Bishop Hill Mixing science and economics
Sep 5, 2012 BBC Climate: WG2 Climate: other Roger Harrabin has written another piece on the cabinet reshuffle, this time managing to leaven the criticisms of the usual suspects with a few mentions of those who are pleased with the appointments of Owen Paterson and John Hayes.
Harrabin's analysis of a quote from Hayes was rather interesting:
"We face a major challenge to keep the lights on in the most cost-effective way. In achieving this, we must not be over-reliant on any one technology, but build a balanced low-carbon mix and make the best use of Britain's domestic energy resources and skilled workforce."
However, this could be interpreted as an ambiguous statement that could lead to a large increase in gas use.
Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science.
This seems to me to be a fairly appalling conflation of two separate issues: the scientific and economic sides of the AGW question. Science may be able to tell us if man is having an effect on the global climate, but it is economists who can tell us the best way to react, or indeed if we should react at all.
It's a bit of a worry that Roger Harrabin doesn't seem to have grasped this.
Reader Comments (54)
It's a bit of a worry that Roger Harrabin doesn't seem to have grasped this.
Harrabin is doing what most environmental correspondents do: reporting from the debate inside his own head. He has never taken the debate seriously, and thus has never attempted to form an understanding of what 'sceptics' have actually argued.
He therefore lumps all sceptical arguments together, under the 'disagrees with the IPCC' category -- at best. In other words, to be in agreement with the IPCC is to be in favour of wind power.
It is a classic nugget of the kind of pseudo reporting - but really slanted opinionating - that the pseudo-unbiased reporters at the Beeb have refined to perfection ;)
What is really odd is that Germany is on a path to meet it's climate targets building 20 brown coal fired power plants. Surely burning natural gas, even if it is extracted using hydrolic fracturing, has got to be much better than burning brown coal. Additionally, aren't open cycle gas turbines the only things that can ramp up and down fast enough to handle the vagueries of the wind? Substituting gas for coal and having a power generation system that does not have to have substantial capacity in standby mode through the use of natural gas seems at step in the right direction.
Perhaps the real fear is very economical gas power generation like the US is seeing coupled with the efficiency gains of closed cycle vs. open cycle gas powered electricity plants will really show the futility of concentration on wind.
My comment on the Peter Lilley thread that Harrabin lapped up Chris Hope's tweet "with his eyes wide shut" applies in this context as well. I agree with Ben that in true BBC "science" journalism style his brain is just as shut.
What would happen if someone with a genuinely open and enquiring mind were let loose in the BBC, I wonder?
Ben Pile:
I think you've nailed it there. It's amazing that such people can't get in their heads that there's been a major reduction in carbon emissions in the USA precisely as a result of the dash to gas. The IPCC (or 'climate science') should be delighted on all counts. But this stuff is a bit like the difference between Islam as defined by the Koran and the Hadiths and what scholars call Folk Islam. Folk Climate is a land where very strange things and reasonings take place. This is a truly gobsmacking example.
@Mike Jackson
"...What would happen if someone with a genuinely open and enquiring mind were let loose in the BBC, I wonder?..."
They would be sacked in short order.
Maybe I'm in too optimistic a mood but I see wiggle room too at this key moment in Harrabin's report:
It all depends what you mean by relying on it. I don't think we should rely on it - I just think we shouldn't shackle it, then the market will decide. And "he believes he can persuade the Treasury" is really pretty weak. This sounds like a sop thrown to the greens so they don't all charge off a cliff in despair. Sean for me gets it right:
I think the new gas will finish off wind for this reason. The poor dears.
Maybe Harri just woke up and smelled the coffee?
All the time the green bug eyed environmentalists could persuade government to go with wind then no problem. However if the government lets gas rip (not a pun hehe) and economic recovery results, well then better start hedging one's bets.
"Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science."
Surely, doing the right thing at home should trump "credibility problems with international colleagues."
We are fortunate in Canada to have a leader who doesn't pander to the press (he simply ignores the national media and gets re-elected anyway) and doesn't seem to give a damn about being popular internationally.
