Thursday, 16 October 2014

Owen Paterson full speech text

The full text of Owen Paterson's speech yesterday is in the Speccie - and well worth reading.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with his position on GW;

"Other things being equal, carbon dioxide emissions will produce some warming. The question always has been: how much?"

"I also note that the forecast effects of climate change have been consistently and widely exaggerated thus far."

And of course the facts and figures that condemn the EU and the government's bloody windmills as utter lunacy. 

8 comments:

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

Expect plenty of braying from the usual suspects - the twerp known as Black Dick has already weighed in on behalf of his paymasters who no doubt are looting public funds to promote this eco fascism.

This is what they want ...

Bloke in italy said...

Great speech. I hope that sets the cat among the pigeons.

G. Tingey said...

Oddly enough, this is a LOT less irrational than some were making out.
He is entirely correct on misguided subsidies for what I might call the "wrong sort" of renewable energy. (Esp wind-farms)

Unfortunately, he is still a classics-trained POLITICIAN with no real understanding of the technical issues involved. As are all the others, of course.
GW is still real, & still a problem, but the "solutions" being applied & proposed are the wrong way of going about it.

Very very fortunately, no only is the price of PV dropping like a stone, a realisation that (in this country) "tidal is actually the way to go...
AND
THIS
READ IT
We only have two years ( give them this one chance) to find out if they are correct.
Actually, even if only half-correct it's "problem solved"

This is very new news - only broke yesterady..

OneMoreRainyDay said...

Ummm. PV, let's see, doesn't that only work when the sun's out? So all through the winter we'll get bog all from it. And tidal? Twice a day the sea actually stops moving in or out so what about power then? Especially if it's on a cold, windless, winter night .....

Glad to see Patterson's brought the subject to the fore front.

OMRD

Anonymous said...

How many times?

CO² gaseous emissions rise as a consequence of warming and therefore cannot be a cause of atmospheric warming - you can't put the cart in front of the horse.

NB: the sun drives warming, cooling the climate - end of. Only climate scientists and politicians believe that, they can bend the laws of physics and nature.

Cascadian said...

Too little, too late.

You will have your energy shortages AND price increases because the political class is scientifically and engineering inept, as well as beholden to the rent-seekers.

Prince Charles embedded staff at No 10 will ensure that the global warming lunacy is promoted in the face of all contrary evidence. Expensive solutions to the non-problem will continue to be promoted to benefit the royal estate and the well-connected. Ridiculous ideas like solar collectors in the dullest regions of the world and tidal power will be promoted, this in a nation that can barely build seawalls yet they believe they can span the Severn channel-hilarious.

Somebody, camoron??? had better wake up, even he must see what is happening in Germany. As gasoline prices dive ever lower the loonies are artificially boosting energy prices of all forms of electrical generation, they are intent on making your industry cost-inefficient, what then?

One nuclear plant in Somerset scheduled for ten or twenty years in the future will not resolve your very real problem of electricity shortages this winter.

Anonymous said...

GW is certainly real - but a problem? The only 'problems' of GW have been generated by wholly incorrect computer modelling, fast becoming a laughing stock. The *factual* evidence is pointing to a world that is even less sensitive to climate change than was orignally thought and this sensitivity is being reduced on a month-by-month basis by further *factual* evidence.

Anyhow, the only beef I have with Pattersons generally-succinct proposals is the use of DIESEL for the STOR systems when propane (or fracked gas) would be a much more environmentally kind fuel.

Otherwise he made the most complelling case against the CCA that any reasoned politician (few and far between) could possibly argue against.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

@OneMoreRainyDay: Actually tidal is better than that - there is so much variation around our coasts that there is always a strong flow somewhere, you just need lots of machines in lots of different places.

But it doesn't add up because (a) the scale is too small by orders of magnitude (b) the environment is so harsh that maintenance and failures eat up most of the gains.

You're right about PV. Useless at our latitudes and in our climate.

Patterson pretty much has it right - if we must "decarbonise" (and I'm not by any means convinced that we must) then modular nukes and CHP are the best bets.

Subsidising the rich to ruin the landscape for little or no gain is completely insane. But we all knew that anyway.