The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[richie99]

turbobloke said:

In which case somebody might ask about the basis for your 'tabloid viewpoint' smear when just about the most ludicrious piece of legislation formulated in living memory came about by a route you dismissed.

You confess you're unaware that the then Labour government invited Baroness Worthington, as she now is (Labour peer) - an English graduate and Fiends of the Earth pressure group climate activist - to be the lead author and chief architect of the pointless and nonsensical Climate Change Act.

She wasn't chosen by the random drawing of lots, though that method may well have resulted in somebody equally unsuitable.

I utterly dispute this. Random selection through a drawing of lots could not possibly have resulted in someone equally unsuitable because such a person does not exist. This woman is in a league of her own.

Those who came close were working in the Department for Energy and Climate Change thus making up the army of civil servants described by your correspondent. Topped off by the idiot Miliband as Secretary of State. You could win prizes with the whole bunch!

Edited by richie99 on Wednesday 7th February 09:24

[MYOB]

richie99 said:

Those who came close were working in the Department for Energy and Climate Change thus making up the army of civil servants described by your correspondent. Topped off by the idiot Miliband as Secretary of State. You could win prizes with the whole bunch!

Erm, I don't believe DECC even existed when the Climate Change became an Act...get your facts straight.

Try DEFRA...

[turbobloke]

How does that side issue alter the point about ideological zealots aka pressure group activists driving policy=>legislation?

It doesn't. Just another diversion.

[LongQ]

MYOB said:

richie99 said:

Those who came close were working in the Department for Energy and Climate Change thus making up the army of civil servants described by your correspondent. Topped off by the idiot Miliband as Secretary of State. You could win prizes with the whole bunch!

Erm, I don't believe DECC even existed when the Climate Change became an Act...get your facts straight.

Try DEFRA...

Problems with operations?

Reorganise, shuffle some of the people, rename, send out a "lessons learned" and "things will be much better" message.

Anyone previously involved now has plausible deniability - as do those newly involved.

I have yet to read anywhere a claim that Worthington was just a minor player in the Climate Change Act. In Milliband the Younger, iirc, is on record as saying it's down to her.

The often egregious Wikipedia agrees:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryony_Worthington,_...

"Climate Change Act
Lady Worthington was the lead author in the team which drafted the UK's 2008 Climate Change Act.[9] This landmark piece of legislation requires the UK to reduce its carbon emissions to a level 80% lower than its emissions in 1990. At the time Worthington was working with Friends of the Earth working on their Big Ask campaign, but was seconded to government to help design the legislation."

Argue about the terminology as used within the Civil Service if you like but no-one seems to have challenged this statement and corrected the perception.

Jumping from Friends of the Earth (Climate Campaigner) to DEFRA and into the Civil Service is, I suspect, quite unusual. The immediate move to being the only person whose name is remembered in the authoring of the Bill (presumably the rest were all career Civil Servants and therefore expected to retain anonymity) is unusual I think.

And then, once Miliband Junior had his place in the Historic record, she jumps ship again and goes back to advocacy supported by a position of prestige in the House of Lords.

All purely by chance?

Maybe we could find out who the other authors and advisors were and ask them why they are not so publicly lauded?

Be that as it may, the point was not about the Baroness but about how policy is made. This is but one example, albeit a far reaching and costly example.

Please feel free to guide us through the more usual process in outline - or in detail if you are allowed to.

[Ali G]

Don't really want to de-rail the discussion by discussing lobbying activities too much, but here is a grauniad article (which must be right)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/l...

There are also sundry 'Think Tanks' lobbying merrily too.

I thought this was common knowledge.

[MYOB]

Look, I'm on the phone and can't write much. But don't believe Wikipedia - it's mostly written by the public!

Yes, these lobby groups can work with MPs and attempt to raise their concerns, which then can be fed into Government for consideration.

But the formulation of policy has many different layers, largely involving consultation with the public, industry and government with local authorities and so many others. There are statutory, and non statutory consultees.

After the lengthy process of consultation, drafting, further consultations and so on, there is the many many stages in parliament to get through. By the time of the Bill becoming an Act, it's extremely unlikely to precisely adhere to the originating concerns raise by whomever.

I apologise for the tardy response but the point I'm making is that no one individual has that much influence on legislation. They may have strong views and attempt to influence, but as I hopefully have explained, there are so many levels to clear in passing legislation.

And trust me, a whole army of lawyers are involved throughout the process. Then you have the EU too checking the legalisation is in accordance with their relevant Directives.

