precious idiots have ever talked to a hill farmer about how their particular environment and its wildlife functions and the valuable place of sheep in it.
Much of the UK's moorlands which are now farmed are ancient industrial tips from various forms of mining; the Greens seem to have the strange idea that the climate and the landscape should never change, and that as things are now, they should ever be, but they ignore the great cycles of climate and culture which ensure that the earth's surface will be in a constant state of change.
@Alexander K
Re greeenism and conservatism
It is just the old myth of a sometime 'Golden Age', brought down by the folly of (other) men, all over again. It occurs most obviously in the Old Testament, but I believe that other religions have the same idea.
Once upon a time Man was in harmony with god/nature/spirituality and all was well. Then he/she did something bad and the harmony was lost. The only way back to harmony is to repent from the bad things and make reparations (which usually means killing a few unbelieving people as well). Then the golden age will be restored.
The only things that change are the where and when of the supposed Golden Age, the nature of the Bad Thing and the characterisation of the unbelievers. Otherwise the myth is identical throughout history.
Today's greens are no different. And its worth observing that despite their supposedly radical views they are in fact deeply conservative.
As the UK energy policy now resembles a Monty Python sketch all we can do is sit back and laugh as un-employment hits 20% and people freeze to death rather than go into debt over there heating bills.
Give it five years with the CPI not even showwing true inflation and it'll be cheaper to live in Zimbabwe.
" But seriously, do I detect a slight change in the MSM towards a more sceptical view? " - Latimer.
Even on the BBC Today programme yesterday (see towards the end of the clip at 08.17) Justin Webb raised some tough questions for Tim Yeo about green subsidies pushing up energy prices, talking of "enormous amounts to subsidise windfarms" and even mentioning people dying of hypothermia because they couldnt afford heating bills. Yeo was completely thrown by this.
@PaulM
Thanks for the clip from Today.
Interesting that Yeo said he supported the drive towards 'low carbon' energy. 'Low carbon' includes nuclear. He did not say that he supported 'renewables' per se.
And his main reasoning was to guarantee 'energy security' (presumably consistency of supply). The daft windmills do nothing towards that laudable objective. Apart from diverting attention, money and resources from things that would provide some security.
No, nothing has changed on the Beeb. Last night on the "Up all night" program, the famous AUSTRALIAN MORON (is that an oxymoron or maybe just a moron) Dr Karl was on again about Climate Change. At 0314hrs BST he was commenting about the last ice age which ended 20,000 years ago-that's his version anyway. I thought that the last "Glacial" period finished 10,000 years ago, so if I am correct and Karl is incorrect then it means, logically, that he automatically doubles all his theories on AGW. He also doesn't know the difference between a "glacial period" and an "ice age". Also, Karl and Oreskes may feature again on this show in the near future as they obviously impressed the show's prsenter. Remember, they had 3 shows recently which our host referred to here.
Peter
Richard North has this to say about it at his http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
Now doubtless many of you will have seen and read this link [sorry Bish' but can I re-post it?] but this chilling [and great] post gives us an insight into the dearth of joined up thinking going on in
Her maj's govenment.
On energy bills, do you think that for one moment, a properly itemised bill [including the renewable energy 'set aside' portion] sent to domestic users is in anybodies [ - govmint, power utility companies, green lobby] interest, barring the domestic bill payer?
Exactly! So it'll never happen - keep it secret, keep 'em dumb and watch the money disappear into the wind - see above.
Phillip Bratby said:
The minister is a human shield for them and the less interested the minister the better. The minister takes the flak for unpopular decisions and the lag between back room decisions and public policy pronouncements allows the civil service to change tack and say 'we disagree with the minister, aren't we clever'.
That isn't the biggest problem though. The proper motions of Government require the minister to represent their department. It is the role of the Opposition to ensure the Government is kept in check and we haven't had an effective Opposition for years. If they buy into the alarmism or are just too lazy to be bothered they aren't going to as awkward questions of the Government. With the regulator of Government being AWOL the only chance of retreating from this madness is the Government changing its mind, which it appears to be testing the water about doing.
For many of the high profile politicians going against AGW would get themselves a lot of heat from pressure groups as they have previously used AGW to look important. As a result we get governance that veers from one populism to another rather than balancing competing interests.
Whilst following some links in a local newspaper supplement about "Green Living" I found this (remarkably honest) gem:
Q - Where does the money come from?
A - It comes out of the pockets of the supply companies because they are really nice guys! - No seriously...
The suppliers pass on the cost of the Feed-In Tariffs scheme to all their electricity customers.
... so the bottom line is that people who don't install renewable energy systems pay for those who do!
The site concerned is this one: http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/
"a profound effect on western economies." (Blair)
He's right about that, at least! Not quite the way he meant it, though...