This drives our press nuts.
don't u know u mustn't question science? Roger and Megan have a lot in common:
5 Sept: News.com.au: AAP: Science itself is being questioned: CSIRO
SCIENTISTS need to communicate with the Australian public to be heard above the voices challenging their research, the head of the national science agency says.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) chief executive Dr Megan Clark says scientists these days are working in a “fundamentally different” environment that makes it difficult for them to properly inform public debate.
Scientists whose work was subject to peer reviewing and vigorous benchmarks for integrity were being challenged by research posted online that met no such standards, she said…
“We are in a world where science itself is being questioned,” Dr Clark told the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.
“Scientific evidence is often referred to as a theory, as if a theory is something to be doubted.”…
Science has faced a formidable opponent in the USA, where the creationism movement is lobbying for theories of evolution to be banned from some school curriculums.
But in Australia, despite fierce debate around climate science dominating airwaves, there is still a healthy demand for well-informed information about the issues affecting the country…
She said the CSIRO was taking a step back to ensure it was clearly communicating with the Australian public about the issues “they need to hear about”.
For example, Dr Clark said every two years the CSIRO in conjunction with the Bureau of Meteorology released its State of the Nation’s Climate report to set an agenda for informed debate…
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/science-itself-is-being-questioned-csiro/story-e6frfku9-1226465769902
not all about CAGW:
VIDEO: 5 Sept: ABC: National Press Club: National Press Club: Megan Clark
Duration: 56min 33sec
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/national-press-club-megan-clark/4244598
"We face a major challenge to keep the lights on in the most cost-effective way. In achieving this, we must not be over-reliant on any one technology..." Why?
"...but build a balanced low-carbon mix..." Why? - And why low carbon (sic)?
"However, this could be interpreted as an ambiguous statement that could lead to a large increase in gas use." So what?
"Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science." So it's a consensus then: kind of like a democracy of power - rather than power of a democracy.
Of course, all these things can be done when you're spending trillions of other people's money - but not to reduce the deficit or the debt. (weeps, silently...)
"Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science."
======
Change that to : Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject *monopoly* climate science.
Harrabin's panties in a twist in his head?
Yes, Harrabin's lack of understanding of the issues is quite remarkable. He would benefit from reading Lawson's book "An Appeal to Reason".
Harrabin has been sending some rather panicky tweets this afternoon - he seems to think that a minister appointed yesterday is under a moral obligation to answer immediately every vague question asked by a journalist:
"I asked DECC if John Hayes accepted IPCC science. His statement ignores my question - and could mean new dash for gas."
"I asked Defra if Owen Paterson accepted IPCC science. No reply after 9.5 hours. Maybe they couldn't get a message through?"
"It's reasonable for people to know if new Defra Sec and energy minister are climate sceptic. When will they tell us?"
@snotrocket : spot on. He's making policy statements as though they were self-explanatory. Incredible, but not really surprising i think after having read his Grace's Conspiracy book today.
Richard Drake, you have coined a term that should go down in history; 'Folk Climate' - absolutely brilliant!
"Scientific evidence is often referred to as a theory, as if a theory is something to be doubted."
The idea used to be attempting to falsify the null hypothesis, now it's defend the pet hypothesis no matter what.
"However, this could be interpreted as an ambiguous statement that could lead to a large increase in gas use.
Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science."
Isn't it mainly our coal fired stations due to be coming offline over the next few years. Replacing these with gas wouldn't be rejecting majority climate science would it, whatever that is supposed to mean... (though I obviously assume he is talking about CO2 emissions which would come down in this scenario.)
Alexander K beat me to it - "Folk Climate" is a brilliant and actually very useful term. Thanks Richard!
and please remember, folks, that nWilliam Connolley has out solar panels on his roof and is therefore benefitting from the extraordinarily stupid FITs. Let him pay for those panels by himself without subisdy. Even better, cut him off from the grid.
BH:
I am sure Lord Stern would agree with that.
But I am not sure I'd rely on an economist to tell me anything.
I'm trying to think of an important issue in the past where the advice of economists had significant benefit. Maybe my inability to do so just reveals my ignorance. In that case, I'd be glad if someone would enlighten me.
"Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science."
But would Roger Harrabin recognise any kind of "climate science" if it ran him down in the high street? He has a degree in English and the BBC just doesn't seem to care.
"Mr Davey was making it clear today, though, that he still runs energy policy and that he intends to keep coalition commitments on renewables and reducing greenhouse gases. Decc sources say he believes he can persuade the Treasury that relying on shale gas is misguided."
As expected really. Perhaps this is the reason Cuadrilla were excluded from the recent Downing Street 'shale gas industry experts' meeting - the minister preferring to take views only from people who share his narrow biases against shale.
Perhaps this is also the reason why the Cabinet Office are sitting on an internal review of their refusal to supply information I have requested through FOI about the attendees and their claimed requirement for strong regulation.
My comment on the Peter Lilley thread that Harrabin lapped up Chris Hope's tweet "with his eyes wide shut" applies in this context as well. I agree with Ben that in true BBC "science" journalism style his brain is just as shut.
What would happen if someone with a genuinely open and enquiring mind were let loose in the BBC, I wonder?
Sep 5, 2012 at 8:43 PM | Mike Jackson
PUBLIC SERVICE! In answer to your question, instead of the inane stupidity of the self-opinionated intellectual onanism that is currently substituted for taxpayers funded broadcasting! The BBC requires privatising fast or reforming even faster!!!
"The BBC understands Mr Davey will take personal control of renewables policy."
Does this mean Paterson has effectively been neutered ?
Does anybody else in the Skeptic Movement think we may have become too side tracked by Wind Turbines.
Worthy and great successfull fight against Wind Power causing Fuel Poverty.
But back to does CO2 cause warming ?
In in a test tube in a TV studio maybe .
But a planet in a solar system that has maintained life for millions of years ?
Fun being a Denier and a Fuel Poverty campaigner.
Harrabin is deperately holding on to the proclaimed monopoly of the interpretion of "science" aka IPCC!
IPCC delivered an order from UN/politicians to construct the "evidence" of man made global warming.
IPCCi snot representing science its representing climate politics and nothing else. Our politicians ordered and designed thier "summary for ploicyholders" themselves. IPCC stopped collect and summarize science in 1995 and came to control it and stear it instead on behalf of the policymakers intrests and directions.
This is a perfect example of what the BBC does best. It's called ‘framing’.
They give the illusion to the general, nonpartisan viewer/reader that there aren't in fact two or more positions on any given subject. The ‘debate’ is framed from a particular viewpoint. Any green, environmental or energy debate is framed on the automatic assumption that renewables are good, global warming is happening/disastrous and that traditional forms of energy (coal, gas, nuclear) are bad and that anyone involved in them is an evil profiteering businessman who tortures puppies in this spare time.
When this is presented as a default centre position, the debate has been 'framed'.
It's now easy to portray any deviation from the new centrist position as being extreme. When you have repositioned the ‘centre’ all the way off to the left, ‘right-wing’ becomes a synonym for fascist in the minds of so many instead of a difference of opinion.
Last night I watched Newsnight. They did a piece on the melting ice in the Arctic. Peter Lilley and the new Green leader ended up discussing global warming. Mr. Lilley attacked the Newsnight film moments earlier telling Paxo that it was another example of biased, unscientific coverage.
What interested me though was that in the film it suggested that here in the UK we should prepare ourselves for wetter duller summers as the jet stream has been so badly influenced by the ice melt.
This scenario is light years away from their usual predictions of hotter, drier summers.
They can't even stick to their own made up script can they?
Melting ice piece starts at 35 mins 20 secs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mmx7q/Newsnight_05_09_2012/
lapogus; the warming in the closed cap bottle is because absorbed IR is pseudo-scattered to be indirectly thermalised at the bottle walls which heat warms the gas. Nahle proved this nearly a year ago by replacing the PET bottle with a Mylar [oriented PET] balloon, wall thickness 1/12 that of the blow-formed version. There was no warming.
