Dogs that didn't bark

Owen Paterson's GWPF lecture continues to make waves, with further supportive comment appearing today in the Times and the Telegraph.

Meanwhile, there's another attempt at a rebuttal, this time by Professor Gordon McKerron of Sussex University. The green blob has certainly been stamping its feet a great deal at Paterson stepping out of line, and who can blame them when their jobs and rents are on the line? However, as a reader points out to me by email, it's quite revealing to consider the areas of Paterson's speech that have not yet been attacked. This is, presumably, a partial list, formulated as direct quotes from Paterson's words:

1. "Our current policy will cost £1,300bn up to 2050”
2. "The 2050 target commits us to a huge expansion of electricity generation capacity, requiring vast investment."
3. "it amazes me that our last three energy secretaries, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, have merrily presided over the single most regressive policy we have seen in this country since the Sheriff of Nottingham”
4. "DECC wrongly assumed that the price of gas would only rise"
5. “the unambiguous failure of the atmosphere to warm anything like as fast as predicted by the vast majority of climate models over the past 35 years"
6. "Planning approval for renewables overall, including onshore wind, needs to come to a halt or massively over-run the subsidy limits set by the Treasury’s Levy Control Framework."
7. "Offshore wind is proving a failure"
8. "Biomass is not zero carbon. "
9. "the huge investment we have made in wind power, with all the horrendous impacts on our most precious landscapes, have not saved much in the way of carbon dioxide emissions so far"
10. "We are the only country to have legally bound ourselves to the 2050 targets"

It's possible, of course, that my correspondent has missed people disagreeing with these points, but it would certainly be interesting to see whether anyone is willing to do so now.

Comments

[Lewis Deane]

My contribution:

Professor Gordon MacKerron,

It seems strange that, even if the contrary arguments come from alleged ‘right-wing nut jobs’ (I’m actually a ‘left-wing nut job’!), all funded by those ‘evil’ Koch brothers (the fantasy bete noir of American greenies), the only reply is just that ad hom. Almost as bad as using the red herring of SMRs, which was your ‘trick to hide’ the hollowness of your own arguments, a sounding brass and nothing more. But this is quite typical, the shallowness of argumentation, perhaps, on all sides. Oh for a grown up discussion! Not to be found here!

[SandyS]

Robin Guenier
Filling in a lazy sunny afternoon on the iPad I have found the following, what the implications are I couldn't say.

Looks like a draft (white paper equivalent perhaps?) according to Google translate of this document

http://www.ym.fi/fi-FI/Ajankohtaista/Valtioneuvosto_hyvaksyi_esityksen_ilmast%2829798%29

The Government approved the draft law on climate

05/06/2014 at 13:34
The Board of Directors has today approved the proposal for climate law. Climate Act should be recorded on at least 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050. The law would, above all, the Government and Parliament tool to reach emission reduction targets in the most cost efficient and systematic manner. It would enhance the public sector emission reduction goals, and building a low-carbon society, but does not impose any new obligations on companies or other operators.
"Climate Law Finland strives to be a pioneer in low-carbon society and success. It combines an ambitious climate policy, economic success and human well-being to strengthen. Climate change and its mitigation change the entire world and human activity significantly in the coming decades. Climate Law in Finland to improve the public sector to act a smart community planning, in order to cope Finland at the same time as we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, "Environment Ville Niinistö says.

Finnish Environment Minister since 26 September 2014 is Sanni Grahn-Laasonen

[Robin Guenier]

SandyS: thanks - interesting.

Although I don't think Finland's climate law is particularly important (given its responsibility for only 0.1% of global emissions), it's interesting that the 'does not impose any new obligations on companies or other operators' crops up again. As I said before: whatever can that mean?

[Lewis Deane]

TC,

I agree with WFC. 'Contrarian' is really just the wrong term to apply to what is a widely held, common sense view (when addressed and viewed) and why concede the weakness that is implied in that term? Who is, after all, 'contrary' here but this misanthropic, anti-technological and immature attitude of this real '1%' who represent nobody and who are contrary to the best hopes of mankind? And womankind, for that matter. "Contrariwise"!

[Robin Guenier]

SandyS: Finland's climate law may not be particularly important but Mexico's certainly is - because the CCC (and sundry other propagandists) love to cite it as an example of another country, like the UK, committed to CO2 reduction. It's not of course - see my comments on Paul Homewood's thread today.

[Robin Guenier]

This morning Paul Homewood has turned my comments (see above) into an extensive new post.

[johanna]

Onya, Robin.

We may be getting somewhere at last.

[John Shade]

I see my comment (Oct 18, 2014 at 10:49 AM) did not get posted. It may not have been censored by the blog owner. I have a suspicion that Wordpress may have done it for them. So I have tried to repost using a different account.

[John Shade]

That worked - the comment got through.