Follow the links from the fitariff website and you come here
http://www.ownergy.co.uk/about/people/
And note the following. Philip Wolfe, the Chairman of Ownergy, which is the company behind the original website has had an interesting career.
'In six high-profile years as Director General of the Renewable Energy Association (REA) he became the voice of renewable energy in the UK. Philip was a leading light of the campaign for the Tariffs and authored the first design blueprint presented to Ministers soon after the Energy Act was passed'
So he had a very fat finger in writing the legislation and now makes oodles of cash out of exploiting it for his own gain. And all under the cuddly umbrella of greenism.
I call double standards and sleaze on these parasites. Snake oil salesmen and spivs.
Does anybody know if any of our powers that be have been asked the question that floored the EU representative a couple month back in Australia - what actual global temperature difference do they project the UK Climate Change Act will make? I know the Act was not costed when it was passed, but I wonder if they had through the actual impact on temperature they believed it would make.
Even assuing the hyposthesis of AGW was true I imagine it would be a very small amount give the UK's contribution of CO2 to world levels?
Serge, I dislike that question, as it smacks of the argument children use when they drop litter, and it's quite true that no individual litter bug has any significant impact. Doesn't make it right, tho.
Serge/Steveta-uk
If you takle the question as just referring to the UK, then yes it's easily answered in a 'long journey starts with a small step' way, but the question is equally well put on a global level, and the answer is then very salutory: huge cost, very very little gain.
Peter Walsh
I think we can take some crumb of comfort from the fact that Justin Webb was putting Tim Yeo on the spot on their flagship programme at 8.17am, whereas Karl was on at 3.14am. Let's hope it is the start of the Beeb getting some sense of priority.
I have just read the criticisms of Lord Turnbull's paper on the Carbon Brief.
I was struck by their completely unreasonable moans about David Whitehouse's perfectly reasonable statement about the mix of natural and manmade climatic variations.
I was amused to see that he had been 'recently forced to concede' that greenhouse gasses drive climate change. the 'concession' is an article published 4 years ago.
There are several guilty men among the political class that have promoted this scam. Blair and Brown were notable pioneers. Currently the main party political leaders head the pack. They are: MilibandE who piloted the Climate Change Act through the HoC; Cameron, Clegg and Huhne who signed the Carbon Plan which implements the provisions of the Act; and smart Alec Salmond who is promising to bury Scotland under wind farms. Change will only come if and when their respective parties decide they must be sacked for leading voters so far up the garden path - or they themselves make the most spectacular of policy U-turns. My preference is for them all getting the sack.
Miliband looks vulnerable for unconnected reasons - he does not appear to be up to the job of Leader of the Opposition. Clegg seems something of a busted flush so far as the electorate is concerned and is vulnerable to an internal challenge. Cameron dominates the HoC and is secure for the time being but one senses that pressure is building from his back benches on several issues though green legislation is not (yet) one of them. Salmond is Lord of all he surveys.
The signs of stirrings in the media undergrowth are welcome. In the end it will be the stab in the wallet that is most likely to move public opinion on this issue. For that reason I continue to write to my MP about the falsities and iniquities behind the green legislation that is being imposed upon us all. If enough people write reasoned letters to their MPs they will, I believe, have a cumulative effect on those who make the policy decisions.
One footnote to this is the position of the Royal Society and the climate science establishment as and when public opposition mounts. Will they dig in, ready to die in the trenches? Will they embrace new research and the scientific method which casts doubts on earlier certainties? In short will they trim their position?
I see Zed turns up in the comments in the mail. Truro's finest really does like to spread the message.
Do newspapers such as the Daily Mail review editorial policy in the light of reactions to stories on the internet?
Have any MP's (apart from Graham Stringer) seen the writing on the wall yet?
The Mails angle on this story is blunt. The economic cost to individual households of "green energy". An easy concept for an ambitious MP to latch onto.
EddieO and others
When the topic is covered by John Cook's Sceptical Science site, she copies and pastes. As Cook does not provide answers to some of the pertinent questions raised here, she can not either, and has to resort to vitriol instead. The pattern is always the same.
Have the MSM shot themselves in their collective foot?
The MSM may be cottoning on to the aspect that scaremongering editorials over AGW have been the catalyst that has seen the introduction of higher energy bills that in turn makes it more expensive for MSM to sell newspapers, and hence attract advertisers.
When you consider that in this electronic age less and less people are actually buying newspapers, green taxes and green laws could be the 'tipping point' that heralds the end of newsprint.
I hope and pray that it was my oft-pronounced decision to never pay money again for the Telegraph while Loopy Louise and Geriatric Geoffrey were given free rein to peddle greenpeace wwf and other activist propaganda that caused their policy to change. And I believe that many others thought likewise.
Perhaps there are other considerations as well. The stereotypical Torygraph reader in the Shires is not a lover of wind farms (unless he owns them) and few take delight in paying taxes at all. Let alone completely foolish and entirely unnecessary ones.