Mr Harrabin, as usual, is writing with the knowledge that he has the backing of the BBC trustees for anything that advocates 'green' energy policies. Any journalist who covers any aspect of science should know that science is not about 'majority' - it's about observable, testable facts. That he feels able to write such utter tosh is an indication of how corrupt the BBC so-callled coverage of science has become. I'm currently in the middle of analysing an appearance by enbergy minister Greg Barker on the Today programme back in April. Sarah Montague limply allowed him to get away with claiming that new CO2 technologies would generate 'trillions of pounds' for EU economies. All normal rules of journalistic engagement have now been abandoned at the BBC when covering this topic. And despite the growing evidence throwing serious doubt on Mr Harrabin's 'majority science', their prejudice is getting worse, not better.
Paul: this ice melt claim is a typical warmist falsehood. Any competent scientist can work out that there wasn't enough time for the 'melt' to happen. Instead, the real explanation was the series of vigorous depressions which from early August broke up the ice and piled it giving the impression of melting.
Currently, ice extent appears to be about to turn upwards: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Thanks Lapogus
Yeah top of the test tube because the Earth Atmosphere is exposed to the vacum of space .Not possible for the atmosphere to trap heat due to Newton 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics .Heat can only move from where its hot to where its cold.Why Gorgi Registered plumbers always install central heating radiators under windows the coldest part of a room.Global Warming well really its the door off a sauna left wide open but its still hot inside.
Another Scare Story worth checking out. This one will get the smug Enviromentalist hot and flustered.
they will be saying "and thats another reason we told you so"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100019812/saudi-oil-well-dries-up/
Confused
No this means Mr Davey, as a Liberal Democrat, hasn't yet been re-briefed and still believes that he is in control of policy. He may possibly raise objections to the direction that the government will head towards, but the basic argument of whether he is for or against growth in the economy within this coalition government will render him impotent and may be a severe hindrance to his career.
The Lib Dems are stuck between a rock and a hard place, retain fringe issues and slow down the recovery crippling any kudos they can muster from the coalition, or gain wider favour with marginal voters by stimulating economic recovery and showing that they are not an unelectable party.
Tories need to placate their core voters and old school politicians, Lib Dems need to gain support and gain respect for more of their mid ranked politicians.
All of this before 2015 election campaign,who said that politics was boring! The party conference jamborees will be a riot this year as we learn which direction each of the three parties wants to take the country, more fun for the journalists, and their own agenda's.
Surely "Faux Climate" not "Folk Climate".
Robin Horbury
Do you not get the impression that times they are a changing?
'Consensus science' is now 'majority science', R Black has left for pastures new, anchors on program's such as Today are taking a more central stance on environmental issues.
Slightly OT - note the change of working here
"Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science."
Normally that would read
"Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject the climate science consensus."
Apologies - I didn't read all the comments...
Paul - thanks for the link to the Newsnight interview with Lilley. Sad to see that Susan Watts is so ill-informed about the real reasons for the loss of Arctic ice this summer (transport by winds and currents down the Fram Strait, and the big storm break-up in early August. A quick look at the this year's Arctic temperatures confirms that they have been average or below average from early April until mid August. Yet again she perpetuates the positive feedback from the open-ocean albedo, yet ignores the corresponding negative feedback which results from the fact that there is much more heat loss from the open ocean than from an ocean covered with ice and snow (which is a good insulator). As for this warming Arctic changing air currents so that we get wet summers, well maybe England did, but Scotland (especially north of Oban and Perth had a very dry summer. A quick look at some climate history shows that the 'climate change' / extreme weather we have experienced in the last 30 years is nothing unusual or unprecedented. Susan also needs to read Tony Brown's essay http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/ for some context. Likewise his other essay The Long Slow Thaw hosted at Judith's.
[Snip]
Alsio there is good evidence that gas does not produce more CO2 per unit energy that windmills + the less efficient variable gas supply needed as back up so even in CO2 terms he is lying.
However the bniggest lie is about "internatio9nal colleagues" being so committed to the waerming scare when they odds are that out biggest ally, the US, is likely to be shortly governed by a government of warming sceptics, at the very least.
Just another example of how the BBC will tell any lie and censor any fact to promote scare stories designed to make government bigger & us more obedient.
Andrew Orlowski
Binning green power would be like printing money - without inflation
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/no10_green_energy_policy_wobble_yes_or_no/page2.html
IPCCi snot representing science.........
Sep 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM | Slabadang>>>>>
Very apt :)
We are dumping 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year, and as a percentage of our atmosphere, it has increase 40% since the industrial revolution. What do we think is going to happen?
The last refuge of the warmist; "Big Scary Number! we must be making a difference, we just must!"
We are dumping 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year, and as a percentage of our atmosphere, it has increase 40% since the industrial revolution. What do we think is going to happen?
Sep 6, 2012 at 5:06 PM | joe arrigo>>>>>
Nothing, other than accelerated plant growth.
As has been the case for the past 15 years.
AGW is a politically motivated myth.
"It's a bit of a worry that Roger Harrabin doesn't seem to have grasped this."
Might be worrying but not surprising. How many BBC reporters have any real qualification in science or engineering? Very little by the looks of it.
Sep 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM | edmh
That strikes me as the nightmare for environmentalists. I think that could be a tipping point when the only question is which politician will blink first. The Tories have an advantage but Labour could roll back their Milibandesque metropolitan green bullshit and catch up - it could start an avalanche of cogent reassessment on innovative policies- hell the UK could lead the way in something that was tangible.
It's a dream ;)
You see no one, but no one will have a bad word to say about any environmental policy - but will they keep silent if they are dismantled? I think very easily. This is the nightmare that enviros must have - nightmares about when they just go back to being mung bean eating irrelavancies because everyone will wake up to the fact they never had anything real to offer.
Fraser Nelson (the Spectator's editor) has a strongly-argued piece about Paterson's appointment on the Telegraph's centre spread this morning: "Shale: the hidden treasure that could transform Britain’s fortunes"
His conclusion:
Not sure about "greener" or how the world would benefit. But the UK certainly would. So let's hope Cameron has opened that new chapter.
Am just having a twitter exchange with Barry Woods as RH has not moved an inch on the most simplistic idiotification of all, asking anybody if they "accept IPCC science".
I suspect the remaining half of the BBC's Alarmist Duo means "accept that one sentence written in the IPCC AR4 SPM". Perhaps he really never ever managed to read the rest?
Robin
Allowing for Fraser Nelson's hyperbole — he's good at it! — he may have a point.
What has been absent so far has been rational discussion since the enviro-activists have been yelling "the sky is falling; the sky is falling" at the tops of their voices and politicians (never keen on being on the back foot) have panicked more than a little, like you would, even if they didn't fully agree or fully understand the ins and outs.
Leopard makes a good point above. Once the emperor is shown to have no clothes, and that point is getting closer, there will be major opportunities for some genuine environmentalism. Nelson is correct in surmising that there is the potential (he mentions shale but other sensible environmental policies would contribute) to make Britain a greener place. Care for the environment is only possible when you don't need to wreck it in order to survive, something we are proving again as we divert land to growing gasoline with all the adverse effects that flow from that. Much of the ground that is being used to stick windmills on would be enviromentally improved by not having them there.
As for how the world would benefit, don't underestimate the influence that Britain still has in the world. I don't mean the arm-twisting sort but the moral kind. A sensible policy which understood both the need for cheap and reliable energy now (untrammelled by the distorted vision of the eco-luddites and their allies) combined with the need for research into other forms of energy and energy use for the future (in that instance without the input from vested interests like Veolia whose solution is control rather than expand supply) would resonate outside the boundaries of the UK. In many places Britain's example is still considered worth following.