Mini re-shuffle

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 31 Mar 2013, 11:00

I smell a hint of straw there Biff.

I'm just telling you why I think that the rules are they way they are. There are very good reasons why you would want any advice given to a minster to be private. Advisers must be able to speak freely.

Advisers are unelected and are there to give their opinion. The minster at least is an elected MP and accountable to Parliament.

The actual doings of the Department though are obviously public - we can see what the Minster achieves and judge him accordingly.

What's a puzzle to me is how Biff obtains his rock solid information on the political agenda of John Hayes.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Mar 2013, 15:15

Chief Scientist: Now Minister, science shows AGW is real and if we're all doomed but if we de-carbonise the economy before tea-time there's just a sporting chance that some folk will survive a bit longer.
Minister: I hate windfarms, don't believe in warmist scaremongering and have shares in a coal-mine, so thank you for your advice but now shut up.
Chief Scientist: Yes minister.
Chief Scientist (aside): Just wait till after the baronetcy is secure and I'm off the pay-roll. Then I'll tell 'em.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 31 Mar 2013, 16:50

Yes, there does rather seem to be a pattern emerging.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 31 Mar 2013, 17:27

biffvernon wrote:Chief Scientist: Now Minister, science shows AGW is real and if we're all doomed but if we de-carbonise the economy before tea-time there's just a sporting chance that some folk will survive a bit longer.
Minister: I hate windfarms, don't believe in warmist scaremongering and have shares in a coal-mine, so thank you for your advice but now shut up.
Chief Scientist: Yes minister.
Chief Scientist (aside): Just wait till after the baronetcy is secure and I'm off the pay-roll. Then I'll tell 'em.

Even if it's not that extreme, I get the feeling that important issues are watered down to take into account other points of view, to give balance. When it's something as life threatening as AGW, we then just get a wishy washy greenwash solution that's pretty useless. Unless there's profit in it for existing big business (rather than potential new businesses), like going to war, when the watered down balanced approach goes out the window.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Mar 2013, 19:18

Balance? Pah! Try balancing between a flat planet and a spherical planet.

There is no merit to be had in searching for balance between truth and falsehood.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 31 Mar 2013, 21:05

A truth such as the UK's carbon footprint being all but irrelevant to the global CO2 level?

Or a falsehood like Dr Viner's snow prediction?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Mar 2013, 21:56

In March 2000, Charle Onians wrote in The Independent

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The Charles Onians piece was, of course, a famously silly article by a journalist and should in no way detract from the reputation of a Nobel-laureate climate scientist.

David Viner is now principal advisor for climate change at Mott MacDonald having previously worked for 17 years at the Hadley centre and then the British Council.

Stefan Rahmstorf's new article:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0 ... d-weather/
explores a very plausible possible association between our current chilly spell and Arctic ice conditions.

Post by **clv101** » 31 Mar 2013, 23:02

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:A truth such as the UK's carbon footprint being all but irrelevant to the global CO2 level?

This is a really strange and often made point - I don't get it. Of course every individual's footprint is all but irrelevant - should no one do anything, about anything? This applies to everything, litter for example. My crisp packet is all but irrelevant to global litter.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 31 Mar 2013, 23:46

clv101 wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:A truth such as the UK's carbon footprint being all but irrelevant to the global CO2 level?
This is a really strange and often made point - I don't get it. .

It's not strange just because you don't get it. It's a matter of understanding proportions. The UK could reduce it's CO2 to zero. It would make naff all difference to the world CO2 level (~3%). Do what you like if it makes you feel good, but it's not going to change the world any time soon.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Apr 2013, 06:58

So it's you that dropped the crisp packet, was it?

Actually it could make a very real difference. David Fleming argued, when people said that TEQs weren't worth introducing into the UK because that wouldn't make much global difference, that there is a significant first mover advantage. As energy prices rise the nation that has decarbonised its economy to the greatest extent will experience an increasing trade advantage. As soon as this effect is noticed every other nation will see the imperative of jumping on the decarbonisation bandwagon.

Post by **clv101** » 01 Apr 2013, 09:11

woodburner wrote:
clv101 wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:A truth such as the UK's carbon footprint being all but irrelevant to the global CO2 level?
This is a really strange and often made point - I don't get it. .
It's not strange just because you don't get it. It's a matter of understanding proportions. The UK could reduce it's CO2 to zero. It would make naff all difference to the world CO2 level (~3%). Do what you like if it makes you feel good, but it's not going to change the world any time soon.

Yes, that much goes without saying - it just isn't logical, a point I tried to make in part of my post you didn't quote. All the global situation is is the sum of all the individual actions. Individual actions are all that matter.

marknorthfield · Post by **marknorthfield** » 01 Apr 2013, 14:35

A truth such as the UK's carbon footprint being all but irrelevant to the global CO2 level?

I'm with various other commentators here: this oft-wheeled out argument really gets my goat. It's an approach rooted in fear, helplessness and short-termism, guaranteeing defeat for all in the case of climate change. If every country succumbed to such inertia, we may as well wave bye-bye to civilization.

And referring to the linked data, the per capita figure is rather important, yes? On that score we're still way above the world average (UK 8.5, world average 4.6) and that world average is still twice as much as it needs to be to have a faint hope of stabilizing things. Other countries have more of a mountain to climb, but China is still lower than us for now (6.3), and India really very low (1.4).

I'd much rather we proudly led by example in renewable technologies, energy efficiency and efforts to reject fossil fuels. We have one of the best wind resources in the world, why the hell are we not using it more? Why do we still have so much of our housing stock badly insulated? Why are we even considering more airport capacity and shale gas? (I appreciate these are all separate discussion threads...)

On a more personal level, my other half has - gently - argued with me several times that my decision not to fly won't change anything. But I still love him very much.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Apr 2013, 15:41

marknorthfield wrote:We have one of the best wind resources in the world, why the hell are we not using it more? Why do we still have so much of our housing stock badly insulated? Why are we even considering more airport capacity and shale gas?

Because the government and the people who support it are either ignorant or don't give a damn about future generations.
Or both.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 01 Apr 2013, 17:44

Or neither.

We can't run industry and hospitals on intermittent wind and we have a huge stock of old housing that was built before insulation was mandatory.

We developed early and, in direct opposition to the quote from Fleming earlier, that is now hindering us as we have so much invested in old technology.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 01 Apr 2013, 17:52

biffvernon wrote: The Charles Onians piece was, of course, a famously silly article by a journalist and should in no way detract from the reputation of a Nobel-laureate climate scientist.

Things are not 'silly' because you do not like them Biff. Onian's article was packed with facts are warnings about changing climate. Viner DID make those comments and we can do little but suppose he meant them at the time.

If he were to have given that advice to the then current transport minster who subsequently instructed all local councils to cut their gritting budgets no doubt you would have celebrated a victory for climate science.

With hindsight on that point Viner was wrong - or perhaps you'd rather 'not yet right'?

Things are rarely right or wrong Biff and climate science is no exception.