The Register is onto it, too:
Link
@ Philip B
voters are going to be keen to extract their revenge.
How are they going to do that when all three parties are signed up to ecofascism?
It's like European integration - they've fixed so there's no way to vote against it.
One can sigh at green/renewable excesses whilst still feeling that current energy systems are overly dependent on fragile grids, vulnerable oil and (currently) gas supplies, and environmentally destructive production processes, and therefore need to change in sensible ways. Shale gas may well be helpful to this but isn't the whole solution, whilst nuclear obviously needs to be stringently regulated which is not easy or likely in many parts of the world. It therefore makes sense to develop renewable options, and to initially subsidise them if this is likely to lead to significant cost reduction and technology improvement. This in turn should mean that renewable development is initially focused on optimal locations to achieve this. By this standard much UK onshore wind clearly fails (intermittent wind speeds at many sites, reflected in availability figures, and difficult to scale up quickly) and putting large subsidies into solar thermal heating in northern climates like Germany is obviously economic madness. However, for a different story note yesterday's announcement that solar is expected to be economic without operating subsidy (obviously a lot has gone into previous technology development) against peak gas-fired power stations within 3 years in the US South West. This is in large measure because it's easy to scale up in the Arizona desert, and production costs are falling rapidly with volume - see www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05a4354a-91fe-11e0-b8c1-00144feab49a.html. It would make more sense to put UK subsidies into optimal developments such as these, with mechanisms to ensure that UK industry has involvement, than some of our 'home grown' schemes.
And while the UK general public pay for this Green madness the Chinese continue expanding Coal usage.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/09/annual_bp_energy_survey/
China has doubled its energy use in a decade, and became the largest energy user in the world, with 20.3 per cent. Almost half of China's energy comes from coal. Fossil fuel consumption surged to the highest level ever.
Have any MP's (apart from Graham Stringer) seen the writing on the wall yet?
Well the MEP Roger Helmer has:
http://www.rogerhelmer.com/greenclimatepolicies.asp
Dodgy 'tache but good speech.
(posted by John Carter in unthreaded but relevant here too)
Jun 9, 2011 at 3:22 PM | SimonW
Excellent! Thanks. (agree about the tache though)
First Lord Lawson's sceptical views, now those of Lord Turnbull - this is indeed heartening. How long before we are able to claim a peer-reviewed concensus against AGW?
This sudden realization that the cost of green energy subsidies is not sustainable and represents an invidious tax on people, a colossal diversion of funds to the richest land owners and is huge waste of resources is welcome.
I've just spent 2 days at a public hearing that dealt with an appeal by Warwick Energy/Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd to build an onshore connection point to the grid in Norfolk. The connection facility occupies a space of more than 40 acres, utilises HVDC technology and lies some 50km from landfall for the offshore wind farm. The connection facility/substation is located immediately adjacent to a small village of 200 population of whom 94% are against it. It is also located on some of the highest land in Norfolk, on the edge of a plateau and is visible from distances of more than 6km!
The company try and sell this by claiming the project will boost the UK's offshore generation capacity by 35%. No one challenges these figures though in reality they mean 1.2%! They caim the cost of the project is 1.3 billion pounds. In reality closer to 2 billion pounds since these figures are now 2 years old.
2 billion pounds for a 560MW wind farm. It's complete lunacy and the sooner the politicians realize this then the sooner we can start investing in nuclear and research into other energy sources rather than outdated wind farm technology.
@paul
Your argument would be even more persuasive if you put in some comparative figures for costs of other potential energy sources.
And (a real bugbear of mine) don't we measure distances in miles in UK still? You used acres not hectares.
Otherwise a very enlightening piece.
@ Paul Dennis
Yes, we've been campaigning against this type of nonsense for years. But logical arguments don't cone into the equation when these things go to public inquiry. Meeting installed capacity (MW) renewable targets is all that counts. Costs, capacity factor, emissions actually likely to be saved etc don't count. It's pure madness; to ruin the economy and transfer money from electricity consumers to developers and utility companies.
@ Paul Dennis
It's all the result of CAGW as pushed by CRU.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/cagw-%E2%80%93-the-pessimists-choice/#more-41368
His Grace noted, re the Daily Maul:
"They've got a picture of the wrong Lord Turnbull though."
Heh. Here in smoky Arizona, we have, in SC AZ (not too far from the big fire) a Mt. Turnbull. And, in far NW AZ, a Mt. Trumbull -- and I always have trouble remembering which is which.
</local colour>
@ Phillip Bratby
Rather "exact their revenge".
Phillip Bratby : "The quote by "one senior figure" is patently untrue. [...]
Even without any direct evidence it seems unlikely that a "minister" or indeed any particular government have the time in office needed to develop long term energy policy. The current mess is all the work of the civil service and this is where one should look for street light decorations as the winter death toll rises.
Latimer Alder : "But seriously, do I detect a slight change in the MSM towards a more sceptical view? [...]"
No. A direct and highly visible increase in energy prices attracts the attention of the public and hence column inches in the MSM. In a short time it will be replaced by more "Footballer in Hotel Romp" bubble gum. Lest we forget, the MSM has had decades in which to ask serious questions about the "green fantasy" policy and huge new tax increases. Tumbleweeds, tumbleweeds.
"PaulM : "Even on the BBC Today programme yesterday (see towards the end of the clip at 08.17) Justin Webb raised some tough questions for Tim Yeo about green subsidies [...]"
See reply above and... Too little, too late from the BBC. They have done so much to drop and dig us into this hole that the only thing I want to hear about the BBC is who exactly is going to rip away their taxpayer support and throw them into the free market and when. Pension fund and all. Take my "license fee" and give it to the families that will need that money to stay alive this coming winter. Wine sipping, 10:10 supporting, BBC "employees" need a new lesson - see street lamps/piano wire.
It has always been a scam, no matter what your view regarding the physics of CO2. Even if you buy into every worse case scenario of CAGW and time is of the essence, Nuclear would have been
the only practical way to extend that time. Kyoto, Carbon Trading, Mickey Mouse energy policy, FIT, ROC's and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars has not prevented one single
molecule of "human" CO2 entering the atmosphere. They have all, however, made those "in the loop" exceedingly rich and those on the periphery exceedingly cold and dead.
Sorry - people who wilfully kill citizens of their own country would normally face a trial on charges of? ....
What upsets me most is just how quickly you so called "sceptics" will forgive two+ decades of abuse because some fuckwit in a "leading outlet" asks a question today that should have been asked two decades ago. Perhaps we should do a "questions" versus "dead UK citizens" bar graph to get some of you to see what has been going on. As a little old lady once said to me as a teenage wanker - you'll be old one day ... She's long dead, me... I learned a lot of practical shit...
As I suggested on EU referendum. There is no way I will die quietly and anonymously of hypothermia in some cockroach infested UK concentration camp. I have a different end game....
Things will only change if MPs fear for their seats. I would urge everyone to write to their MP or the chairman of the Conservative party about this terrible government energy policy.
@3x2
Enough of these mealy-mouthed euphemisms and diplomatic language already. Tell us what you really think.
Jun 9, 2011 at 10:15 AM | Athelstan
On energy bills, do you think that for one moment, a properly itemised bill [including the renewable energy 'set aside' portion] sent to domestic users is in anybodies [ - govmint, power utility companies, green lobby] interest, barring the domestic bill payer?
Exactly! So it'll never happen - keep it secret, keep 'em dumb and watch the money disappear into the wind - see above.
Here in sunny Spain, Iberdrola, who also own ScottishPower who have just jacked up UK prices today, (see http://www.scottishpower.com/), print a useful side panel on the bill next to the total amount you owe them:
...............................
This arrived in the post today:
Distribution of electricity supply costs.
Of the Euro 122.73 you pay, Euro 55.05 goes to paying taxes and other charges established by law which are not related to the supply.
The remaining Euro 67.68 goes to paying for energy production and supply and payments made to the national grid.
They also break it down:
Energy generation (Euro 49.29) + energy distribution (Euro 18.39) = Euro 67.68.
Premiums and other items (Euro 31.30) + Electricity Tax & VAT (Euro 23.75) = Euro 55.05
Grand total = Euro 122.73.
.....................................
Then they spoil it all by charging VAT on the Electricity Tax, which is apparently illegal, but they don't give a rat's ass.
We used to get bi-monthly bills against a meter reading, but then the "consumer" busybodies in Madrid decided that (to reach the electricity companies a lesson for using dirty fuel instead of wind and sunshine) they must issue monthly bills for the "benefit" of consumers.
OK, they said, but we are not going to read the bloody meters every month (are you crazy?), we will just guess what the consumer should pay at the end of the month where we don't take a reading and it will be sorted out later.
Yeah right.
One day I shall sit down with a spreadsheet and just determine by how much I have been ripped-off. Or maybe not.
Chin up
Latimer Alder : @3x2
"Enough of these mealy-mouthed euphemisms and diplomatic language already. Tell us what you really think."
I guess I'm really tired of arguing "the science" while these people steal food from my mouth, fuel from my fire and money from my pocket.
Play with CO2 physics all you like - These people are thieves and murderers and we are well beyond the point where we should treat them as anything else.
Latimer Alder : @3x2 [...]
Do you really believe that when Cameron signs off on a 25% increase in fuel bills he is unaware of roughly how many pensioners that signature will kill?
He hands the father in law a taxpayer lottery win with one hand and signs death warrants with the other - don't you just admire the advances we have made since the middle ages