PistonHeads.com Forum

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

jet_noise

1,744 posts

79 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Dear SS,

Silver Smudger said:
Jasandjules said:
Keep a population scared and you can do what you like with them as you are "protecting them" - read 1982 for further details....
Another adjusted figure?

laugh
have a rofl

from me,

regards,
Jet

Devil2575

10,627 posts

85 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Blib said:
Devil.

There is nothing nobler for a politician, of whatever persuasion, to believe that he or she is actually saving the planet for his or her fellow citizens and generations to come.

It is far harder to say that this is a fool's errand.

It really does not need to be any more complicated than that.
I understand what you are saying but I still think that there would at the very least be some noisy back benchers shouting about this. However there is very little noise at all.

turbobloke

67,655 posts

157 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
Blib said:
Devil.

There is nothing nobler for a politician, of whatever persuasion, to believe that he or she is actually saving the planet for his or her fellow citizens and generations to come.

It is far harder to say that this is a fool's errand.

It really does not need to be any more complicated than that.
I understand what you are saying but I still think that there would at the very least be some noisy back benchers shouting about this. However there is very little noise at all.
There have been but the BBC probably didn't cover it.

turbobloke

67,655 posts

157 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
This is way back, and as you would expect the BBC had it front of house on their website for weeks and it was top of the bill on Newsnight.


OPEN LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Dear Secretary of State

You recently slipped out, without notifying Parliament, a massive revision of the estimated costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act.

I hope that on consideration, you will agree that changes amounting to nearly £1 trillion require both discussion in, and explanation to, Parliament. This is particularly important given the extraordinary way the government treated its own original estimates of the costs and benefits of the Climate Change Bill during the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

You will recall that your original estimates of costs and benefits of the Climate Change Bill showed that its potential costs (1) at some £205 billion were almost twice the maximum benefits of £110 billion. This was embarrassing for you because the reason governments are required to publish an Impact Assessment giving estimates of costs and benefits of any Bill is to enable Parliament to “determine whether the benefits justify the costs” (2).

In this case, on the basis of your figures, they clearly did not. Moreover, your initial calculations were based on the original target of reducing emissions by 60%, which was increased to 80% during the passage of the Bill. Normally each extra percentage reduction will require increasing marginal costs and generate declining marginal benefits. So the higher target was likely to make the disparity between costs and benefits even worse.

You nonetheless ignored your own department’s figures, refused to discuss them and proceeded to drive the Bill through – surely the first time any government has recommended Parliament to vote for a Bill which its own Assessment showed could cost far more than the maximum benefits?
However, you promised to produce revised estimates though, rather bizarrely, not in time for Parliament to consider them but after Royal Assent.

Five months have passed since then. Inevitably such a lengthy delay arouses suspicions – aggravated by the scale of the changes – that the figures have had to be heavily massaged to remove the original embarrassment. The new figures for both costs and benefits have indeed been changed dramatically. As so often in the debate on Global Warming – when the facts don’t fit the theory they change the facts.

As recently as your last departmental question time on 5th March your Minister of State, Joan Ruddock, suggested to me that the original estimate of potential costs of up to £205 billion might be too high. She said “We are likely to find that the costs, which covered a very large range, were exaggerated…” Yet despite correcting for any previous downward bias the revised figures you have now published are not lower but substantially higher. The bottom of the new range for costs is in fact £324 billion – nearly 60% higher than the highest figure I have been quoting. And the top of the range is now £404 billion.

In other words the government now estimates that the Climate Change Act will cost every household in the country between £16,000 and £20,000 each. When it comes to your revised estimates of the benefits, however, we enter Alice in Wonderland territory. Even though costs have broadly doubled, the embarrassment of them exceeding your own estimate of the maximum benefits has been eliminated. The benefits have been dramatically increased tenfold from £105 billion to over £1 trillion. I congratulate you on finding nearly £1 trillion of benefits which had previously escaped your notice.

But surely such an astounding discovery merits explanation? The one element of the revision which is mentioned appears, of itself, to justify doubling estimates based on the previous methodology. But where did the rest of the newly discovered benefits arise from?

As you know, having studied physics at Cambridge, I do not dispute the existence of a greenhouse effect, though I am sceptical about the model building which seeks to amplify it. I support sensible measures to reduce CO2 emissions, economise on hydrocarbon use and help the poorest countries adapt to adverse climate change whatever it cause – as long as the measures we adopt are sensible and cost effective. But we cannot judge what is sensible and cost effective if we do not have reliable figures, and subject them to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

When the Department slips out figures which it appears to be unable to explain, unwilling to debate and which are so flaky they vary by a factor of ten - it can only provoke scepticism.

I should be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. When will Parliament be given an opportunity to discuss these new figures?
2. What is the explanation of the huge revisions in costs and, more particularly, benefits?
3. Why has it taken five months to produce these revised figures?
4. What is the purpose of publishing Impact Assessments which are ignored or not available until after Parliament has considered a Bill?
5. Which minister signed off the required declaration that the original Impact Assessment “represented a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact”?
6. Can you confirm that the costs of the Climate Change Act amount to between £16,000 and £20,000 for every UK household?
7. Can you confirm that the revised cost estimates still exclude transitional costs (which could amount to 1% of GDP up to 2020), ignore the cost of driving British firms overseas, and assume that all businesses identify and immediately apply the most carbon efficient technology available?
8. Can you confirm that although the costs of the Act will fall on UK households the benefits will largely accrue to the rest of the world?
9. Can you confirm that the Climate Change Act binds UK governments to pursue the targets regardless of whether other countries follow our lead (or indeed whether the climate warms or not)?

Yours sincerely

Peter Lilley

(1) Cost estimates exclude transitional costs which were put at about 1% of GDP until 2020, omit the cost of driving carbon intensive UK industries abroad which was said to be significantly likely, and assume that businesses will identify and implement immediately the optimum new carbon efficient technologies.

(2) Impact Assessment Guidance - BERR



Superb - congratulating the twunt on finding £1 trillion of CCA benefits that previously escaped Labour's notice.

Did anyone see the reply?!

wobble



turbobloke

67,655 posts

157 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
More on the greenhouse effect over at the science thread ----> Click

For a reasonably brief summary of what actually constitutes a real greenhouse effect, where the term greenhouse doesn't apply, ignore trolling from warmistry and see the post yesterday at 08:09 hrs.

Pesty

33,221 posts

153 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
Pesty said:
we are not the ones who are saying the science is settled

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 6th March 23:16
I thought you were?

I thought that the whole premise of your argument was that the MMGW was made up and the so called junk science didn't actually show anything i.e. the planet is not even warming, let alone as a result of mans actions?

Or am I wrong?
you are

Al gore, the bbc and the IPCC etc etc are saying the science is setteled.

The BBC have said so publically and in person to me in emails.

I am saying they have not yet proved to me and many others that there is a man made input into climate change.

I don't deny that climate changes it has done since time began all im saying is that it has not yet been proven to me that we are a cause of it.

I have an open mind give me proof and i will accept it. From what i can see not many enviromentalists have the same opinion

all i can see is people getting very rich from carbon trading and governments taxing us till we squeak.

IPCC (IIRC)have openly said its ok to lie and exagerate, do you consider that science? i think it was the Canadian science minister who said climate change was a means to re distribute wealth to thrid world countries.

then we have lies about polar bears (one small report about one bay in canada with reduced polar bears caused by increased human population became polar bears are dieing all over even though there are more now then there were 50 years ago etc etc ) and glaciers that will dissapear which wont and even some that are increasing.

scientists showing that carbon trails warming and all the rest of it.



Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 7th March 17:04

Apache

39,658 posts

181 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
You don't accept evidence from computer models because it is based on assumptions made by the people who wrote the models. Ok.

biggrin
We were all over the computer models like a rash when it was revealed how they were conceived, the credentials of the analyst, what data was in putted and how the results were distorted, this was some time ago and I don't have any links, others might. To say it was a crock of st would be a kindness and you really need to see what the CRU had done, it would go a long way to explain the attitude on this thread towards 'computer models'

turbobloke

67,655 posts

157 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
The politics of climate models is clear. They should not be elected.

Sorely tempted to post chapter and verse on climate models over in the science thread but the devil I will. Wasting time on time wasters is a waste of time. Everyone else has seen it and others can find it if sufficiently interested.

Jasandjules

55,303 posts

126 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Silver Smudger said:
Jasandjules said:
Keep a population scared and you can do what you like with them as you are "protecting them" - read 1982 for further details....
Another adjusted figure?

laugh
I spotted that but Turbo had quoted me so it was too late to change it................

Jasandjules

55,303 posts

126 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
You don't accept evidence from computer models because it is based on assumptions made by the people who wrote the models. Ok.
Output from a computer simulation is not evidence.


turbobloke

67,655 posts

157 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
Devil2575 said:
You don't accept evidence from computer models because it is based on assumptions made by the people who wrote the models. Ok.
Output from a computer simulation is not evidence.
Output from the current crop of climate models is pure gigo.

Apache

39,658 posts

181 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
the numbers seem to suggest the theory is implausible too

"CO2 accounts for 0.04% of atmospheric gases, and anthropogenic CO2, according to the IPCC is a fraction of that amount (about 4% of the 0.04%). Please explain how such a rare gas acts as a blanket, unless it is completely threadbare."

http://realplanet.eu/backrad.htm

dickymint

12,562 posts

155 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
Blib said:
Devil.

There is nothing nobler for a politician, of whatever persuasion, to believe that he or she is actually saving the planet for his or her fellow citizens and generations to come.

It is far harder to say that this is a fool's errand.

It really does not need to be any more complicated than that.
I understand what you are saying but I still think that there would at the very least be some noisy back benchers shouting about this. However there is very little noise at all.
What's this then.......................

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9061997/1...

PS. For the record do you believe that "the globe" is warming due to "mans" C02 emissions? If so how?


Le TVR

2,705 posts

148 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
Devil2575 said:
You don't accept evidence from computer models because it is based on assumptions made by the people who wrote the models. Ok.
Output from a computer simulation is not evidence.
Personal experience of pure scientific research as opposed to industrial research was always based on the following ethics:
ANO would state or publish a theory.
Along with the theory would be the details of the experiments and observations performed, the data used or obtained and the results.
They would then invite criticism or corroboration from fellow scientists.

What is different with the MMGW theory is:
- No you can't see the data we used
- Here is the theory
- We dont need you to criticise or corroborate as the science is settled

Now when they have used the theory to create the models you would assume that future observations would corroborate the theory.

As it starts falling apart now, I have little sympathy.

rovermorris999

3,185 posts

86 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
Le TVR said:
Personal experience of pure scientific research as opposed to industrial research was always based on the following ethics:
ANO would state or publish a theory.
Along with the theory would be the details of the experiments and observations performed, the data used or obtained and the results.
They would then invite criticism or corroboration from fellow scientists.

What is different with the MMGW theory is:
- No you can't see the data we used
- Here is the theory
- We dont need you to criticise or corroborate as the science is settled

Now when they have used the theory to create the models you would assume that future observations would corroborate the theory.

As it starts falling apart now, I have little sympathy.
This says it all. It makes you wonder what they have to hide? smile

