Bishop Hill Mackay bashes Lawson
In his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee this morning, DECC chief scientist David Mackay attacked Nigel Lawson for (allegedly) saying in an article a few weeks ago that the IPCC was advocating a complete phase-out of fossil fuels.
The article in question is this one at the Telegraph. I think there is a bit of a snafu here. The text of the article is as follows:
What we should emphatically not do is what Dr Pachauri, Lord Stern and that gang are calling for and decarbonise the global economy by phasing out fossil fuels.
So the text refers to Rajendra Pachauri (et al) demanding a fossil fuel phase-out rather than the IPCC per se. However, the standfirst to the article reads as follows:
The IPCC’s call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and 'morally outrageous’ for the developing world.
As readers here know, the standfirst is usually added by editors, so it may be that this is simply a case of an overimaginitive subeditor overegging things.
Reader Comments (20)
All your phase are belong to us.
=====================
Mackay seems to have a 'thing' about Lawson. At the British Energy Challenge in Newcastle in September he made a disparaging quip to Mark Lynas (co-presenter on the day) about Lawson being about 'business as usual'.
It suggests that GWPF is being rather effective at afflicting the comfortable.
Background briefing accompanying the IPCC AR5 WG1 launch. 27.9.2013
“This report is about two different futures. Either we continue on the current path of burning fossil fuels and stoking the fires of climate change or we turn a different corner. By taking strong and rapid action to switch to renewable energy, phase out fossil fuels and protect our forests, we can still prevent catastrophic levels of warming of two degrees or more.”
Stephanie Tunmore, Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/Global/india/report/2013/IPCC-briefing.pdf
Looks like Lawson made the same mistake as Greenpeace
Mackay is an interesting case in point. In spite of having written a very interesting book on information theory - thereby demonstrating no small competence in the field - his contribution to the CC debate has been spurious and tangential from day one.
Unlike Nurse, who could always, and quite reasonably, fall back on plea of diminished capacity, Mackay has no such excuse for failing to evaluated the underlying data and methods himself.
When Mackay was first appointed, I actually thought he'd be doing something similar to Climate Audit; going through important papers, checking methods, procedures, data selection criteria etc ... maybe even having a go at reproducing claimed results, a la Climate Audit.
It was not to be.
Perhaps the error on my part was failing to grasp the practical consequence of the word "appointed" in this context.
It appears to mean that a technically gifted mathematician and statistician must become a vapid cheerleader for a predetermined conclusion.
Shame on you, Mackay.
David Kennedy, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, lets the cat out of the bag.
"There’s a sense in the Government that actually ‘we’ve moved on, we don’t need a narrative any more, we’re delivering, we are focused on delivery, getting these investments done’, but if you just focus on delivery without having a story to tell people that this is sensible, it’s good for the country, it’s good economic strategy then you’ve got to question how sustainable is that politically.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10366387/Science-in-favour-of-climate-change-akin-to-evidence-linking-smoking-to-cancer.html
Has anyone done any analysis comparing demand for energy, temperature against wind speed and generation of electricity from wind turbines. It appears that in periods of very low wind speed which can coincide with near and below freezing conditions, there is no or low wind generated electricity. When the wind is very strong then wind turbines are switched off.
Consequently what periods during the year do wind turbines actually work?
Like so many government envronmental advisers, including a couple revealed recently in Geoff Chamber's blog - it's worth bearing in mind that MacKay had colourful past as a political activist before his official post.
Here's a comment I wrote about him a couple of years ago.
@ Charlie 1:33
TerryS replied Oct 8, 2013 at 10:11 AM on the http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/8/shale-will-be-too-late.html posting:-
Re: Albert Stienstra
> There are week-long periods in winter when wind energy is close to zero, that is about 2 GW below median. Such periods cannot be reliably forecast,
They can't be reliably forecast but they can be predicted. The week long periods of near zero wind energy usually occur at the coldest time of the winter and therefore when the demand is highest. This is because the UK experiences its coldest period when you get a high pressure system that sits over the UK without moving. [my bold]
"He hates cars"
But is presumably not so averse to the odd seat in business-class. #greensgobyair
Joe Public. Thank you. The high pressure in winter causing cold spells makes sense but has anyone published research on this? I do not understand why nobody is pointing out the problems with wind turbines not generating energy when required.
When there is a call for 80% cut in emissions, which now needs to be much more because of recent increases, how should that be interpreted but as a phaseout of fossil fuels? Given certain countries will be exempt or allowed to have a less drastic reduction, it stands to reason that countries like the UK would be close to a 100% drop.
Article 2 of the UNFCCC calls for stabilization of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. That requires zero emissions.
Richard Tol at 6:44 pm: "That requires zero emissions (of carbon dioxide)." I believe that overstates the reduction needed to stabilize carbon dioxide at current levels. The measured annual increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide is estimated to be about half the amount emitted from burning (fossil?) fuels. The other half is absorbed by the oceans, growth of plant life, etc. Therefore, zero emissions will result in a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as about the same annual amount will still be absorbed by the oceans and plant life. So reducing emissions by about a factor of 2 should stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide at current levels of about 400 ppm.
@Mayor of Venus
No. You cannot think about the carbon cycle as a simple differential equation. It is a composite differential equation. Part of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere practically forever.
Richard, you say the Mayor is wrong in this obvious but maybe simplistic treatment, but in the previous comment you made just such a statement. And nobody has an accurate handle on the carbon cycle. Which isn't really a cycle at all.
I think any man who calls his daughter after himself, needs a little bashing once in a while!
Richard Tol: "Part of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere practically forever."
I have seen the equation for decay of pCO2, but it seems implausible to me. As I understand it, the form of the equation (decaying exponentials) implies carbon stores coming to equilibrium in concentration. On the other hand, it seems that carbon is sequestered on the ocean bottom by natural processes (coccolithophores), and the "recycling" of this material is on a geological time scale, so equilibrium in the near term is not what one should expect.
Can you point me to the evidence for the proposition that "[p]art of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere practically forever" ?
Phase out fossil fuel.
What is NATO going to use to power its tanks ships and aircraft when we go into Syria and Somalia
The IPCC do wan't to phase out fossil fuels.......Why is this comment 'over-egging'?