Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Foppo said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Gandahar said:
Oh please, stop the Daily Wail diatribe. Economic suicide for UK due to green policies, er, no. The main economic downside at the moment is Europe and the political machinations that are happening. And even that will not be economic suicide for the UK.
Economic suicide = putting yourself at a severe disadvantage to the opposition. It's an obvious, irrefutable, consequence of a pointless unnecessary policy. Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 14th February 14:04
Can you imagine how prosperous this country would be unhindered by debt - instead of spending the same amount on useless green tripe?
And yes, unless something is pulled out the hat fast, lights will go out at some point as a consequence of this ideological unscientific trash.
As shown by studies from King Juan Carlos University and Verso Economics with links to these reports on PH.
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/2/17/s...
Scotnats in Jumping Before You Think shocker...the stupidity is strong in this one...
some really good comments below the article .when you look at the bScotnats in Jumping Before You Think shocker...the stupidity is strong in this one...
ks they have made with renewables, i shudder to think how any new tax raising powers will go .Mr GrimNasty said:
How is a communist tractor factory mentality creating prosperity?
These aren't proper jobs, they are a fraud leeched off other hard working people, for nothing, not energy security, not saving the planet, nothing.
So you're all right Jack because you are on the gravy train. Well done. Enjoy your parasitic job whilst old people are dieing in misery.
And it's been well proven 'green' jobs COST far more jobs than they create, like any parasitic drain on free enterprise.
this ^ .These aren't proper jobs, they are a fraud leeched off other hard working people, for nothing, not energy security, not saving the planet, nothing.
So you're all right Jack because you are on the gravy train. Well done. Enjoy your parasitic job whilst old people are dieing in misery.
And it's been well proven 'green' jobs COST far more jobs than they create, like any parasitic drain on free enterprise.
foppo, have a look at the company names on the boats,and then note how the manufacturing of the turbines moves around the country with various grants,then count the amount of jobs that are actually generated in the local communities . the companies involved are not bribing locals and local councils with large sums of money in an attempt to get them onside for nothing.
then in 25 years time or less, watch more tax payers money being spent on the decommissioning of the now defunct/non operational windfarms after the companies that had the original tax payer money to build and install them are all wound up,or just wash their hands of the responsibility. it is the biggest con in modern times,facilitated by politicians and their cronies that are benefiting financially indirectly and are under some delusions of grandeur they are responsible for saving the world,coupled with trying to appease a rabid green minority that has no capacity for reason or logic.
Vestas opened a factory in Campbeltown to great applause a decade or so ago, only to shut it a couple of years later, presumably after the grant money ran dry; in different ownership it's now employing a fraction of the original workforce making just the towers rather than the whole whirligig.
More details on the looming Scottish energy security and imminent job losses (well paid, skilled jobs) crisis, all because of an obsession with green crap.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Apparently there will be another £10 billion or so handed out in subsidies for building the "biggest off shore windfarm in the world" off the coast of Yorkshire.
From the way that it's being billed this sound like a full blown vanity project and not much else.
Presumably this was the development that Foppo was referring to a few posts back.
So, loads of "jobs" to produce some energy that will, presumably, be replacing something currently on land.
What happens to the land jobs? Do they disappear? Are the "new" jobs additional or replacement for the long term?
There are plans to manage demand for electric power downwards as far as existing demand is concerned. With new demand - electric cars for example - the hope may be that levels of production may not rise too much above existing demand on balance. Thus an "new" and "long term" jobs will represent additional costs to generate the same sort of output as now. But with less security of availability.
Or at least that is how it seems. The long term contracts for electricity supply prices, most publicly identified by the reports of the outline terms for new Nuclear sites, suggest that prices are guaranteed to rise significantly in the next decade or two. The reasons being political policy decisions and irrespective of what happens with energy costs in the real world. Perhaps that's one way of making a £10 billion tax funded subsidy look like good value for money.
Still, it will help to keep various European economies afloat and help the Norwegians who may need some help to fund their per capita income as North Sea Oil revenues tail off.
Maybe the payments can be taken from the Overseas Aid budget?
From the way that it's being billed this sound like a full blown vanity project and not much else.
Presumably this was the development that Foppo was referring to a few posts back.
So, loads of "jobs" to produce some energy that will, presumably, be replacing something currently on land.
What happens to the land jobs? Do they disappear? Are the "new" jobs additional or replacement for the long term?
There are plans to manage demand for electric power downwards as far as existing demand is concerned. With new demand - electric cars for example - the hope may be that levels of production may not rise too much above existing demand on balance. Thus an "new" and "long term" jobs will represent additional costs to generate the same sort of output as now. But with less security of availability.
Or at least that is how it seems. The long term contracts for electricity supply prices, most publicly identified by the reports of the outline terms for new Nuclear sites, suggest that prices are guaranteed to rise significantly in the next decade or two. The reasons being political policy decisions and irrespective of what happens with energy costs in the real world. Perhaps that's one way of making a £10 billion tax funded subsidy look like good value for money.
Still, it will help to keep various European economies afloat and help the Norwegians who may need some help to fund their per capita income as North Sea Oil revenues tail off.
Maybe the payments can be taken from the Overseas Aid budget?
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 19th February 12:06
"Additional energy costs on this scale will affect the course of British economic history, and not for the better. The last time public subsidies on this scale were directed towards a single industry it was called British Leyland."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959377/Go...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959377/Go...
Mr GrimNasty said:
"Additional energy costs on this scale will affect the course of British economic history, and not for the better. The last time public subsidies on this scale were directed towards a single industry it was called British Leyland."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959377/Go...
Pure madness.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959377/Go...
Exeter Uni has a £30m Environment and Sustainability Institute building near Falmouth which opened in 2012 and was dubbed at the time "one of the most environmentally sustainable buildings in the UK".
It is so sustainable that less than three years on bits of it are falling down. "We are still unsure of how long the remedial work will take or the final cost" said a spokeswoman.
Oh dear never mind.
It is so sustainable that less than three years on bits of it are falling down. "We are still unsure of how long the remedial work will take or the final cost" said a spokeswoman.
Oh dear never mind.
wc98 said:
article said:
Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.
AreOut said:
hmm I think I have already posted that, but I laughed again 
It did look familiar, but the more the merrier Meanwhile the gigo nature of climate modelling has found its way into Local Transport Today.
The latest edition has coverage which has also been posted on PH previously (I just happen to know!) but is no less worth a revisit. LTT's headline to the piece announces that public faith in computer models is ‘unjustified’ and that concern about man-made climate change has been hyped. Partly fuelled by people’s "unwarranted confidence" in the outputs of climate computer models, the level of alarm is unwarranted. The article goes on to quote Dr Christopher Essex, a Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, who addressed an audience in the House of Lords last week, whose speech reminded the audience that “inside a computer is a completely artificial world”. Drawing a parallel with toxic assets, Dr Essex said the outputs of climate models had been “oversold” by people who “don’t know what’s in them” and “bought” by people who “don’t know what’s in them”. His comment that public discussion about climate change is "divorced from the scientific discussion of the subject" also hit the spot. Dr E also reminded people that, in the history of science, the claimed ‘consensus’ position on topics was likely to be unfounded and had often been proved wrong. Telling it as it is, the only way, is Prof Essex.
Pesty said:
Loving the language..."avian safety issues" = "turned white hot and vaporized completely"
It's becoming a grotesque competition between solar and wind to see how much flying wildlife can be sacrificed in the name of a false god.
turbobloke said:
Link from Scuffers in another thread said:
John Prescott is returning to front-line politics as a special adviser to Ed Miliband with responsibility for climate change.
Imagine how hot is might get if Kinnock was part of the advisory team.
Hopefully Nissan will give Presclot a Leaf to drive around in. That should keep him neatly within the boudaries of Hull.
turbobloke said:
It did look familiar, but the more the merrier
Meanwhile the gigo nature of climate modelling has found its way into Local Transport Today.
The latest edition has coverage which has also been posted on PH previously (I just happen to know!) but is no less worth a revisit. LTT's headline to the piece announces that public faith in computer models is ‘unjustified’ and that concern about man-made climate change has been hyped. Partly fuelled by people’s "unwarranted confidence" in the outputs of climate computer models, the level of alarm is unwarranted. The article goes on to quote Dr Christopher Essex, a Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, who addressed an audience in the House of Lords last week, whose speech reminded the audience that “inside a computer is a completely artificial world”. Drawing a parallel with toxic assets, Dr Essex said the outputs of climate models had been “oversold” by people who “don’t know what’s in them” and “bought” by people who “don’t know what’s in them”. His comment that public discussion about climate change is "divorced from the scientific discussion of the subject" also hit the spot. Dr E also reminded people that, in the history of science, the claimed ‘consensus’ position on topics was likely to be unfounded and had often been proved wrong. Telling it as it is, the only way, is Prof Essex.
I've already watched the Dr Essex video, it does exercise the brain cells a bit - it's here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in...Meanwhile the gigo nature of climate modelling has found its way into Local Transport Today.
The latest edition has coverage which has also been posted on PH previously (I just happen to know!) but is no less worth a revisit. LTT's headline to the piece announces that public faith in computer models is ‘unjustified’ and that concern about man-made climate change has been hyped. Partly fuelled by people’s "unwarranted confidence" in the outputs of climate computer models, the level of alarm is unwarranted. The article goes on to quote Dr Christopher Essex, a Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, who addressed an audience in the House of Lords last week, whose speech reminded the audience that “inside a computer is a completely artificial world”. Drawing a parallel with toxic assets, Dr Essex said the outputs of climate models had been “oversold” by people who “don’t know what’s in them” and “bought” by people who “don’t know what’s in them”. His comment that public discussion about climate change is "divorced from the scientific discussion of the subject" also hit the spot. Dr E also reminded people that, in the history of science, the claimed ‘consensus’ position on topics was likely to be unfounded and had often been proved wrong. Telling it as it is, the only way, is Prof Essex.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff