Bishop Hill Worse than they thought
Oct 20, 2014 Climate: IPCC Europe's leaders are meeting this week and they'll be talking about climate change and cutting carbon emissions. They've agreed they have to be cut by 80% by the middle of the century and 40% over the next 15 years. But one senior figure on the UN's panel for climate change, Prof Jim Skea - vice chair of the UN's panel on coping with climate change - says that 40% figure is not high enough. Roger Harrabin, BBC Environment Analyst.
This gem was reported on BBC Radio 4's Today programme at 6.52am. Skea appears to think we will have to have even larger CO2 cuts accompanied by ever more drastic action and changes to our lives to reach extended IPPC targets, while RH was hand -wringing over the fact that having made us all incredibly energy efficient and put all the renewables in place we will have nowhere else to turn in order to achieve them.
This is the link to an article Professor Skea wrote earlier this year.
It's all rather depressing- perhaps they could speak to a rational optimist?
TM.
Reader Comments (43)
I suspect that Prof. Skea is (sort of) right. That is if you believe the catastrophic models, then we can be saved only by extraordinary and unrealistic cuts in CO2 emissions. The kind of cuts being contemplated by the US and Europe would be insufficient to avoid disaster.
I am tired of reading the utter garbage that idiots like this Skea put out there. His idiotic and mal-conceived diatribe is nothing but rubbish. And people need to stand up and tell it to his face,. Stop pushing your poisonous crap onto the rest of us.
IF you drink the Koolaid...you might become a victim of date rape...
Alarmists ....waking up may be painful ...you may well discover that you have been used....
Why don't we try Skea's proposition as an experiment along these lines:
Divide the UK in two along a line between the Trent and the Severn Estuaries.
Declare the NW area (full of grunts and uncouth people who love coal, fracking and stuff like that) to be a fossil fuel wasteland, whilst the SW area (full of the elite, intellectuals and great thinkers who espouse green energy) to be a renewable energy paradise.
Cut all energy transmission links between the two.
Leave for fifty years and then reassess.
Capell
I think that line is a little bit north, Severn Estuary to the Wash with special dispensation to Fenbeagle.
It's not a rational optimist they need to speak to - a psychiatrist would be more suitable.
Capel/SandyS
As an offshore resident (Isle of Wight) can I be considered as an uncouth northern grunt please?
ie. don't you DARE lump me in with London!! (or even Brighton with its loony greens)
SimonJ
IIRC (and I was half-asleep) he also said that it wasn't doable. Being R4, or course, no-one asked if it was even desirable.
Polish PM's already told them to stuff their 40% reduction target.
Climate alarmism is a lucrative industry that has to produce nothing but fear for its rent seeking parasites to thrive.
I find the likes of Skea and their smug, superior certainty infinitely depressing.
have Jim Skea's past predictions have been accurate ? Anyone got any info ?
- I just dug up this ..where he seems to say temp rise cannot be less than 2C, that already the Arctic is shrinking, storms have increased ..so it seems to me he doesn't actually much respect proper scientific methods & data
Any other known conflicts of interest ? "Jim is also a non-executive director of the Blackrock New Energy Investment Trust plc." (why did it liquidate itself this year ? "14 February 2014 members’ voluntary liquidation of the Company was duly passed.")Jo Nova says: "Hypothetically, imagine the situation where sustainable energy was expensive, unreliable, and not that sustainable either. On what planet would a Prof of Sustainable Energy be personally as well off if he advised the UK not to waste money on sustainable energy?" from her page 11 months ago Climate Fat Cats exposed with naked conflicts of interest.
Perhaps we can make it conditional to the UK receiving financial assistance "from rich countries" à la Mexico?
We shall have to stop people from exhaling.
Sounds like it is time to phase out the BBC, TV sets, radio sets, etc - gotta start somewhere.
Cutting the EU by 100% is the most likely outcome.
credible ? Skea's claim that your energy bills are falling due to renewables
- With green power, says IPCC co-chair Jim Skea, a British professor, a renewable solution is at hand. “It’s actually affordable to do it and people are not going to have to sacrifice their aspirations about improved standards of living.” ... On anti-nuclear blog April 2014
Jim Skea is professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College.
I wonder just who he is a paid consultant for?
Look no further;
Launch Director for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership.
He is Vice-President of the Energy Institute and a member of the Advisory Board of the Scott Institute for Energy
Follow the money...
professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College."
Doesn't that just make you weep?
In countries that have blasphemy laws, should't those laws be applied to people who are guilty of a lack of belief in climate models?
Today I'll take leave to disagree.
These are people whose stance is already known, and known to be not supported by the evidence. Reality affords them an increasing number of opportunities to admit the failings of climate models. At almost every opportunity to concede their fallibility and re-integrate with reality, they choose not to.
That brings the end-game closer. That is good.
There's now a transcript of the Today programme segment with Jim Skea and Roger Harrabin, here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2014/20141020_r4
In the reference paper, meaning here http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/ipcc-message-end-of-business-as-usual-fossil-fuels, Jim Skea says: “The evidence is clear: sticking to business as usual will lead to temperature rises of three to five degrees above pre-industrial levels.” Maybe he should read the article by Drummond, A. J., in JRMetSoc 1943; and explain what happen back then:
“The present century has been marked by such a widespread tendency towards mild winters that the ‘old-fashioned winters’, of which one had heard so much, seemed to have gone for ever. The sudden arrival at the end of 1939 of what was to be the beginning of a series of cold winters was therefore all the more surprising.”
The ‘business’ changed on 1st of September 1939 and subsequently climate?
Thanks to Stewgreen and Don Keiller for the information on what Jim Skea does, and what he thinks he knows about. But can anyone enlighten me on his qualifications and academic background? I've drawn a blank - all of the biographical details I've found online are very short of detail?
@ Salesian:
"But can anyone enlighten me on his qualifications and academic background? I've drawn a blank - all of the biographical details I've found online are very short of detail?"
The really interesting part of the GooglesSearch pages for "jim skea" and "jim skea imperial college london" is right at the bottom:
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe."
I wonder why?
Bloody 'AutoCorrect" - it t should be @ Salopian
Skunkworks(a Lockheed Martin joint) is running out of govfunding for its pet project the polywell and now making an appeal for public funding.
Herrabim the great sage , at a high salary, spins this as:
Well, do you know, John, what's really interesting in this sphere is that there's an awful lot happening. There are many, many, many new technologies coming through, very exciting. The things we don't know yet, how viable they're going to be. So, only last week a major manufacturer said it possibly had got a scheme for nuclear fusion
now do not get me wrong , it is a worthwhile project and should have received far more funding , it gets 1% of what the "progressives" at ITER JET etc get and we all know they are NEVER going to come with results, only with promises, and overtime work bills, and new subprojects to park buddies of theirs in.
The problem of the small scale fusion projects is that there is little knowledge left.
This happens when you "invest" trillions in education being chossologee, ecologee, and english langwhich
Why is every aspect of "climate science" chock full of POOMA numbers?
2 degrees centigrade threshold
40% cut in 15 years
80% cut by 2050
average weather over 30 years
It really gives the game away - proper science involves measurements and calculations and tends to produce real numbers with decimal places.
@ Joe "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
no need for a conspiracy theory ..it says that at the end of every google page ..it's just their way of saying "cos the EUs stupid privacy rules you are not getting a proper search if you are in the EU
So after all these cuts of the last 15 years, they want to reduce by a further 40% over the next 15 years, and then over the 20 years after that, they want another 2/3 cut in emissions.
@Joe It was not instant you should use the name "James Skea" or Jim F. Skea
..from this you can find more & directorships on Company Directories etc.
Born James Ferguson Skea, 1953, Dundee
Education
Grove Academy, Dundee, Edinburgh University (BSc), Cambridge University (PhD)1978 Dissertation: Energy Use in the Aluminium Industry (classed as Mathematics Subject —Game theory, economics, social and behavioral sciences)
Career
Visiting assistant professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 1983; research fellow and later leader of the environment programme at Sussex University's science policy research unit 1983-1995 et.etc.
@Jack Hughs has something there ..where are the proper investigative journalists to ask stronger questions ?
Germany is a recognized leader in renewables. The rest of the world should wait until the 40% goal is achieved there.
Reading Richard North's latest piece at eureferendum it seems to me that he is somewhat losing the plot. He's been banging on about the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in regarding energy policy for some years now.
He does, however, have a tendency to not only contradict himself but to adopt a high handed, clever clogs stance on this and other issues but that is his prerogative I guess.
What really annoys me in his latest missive is that on the one hand he starts his article looking down on the proles who are rightly worried about possible blackouts in the near future because of our failed energy policy dismissing their fears but by the end of the article makes a hackneyed effort at humour by saying
"This ensures that, when the blackouts come, Mr Cameron will be as warm as toast, and basking in taxpayer-funded light."
It's no wonder some see him as high minded and aloof as the rest of them. I'm starting to get the feeling that he's a bit of a snob.
Why just Europe, why is no one else committed to cuts in CO2 ? The answer is that Copenhagen collapsed without the Americans or anyone else agreeing to anything.
All made considerably easier by Phil Jones naughty little emails escaping from his computer without a single trace. Maybe it was ghosts or spooks of some sort that 'stole' them .
Wow. Like I keep saying from this side of the pond (Canada), you guys are in deep. I cringe every time I read this kind of story. I'm amazed that GW get's traction, and it does to the extent that Europe and Great? Britain are kinda sunk. Future generations will be awe struck. God bless all of you.
I want to make two statements that may shock some people.
1. Neither santa nor the tooth fairy exist.
2. People tell lies.
AGW (and its dangers) is a lie, not a mistake.
No problem cutting "Carbon" emissions, Simply disconnect the natural gas lines from your houses, condominiums, and apartments. Then turn in your autos to recycling, Of course you may keep your bicycle to commute to and from your job. Turn in all electoral* appliances to the appropriate government agency, besides using a broom will help you to stay warm!
Still not enough? Then of course decrease your industrial manufacturing say by half for starters, realizing you will eventually be asked to forgo all industrial manufacturing altogether. Of course you will have to import those beautiful wind turbines, and solar panels, because the heads of government can not be expected to go without electricity. Enjoy the new world order. :-)
* electrical? TM
1. Use a VPN
2. Make sure you are using Google.com and not Google.co.uk
Simples.
"Deal!" tweeted Herman Van Rompuy, who chairs the European Council, the gathering of EU leaders. "At least 40 percent emissions cut by 2030. World's most ambitious, cost-effective, fair climate energy policy agreed."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/uk-eu-summit-climatechange-idUKKCN0IB2R820141023
Brussels, 24 October 2014
Statement by EU Commissionner Connie Hedegaard on 2030 agreement by European Council
Commenting on the agreement, Connie Hedegaard said: ''The EU climate action commissioner is very proud that the 28 EU leaders, despite economic uncertainty and other severe international crises, were able to get their act together on this pressing climate challenge.
A binding 40% CO2 reduction effort domestically in Europe is not an easy task. It can only be achieved through a major transformation in all parts of the society. That is why the EU leaders' decision to adopt the Commission's proposal is an ambitious and important step forward. Important not only to Europe and the Europeans, but also to the rest of the world. We have sent a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries: we have done our homework, now we urge you to follow Europe's example.
In order to get Europe on the right track towards a low-carbon society, it is extremely important that the leaders also accepted the renewables target binding at the EU level just as the Commission proposed. And it is good that they agreed to do more on energy efficiency, although here the Commission wanted more ambition.
But now the direction towards 2030 has been set. States, regions, municipalities, businesses, investors and citizens now all know where we are heading. This is a very good day for Europe's climate politics.''
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-337_en.htm?locale=en
European Council
Brussels, 23 October 2014
(OR. en)
SN 79/14
NOTE
Subject: European Council (23 and 24 October 2014)
Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework
I. 2030 CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY FRAMEWORK
1. Substantial progress has been made towards the attainment of the EU targets for greenhouse
gas emission reduction, renewable energy and energy efficiency, which need to be fully met
by 2020. On the basis of the principles identified in the March 2014 European Council
conclusions, the European Council agreed today on the 2030 climate and energy policy
framework for the European Union. Accordingly, the EU will submit its contribution, at the
latest by the first quarter of 2015, in line with the timeline agreed by the UNFCCC in Warsaw
for the conclusion of a global climate agreement. The European Council calls on all countries
to come forward with ambitious targets and policies well in advance of the Conference of the
Parties 21 in Paris. It will revert to this issue after the Paris Conference. The European
Council will keep all the elements of the framework under review and will continue to give
strategic orientations as appropriate, notably with respect to consensus on ETS, non-ETS,
interconnections and energy efficiency. The Commission will continue to have a regular
dialogue with stakeholders.
etc etc:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/145356.pdf