Blib

30,249 posts

94 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat

Telegraph Article said:
In what could be the world's first climate-induced migration of modern times, Anote Tong, the Kiribati president, said he was in talks with Fiji's military government to buy up to 5,000 acres of freehold land on which his countrymen could be housed.
Some of Kiribati's 32 pancake-flat coral atolls, which straddle the equator over 1,350,000 square miles of ocean, are already disappearing beneath the waves.
Most of its 113,000 people are crammed on to Tarawa, the administrative centre, a chain of islets which curve in a horseshoe shape around a lagoon.
"This is the last resort, there's no way out of this one," Mr Tong said.
"Our people will have to move as the tides have reached our homes and villages."
Mr Tong said the plan would be to send a trickle of skilled workers first, so they could merge more easily with the Fijian population and make a positive contribution to that country's economy.
"We don't want 100,000 people from Kiribati coming to Fiji in one go," he told the state-run Fiji One television channel.
"They need to find employment, not as refugees but as immigrant people with skills to offer, people who have a place in the community, people who will not be seen as second-class citizens.
"What we need is the international community to come up with an urgent funding package to deal with that ambition, and the needs of countries like Kiribati."
The land Kiribati wants to buy is understood to be on Vanua Levu, Fiji's second largest island.
Mr Tong's proposal is the latest in an increasingly desperate search for solutions.
Last year he suggested the possibility of constructing man-made islands like oil rigs for people to live on.
His government has launched an Education for Migration programme, aimed at upskilling its population to make them more attractive as migrants.
Kiribati youngsters study for degrees at the University of the South Pacific, which is based in the Fijian capital of Suva and jointly owned by 12 Pacific island countries.
Dr Alumita Durulato, a lecturer in international affairs at the university, said: "They are already preparing quite well.
"They have educated their youth to be able to survive in the new lands that they want to go to.
"They are going to leave behind their culture, their way of life and lifestyle, which is a little bit different from ours in Fiji."
Tarawa lies 1,400 miles from Suva and some i-Kiribati, as the islanders are known, hold concerns about whether their culture would survive after the population moves, especially if those who leave first are mainly the young.
A member of the Commonwealth, Kiribati was known as the Gilbert islands until independence from Britain in 1979.
The islands were first named after Thomas Gilbert, a British naval captain who navigated the archipelago in 1788, Kiribati being the local pronunciation of "Gilbert".
The total land area is 313 square miles and none of the coral atolls rises more than a few feet above sea level.
Link

ETA:

Though...
One of the comments said:
This report is absolute rubbish. I have been meeting with President Tong over the last year regarding this land purchase. It is basically for growing crops and cattle and chicken farming.
Maybe in the future some Kiribati may relocate to Fiji

The country is unable to meet its food needs.
smile

Edited by Blib on Thursday 8th March 09:42

turbobloke

67,655 posts

157 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
Most suitable for the politics thread as this is a political matter, the move looks necessary and no doubt a claim for compo will follow which will be more than a tenner to tip the removals van.

Over in the science thread there are links to data showing the currently falling global mean sea level, only four years but there it is, so this is something more likely to be part of the local changes that net out to the global figure and with no causal link to humans anywhere in sight.

There are also links in the science threads to the mechanism as to how such islands remain just above sea level over tens of thusands of years (overall) the political side arises due to short-term changes like this which are real and require action but not because of non-existent manmadeup warming.

It's a perfect recipe for ignorant politicians to abuse.

dickymint

12,562 posts

155 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
^^^ beaten to it. Just about to paste that comment. Unfortunately I can see the BBC making a meal out of this.

stevejh

731 posts

101 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
I did a quick search on Fiji sea levels and found this website.

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/carvingout/issues/sealeve...

The table on this page seems to show that some South Pacific islands are seeing sea levels rising and some are seeing levels falling. Logically that must mean that in some cases it is the land that is sinking or, I suppose, that some islands are still rising out of the sea. Without knowing what the land is doing surely it is simplistic to claim that it's all down to sea level rise which must be due to climate change. If anyone has some more comprehensive figures it would be useful.

turbobloke

67,655 posts

157 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
stevejh said:
The table on this page seems to show that some South Pacific islands are seeing sea levels rising and some are seeing levels falling.
It's the same with glaciers in that the stories only focus on changes which operate in one direction and so coincidentally match up with the climate scam. Nearby the opposite is happening but it goes largely unreported.

It's all transparently bogus, not in the sense of something needing to be done for those affected but in terms of the mentioned or assumed cause. Which is all wrong but still sufficient for self-serving ignorant politicians, unquestioning supine media hacks, and of course the faithful who need their glands tweaked every so often, to truly believe in the climate myths.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED