Thursday
Oct242013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Thursday open thread
Oct 24, 2013 Climate: Cuttings 
In my absence, here is an open thread for any climate and energy news today.
Oct 24, 2013 Climate: Cuttings 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Oct 24, 2013 Climate: Cuttings
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (100)
Couple of articles in the online Daily Mail placing blame for high energy prices where it belongs
Politicians to Blame
Daily Mail Comment
The energy news today is that it's worse than we thought. After 20 years without a coherent energy policy, we might have thought things in this country couldn't get any worse, but they have. All three "major" parties are now trying to make political capital out of the rising energy prices, they are making policy up on the hoof and blaming each other for policies which they have all contributed to and agrred with. Of course, we non-politicos could all see this coming, it's just that we didn't know when it was all going to come to a head. It will take years to get out of the mess, if we ever do, as the country is essentially bankrupt.
Priorities:
1 Repeal the CCA.
2 Ignore EU directives.
3 Eliminate all renewable energy subsidies.
4 Put in place measures to ensure we build power stations to get cheap, reliable and sufficent supplies of electricity.
5 Get fracking.
6 Remove all wind turbines and solar panels.
7 Etc
8 Etc
Oct 24, 2013 at 8:06 AM | Phillip Bratby
Does this mean, I wonder, that we (or at least you in the U.K.) have finally reached the "tipping point" of peak political stupidity and/or C[O2] fetish cupidity?
"The TImes" today has a report that the National Trust (or one of their servants or agents) prefers fracking to windmills. Progress? There is also a letter from development and Green charities promoting decarbonisation targets. It claims the poor and the environment are already suffering damage from global warming. No mention of damage the poor are already suffering from measures to combat global warming.
There's a strong change in the background music. Would anyone, in the political establishment, a couple of years ago (excluding 'mavericks', 'nutters' etc) have been suggesting that energy prices were a bit of a problem and green charges of one kind or another had quite a bit to do with it? I don't remember hearing that. And now we have a new nuclear plant announced with hardly a whimper of protest. Did not the Blair-Brown 'government' try to get one going but had to back down in the face of their syndicalist and green constituencies?
Whats interesting is that although the scientists are insisting that the science is correct, we're doomed to one degree or another, wherever you look the political classes now seem to be distancing themselves from the policy initiatives the science implies. Germany goes for coal-fuelled power generations; Australia govt tells the whole green lot to shove it; Britaian starts on nuclear with hardly a peep of protest and signs of walking away (on tip toe and never admitting error) from Climate change levies etc etc etc ..... PLeasing though this all is it will induce frothing rage in the Trot/Green fascist brigades because they will see it as yet another example of democratic politicians ignoring principle/doing anything however wrong and shameless for the sake of votes (because of course a 17 year 'pause' is too complex for most plain citizens; they, uninformed as they are, take a 17 year pause as indicating the whole hypothesis is bollox and so no votes for anyone who wants to put up the price of gas on the basis of bollox. This is the calculus of which democratic politicians have an innate understanding. Why wouldn't Cameron let the grand-kiddies fry, if it helps win him the 2015 election?
As this is a 'free topic', can I ask for some guidance? When trying to explain my skepticism to the vast majority of people who don't seem to have strong views, I think it always helps to give them an idiot's guide as a 'primer'. Very few non informed people give a damn about ENSO, NOAA or some 16 page essay on statistical analysis? The primer I often use is Monckton's 90minute lecture with slides (from Canada I think?) This video is 6 years old and isn't perfect, but it captures the basics quite well, certainly enough to start asking questions. However, time has moved on, and we now add Climategate, upside down tree surveys, and a 17 year pause. What do we think is the best 'idiot's guide' currently available? Text or video? And surely this project would be worth special attention in it's own right, to make a 'definitive' and quality production?
Hilary:
I very much doubt if political stupidity has peaked yet. We have had many years of a dumbed-down education system and a dumbing down propaganda machine (the BBC). The dumbed down graduates have not yet worked there way up the greasy pole (although you might think so when you see/hear the current lot in action).
Interesting how quickly the Kara Sea is freezing considering how warm they said its waters were. (posted here instead of the Arctic sea ice thread because of flood of off-topic comments there)
Greenpeace watch:
-2°C in Murmansk, so still quite warm. Positively toasty, in fact. No need for fossil fuels yet, eh?
And thinking about Greenpeace, 'tis pity the Russians are reportedly dropping the charges of piracy. However, the alternative charge of hooliganism should entitle the idiots a reasonable period of residence in Siberia (one hopes)
David Chappell,
But Greenpeace passionately believe Siberia will be nice and toasty in a few years. That'll make their stay more pleasant.
Ah, Greenpeace. I reproduce here my comment today at Pointman's excellent blog (don't forget to vote there for the Climate Prat of the Year):
As usual, Putin is the smartest person in the room. He’s an amoral jerk, but the Russians love him because he’s their amoral jerk, and is utterly unmoved by attempts to manipulate or blackmail him.
There was an article a few days ago in the (UK) Independent, weeping and wailing about the nasty Russians. The comments were very telling – the Independent’s readers are inclined to support NGOs like Greenpeace. But an awful lot of them don’t have much sympathy for GP and its actions in this case.
Indeed, this seems to be a real turning point for Greenpeace, who seem to be utterly blindsided by these events. The support they expected – from governments and the grassroots – has not materialised. They have become cut off from the masses to such an extent that the leadership made a colossal blunder, and they don’t know what to do about it. In public.
It doesn’t really matter now what happens to the ship’s crew. The point has been made, and Greenpeace look like knaves and fools.
Interestingly, a lot of the comments under the Independent’s article, and the one by the head of GP offering to settle the matter with Vladimir as two Men of the World – identified GP’s mindless campaign against GM food crops as another major blunder which lost them support even from committed environmentalists.
Could we be witnessing the beginning of the demise of Greenpeace as a major player?
The trouble with the EDF deal on Hinckley point is that it looks just like the private finance initiatives for the NHS that were such a complete disaster for the taxpayer. We save a mere 16 billion but pay 100 billion+ later on, not including decommisioning. However most of the commenters on the BBC blog were of one mind; that if we could find 50 billion easily enough for HS2 infrastructure then we'd be far better off spending it on 8 new nuclear stations for the same money with no EDF blackmail/surcharge on the electricity.
The sites are already defined, all we need is a coordinating body - say the UKAEA and a reactor type - say the tried and tested Sizewell B design. Add on a few bells and whistles to make it a GEN IV and any design mods can be carried out very capably by CCFE, Frazer-Nash, Amec etc. No need for EDF or the others and It's what the public want; a national public energy utility again that guaranteees supply at a reasonable price - and a shot over the bows of the cartels!
The trouble with privatisation is that it just doesn't make sense with vital infrastructure. We simply cannot be beholden to corporate fatcats from foreign lands. Nobody else in the world were stupid enough to farm out their energy supply to foreigners. Britain is laughably farcically unique in doing so!
Anyway if the EU knocks the EDF deal back on illegal state subsidy grounds then we'll need a plan B. Gas alone, whether from shale or not, won't be enough.
The trouble with the EDF deal on Hinckley point is that it looks just like the private finance initiatives for the NHS that were such a complete disaster for the taxpayer. We save a mere 16 billion but pay 100 billion+ later on, not including decommisioning. However most of the commenters on the BBC blog were of one mind; that if we could find 50 billion easily enough for HS2 infrastructure then we'd be far better off spending it on 8 new nuclear stations for the same money with no EDF blackmail/surcharge on the electricity.
The sites are already defined, all we need is a coordinating body - say the UKAEA and a reactor type - say the tried and tested Sizewell B design. Add on a few bells and whistles to make it a GEN IV and any design mods can be carried out very capably by CCFE, Frazer-Nash, Amec etc. No need for EDF or the others and It's what the public want; a national public energy utility again that guaranteees supply at a reasonable price - and a shot over the bows of the cartels!
The trouble with privatisation is that it just doesn't make sense with vital infrastructure. We simply cannot be beholden to corporate fatcats from foreign lands. Nobody else in the world were stupid enough to farm out their energy supply to foreigners. Britain is laughably farcically unique in doing so!
Anyway if the EU knocks the EDF deal back on illegal state subsidy grounds then we'll need a plan B. Gas alone, whether from shale or not, won't be enough.
Following on from johanna's comment about Greenpeace losing support, FoE could perhaps find themselves in the same boat with regard to GM food crops.
There was a terrific argument on BBC's Today programme the other week (recorded it and will transcribe it in due course, hopefully) between Mark Lynas and FoE's Tony Juniper about golden rice, in which (IMHO) Mark Lynas came across as convincing and well-informed, whereas Tony Juniper (again, IMHO) seemed to be on the back foot.
I may be wrong, but golden rice appears to hold out the hope of massive practical benefits to children in the developing world; opposition to it, on the part of Greenpeace and FoE, appears to be largely ideological.
Great article by Jacob Rees-Mogg (a remarkably cool guy for such an unapologetic toff)
http://www.thegwpf.org/jacob-rees-mogg-climate-alarmism-caused-britains-high-energy-prices/
With him, Glover, multiple Comment pieces and the small matter of unanswerable facts pointing to the guilty parties, it seems the penny really is dropping. As Phillip Bratby dryly observes we can at least say we saw this coming from years ago.
Alex, there is also a C4-Rice project. I'm sure they will object to that too. No need to ask. Hats off to Bill and Melinda Gates for supporting it.(And the UK taxpayer).
Madrigaul -
I watched this 90 minute lecture by Bob Carter the other day and thought it excellent for newbies, it covers climate context, cherry picking, the failure of CAGW as a hypothesis, and the futility and irrationality of current climate policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRCISn1KfKQ
But if I only have a few minutes to convince someone that CAGW is a crock of merde, I usually show them the NOAA GISP and Vosktok ice core graphs and video on this page - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/.
This is a good collection of video clips putting the case for scepticism:
A Peer-Reviewed Deception (16 mins) - Michael Crighton, Ross McKitrick, Prof. Mueller on hide the decline, Pat Michaels, Linzden, Monckton, Dellingpole: - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kWEu4Yz76Ro
Topher's recent crowd-sourced video project http://www.50to1.net is an excellent introduction to the madness of current climate policies. I can also recommend the longer interview with David Evans (haven't watched the others yet).
Jame's Corbett's video essay is also excellent summary of of Climategate and the UN agenda (13 minutes) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-uzNBtdYOo
The BBC interviewed Clegg this morning about Cameron's concerns about Green levies.
Clegg said that the levies help 2 million of the poorest families with their fuel bills.
The BBC seemed perfectly satisfied with that answer.
Alex Cull
golden rice has its own web site
http://www.goldenrice.org
where you can find out all you need to know
the fact that it is produced by "Frankenstein" technology makes it a natural object of hate of the Ecofascists
Hilary (Oct 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM): there is no peak to political stupidity, it is a trough – or perhaps more accurately, a chasm; a chasm with no known floor; the only way political stupidity can go is downwards, ever downwards.
Cheshirered: Richard North at EUReferendum not so impressed by Jacob Rees-Mogg:
madrigaul
I put these notes together off-line and returned to find that lapogus (10:55AM) has beaten me to it on several, but the overlap is not complete so here they are:
(1) Overview of the kind you seek is one by Bob Carter, linked to here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/carter-shreds-climate-propaganda-pumped.html
(2) Other items you might also find useful for overviews are on these posts:
(2.1) http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/straight-fs-for-ipcc-at-mother-natures.html
(2.2) http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-more.html
(2.3) http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/ten-minute-trainer-case-against.html
(2.4) http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/towards-calmer-curriculum-on-climate.html
(3) On the IPCC itself, I would recommend the two books by Donna Laframboise, and also this summary which I came across this morning via Greeniewatch
(4) On impacts, the 50:1 videos are excellent, and here is something else which I came across this morning via Samizdata and which seems insightful and hard-hitting on integrated assessment models.
Both Clegg and the BBC think of the poor in the abstract and poverty as an hypothetical ailment that can be cured by gesture homeopathy.
I attended a public debate on the 5th September entitled "Meeting the climate challenge" at Manchester University sponsored by the Thermodynamics Department as it hosted an International Conference on Thermodynamics.
I was appalled to find that Friends of the Earth not only had a speaker on the panel, but were on the steering committee together with the Town Council and the University. It seemed that many in the audience were committed environmentalists and the rest had mostly dropped in from the conference. It should be mentioned that the University is heavily involved the Climate Change industry, supplying at least 25 members of the Tyndall Centre.
Any real debate proved hard to discern as the central thesis was agreed by every speaker and evidently by almost the entire audience! In the light of recent events it now seems an irrelevance, but if you have time to waste here it is:
https://stream.manchester.ac.uk/Play.aspx?VideoId=15849
@ Robin Guenier
Indeed!
But then Richard isn't easily pleased these days, and with good reason. He is of course exactly correct about how the 'legacy media' - and now the MP's themselves, are going public about this issue now the chickens are coming home to roost.
They're both playing catch-up with the blogs who have ahead of the curve on this issue for years.....
Cheshirered (Oct 24, 2013 at 10:27 AM): and what is wrong with being a toff, unapologetic or not?
Perhaps we could all do with an injection of toff-ness; to speak clearly and correctly, with proper enunciation and diction; to speak with wit and charm, without recourse to profanity at every opportunity; to have a broad spectrum of learning, particularly of history and historical arts; to act with quiet manners and have regard to others' viewpoints. It would be a welcome change from the simian grunting, brutal behaviour, unsubtle, constant sexual references and incredible ignorance outside the spheres of football and pop “slebs” so championed in the hallowed halls of the BBC.
"I may be wrong, but golden rice appears to hold out the hope of massive practical benefits to children in the developing world; opposition to it, on the part of Greenpeace and FoE, appears to be largely ideological.
Oct 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull "
Hilarious..your 100% wrong.
I know many GM advocates dont care about the science..but..find the paper by the Golden Rice foundation showing the showing the vitamin A precursor levels after storage and after preparation etc...
It doesnt exist..never has..
But I have a suspicion there are desktop draw papers..that will never see the light of day..hint hint..
If your pro GM..dont ever mention Golden rice..!!! :)
If you thought CAGW was crap..you aint seen nothing till you lift the lid on GM "science". :)
But ignore that and come back with some inane blather about saving kids eye sight..because the GM meme and slogans are more important than the reality.. :)
When I see analysis of domestic energy costs I feel excluded. The money I have left to pay bills has already been trimmed by income tax. Could the commentators perhaps show IT in future, in addition to green levies and VAT, to represent the true cost to Bloke Down The Pub?
Winter policy for environmentalists:
Vote Green - Go Blue
The GM crew have to come up with claptrap about saving the lives/eyesight whatever of 3rd world kiddies, a necessary smokescreen without which the argument becomes "this is going to make us rich beyond our wildest dreams (which are already pretty wild) so we're a-going to do it." I wonder if the men in white coats have heard of the Indian Mutiny, are aware of one of its causes? They might find out when word gets out that say tomatoes now look so glossy on Sainsbury's shelves, and keep so well, because of the extract of pigs bladder that goes into them.
Drapetomania, how is then that vitamin A and precursors can be utilised by humans from other vegetable sources? Are you saying it is impossible for GM rice to do so? I doubt it, and I doubt you know.
In fact, you sound more like you are opposed to the basic principle, and even the possibility of doing so.
Dodgy Geezer - Vote Green - Go Blue - Excellent!
@ bill:
"The GM crew have to come up with claptrap about saving the lives/eyesight whatever of 3rd world kiddies, a necessary smokescreen without which the argument becomes "this is going to make us rich beyond our wildest dreams ... "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Golden Rice project is in the public domain. Nobody is going to profit from owning anything. It is freely available to all.
This is the kind of BS which is costing Greenpeace support, even from the truest of True Believers. See my post above.
The great gain from any production that proves profitable, without subsidy, resides in the usefulness of the product to the customer and not in the monetary profit that may accrue to shareholders. However, profit is just someone else's property and covetousness is held to be a sin (it is certainly a waste of spirit).
SC
"the levies help 2 million of the poorest families with their fuel bills"
I wondered about that, too. I suspect that Clegg is thinking of something different - I have yet to hear a Beeboid mention actual subsidies, FIT's or ROC's, presumably because any of those open the debate too far. Strange that finding the real figure is proving so difficult...
What's a desktop drawer?
"costing Greenpeace support"
I had a call from GP (or one of their PR outfits) because I had written a comment in response to a plea for support. I asked the pleasant young man who called if he had read my remark, as I thought it unlikely that he would have picked up the phone if he had. He hadn't, of course, so I explained that I was entirely in favour of the Russian action and that GP had it coming.
He remarked that I wasn't the first person he'd called who expressed a similar view, so perhaps they'll check their responses in future, as it seemed clear that it hadn't occurred to them that anyone might not agree with their POV!
@Schrodinger...
Dodgy Geezer - Vote Green - Go Blue - Excellent!
Spread it around - we could do with a catchy phrase at this stage of the game.
...Raises the whole tone of the war... :)
THE CHANGING FACE OF UK ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
http://www.thegwpf.org/changing-face-uk-electricity-supply/
or a short cut here
http://euanmearns.com/the-changing-face-of-uk-electricity-supply/
jamesp
I imagine that Clegg was thinking of the announcement by Huhne on 2 December 2010 which may be found on www.gov.uk. Search "Warm Home Discount to provide money off energy bills".
Oct 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM | bill
Still trying to push the old Frankenfood scare are we? That kind of statement is deliberately designed to make someone who knows no better think a small piece of pigs bladder has been inserted into a tomato. You probably know full well that it is a segment of the DNA with a particular characteristic. Or maybe you didn't and are just being a useful conduit.
FullFact are having a look at the claimed Green Levy figures here .
Not had time to look at it yet and they have been known to show bias (mild lefty) in their analysis but it can be a useful starting point.
Hooliganism is such a wonderful charge. I think much better than piracy.
Oct 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered Commenter Radical Rodent
Apparently Mr Rees-Mogg claims to have never used a profanity in his entire life. Quite an achievement, that. I don't have any objections to a well-spoken fellow, especially Mr Rees-Mogg, who combines politeness with great charm and wit.
And a very good day to you, Sir.
Clegg's 2 million :
On Today : "the levies help 2 million of the poorest families with their fuel bills"
a plie ? (Political Lie : rhetoric by politician which may not be an actual lie, but misleads creating a lie in the listener's mind)
- Clegg missed the word COULD : poor families could get help if they bother to phone up, get through, get the form fill it in, get the authorised etc. Just as 30m could get the GreenDeal not the actual roomful who will get it. Any journalists checked ? rather just copy & pasting.
- but I don't see why the press are hyping fuel price scares as I can see the dramagreens view that British people could pay bills 3 times higher as energy is nothing to what they pay for mortgages. Houses 6 times overvalued ?
- fatcats vs nationalise ? see how COOP managers have screwed up recently, giving away 70% of their own bank.
SimonW
looks like fulfact are simply apologists for the DECC propaganda machine
they fail to mention
1. green policies push up the wholesale price of electricity by e.g. axing coal in favour of more expensive fuels
2. network costs include the cost of connecting wind farms to the grid and stupidities such as STOR
3. the 5% VAT charge is on the cost inclusive of the other imposts - a tax on a tax is the Treasury's ultimate wet dream!
and then they try to argue that taxes aren't really taxes
I think it is fair to say they have not tried very hard
0/10
@Dodgy Geezer ; Good one
Caroline Lucas : "Vote Green Go Blue"
Cameron : "Vote Blue or end up blue"
Miliband : "Vote Red and end up d..."
Farage : "Vote maroon and end up with a loon"..... they can take a joke
Clegg : : "Vote yolk and end with a joke"
Merkel telephone saga
So surely what importand info did the American's hear ? her ordering pizza etc ?John Redwood has a breakdown on Green levies here:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/10/23/getting-rid-of-green-levies/
but how much David Cameron can actually do is controlled by EU legislation, Richard North (EU Referendum) doesn't think he has the power to do anything meaningful and is a fool if he thinks he can.