- Bishop Hill blog

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:

"Our current policy will cost £1,300bn up to 2050”
"The 2050 target commits us to a huge expansion of electricity generation capacity, requiring vast investment."
"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”
"DECC wrongly assumed that the price of gas would only rise"
“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"
"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."
"Offshore wind is proving a failure"
"Biomass is not zero carbon. "
"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"
"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.