[robinessex]

I'm not worried about so called climate change until someone PROVES a minute rise in planet Earths temperature is a problem.

[MYOB]

Ali G said:

Don't really want to de-rail the discussion by discussing lobbying activities too much, but here is a grauniad article (which must be right)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/l...

There are also sundry 'Think Tanks' lobbying merrily too.

I thought this was common knowledge.

Yes, this is pretty much how lobby groups work.

But they don't write policy or legislation. All they can do is attempt to influence.

[LongQ]

MYOB said:

Look, I'm on the phone and can't write much. But don't believe Wikipedia - it's mostly written by the public!

Agreed, hence my comments.

But then where else would one look for guaranteed unbiased and un-nuanced information? Official fully independent sources? If so, where?

The article edits seem mostly to correct punctuation, apparent lack of clarity in sentence constructions, add new details and adjust information about other people mentioned.

As far as I can see no major battles about contested opinions.

That said it does seem rather lightweight on historic details for someone who does not seem to be too shy to be in the public eye in certain circles.

There is more in the public domain via the press. Maybe not much better than Wiki of course.

Nothing I have read rubbishes the idea that she was hand picked and parachuted in to DEFRA for a specific purpose, vacated soon afterwards and was then rewarded.

Is that not the way these things work?

[DocJock]

MYOB said:

Ali G said:

Don't really want to de-rail the discussion by discussing lobbying activities too much, but here is a grauniad article (which must be right)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/l...

There are also sundry 'Think Tanks' lobbying merrily too.

I thought this was common knowledge.

Yes, this is pretty much how lobby groups work.

But they don't write policy or legislation. All they can do is attempt to influence.

Don't you think they'd have died out long ago if it didn't work?

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

MYOB said:

Look, I'm on the phone and can't write much. But don't believe Wikipedia - it's mostly written by the public!

Agreed, hence my comments.

But then where else would one look for guaranteed unbiased and un-nuanced information? Official fully independent sources? If so, where?

The article edits seem mostly to correct punctuation, apparent lack of clarity in sentence constructions, add new details and adjust information about other people mentioned.

As far as I can see no major battles about contested opinions.

That said it does seem rather lightweight on historic details for someone who does not seem to be too shy to be in the public eye in certain circles.

There is more in the public domain via the press. Maybe not much better than Wiki of course.

Nothing I have read rubbishes the idea that she was hand picked and parachuted in to DEFRA for a specific purpose, vacated soon afterwards and was then rewarded.

Is that not the way these things work?

Spot on.

[MYOB]

LongQ said:

Nothing I have read rubbishes the idea that she was hand picked and parachuted in to DEFRA for a specific purpose, vacated soon afterwards and was then rewarded.

Is that not the way these things work?

People are brought into government or the civil service quite frequently to do a specific job. Nothing unusual about that. The argument is that on occasions, civil servants can be lacking in the particular requirements of such jobs.

I cannot comment on specific cases though, principally because in this matter, I have no idea of the background.

But yes, people are seconded from industry all the time. Look at Prince Andrew and Lord Sugar as examples.

[turbobloke]

MYOB said:

People are brought into government or the civil service quite frequently to do a specific job. Nothing unusual about that. The argument is that on occasions, civil servants can be lacking in the particular requirements of such jobs.

That's a general comment, however is that also to say an English graduate and Fiends of the Earth activist was qualified and not lacking in requirements in relation to being lead author for the CCA? It was pure stupidity from Miliband et al but in that much it has a lot in common with Labour strategy. Emoting all over the place but serially incompetent.

[MYOB]

turbobloke said:

That's a general comment, however is that also to say an English graduate and Fiends of the Earth activist was qualified and not lacking in requirements in relation to being lead author for the CCA? It was pure stupidity from Miliband et al but in that much it has a lot in common with Labour strategy. Emoting all over the place but serially incompetent.

For the third time, I cannot comment!

[Toltec]

Wayoftheflower said:

Toltec said:

Ali G said:

s on nuclear...

http://m.greenpeace.org/international/en/high/camp...

greenpeas said:

Greenpeace opposes nuclear power because it is dangerous, polluting, expensive and non-renewable.

And governmental policy is determined by pressure groups lobbying - not the electorate

They do realise what solar power comes from and for that matter wind?

fkwits

Earth based fission is a little bit different to fusion 150,000,000km away.

I don't think Greenpeace object to earth based fusion except for thinking the money could be better spent elsewhere. Which I don't think is a good attitude but at least it's honest.

That just makes them super nimbys, fusion is no more renewable than fission, it still requires a fuel source that is ultimately limited, the solar energy they love also includes UV which causes skin cancer so hardly clean. Argument to the logical extreme granted, however what I am trying to point out is no energy generation is really clean, all you can do is use methods that produce pollution that is easier to deal with and minimises environmental damage, of course you still need to define what you consider to be pollution or damage. It is all a balance between sustainability and quality of life for an ever increasing human population.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ideological Zealots?

You are in by far the minority who thinks climate change is nothing to worry about.
Ergo you are an ideological zealot.

Were you as dismissive of the claims that mankind were damaging the Ozone layer out of interest?

sorry for the off topic but various surveys i have seen recently would suggest it's not a minority that think climate change is nothing to worry about.
as for the ozone layer/hole i think you may need to do some reading on the subject. it looks to me from what i have read it is a perfectly natural seasonal phenomena in both hemispheres.

[Toltec]

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ideological Zealots?

You are in by far the minority who thinks climate change is nothing to worry about.
Ergo you are an ideological zealot.

Were you as dismissive of the claims that mankind were damaging the Ozone layer out of interest?

sorry for the off topic but various surveys i have seen recently would suggest it's not a minority that think climate change is nothing to worry about.
as for the ozone layer/hole i think you may need to do some reading on the subject. it looks to me from what i have read it is a perfectly natural seasonal phenomena in both hemispheres.

Climate change is something to worry about, I particularly worry about the concept that building windmills will somehow stop it and therefore we don't need prepare for it.

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ideological Zealots?

You are in by far the minority who thinks climate change is nothing to worry about.
Ergo you are an ideological zealot.

Were you as dismissive of the claims that mankind were damaging the Ozone layer out of interest?

sorry for the off topic but various surveys i have seen recently would suggest it's not a minority that think climate change is nothing to worry about.
as for the ozone layer/hole i think you may need to do some reading on the subject. it looks to me from what i have read it is a perfectly natural seasonal phenomena in both hemispheres.

Given that PnM raised the interesting matter of the ozone hole and you scored a hole in one, this is to help PnM (not you) with another gullibility fail

The links worked when first saved. Most should do so today but I haven't checked.

1987 Montreal Protocol aka Won't Somebody Think of The Hole

2001 oh dear the hole is getting worse
http://www.wnd.com/2001/06/9757/

2003 phew the hole is getting better
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/08...

2006 but...the ozone hole is getting worse again
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/feb/16/env...

2010 now the ozone hole is getting better again
http://www.nature.com/srep/2011/110714/srep00038/f...

2013 2014 aaagh it’s getting worse yet again
http://www.livescience.com/40609-ozone-hole-bigges...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2648...

2016 it’s getting better once again
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/3...

Watch this space for ca 2019 when it’s getting worse. As for now, inevitably the activists cry 'we need more time' but that's only so they can retire before yet more green shti hits the turbine blades.

Ozone levels in the stratosphere are driven by stratospheric temperature and solar uv levels.

If PnM raises acid rain next to go for the gullibility hat-trick then I can see that post and raise the Clean Air Task Force report 'Why the Acid Rain Problem Is Not Solved' though I reserve the right to cite a paper or two from the scientific literature to correct part of the report content - even though the headline is spot on. Look! No hands and no misrepresentation!



As to 'a minority who think climate change is nothing to worry about' the use of 'nothing' as an extreme adjective and an extreme debating tactic can't hide another misrepresentation but as expected it's not by me.



A United Nations poll, how ironic, "only" just over 1 million international votes show climate change is dead last in terms of priorities. A dead duck is dead last, that's not quackers.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 7th February 16:29

[turbobloke]

Toltec said:

Climate change is something to worry about, I particularly worry about the concept that building windmills will somehow stop it and therefore we don't need prepare for it.

Indeed. It's natural. It's been occurring for billions of years. It will go on happening regardless of windymills and indeed anything political that some puny humans are arrogant enough to think (taxation) will make any difference.

Recent natural climate change has been pedestrian in rate and extent, there's more to come.

Buy Damart and candles.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Is that from your Ministry of Misinformation again ?

A two second search on Google suggest your usual selective posting of information

I used Gallup as a reasonable source. http://news.gallup.com/poll/207119/half-concerned-...

Lets get back on track of Thread please...

You're cherry picking with smaller sample sizes, it won't wash.

Misrepresentation? You probably don't understand the implications, as per unreliables / agw / ozone etc.

As to back on track, I already pointed out that YOU raised ozone. Sort yourself out first!