Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Silver Smudger said:
funkyrobot said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29623648...
'Technology-neutral'
But Mr Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said Mr Paterson was wrong if he was suggesting the Climate Change Act mandated wind farms ahead of other power sources.
"I have been through the Climate Change Act line by line, and can find no mention of renewables - or any other specific technology," he wrote on his blog.
"The Act is, in fact, studiously technology-neutral."...
Does this mean that the authors of the Climate Act do not have any practical method for achieving their targets?'Technology-neutral'
But Mr Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said Mr Paterson was wrong if he was suggesting the Climate Change Act mandated wind farms ahead of other power sources.
"I have been through the Climate Change Act line by line, and can find no mention of renewables - or any other specific technology," he wrote on his blog.
"The Act is, in fact, studiously technology-neutral."...
Roll up! Roll up! See true believers wiggling on pointy sticks! Next act naked trapeze starring Albert Gore!
Climate Change Lobby ‘Has African Blood On Its Hands’
Owen Paterson Says ‘Wicked’ Green Blob Kills Thousands Every Day
The former Environment Secretary attacked a so-called ‘green blob’ at the heart of Government yesterday – accusing Whitehall officials and ministers of raising energy prices for the poor. Owen Paterson said their support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive. He said the ‘green blob’ included civil servants and quangos in thrall to the climate change and environmental lobby. Speaking to the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, Mr Paterson claimed the effects of climate change had been ‘consistently and widely exaggerated’, and policies to encourage onshore wind farms will cost £1.3trillion by 2050.
Daniel Martin, Daily Mail, 16 October 2014
£1.3tr
Owen Paterson Says ‘Wicked’ Green Blob Kills Thousands Every Day
The former Environment Secretary attacked a so-called ‘green blob’ at the heart of Government yesterday – accusing Whitehall officials and ministers of raising energy prices for the poor. Owen Paterson said their support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive. He said the ‘green blob’ included civil servants and quangos in thrall to the climate change and environmental lobby. Speaking to the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, Mr Paterson claimed the effects of climate change had been ‘consistently and widely exaggerated’, and policies to encourage onshore wind farms will cost £1.3trillion by 2050.
Daniel Martin, Daily Mail, 16 October 2014
£1.3tr
Lockheed Martin trying a different approach to Fusion.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/lockheed-martins-new-fus...
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/lockheed-martins-new-fus...
I see that next year's COP in Paris is set to achieve absolutely nothing. Apparently, they are all going to sign an agreement which says that each individual country can set its own targets.
The might as well stay at home. The end result would be exactly the same.
More here....
The might as well stay at home. The end result would be exactly the same.
More here....
turbobloke said:
£1.3tr
More of a :weep: really. You'd think some one might get a few fusion reactors sorted for that money and still have change left over. Would any one even blink at the posh lunch expenses claims?£1.3tr. What's that work out at per head to contribute for every one on the planet to 'live the dream'?
TheExcession said:
£1.3tr. What's that work out at per head to contribute for every one on the planet to 'live the dream'?
If my envelope reverse is right, that's well over £20K for every man, woman, child, and baby in the UK.They could have paid off the national debt entirely instead!
Owen Paterson's speech discussed on the Jeremy Vine Show.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04jyjwx
Starts at about 01:09:30.
Some probing questions from Jezza wouldn't have gone amiss. I don't know about the rest of his audience, but I'd like to know more abut the background to statements like "(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over th last 40 years or so". I thought "most scientists" agree that no models predicted what has happened during nearly half of that period. If I'm mistaken, I would like the expert to explain why.
Mr Vine isn't really much good at this interviewing lark, is he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04jyjwx
Starts at about 01:09:30.
Some probing questions from Jezza wouldn't have gone amiss. I don't know about the rest of his audience, but I'd like to know more abut the background to statements like "(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over th last 40 years or so". I thought "most scientists" agree that no models predicted what has happened during nearly half of that period. If I'm mistaken, I would like the expert to explain why.
Mr Vine isn't really much good at this interviewing lark, is he?
gareth_r said:
Owen Paterson's speech discussed on the Jeremy Vine Show.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04jyjwx
Starts at about 01:09:30.
Some probing questions from Jezza wouldn't have gone amiss. I don't know about the rest of his audience, but I'd like to know more abut the background to statements like "(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over th last 40 years or so". I thought "most scientists" agree that no models predicted what has happened during nearly half of that period. If I'm mistaken, I would like the expert to explain why.
Mr Vine isn't really much good at this interviewing lark, is he?
He works for the BBC and possibly likes his job !!!!!http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04jyjwx
Starts at about 01:09:30.
Some probing questions from Jezza wouldn't have gone amiss. I don't know about the rest of his audience, but I'd like to know more abut the background to statements like "(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over th last 40 years or so". I thought "most scientists" agree that no models predicted what has happened during nearly half of that period. If I'm mistaken, I would like the expert to explain why.
Mr Vine isn't really much good at this interviewing lark, is he?
"(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over the last 40 years or so".
That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due tothe oceans eating Trenberth green plants talking too much.
That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due to
don4l said:
I see that next year's COP in Paris is set to achieve absolutely nothing. Apparently, they are all going to sign an agreement which says that each individual country can set its own targets.
The might as well stay at home. The end result would be exactly the same.
More here....
No - if they stayed at home it would be a better result.. IIRC they probably take 3 negotiators, + translaotrs + runners + tea boy. Probably a few 747s worth of staff all in when you add up all the countries attending. That's can't be good for reducing emissions.The might as well stay at home. The end result would be exactly the same.
More here....
Haven't they heard of video conferencing? Currently doing a stint for a large US based networking Co at the mo. Works a treat when done properly. Has automatic camera cutting and you can actually hear what people are saying. Though I'm not sure we'd hear much from the Africans. My other half is west african and we can just about get a Voice call over Viber to work back to her family.
turbobloke said:
"(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over the last 40 years or so".
That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due tothe oceans eating Trenberth green plants talking too much.
Has anyone got a model for predicting future climate stability?That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due to
I could do one in excel, quite easy really ... years along the top, Stick 21 deg in cell B1. Then do B2=B1, B3=B2 etc etc.
I'm not sure it would pass the IPCC review process though. I think it would pass the PH scientific scrutiny test though. ;-)
TransverseTight said:
turbobloke said:
"(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over the last 40 years or so".
That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due tothe oceans eating Trenberth green plants talking too much.
Has anyone got a model for predicting future climate stability?That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due to
I could do one in excel, quite easy really ... years along the top, Stick 21 deg in cell B1. Then do B2=B1, B3=B2 etc etc.
I'm not sure it would pass the IPCC review process though. I think it would pass the PH scientific scrutiny test though. ;-)
PH demands are high.A 20 year 'pause' has a vanishingly small probability in climatemodelworld.
On the McKitrick analysis we're very nearly there, vanishing in uncharted waters ho ho ho and not those that ate Trenberth.
turbobloke said:
TransverseTight said:
turbobloke said:
"(the models have) quite accurately predicted the rates of warming over the last 40 years or so".
That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due tothe oceans eating Trenberth green plants talking too much.
Has anyone got a model for predicting future climate stability?That explains why we were all advised well in advance about the ongoing 19 year 'pause' in global warming, and that it was due to
I could do one in excel, quite easy really ... years along the top, Stick 21 deg in cell B1. Then do B2=B1, B3=B2 etc etc.
I'm not sure it would pass the IPCC review process though. I think it would pass the PH scientific scrutiny test though. ;-)
PH demands are high.A 20 year 'pause' has a vanishingly small probability in climatemodelworld.
On the McKitrick analysis we're very nearly there, vanishing in uncharted waters ho ho ho and not those that ate Trenberth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff