Thursday
Oct032013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Diary date: liturgical edition
Oct 3, 2013 Climate: Parliament 
Ever keen to hear the climate change liturgy intoned, the Science and Technology Committee have invited a group of senior prelates to hold confession at the House of Commons.
Wednesday 9 October 2013
Thatcher Room, Portcullis HouseAt 9.15 am
- Rt Hon the Lord Deben, Chairman, Committee on Climate Change, and
- David Kennedy, Chief Executive, Committee on Climate Change
At 9.55 am
- Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
At 10.25 am
- Rt Hon Gregory Barker MP, Minister of State for Climate Change, Department of Energy and Climate Change
- Professor David MacKay, Chief Scientific Advisor, Department of Energy and Climate Change, and
- David Warrilow, Head of Science, Department of Energy and Climate Change
Reader Comments (22)
If only they were Rt Hons.
P45s all round?
Had to google liturgical... I'm liking the ecclesiastical nomenclature...
Somebody should have been a Bishop
Since the topic is: Climate: Public understanding and policy implications, perhaps some of the members like Mr Stringer could be sent some useful items to bring up. The table 12.4 mentioned in a previous post perhaps: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/2/a-report-from-the-royal.html.
I'm curious as to why a committee needs a chief executive?
David Chappell: Jobs for the boys. What else could taxpayers' money be spent on? Reducing the deficit?
Re: Oct 3, 2013 at 2:33 PM | ssat
"P45s all round?"
One can hope... :<)
So what is it that the committee hope to achieve by asking these six turkeys what they believe should be on the menu at Christmas? Every single one has vested interest in keeping the funding trough rolled out and 'climate change' panic maintained despite even the IPCC now having said there is absolutely no cause for alarm?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/ar5T12.4.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1380746813865
4 of the turkeys are not scientifically trained. The others are. Let us hope the latter are brave enough to be objective.
Why does a Head of Science need a Chief Scientific Advisor? Is he not capable or did I miss an episode of Yes Minister?
David Mackay is competent but green. A year last May he reportedly told Davey 15 GW windmills cold save no emissions unless hydro (in our case pump storage) was used to sink surges, similar to Denmark, Holland, Spain and soon Germany.
Davey reportedly ignored him and went for STOR. Fallon outed this recently. Treated as a 15 GW generating unit, windmills plus STOR will use 80% more fossil fuel than CCGTs and no windmills, equivalent to 150% more CO2 emissions. We would save fossil fuel by keeping the old coal stations even.
No scientist could argue that the opposite. I hope the Committee go for the jugular, which is to ask whether the windmills are purely political, not to save CO2 emissions or fossil fuel imports.
No 'proper' climate scientists then ?
AlecM: I guess you have no reference to what he reportedly told Davey?
I think questions should be asked regarding Matt Collins disclosures (A report from the Royal) and TS.6.4 Key Uncertainties in Projections of Global and Regional Climate Change from the draft report.
It would not be difficult to put Warrilow, and the government on the spot over the very fancy footwork to cover up 'the pause' in the SPM, if any MP on the committee had the notion and was suitably briefed. Assuming that he is still the UK Government's senior IPCC representative (I haven't checked) there really wouldn't be anywhere for him to run for cover.
Philip: it was reported in the Press at the time. I have no record but it may come up with a search.
So can we expect the next SciTech committee to have a panel entirely composed of sceptics??
Don't bother to answer. that.....
I can't object to them holding meetings if they wish. But what is the purpose/agenda?
And do any of these people draw a salary for the titles/positions held (apart from an MP's salary where indicated)?
..And the purpose of this 'group hug' is....?
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 28, 2011, 8:52am
Philip Bratby on Bishop Hill http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2....than-spain.html notes this letter today from an illustrious list of experts:
Perhaps not all is lost in Scotland. If somebody will only heed what was writen in Scotsman today:
NO developed economy can function without a reliable and economic supply of electricity but with present UK policies we have been warned that within a few years there will be a risk of power failures while increases in prices to consumers will rise by more than 50 per cent by 2025.
On a standalone basis the situation in Scotland would be even more disastrous. The huge investment required to remedy the neglect and wishful thinking of recent years will require two decades or more to take effect and in the run up to the May elections we urge all political parties in Scotland to put the future of our electricity supplies at the top of their agendas.
The pretence that our electricity can in future be supplied from renewables, mainly wind and marine, has gone on too long. These matters are not a question of opinion; they are answerable to the laws of physics and are readily analysed using normal engineering methods. All of these energy sources are of very low concentrations and intermittent; they are and will remain inherently expensive and no amount of development will have more than a marginal effect on this conclusion.
Nor can wind and marine energy sources be relied on to provide electricity when it is needed; a recent analysis has shown that for over 30 per cent of the time the output from wind farms has dropped to below 10 per cent of their nominal output and during extremely cold weather has fallen to virtually zero. Furthermore it is unfortunately not correct that marine energy constitutes a vast untapped energy resource on our doorstep; studies (now apparently accepted by government) have shown that at best it could provide only a few percent of our electricity supplies and at costs which, including the necessary back up generation, would be entirely unacceptable to consumers.
Fossil fuelled generation (coal or gas) with carbon dioxide capture and underground storage may yet prove a useful technique but it is important to realise that it is an unproven technology on the scale required; that it may never be acceptable to dispose of such huge quantities of gas in underground storage and at present its costs are too uncertain to gamble on its playing a significant part in our forward energy policy.
So by all means let us have some wind power, development programmes for other renewables, home insulation programmes, heat pumps etc but let us not pretend that all these taken together will substitute for proven generation sources such as coal, gas and nuclear.
And if low carbon is to be the principal driver of energy policy, we can build on Scotland's half century of experience with nuclear, generating some 50 per cent of our electricity requirements, reliably and at low cost.
Scotland needs a balanced electricity system which can deliver economic and reliable supplies; we are at the 11th hour and there is now no more time to lose in getting to grips with this task. There can be nothing more urgent on the political agenda.
Colin Gibson C Eng FIEECCMI Network director National Grid 1993-97)
Prof Ken W D Ledingham FInstP
Prof Colin R McInnes FREng FRSE
Sir Donald Miller C EngFREng FRSE, Chairman ScottishPower 1982-92
Prof Anthony Trewavas FRS FRSE
Prof Jack Ponton FREng FIChemE
Alex - a perfect, 'grown-up' summary of the situation - and why..?
Because its produced by CHARTERED ENGINEERS (yes, I am one) who constantly deal with the realities of life, physics, and materials...