Bishop Hill A timely reminder
Aug 25, 2013 Greens Also in the Telegraph, and on equally good form, is Christopher Booker, who issues a timely reminder about where the real green menace is:
All media eyes were last week focused on that infantile little ruckus over fracking in the Sussex village of Balcombe. But virtually unnoticed recently was a very odd and much more significant event in the fracking drama, which shed further disturbing light on the curious workings of that system of government which now rules our lives much more than most people realise. At a meeting of the EU’s Council of Ministers in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, a special “informal” lunch was given for 28 environment ministers, including our own Owen Paterson, to discuss what should be the EU’s policy on fracking.
Reader Comments (81)
another 'infamous ' 28 meeting , I wonder how the 'expert ' advisers will be at this one?
Why should the European Union have a policy on tracking in the first place? What business is it of the EU?
Roy
That's just what I was going to ask.
It sounds a bit like having a policy on mountains or having a policy on neatness.
Because it's about control.
Well, I think we ought to stand up to em. Send em back to Sicily where dey belong. All it takes is a few strong-willed citizens. They'd think the sky had fallen in on em.
Booker is right to point out this situation which is infinitely more frightening than anything our home-grown protesters can muster.
Here we have an ex-academic (philosophy and social and political sciences — well, knock me over with a feather; I would never have guessed that!!!) claiming to be a spokesman for "Europe's largest federation of environmental citizens' organisations", and if you believe that I have a bridge you might like to buy, who has access to the highest levels of decision-making in the EU which directly or indirectly pays for him to lobby them and corruptly uses that position to make a totally mendacious case for a policy which if adopted can only lead to the impoverishment of the people of Europe — at least relative to the US and China.
The rationale behind the existence of the EU (allegedly) is the need for a bloc to compete with the US and the developing nations of the Far East. Yet here is a man determined to see that such an event does not come to pass and he is welcome in the European corridors of power.
Memo to Owen Paterson: If you and your fellow Environment Ministers don't stop this guy in his tracks, Europe is for sure heading for the Dark Ages!
It's about undermining today's society, culture and the economics it's based on. The target is getting rid of cheap energy and capitalism. Fracking and cheap gas is definitely not on these elements(radical environmentalists) agenda.
Mike Jackson:
Agreed. But why. Either it's utter foolishness or it's deliberate. Both are hard to believe. I mooted the second on my Fantasy China discussion thread in May, because I don't think it can be totally discounted.
They say we need a low carbon energy future, but actually mean expensive energy future. This is sucidal behavior and how is it possible in a democracy?
"Why should the European Union have a policy on tracking in the first place? What business is it of the EU?"
Because shale gas, shale oil would light a fire, a conflagration which would destroy: the EU green agenda.
The EU green agenda - a central pillar of the Brussels strategem, installed to curb, limit, regulate and restrain the population. Thus, less electricity, more expensive electricity, no electricity for the proletariat grants enormous political power to the Kommissars - who then in turn use the 'blackout switch' - to cow and keep the proletariat subdued.
Athelstan: At the expense of Europe's position relative to the US and China, as Mike says. We should pray for Owen Paterson. Better futures are available.
I hope Owen Paterson will continue with his sceptical line. And that he will suggest that fracking is up to the individual states, not the EU.
The common market in its infant form was set up to ensure steel and coal union to ensure production for industry after WW2 and later CAP ensured protection for farmers to produce eventually "mountains" of food. I doubt very much whether the new European paradigm of the meeting will be to produce oodles of shale gas, but the realpolitik of a resurgent and possibly belligerent Russia must be causing EU ministers to reassess the situation. Surely the fact that green technologies are vastly short of achieving their aim is a fact not a debating stance.
Trefjon,
The realities have nothing to do with the EU's stance.
Probably the only way that the UK can have shale is to leave the EU.
The EU paid farmers NOT to grow things. It conserved fish stocks by throwing dead fish back in the sea. Nothing is beyond such colossal brains.
Richard Drake 10.56
The answer is Jon's post just above yours.
We are dealing with people who do not believe in what we call for shorthand purposes "western values".
This does not have to mean unrestrained capitalism or the unregulated free market or the "devil take the hindmost" attitude that is the straw man that people like Wates and the other anti-capitalistic fanatics always set up to justify their destructive aims.
They don't have to believe in them of course but what frustrates the rest of us is that we know (and they know and we know they know ...) that their philosophy does not command enough support to get them a single parliamentary seat let alone anything approaching a majority in any democracy in the world.
Of course it's deliberate. The aim is the destruction of western civilisation. Why? There as many reasons as there are activists, just about. The orphans of communism still can't understand that the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions and are determined to re-establish totalitarian regimes wherever they possibly can. So: former colonies are encouraged to take some sort of revenge on the colonial power; the bien pensants are still working on their masochistic guilt-trips (another article on slavery sparked off by Teresa May's plan for another anti-Slavery Bill pointed out that we still insist on teaching our children about our involvement in the slave trade with no mention of the lead we took in abolishing it); the idealistic eco-loon is encouraged to ignore the self-evident fact that only wealth — and most especially the wealth that comes from cheap reliable energy — enables us to give his beloved environment the care that he wants it to have and to demand a return to the "golden age" of mediaeval grinding poverty.
Most of those involved are simply misguided but there are certainly people who stand to make a killing either in terms of money or power or simply getting their own way (mostly academics of one flavour or another if you examine it closely enough) if we can all be persuaded to commit economic hara-kiri.
If you hire a known party wrecker to attend your party, the odds are that you want your party to be wrecked.
However, you may well be trying to achieve something entirely non related to your party. Planting the party wrecker would be part of your strategy to give you something to negotiate with in order to achieve your real objective.
The price of ejecting the party wrecker will not be inconsiderable(I think).
This might also be relevant (EEB news item dated July 11, 2013):
http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=0E87A71C-5056-B741-DBFE0405AF4FAEE0
Mike (11:52): thank you for this excellent answer.
That's a very important aspect.
pesadia:
So is that. Some people are smarter than others in all this.
I do not believe that the Greens are going to pack their bags and go, just because they have been wrong about almost everything they have ever predicted. They have gained too much to be willing to give it up voluntarily. This means that one day, if our society & cultural values are to survive in anything like their present form, there will have to be a reckoning with them. It's inescapable.
When I'm feeling optimistic, I think that will be led by a new Margaret Thatcher. When I'm feeling pessimistic, I think more of Oliver Cromwell. Fingers crossed.
"I will not dispute the justice of it when it was done, nor need I now tell you what my opinion is in the case if it were de novo to be done."
Abbott, 'Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell' (Harvard, 1939 seq.) IV, p. 473
H/t C.V. Wedgwood, 'A Coffin for King Charles'.
================
Alex Cull's link answers all our questions and would appear to leave our shale gas plans dead in the water.
Just in case we think about pushing ahead anyway:An Environmental Impact Assessment will now be required for any shale gas "exploitation" and it will
Your friend Jeremy Wates celebrated:
Let us look in the darkest corner of the wardrobe and pull out the skeleton for inspection:
Our government signed up to the UN's Agenda 21, this gives NGOs the right not only to be involved in policy making but also policy implementation These whackos are involved because our government signed up for it.
Dung:
Key words there: 'would appear to'. On the other side David Cameron's strong words of support for fracking in the UK in the last few weeks would appear to be two fingers to the European Environmental Bureau, Agenda 21 and all. He and Osborne have appointed the excellent Owen Paterson to represent us at this conference and others like it. It's not over till it's over. But Booker and Cull are helping us to understand the shape of the real battle and it's not just in Balcombe.
The more I look at the Green/Left movement the more I seethe ancient conflict between two fundamental views of life . One believes in centralised control where a combination of priesthood works with secular power and one where there is de-centralised view of life where people are free to live their life provided they do not impose their views on others. The priests worked with the Pharaoh to run Egypt: The Holy Roman Emperor worked with the Pope and Roman Catholic Church and the Communists Party worked with commissars.
Athens, Republican Rome, The Normans, The Vikings and the Anglo-Saxon-Frisian ( founding Fathers of USA and the UK) produced de-centralised societies where governorship was based upon consent: there was extensive liberty which enabled people to fall and rise according to their own labours.The de-centralised society allows self- discipline,responsibility , teamwork and emotional responsibility to develop- free people chose to live work together for their mutual benefit. A centralised state is about coercion and requires extensive bureaucracy,which enables people of little or no talent to progress provided they follow the rules. A de-centralised state only allows those of talent to progress; those who have the education, technical , skills, initiative , drive , judgement,courage and teamwork skills . The leaders of Athens, Republican Rome, Vikings , Anglo-Saxon Society , Normans, England of the Middle Ages ( the archers had to be persuaded to fight for the King) led by example or failed. Edward the Third said to his courtiers when it was shown his son, The Black prince , was surrounded " let him earn his spurs" . The King was prepared for his son to die, because he knew that without proving his ability to fight and win a battle he could never earn the respect of the country.
What we have now are large numbers of people who lack the ability to lead by earning respect but desire the power, status and money and can only achieve this through a massive bureaucracy.
As Jesus said" The sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Rules are to provide guidance in order to benefit the people:, not employment, status, money and power to those who enforce them.
Charlie
Well said, that man!I agree absolutely with your typo in line one ...
quote
Why should the European Union have a policy on tracking in the first place? What business is it of the EU?
unquote
Because France has a huge investment in nuclear. Because BASF has admitted that it cannot compete on the world stage as Germany has gone for broke on renewable energy. Because the UK has world-class shale and a resurgent UK will blow apart the cosy exploitation of the proles on which the EU elites rely. Because the UK is meant to pay for the EU, not compete with the big two.
_Will_ blow apart. Eventually we _will_ vote out the fools, rogues and charlatans who are driving us to ruin, but it will only happen when enough people get off their sofas and go out and fight for the UK.
Had enough of shouting at the TV? Join an anti-EU party. Don't just pay your dues, go out and leaflet, campaign, stand. Why you? Because there's nobody else.
JF
Sorry way off topic but this one has been bugging me. Perhaps I'm missing something simple??
Two graphs:
http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/16.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/2zgi8n7.png
The average global air surface temperature appears to be about 15C while the average global sea surface temperature appears to be about 18C.
So on average, how can the atmosphere transfer heat to the oceans?
Richard Drake
I truly wish I could believe your view of Cameron but I just can not see it. I do not see him ever putting two fingers up to his beloved EU, I see him putting one finger in each ear when the public try to express their opinion.
In reality this should offer an opportunity to be seen to make a stand for the UK but unfortunately he only makes stands for his own idiot beliefs.
@Julian Flood "Eventually we _will_ vote out the fools, rogues and charlatans who are driving us to ruin ..."
How is that ever going to happen when there's nothing to choose between the major parties on energy and environmental policy, or their stance on the EU?
The so-called greens are about political power and inflowing money for at least the last several years.
Not a single green prediction about climate crisis has come true.
If 'green' org books were audited, one would find almost no money actually going to help the environment. It is most spent on salaries for people involved with pushing politics.
Their power politics has resulted in these orgs getting insider deals on 'grants' to push green policies, not to restore forests,or marshes, or mitigate damage. All to promote, market, push green politics.
Turning Tide:
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/ukip-launches-major-energy-policy-statement-rejects-wind-power/
I joined the party earlier this year.
MikeC
Yes, there does seem to be three degrees missing.
Please ask TBYJ - he seems to have most of them :)
MikeC (4:27 PM) -
Those charts don't look right to me. At this point, HadCRUT absolute temperatures are only available at the CRU website in a particular gridded format (this netCDF file). However, they formerly provided an ASCII file with the baseline temperature for each month and lat/lon grid cell. [To be precise, this was the HadCRUT3 baseline, not HadCRUT4.] In a spreadsheet I computed that the area-weighted global average of the baseline is around 14.0 C. That is, an anomaly of 0 C should correspond to an average global temperature of 14.0 C. Your first chart places the zero-point at 15.08 C.
The average OI.V2 temperature in your second chart of ~18 C is unreasonable as a global mean. Perhaps it came from a tropical area only?
But to return to your question, comparing such charts isn't of use, because the HadCRUT global average uses the sea surface temperature for the ocean regions. If there's any difference between global and ocean surface temperature values, it's primarily due to the presence of land temperatures in the global average. [Plus a small amount due to the difference between the HadSST3 and OI.v2 sea surface temperature datasets.]
@Aug 25, 2013 at 5:28 PM | Registered Commenter HaroldW
Thanks for your answer Harold. It's amazing how difficult it is to find the absolute average global SST.
And I guess a proper comparison would be global SST to global air temperature over the same area. I wonder if any satellites have this data? Obviously what I am getting at is that it would be pretty difficult to explain how heat could flow from the atmosphere to the oceans (net) if the average temperature over the oceans is lower.
Harold,
I got the SST chart from Bob Tisdale here: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.ca/2009/09/record-sea-surface-temperatures-are.html
It appears the data from his chart is actually global SST for June-August: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html
Dung:
For the sake of argument let's assume you mean that. I referred to "David Cameron's strong words of support for fracking in the UK in the last few weeks ..." Four days ago Matthew Spencer of the Guardian wrote David Cameron has become fracking's biggest cheerleader. So it's not just me that is thinking this. And if our prime minister has become fracking's biggest cheerleader he has set himself against the European Environmental Bureau and he knows it. Whether Cameron has Thatcher's staying power is a separate thing. But it's not over till it's over.
I came across this article in the Edinburgh Evening News earlier.
A couple of "highly respected US commentators" reckon that Scotland will be fracking within five years.
I think they're probably right; in the long run the political and commercial pressure to get into the shale will be more than the EU and Wates and all the other nay-sayers can withstand.
I just fear there will be a lot of wasted time and some heartache before it happes.
Richard Drake, but don't forget that in Guardian World fracking is about as evil as it gets. (I am sure there would have been a "denier" label attached to being pro-fracking if it wasn't so awkward to coin one for a position in favour of something).
Of course The Guardian are happy to exaggerate Cameron's lukewarm attitude towards fracking as they preach to their below-the-line choir. It makes Cameron look bad, it makes fracking look worse, so win-win.
Mike: I'm sure they're right. I also agree with you about wasted time. But that will have implications of its own. As I said in response to an open question from our host about this on Twitter in June:
The following day I called shale a death-trap for UK greens that they haven’t begun to face up to on Judith Curry's. Delay, harm and thus their own doom.
artwest: Whatever the Grauniad's take this is a fight Cameron didn't have to pick. I like it when people say the right thing because then we can (at least attempt to) hold them to it. All good.
And yet we're still pussyfooting around fracking.
Richard Drake
We didn't have a great deal of joy holding Cameron to his previous gold plated copper bottomed commitment to give us a referendum did we?
I am not criticising you here I am saying that we should not put any faith in what Cameron says.
The 'commitment to give us a referendum' in 2009 was a cynical device to buy votes in the almost certain knowledge he wouldn't have to go through with it as Labour would sign up to Lisbon. That's the kind of person he is. Sometimes we call them politicians.
That doesn't mean Cameron is incapable of doing good. The education reforms are one example. This vocal commitment to fracking strikes me as well-judged politically as well as morally right. Win-win, if he manages to make good on it despite the best efforts of Jeremy Wates and co. You're not wrong to be cautious about that part.
"Why should the European Union have a policy on tracking in the first place? What business is it of the EU?"
Perhaps to make sure there are protections in place for the environment and the people that lazy, incompetent or corrupt governments are not able or willing to put in place for themselves. Just a thought...
" protections in place for the environment and the people that lazy, incompetent or corrupt governments are not able or willing to put in place"
Aug 25, 2013 at 10:07 PM 1001
When you put it like that, it's obvious. Eurocrats, elected by and accountable to nobody, are much less likely to be lazy, incompetent, or corrupt than the elected representatives of the people. Of course they are.
Hamish, fracking in one country may affect its neigbours, for example by pollution. The EU has a legitimate role in making sure that doesn't happen.
Taking oil and gas out of the North Sea basin will cause tsunamis.
c. 1967 if Greenpeace were active then.
MikeC (5:40 PM) -
I was wrong to say that the SST chart's global average of 18 C was unreasonable. I looked up OI.v2 at KNMI's Climate Explorer, and indeed Tisdale's chart matches that (at least to eyeball accuracy).
My thought was that, if the global average is 14C, and SST averages 4 degrees higher, then the land average temperature, comprising only 30% of the area, would have to vary more than twice as much from the global value, hence would have to be below 6 C. Just didn't sound right. BEST's land-only average is currently around 9.8 C.
Of course, a 70%-30% weighted average of 18.3 C (SST) and 9.8C (land) is 15.75C, not the 14.5C figured by an anomaly of 0.5C relative to a baseline of 14C. I'm not sure where the discrepancy lies.
I agree it's hard to find the baseline values from which the anomalies are calculated. KNMI, for example, seems only to have anomalies for the observational datasets.
MikeC
I think your problem is with the word "average".
Firstly the average temperatures do not apply everywhere. There are area where the sea surface temperatures are lower than the air temperatures, allowing heat to be absorbed by the oceans.
Secondly the average temperature of the ocean volume is much lower than the ocean surface. Energy absorbed at the surface is mixed and conducted to lower layers.
Thirdly you neglect downward infrared radiation, which is absorbed by the sea surface regardless of air and sea surface temperature gradients.
Candidates are advised to read the rubric and to read the questions. Marks will be awarded for clarity of exposition.