Sometimes it's hard to find words

I'm really struggling to put into words just how insane this government is:

Figures from Utilyx, the energy consultants and traders, forecast a 58pc rise in the cost of power by 2020, largely driven by the impending avalanche of green taxes due to come into force over the next 10 years.

The consultants estimate that 18pc of the current electricity price relates to climate change policies – or £15 per megawatt-hour out of a £82 per megawatt-hour average.

There seems to be a quaint theory in government circles that their policy decisions do not actually have any consequences - they are just part of the ongoing public relations effort.

When is reality going to bite?

Comments

[BBD]

Mike

Fair enough.

Remember that in 1988 Hansen estimated the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at +4C. It is now considered to be +3C, so he didn't do too bad.

I used to consider Hansen an alarmist and a dogmatist. I now believe that he is correct to be alarmed, and that his actions are the product of sincere concern. In short, I believe that I seriously misjudged the man.

[BBD]

Sorry - to be complete - Hansen has played no part in the bollocks that is UK energy policy. If renewables subsidies contribute significantly to fuel poverty, as seems likely, then the hardship and mortality that results cannot be laid at his door.

Look a damned sight closer to home.

[James Evans]

If I may be irritating for a moment -

BBD
"Remember that in 1988 Hansen estimated the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at +4C. It is now considered to be +3C, so he didn't do too bad."

Is there a consensus on that +3C?

I've heard this excuse for Hansen's inaccurate projections before. It seems to me that it's the stock excuse for all the climate models getting things wrong.

Step 1: "Sure, our projections weren't quite right, but that's cos we got our assumptions wrong. Now we know more, we have better assumptions."

Step 2: Wait for a bit, then go to step 1.

This loop can be enjoyably repeated endlessly, and is a great retort to the tired old claims that the projections were wrong.

[James Evans]

P.S.

This basic concept of looking like you know what you're talking about, by continually updating your model to reflect what actually happened, can be handily summed up with an easy acronym - IOIKWWAHICHPIMB:

"If only I'd know what would actually happen, I could have predicted it much better."

[BBD]

James Evans

Or you could view the refinement of estimates over several decades as the scientific process in action.

[James Evans]

BBD,

I think we could argue round in circles with this one. Of course, when I say circles, I mean epicycles. :)

[Mike Jackson]

Hansen has played no part in the bollocks that is UK energy policy

You could perhaps argue that, BBD, but only if you take a very restricted view. In any event, my case was that he should mind his own business and his sincerity (which we can debate in another place and another time) does not bear on his rights (or lack of them) to attempt to dictate UK energy policy by the back door which these links show he has attempted to do on two occasions.
http://tinyurl.com/6pcx2h
http://tinyurl.com/23pujko
From the second of these links:

The day after last Monday's trial, he flew to Switzerland from East Midlands airport to try to dissuade the government there from building a new coal plant. In the past 18 months, he has been arrested twice in the US in protests against coal mining.

Perhaps if he could overcome his obsessive opposition to coal mining and use his undoubted intellectual ability to research a means of being able to continue using what is (perhaps) the world's most abundant fossil fuel while dealing with CO2 as a by-product I might be more sympathetic.
The reason I lump him in with the neo-Malthusians and the eco-luddites is very simply because he is apparently not prepared to countenance the use of coal under any circumstances. We cannot afford as a species to be that fussy. We rely on the clever people to find a way round the problems not to run away from them. Yes, we should ramp up the use of nuclear (though Hansen's position as an erstwhile opponent of this technology simply adds weight to my argument about his malign influence) and we should continue research into thorium but in the meantime we need every reliable method of power generation we have if we are going to stop the lights going out and that includes coal (and does not include wind farms!).