Have Your Say on Energy and Climate Change policy - gov
Discussion
A VERY brief chance to influence UK climate policy
ONLY 2 DAYS left to go before comments are closed:
“Programme for Government – Have Your Say on Energy and Climate Change Policy
Do you want to help shape the Coalition Government’s energy and climate change policies?
The Programme for Government website gives you the opportunity to enter public discussion on key areas. Departments will then use comments for policy development and the Government will also respond in coming weeks to the most popular areas of feedback. The comments function on the website will close at the end of Thursday 10 June.
Add your comments to the Energy and Climate Change section on the Programme for Government website ”
The web address is:
http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/energy-an...
The website has been taking comments since 24 May, but the email from DECC is date 7 June and they will only be taking comments until this Thursday, 10 June.
This is a rare opportunity for anybody sceptical to the alarmist catastropic man made global warming delusion to have their voice heard (at least witnessed). Speak now or forever hold your peace.
If only in a few years time, we can say we told you so when the carbon bubble economy crashes around our ears.. whilsts the energy gap causes all the lights to go out..
I've put some comment on allready: see cat out of bag, and climate change big debate threrads, or the comments at ukgov link above..
lots of comments there from people that work in solar, wind farm, etc industries!!!, saying more sudsidies needed!
A few sad comments from retired people who have been ripped of by their expectations of fincial returns (feed in tariifs) on solar panels
ONLY 2 DAYS left to go before comments are closed:
“Programme for Government – Have Your Say on Energy and Climate Change Policy
Do you want to help shape the Coalition Government’s energy and climate change policies?
The Programme for Government website gives you the opportunity to enter public discussion on key areas. Departments will then use comments for policy development and the Government will also respond in coming weeks to the most popular areas of feedback. The comments function on the website will close at the end of Thursday 10 June.
Add your comments to the Energy and Climate Change section on the Programme for Government website ”
The web address is:
http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/energy-an...
The website has been taking comments since 24 May, but the email from DECC is date 7 June and they will only be taking comments until this Thursday, 10 June.
This is a rare opportunity for anybody sceptical to the alarmist catastropic man made global warming delusion to have their voice heard (at least witnessed). Speak now or forever hold your peace.
If only in a few years time, we can say we told you so when the carbon bubble economy crashes around our ears.. whilsts the energy gap causes all the lights to go out..
I've put some comment on allready: see cat out of bag, and climate change big debate threrads, or the comments at ukgov link above..
lots of comments there from people that work in solar, wind farm, etc industries!!!, saying more sudsidies needed!
A few sad comments from retired people who have been ripped of by their expectations of fincial returns (feed in tariifs) on solar panels
Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 8th June 12:30
Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 8th June 12:34
Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 8th June 12:34
Nice to see a neutral an balanced approach to their polices. Well, thats what it should be! All I read into it is that they are GOING to trade on this and do that without taking a step-back from it and looking at it logically.
Did anyone hear the deficit moaning yesterday? They said that the payments are more than Schools and Climate Change combined. Well I know what I would drop.
Did anyone hear the deficit moaning yesterday? They said that the payments are more than Schools and Climate Change combined. Well I know what I would drop.
better tell them, they still BELIEVE!
A good comment below got in (actually everything I have put has got in...)
Mark says: 8 June 2010 at 9:35 am
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Richard Lindzen – Professor of Meteorology MIT & Lead Author with the IPCC
A good comment below got in (actually everything I have put has got in...)
Mark says: 8 June 2010 at 9:35 am
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Richard Lindzen – Professor of Meteorology MIT & Lead Author with the IPCC
Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 8th June 14:00
eco mentalist said:
Our options going forward are nuclear or wind power, unless we want to start getting coal from South African or other developing countries and spend all that money on getting it over here, plus the pollution from burning it. Climate change is the greatest challenge we all face and this is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels producing CO2 and other green house gasses. Electricity generation is one of the largest sources of green house gasses, so changing to other ways of generating electricity that don’t burn fossil fuels is the way forward to limit future damage to the environment. Nuclear power is not proven, it costs more and it is a security risk. In the long term, wind power is the more cost-effective way to produce electricity.
Wow, these people actually believe that.Nuclear power, not proven?? What? And how is it a security risk? Boiling water is a security risk... everyone throw your kettles away.
Actually GT...
I was thinking more along these lines below, nice and reasonble...
I think your picture reflects the 'AGW alarmists' somewhat better:
The government is just wrong on the issue..
Thew issue should of course be correctly called 'man made climate change' due to Man's CO2, not the catch all 'climate change' which of course describe all the many natural process that have caused ice ages and warmed the planet up again aftwerwards.
The planet has naturally had experienced global warming trend, since a period known as the litle ice age ended some few hundred years ago.
ie man's total co2 contribution is only 3% of co2 produced by nature in the world's climate.
All scientists agree that CO2 ins a minor green house gas (water vapour is the strongest and most abundant greenhouse at 95% of green house gases)
All scientists would agree that the theory of man's contribution additional CO2 contribution COULD have an effect on the climate.
Many would agree that IF the CO2 in the atmosphere were to DOUBLE (this includes CO2 produced natuarlly by warming oceans to to the sun and from the biomass)
Then there COULD be up to 1.0C of warming in the next century...
What many people are sceptical about are the alarmist IPCC eco group predictions of +6.0 C or even recent predictions of +12.0C based on projections and assumptions programmed into a number of computer models...
What of course is left out of the discussions are that there are a number of models, Where even Bob Ward (Grantham Institute) confirmed on the BBC, these various models range from +1.0C to +10.0C in there projetions...It is only the lobby group, environmental alarmists that push the more extreme predictions.
If there was any certainity in these predictions, we would have only ONE computer model, the science would be broadly setled, the fact that there are many computer models with a wide range predicions demonstrates that care is required in depending on any particular output (ash clouds anybody)..
The computer models depend on various assumptions of climate sensitivity to CO2, and various assumptions of what degrees of positive feedback. The computer models use these different values to get different results.
Recent actual observed experimental data from the climate for these sensitivites and +feedback would indicate that the actual values, required for the predicions are much LOWER or even Negative, thus reducing total potential 'man made' warming to less than 0.5C
Absoultely nothing to worry about, in fact largely beneficial, as is the increased CO2 to plant growth...
The statements that we have experience 'unprecedented' warming in the 20th century, have also been shown to be false. Confirmation of with a BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones (CRU, UEA) confirmed that the rise in this period had not been statiscally greater in the rate of warming, or in the temperature achieved, compared to a number of other periods in recent human history (where the CO2 increase were much lower) thus demonstrating that the predictions of the models have been shown to be wrong.
Additionally, alrmist announcements that there would be increased, malria, ice cap melting , gulf stream shut of, ilsalnd sinking have al been shown to be false, unlikely or just propaganda..
Sea levels for example:
Tuvalu and kiribtati,(IPCC poster childs for global warming) have just had satellite observations published that demonstrated in the last 30 years these islands have actuall increased in land mass (as has Bangladesh) and due to the nature of how these islands are formed are at know risk of disappearing beneath the waves, ie coral grows, storm pick up debris and wash over the islands depositing mass. (something I learned in O level geography a quarter of a century ago) this seemed to surprise local 'climate scientists..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/1022...
Additionall sea level predictions remaiin officially to be between 7.0cm and 59.0 cm inthe next century (again a wide range based on computer models) observational evidence would indicate that the lower figure is more acurate. Whilst this entire range of predictions could not be said to be defiently due to man anyway, as this rate of sea level rise is completley inside previous rates of sea level rise naturally (for example, the english channel was did not exist 20,000 years ago - ancestors walked here, 6,000 years later, it is 45 m deep at the shallowest, a rate steepr than predicted with absoulutely no human contribution.)
Please step back, thingk again before the trillions are wasted on a popular delusion. to the detriment of real environmental issues...
Thewre are many real and pressing environmental concerns in the world, if the UK governnment could get off the man made co2 bandwagon) and actually spend the money due to be wasted on the man made ' climate change' delusion.
One article (there are very many) may demonstrate a starting place to pause, reflect and think again..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
more on sea levels:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
Or the government could have a chat with Lord Lawson (tory) author of Global Warming an Appeal to reason.
Or Christopher Bookers: The Real Global Warming Scandal
Or Andrew Montfords: The Hockey Stick Illusion
I was thinking more along these lines below, nice and reasonble...
I think your picture reflects the 'AGW alarmists' somewhat better:
The government is just wrong on the issue..
Thew issue should of course be correctly called 'man made climate change' due to Man's CO2, not the catch all 'climate change' which of course describe all the many natural process that have caused ice ages and warmed the planet up again aftwerwards.
The planet has naturally had experienced global warming trend, since a period known as the litle ice age ended some few hundred years ago.
ie man's total co2 contribution is only 3% of co2 produced by nature in the world's climate.
All scientists agree that CO2 ins a minor green house gas (water vapour is the strongest and most abundant greenhouse at 95% of green house gases)
All scientists would agree that the theory of man's contribution additional CO2 contribution COULD have an effect on the climate.
Many would agree that IF the CO2 in the atmosphere were to DOUBLE (this includes CO2 produced natuarlly by warming oceans to to the sun and from the biomass)
Then there COULD be up to 1.0C of warming in the next century...
What many people are sceptical about are the alarmist IPCC eco group predictions of +6.0 C or even recent predictions of +12.0C based on projections and assumptions programmed into a number of computer models...
What of course is left out of the discussions are that there are a number of models, Where even Bob Ward (Grantham Institute) confirmed on the BBC, these various models range from +1.0C to +10.0C in there projetions...It is only the lobby group, environmental alarmists that push the more extreme predictions.
If there was any certainity in these predictions, we would have only ONE computer model, the science would be broadly setled, the fact that there are many computer models with a wide range predicions demonstrates that care is required in depending on any particular output (ash clouds anybody)..
The computer models depend on various assumptions of climate sensitivity to CO2, and various assumptions of what degrees of positive feedback. The computer models use these different values to get different results.
Recent actual observed experimental data from the climate for these sensitivites and +feedback would indicate that the actual values, required for the predicions are much LOWER or even Negative, thus reducing total potential 'man made' warming to less than 0.5C
Absoultely nothing to worry about, in fact largely beneficial, as is the increased CO2 to plant growth...
The statements that we have experience 'unprecedented' warming in the 20th century, have also been shown to be false. Confirmation of with a BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones (CRU, UEA) confirmed that the rise in this period had not been statiscally greater in the rate of warming, or in the temperature achieved, compared to a number of other periods in recent human history (where the CO2 increase were much lower) thus demonstrating that the predictions of the models have been shown to be wrong.
Additionally, alrmist announcements that there would be increased, malria, ice cap melting , gulf stream shut of, ilsalnd sinking have al been shown to be false, unlikely or just propaganda..
Sea levels for example:
Tuvalu and kiribtati,(IPCC poster childs for global warming) have just had satellite observations published that demonstrated in the last 30 years these islands have actuall increased in land mass (as has Bangladesh) and due to the nature of how these islands are formed are at know risk of disappearing beneath the waves, ie coral grows, storm pick up debris and wash over the islands depositing mass. (something I learned in O level geography a quarter of a century ago) this seemed to surprise local 'climate scientists..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/1022...
Additionall sea level predictions remaiin officially to be between 7.0cm and 59.0 cm inthe next century (again a wide range based on computer models) observational evidence would indicate that the lower figure is more acurate. Whilst this entire range of predictions could not be said to be defiently due to man anyway, as this rate of sea level rise is completley inside previous rates of sea level rise naturally (for example, the english channel was did not exist 20,000 years ago - ancestors walked here, 6,000 years later, it is 45 m deep at the shallowest, a rate steepr than predicted with absoulutely no human contribution.)
Please step back, thingk again before the trillions are wasted on a popular delusion. to the detriment of real environmental issues...
Thewre are many real and pressing environmental concerns in the world, if the UK governnment could get off the man made co2 bandwagon) and actually spend the money due to be wasted on the man made ' climate change' delusion.
One article (there are very many) may demonstrate a starting place to pause, reflect and think again..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
more on sea levels:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
Or the government could have a chat with Lord Lawson (tory) author of Global Warming an Appeal to reason.
Or Christopher Bookers: The Real Global Warming Scandal
Or Andrew Montfords: The Hockey Stick Illusion
Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 8th June 14:25
BJWoods said:
Actually GT...
I was thinking more along these lines below, nice and reasonble...
I think your picture reflects the 'AGW alarmists' somewhat better:
For a change I agree. I was thinking more along these lines below, nice and reasonble...
I think your picture reflects the 'AGW alarmists' somewhat better:
In world outside of the motoring community your side of the fence are very much the pariahs. I wouldn't say that was necessarily inappropriate though.
Any way I digress... I've had my say I won't side-track your thread.
How climate scientists can repair their reputation
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=m...
in the comments section:
"They have much more than reputation to rebuild. A good colleague of mine who in total frustration had to use the Freedom of Information Act to extract information from CRU found himself under investigation by the anti-terrorist branch of the local Police force. Kafaesque!"
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=m...
Before we spend billions....
please do some honest enquiries into CRU - Climate Research Unit, UEA, scientists at he heart of the IPCC process ( ie no direct financial vested interests - climategate - CRU oxborough enquiry)
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=m...
in the comments section:
"They have much more than reputation to rebuild. A good colleague of mine who in total frustration had to use the Freedom of Information Act to extract information from CRU found himself under investigation by the anti-terrorist branch of the local Police force. Kafaesque!"
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=m...
Before we spend billions....
please do some honest enquiries into CRU - Climate Research Unit, UEA, scientists at he heart of the IPCC process ( ie no direct financial vested interests - climategate - CRU oxborough enquiry)
Mainly for so I can say to my MP - I told you so in a few years...
Islands NOT at risk due ‘Climate Change ”
New Scientist below: (who totally ‘believe’ in the alarmist man made global warming)
Have a laugh at the surprised ‘climate scientist’ who realise the islands are NOT sinking, due the very natural process that actually created them over tens of thousands of years, where the sea level has risen a 100m since the last iceage.
(something I learned in O level geography )
Who may be wondering where his next ‘climate science’ pay check is coming from
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700...
first sentence:
“AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change.”
Then they describe the exact same natural process that has created them in the first place (ie 100m of sea level rise since the last ice age)
“Unlike the sandbars of the eastern US coast, low-lying Pacific islands are made of coral debris. This is eroded from the reefs that typically circle the islands and pushed up onto the islands by winds, waves and currents. Because the corals are alive, they provide a continuous supply of material. “Atolls are composed of once-living material,” says Webb, “so you have a continual growth.” ”
Oceanographers have been saying this for decades, coral islands are NOT at risk.
But have been ignored bythe IPCC/politiians wrapped up in the scare.
the new scientist (IPCC, etc) is beyond parody now:
New Scientist:
“Yet warnings about rising sea levels must still be taken seriously.”
ie, global warming is REAL, REAL we say.
Very next sentences.(to justify that statement, says the opposite?!)
New Scientist:
“Earlier this year, people living on the low-lying Carteret Islands, part of Papua New Guinea, had to relocate. Kench says anecdotal reports that the islands have been submerged are “incorrect”, saying that instead erosion has changed the shape of the islands, forcing people to move.”
Even the AGW believing BBC reported it accurately - not changing but GROWING.)
(ie reported the fact they are GROWING in the headline)
Low-lying Pacific islands ‘growing not sinking’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/1022...
Without all the emotive propoganda scare stories,
Remind me, why is the government commiting to spend (cost) 18 billion pounds a year on the ‘climate change’ bill
(don’t forget they really mean man made climate change – which has yet to show ANY human signature in the climate)
I though we were in the worst economic situation in our history,
but we are spending vast sums of money on IPCC/wwf/greenpeace fairy tales…
Remember:
This is TUVALU islands themselves.
POSTER child of the IPCC!!!!! for all thing sea level…
Whose populations are writing to governments save us, your power station is killing us, we are drowning, give us some money!!!
the ipcc is just a very small bunch of scientists cherry picking bits of science… and the politicians (swhere a small group of politicised believing scientists have final say what goes into the reports (idiot summaries, yes/no simple answer for soundbites for the exceutives/polticians)
Go and look at the actual IPCC working group (particulary working group 1 – science))reports, especially the early ones, they say a very different thing than what goes into the summary for policy makers (major complaints from even the scientists involved in that.
Without the scare stories(ie unravelling), remind us why we will have a trilliion dollar 'carbon' economy again?
Islands NOT at risk due ‘Climate Change ”
New Scientist below: (who totally ‘believe’ in the alarmist man made global warming)
Have a laugh at the surprised ‘climate scientist’ who realise the islands are NOT sinking, due the very natural process that actually created them over tens of thousands of years, where the sea level has risen a 100m since the last iceage.
(something I learned in O level geography )
Who may be wondering where his next ‘climate science’ pay check is coming from
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700...
first sentence:
“AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change.”
Then they describe the exact same natural process that has created them in the first place (ie 100m of sea level rise since the last ice age)
“Unlike the sandbars of the eastern US coast, low-lying Pacific islands are made of coral debris. This is eroded from the reefs that typically circle the islands and pushed up onto the islands by winds, waves and currents. Because the corals are alive, they provide a continuous supply of material. “Atolls are composed of once-living material,” says Webb, “so you have a continual growth.” ”
Oceanographers have been saying this for decades, coral islands are NOT at risk.
But have been ignored bythe IPCC/politiians wrapped up in the scare.
the new scientist (IPCC, etc) is beyond parody now:
New Scientist:
“Yet warnings about rising sea levels must still be taken seriously.”
ie, global warming is REAL, REAL we say.
Very next sentences.(to justify that statement, says the opposite?!)
New Scientist:
“Earlier this year, people living on the low-lying Carteret Islands, part of Papua New Guinea, had to relocate. Kench says anecdotal reports that the islands have been submerged are “incorrect”, saying that instead erosion has changed the shape of the islands, forcing people to move.”
Even the AGW believing BBC reported it accurately - not changing but GROWING.)
(ie reported the fact they are GROWING in the headline)
Low-lying Pacific islands ‘growing not sinking’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/1022...
Without all the emotive propoganda scare stories,
Remind me, why is the government commiting to spend (cost) 18 billion pounds a year on the ‘climate change’ bill
(don’t forget they really mean man made climate change – which has yet to show ANY human signature in the climate)
I though we were in the worst economic situation in our history,
but we are spending vast sums of money on IPCC/wwf/greenpeace fairy tales…
Remember:
This is TUVALU islands themselves.
POSTER child of the IPCC!!!!! for all thing sea level…
Whose populations are writing to governments save us, your power station is killing us, we are drowning, give us some money!!!
the ipcc is just a very small bunch of scientists cherry picking bits of science… and the politicians (swhere a small group of politicised believing scientists have final say what goes into the reports (idiot summaries, yes/no simple answer for soundbites for the exceutives/polticians)
Go and look at the actual IPCC working group (particulary working group 1 – science))reports, especially the early ones, they say a very different thing than what goes into the summary for policy makers (major complaints from even the scientists involved in that.
Without the scare stories(ie unravelling), remind us why we will have a trilliion dollar 'carbon' economy again?
How many people here are hungry, thirsty or ar going to die from a curable disease because they have no medicine? If not, your lucky, half the world is!
As it stands today, the lights are going to go out in the UK at towards the end of the decade.
Our population is going to raise by another 4 billion in the next 30-40 years.
Many developed countries have unsustainable and growing amounts of debt. What happens when this debt reaches critical mass, and a large country has to default? Will it trigger a war? A world war?
More and more countries (like Iran) have Uranium enriching facilities, and presumably susbsequently will have nukes. Who is going to be the next to use one? On who?
The above are real problems. They are happening now. They are not unsolvable. There is no need 'massage' the figures and then delete the backing data so no-one can dispute you. They don't need d
heads like the IPCC and Hadley CRU spreading propaganda, or wkers like Al Gore (who I believe has made a lot of money from Carbon Credits)
Yet for some unfathomable reason, the focus seems to be on something that may or may not happen, often with conflicting evidence, depending on which pressure group is presenting the figures.
Mankind has REAL problems to solve. I can't see why we are inventing them!!!
As it stands today, the lights are going to go out in the UK at towards the end of the decade.
Our population is going to raise by another 4 billion in the next 30-40 years.
Many developed countries have unsustainable and growing amounts of debt. What happens when this debt reaches critical mass, and a large country has to default? Will it trigger a war? A world war?
More and more countries (like Iran) have Uranium enriching facilities, and presumably susbsequently will have nukes. Who is going to be the next to use one? On who?
The above are real problems. They are happening now. They are not unsolvable. There is no need 'massage' the figures and then delete the backing data so no-one can dispute you. They don't need d
heads like the IPCC and Hadley CRU spreading propaganda, or wkers like Al Gore (who I believe has made a lot of money from Carbon Credits)Yet for some unfathomable reason, the focus seems to be on something that may or may not happen, often with conflicting evidence, depending on which pressure group is presenting the figures.
Mankind has REAL problems to solve. I can't see why we are inventing them!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff