Bishop Hill Spirit of inquiry
May 9, 2017 Climate: Parliament Energy: other I've been taking a look at the BEIS committee's report on the effects of Brexit on climate and energy policy, and in particular the section on investor confidence, which struck me as likely to be the most interesting. The section opens thus.
The decision to leave the EU should not distract from the Government’s policies to provide secure and affordable energy supply and to seek ambitious plans to decarbonise our energy system.203
The citation is to the submission from, erm, 38 Degrees. Which does rather make it look as if they are dictating the text.
Reading on, I find that:
Submissions to our inquiry suggest investor concerns remain and have been exacerbated by policy uncertainty due to the EU referendum.211
Here the citation is to:
Carbon Connect (EUE0005); UK Energy Research Centre (EUE0026); Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (EUE0040); Kingspan Insulation Ltd (EUE0046); Aldersgate Group (EUE0050); RenewableUK (EUE0055); Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (EUE0059); AES UK & Ireland (EUE0065); Renewable Energy Association (EUE0066); Ecotricity (EUE0071); Polar Research and Policy Initiative (LEU0016); Dairy UK (LEU0027); Energy Savings Trust (LEU0035); Aldersgate Group (LEU0038).
Not a lot of investors there, wouldn't you say?
Then I notice that Chatham House gets mentioned a lot. In fact, they are mentioned something like forty times in the report, almost once per page. It turns out that there were two witnesses from Chatham House:
- Kirsty Hamilton, whose bio reveals that she is a renewable energy consultant and a former Greenpeace campaigner.
- Antony Froggatt, whose bio reveals that he too is a freelance energy consultant and, erm, a former Greenpeace campaigner.
Parliament hasn't been getting any better at these inquiries in my absence, has it?
Reader Comments (86)
@ ATheoK
You say Right now, what it looks like from the Western side of the Atlantic pond, is that Theresa May/won't cabinet/committee members are waiting for the next reorg to absolve their "no work here" sins.
From the antipodes the view I get is that there has been serious opposition brought (especially legal) against May in trying to push through Brexit. And also remember that May was originally against Brexit. So she would have been, with good reason, cautious in dealing with this issue. After June 8th she should have the widespread support to get on with it.
While Mr Seitz might cruise by and drop his bon mots, I do wish he would linger long enough to answer my simple requests – where is this evidence that he assures us is out there?
The fundamental stuff is what Richard Lindzen was addressing in his letter to President Trump and this is the underlying problem facing Britain and its blind following of the EU bureaucrats and their mad energy problems. The use of imported American wood to fire Drax is but one glaring example of this stupid lemming approach of the UK government.
Note the Lindzen letter below
Richard Lindzen – recent letter to President Trump
One would think that advice from Lindzen might prevail - but then there's this (see below) to contend with - not to mention the P of W.
Gore is a modern day pied piper.
Pope Francis follows ‘Messiah’ Gore in wilderness
'Let me assure you that I have searched hard for this evidence, but am still unable to find it."
We appear to have a rodent of small brain , like the the lesser Kleinfeldmaus of New Zealand.
What other wonders may the antipodes hold ?
"Gore is a modern day pied piper"
Bring on the manbearpig-!
This see is more overrun with infantile rodents than the whole Bishopric of Hamelin.
Mr Seitz: curious how you are so quick with your oh-so-witty put-downs, yet you cannot answer my simple requests. Why should that be?
A Mouse's Tale.
Tricksy
sophistry
isn't
about
empiric
data,
but
more
about
smoke
'n mirror
logick -
tricks
concerning
winning
teh
argument
at
all
costs ...
' I'll be
judge
I'll be
jury,'
says
cunning
old
Fury.
Russell stated: "We appear to have a rodent of small brain, like the the lesser Kleinfeldmaus of New Zealand."
UK politicians believe that our production of CO2 is so dangerous, so likely to cause climate catastrophe, that they have set about substantially altering our whole economy to "tackle" it. In the process we have lost almost all our heavy industry (which actually doesn't cut CO2 because the stuff is just made elsewhere), have overpriced electricity (putting many consumers into fuel poverty, and cutting our industrial competitiveness).
The least we can expect is solid, incontrovertible, available evidence of CAGW as defined by Golf Charlie and Radical Rodent. What we get is cheap-jack personal insults, and the sort of bilious behaviour that is a spectator sport at academic conferences.
I've had some on line discussions with warmists some of whom were obviously intelligent, I've seen dimwit trolls posting just to limit discussion . I have never seen anybody so apparently lacking in intellect as Russell, surely nobody other than a propaganda centre with no standards would employ such a person.
From the antipodes the view I get is that there has been serious opposition brought (especially legal) against May in trying to push through Brexit. And also remember that May was originally against Brexit. So she would have been, with good reason, cautious in dealing with this issue. After June 8th she should have the widespread support to get on with it.
May 21, 2017 at 9:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus "
Yes, no and maybe.
Yes, serious opposition does stifle releasing to the public information about Brexit progress.
No, serious opposition is not a surprise in any government or business to the normal hard working professionals.
Maybe, Mays' not taking the Brexit seriously, on purpose, will always be a problem with May as the head honcho. Yes, even after June 8th.
Back to the Yes/No choice.
Every year in serious business and governmental work, employees enjoy what management likes to call "merit Reviews".
Annual achievements for the upcoming year are defined, listed and agreed to by both management and workerbee.
At the annual merit review; employees get to bring in their achievement lists for discussion about just how much credit, does each merit achievement earn.
Every employee with any Brexit work in their future would have added in any Brexit merit achievements they started or planned to start working.
These same merit achievements for past months/accounting periods/annual should already be in their second/third years of progress.
Examples of such merit achievements should be:
A) progress reports
B) Lists of critical employees for each specific Brexit topic category.
C) Lists of critical resources needed to address international relations; e.g. legal, communication, employee, environment...
If all of these activities are actually occurring in the T. May administration/cooperative/whatever; evidence of said progress should be available for discussion and continuous review.
Reporters shouldn't be wondering if the government is involved in critical activities; they should be discussing specific Brexit progress by department and employee.
Yes, I certainly hope that June 8th gives Ms. May incentive to pursue Brexit, seriously.
I hope Ms. May takes charge of Brexit actions as befitting a professional government senior official.
Best of Luck Britain!
Thank you, Budgie. It has crossed my mind that perhaps Mr Seitz does not understand what empirical evidence is. As this might be the case, let us attempt to explain it for him: “empirical evidence” is evidence that, in relation to the subject in discussion, is easily replicated. This does not include the assumptions and conclusions of others, nor should it refer to mathematical or computer models. Here are some examples of empirical evidence:
Empirical evidence for the existence of gravity: hold a pen between two fingers; hold your hand out, palm downwards, and open your fingers to release the pen. The pen will fall to the ground, and the existence of gravity is thus demonstrated. (The explanation for gravity is far more complex, and has yet to be resolved, though there are many theories extant.)
Empirical evidence for the existence of solar warming: on a clear night, place a thermometer outside and clear of any buildings. Note the air temperature at varying times during the night. Note how the temperature falls. Ensuring that the thermometer is sheltered from direct sunlight throughout, repeat the observations during the day. Note how the temperature rises. Note also how the maximum temperature reading occurs after the Sun has passed its maximum altitude above the horizon, and cooling begins even before the Sun has set.
A considerably more complex experiment to provide empirical evidence of the importance of water, and its inherent hazards, for life-forms: pot three (3) young tomato plants, each in a separate pot. One pot is to be the “control” in the experiment, and is to be free-draining. Of the other two pots, one is to be free-draining, the other is to be sealed. Twice (2 times) a day, pour one (1) pint of water into the sealed pot, even when the pot is overflowing with water, and one (1) pint of water into the “control” pot. Ensure that the third pot never receives water throughout this experiment. Note how, after a few days, the plant in the dry pot wilts, withers, and dies; the plant in the sealed pot will also wilt and die, but in an observably different manner. The plant in the control pot should thrive and grow, and eventually provide a harvest of tomatoes. (Note: other life-forms, either plant of animal, may be used, but the results of both scenarios may take considerably longer to become evident.)
I do hope that these simplistic examples help Mr Seitz understand what is requested when I ask for verifiable – i.e. empirical – evidence, and that he will then be able to direct me to what I seek.
Radical Rodent
Quite, In the absence of reliable empirical evidence it surely better to wait and see and take action to mitigate any effects rather than to waste billions on what is a speculation with no basis.
RavishingRattie. It's a good thing you are not commenting upon cutting edge theoretical physics. Empirical evidence is relatively unknown there.
Be that as it may be, Minty, but cutting edge theoretical physics is not destroying western society as whole-heartedly as climate science seems to be engaged in; cutting edge theoretical physics does NOT have a consensus about the science being settled; cutting edge theoretical physics does NOT pour public scorn and opprobrium upon any who might disagree with certain selected scientists within their discipline.
There are a few other, minor, differences, but I shall leave it to you to find them. We have repeatedly been told, by the likes of Mr Seitz and Entropic man, that there really, really is empirical evidence, yet, for all their pompous bluster, they go surprisingly quiet when asked if they would show it to us.
RavishingRattie. But you are being so rude to a genuine physicist (I do speculate as to whether he is known as foamy in his home institution). The empirical evidence, that you have replicated, almost ad nauseam, is that he doesn't wish to answer your "request". You may not infer from this that he doesn't have any empirical evidence, only like the rest of his clan he wishes to claim superior knowledge without having to share it with the likes of you. Your worm-like status remains intact. Learn your place.
BTW RR there was a genuine fear that attempting to investigate some aspects of theoretical physics, there would have been consequences many orders of magnitude greater than a busload of climate scientists could ever conceive - namely the creation of a mini-black hole that would sink to the Earth's centre and begin to consume it.
Minty, it was not I who is rude; I am only responding in a suitably restrained way to Mr Seitz's considerably more rude insults.
As for the risks taken at CERN, it is perhaps refreshing to see people not hiding behind the Precautionary Principle, an ethos in climate "science" that seems set to hurl us all back to the stone age.
vvussell sees no problem with spending billion$ trying to prove it is warming globally, due to manmade CO2 when Climate Science still has no evidence to prove why the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past, without manmade CO2.
Now that investors are losing confidence that Global Warming is a growth economy, the smart money is moving out. Unfortunately, taxpayers in the USA, UK, and EU have not yet been allowed to withdraw financial support, even though their money is frequently withdrawn by others, and squandered.
Taxpayers money is now being squandered trying to persuade Governments to spend more taxpayers money, yet still Climate Science can not explain to taxpayers what all the squandering has achieved, and what the justification was in the first place.
GC: after the successes with regard to DDT, “ozone-depleting” CFCs, and smoking (all of which proved to be pretty unscientific, but – hey! – they managed to implement world-wide policies on the backs of them), a step too far has been taken with the demonization of CO2. Sure, it has fooled a surprisingly high number of people, but not enough, and people are (oh, so slowly) wising up to this scam. Now, attention has to be diverted elsewhere so that duff policies may continue to be pushed through. Hence the sudden interest in NOxes and particulates – but only when they are the product of human consumption, especially of a consumption that many have been led to believe is the better way to go: diesel. Now, all those who did their virtue-signalling by buying diesel cars are being made to feel shame. Hopefully, this will be a tactic that will eventually backfire, though I doubt it; perhaps we will have to wait until they declare that electric cars are causing so many problems with their emissions. (Admittedly, that scenario does require the sale of these expensive piles of junk to sky-rocket, but – once more – one should never underestimate the stupidity of people.)
May 25, 2017 at 8:47 AM | Radical Rodent
I think you are correct that those who thought they were being Green (and financially astute) by buying a diesel, are starting to realise that they have been scammed/conned/lied to, by the Green Blob, not just Volkswagen, and probably other manufacturers aswell.
The Green Blob have been trying to appeal to those people who want to be seen as smart, sensitive to environmental issues, and financially astute. The Jam had a hit with "Going Underground" including the line ".. and the public gets what the public wants.". Ripping off your intended supporters does seem like a tough lesson in marketing, and the Green Blob just don't understand that the public never wanted to get ripped off.
RR 's refusal to stray outside the pages of Slaying The Sky Dragon & Sky Dragon Slayers 2 has become proverbial:
Cave rattibus sicut duo libri
vvussell, you must be very proud to be held in such high respect by 97% of Climate Scientists. Most of them can only corrupt science, but you can manage latin aswell.
Cave etiam Golfcarolibus cumque totibus aononymi trolli
vvussell, do you not have a spell checker capable of correcting mistakes and making sense of anything you trype? In any language?
I presume you must be one of Climate Science's top expert Peer Reviewers,
Mr Seitz: all I am asking for is some verifiable FACTS. That you seem unwilling or unable to provide them is being noticed: turpe est ignorantia; ad verecundiam jacet in eo quod nolint corrigere.
Radical Rodent, as someone who never passed a Latin exam, and never even studied Climate Science, vvussell's schoolboy errors in both are obvious.
The scene in Life of Brian where the phrase "Romans Go Home" has to be written on a wall, brings back. painful memories, but I am sure many viewers do not quite understand that bit of Python humour.
I know. That phrase is the closest I could get to what I could say in English, but much of it translates back into gibberish - other variations were even worse! However, it is a valid maxim: there is no shame in lack of knowledge; the shame lies in refusing to correct that fact.
Igpay atinlay isway allway Iway ancay accomplishway, utbay
I'mway uresay Ussellray illway understandway ontemptcay inway
anyway anguagelay
Mannus Climaximus was just an embarrassing and inconvenient hot flush.
May 26, 2017 at 5:12 PM | Supertroll
You remember the good old days of Grauniad's typesetters?
Well I have been away 'awol' as they say but I see that that pathetic troll has come back trying to impress - god what a failure he is - we should all take Maui's advice.
And on that note - farewell to you all.
VV Troll gets sorted
May 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM | Radical Rodent
Unfortunately, Climate Science has already adjusted all available facts, and has nothing new to offer.
- After the April USA solar-induced blackouts, a Nobel nominated proposal for Earth shield vs all space threats (as NASA and ESA also accept now*), as f. Dean of the NASA-ESA Int. Space Univ. Dr Pelton plans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5lCCjVTBw
???
Another trollop trying to boost views by posting idiotic irrational badly staged downright silly claims.
How specious can one get?
Conflating solar storms with space debris.
Alleging that "super lasers" can spectacularly destroy passing debris.
All that will happen to most space debris when shot by lasers is melt or radiate. Pretending that cheap film graphical images of exploding space debris when hit with coherent radiation.
Add to that, extinction capable space debris are massive chunks of rock and metals; i.e. city block to large village sizes. Rocks capable of sopping enormous amounts of energy without substantial change.
Which brings up, just how are you planning on powering your anti-solar storms and space debris laser? Nuclear power plants?
Then how many of these military grade lasers are capable of long term operation? Or do you plan to launch entire military support commands into space to keep the lasers operational?
With luck, your locale is ground zero for the next strike. Kiss your _ss goodbye when the object arrives.
Ed Davey is proud of what he has achieved as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Under his guidance over £37 billion has been invested....
how true is that can anyone shed more light