Solar ... In the news

Leeds_Solar

Cardew wrote: »

You have raised and are concentrating solely on the 'fuel poor'.

I was merely responding to your points, and your monbiot quote

To my mind one of the greatest injustices of the FIT scheme is that poor people in all electric households pay a large levy to house owners and venture capitalists funding Rent-A-Roof companies.

The less well-off pensioner in an all electric council flat have little option to fit wood burners, etc etc and whilst you might consider the present system:

The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.

Are you concerned about the impact of FIT on the poor in all electric houses or were you just using that as a means to an end?

Most of those who would fit yours and monbiot's descriptions in that quote would also meet the government's definition of being in fuel poverty, which is not dependent upon receiving benefits (it's based on 10% of income being spent on fuel for heat and power), which is why I used the term.

Now, if you want to move the debate away from those in fuel poverty, and just focus on those with bigger electricity bills, then we'll have to disagree as I've no particular problem with high electricity users paying slightly more towards the costs of decarbonising their energy supply if they can afford it. Those with all electric heating also do tend to already benefit from lower night time electricity rates for their storage heaters, which is a legacy from previous efforts to aid with grid balancing for a mooted switch to nuclear, so it's a bit swings and roundabouts really

There are loads of people who are not in receipt of benefits but certainly not well off. They can have large electricity bills in all electric flats and pay proportionately far more in levies(social and green) than people who are far better off.

Paying the levies from general taxation would reverse that situation - the better off would contribute more, as they generally pay more tax.

In the same way that VAT is a regressive form of taxation, then there will be some truth to this. Social tariffs would have mitigated this issue to a reasonable degree for those in actual fuel poverty if the government hadn't scrapped them, but there would still be some level of unfairness involved for those who didn't quite qualify for these tariffs.

Thing is though, FIT payments amount to around 10% of the costs to bill payers of the ECO funding scheme, which itself directly replaced a scheme largely funded from taxation (on top of some funding from the energy companies), so this would seem a better target for your ire.

If you want something to really spit feathers about, you could consider the fact that (up to recently at least) approximately 99% of all eco funding payments had been made for gas boiler replacements, most of which probably weren't necessary or would have been done anyway without any subsidy when the boiler actually needed replacing. Now that is a scam that's costing bill payers around £80 a year and making some companies a hell of a lot of money as a result for negligible benefits.

Despite protestations from the self appointed 'solar guru' of MSE, George Monbiot was correct in his first article.(and his second)

His 'error' was to state domestic customers instead of all electrical customers; which doesn't change the principle. However it has been seized upon in an attempt to discredit a perceptive and well reasoned article.

His other error was to entirely ignore the impact that social tariffs would / could have on protecting the million or so customers who were on one form or another of social tariff from ensuing price rises.

Had he argued for a strengthening of these tariffs to increase this protection, then he'd have got a lot of support for that position, instead he ignored it completely and came out with a tabloid level analysis of the situation that's still being quoted today.

eta - he was also wrong to state that it would all be being transferred from the poor to the middle classes, amongst other points.

EricMears

There was a special page created for people wanting to talk about George Monbiot.

Surely this page was intended for news rather than history ?

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

1 - So your contention is that despite the fact that 6 times more papers were published referencing global warming in the 1970's than those predicting global cooling ...

2 - I did flag it up as being a simplified version for a reason, and I'm not surprised you've seen the argument made before. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with the paper you've referenced though tbh.

The point I was making being that the teachers weren't exactly wrong to teach that there had been a recent slight short lived cooling trend, nor is this inconsistent with the current understanding of the climatic processes involved.

3 - There aren't a lot of geography or physics teachers around teaching at high school level who could in any way be classed as experts in the field of climate science ...

4 - So, you take the UN and IPCC statements at face value when it suits you then? ...

5 - I'm not really sure this is the place for in depth discussion on the scientific method, but if you want to go down that line, then it'd essentially be true to say that there actually isn't any such thing as a scientific fact ...

6 - "Importantly, this applies equally to all concerned" ..
rubbish.

One side of this 'debate' has spent very little on actual scientific research while spending hundreds of millions on a 2-3 decade long PR campaign to discredit the IPCC and spread doubt in the public mind about it's conclusions.

The other has spent virtually all the money it receives directly on scientific research, and very little on PR activities. (ok greenpeace and FOE muddy the waters a bit there, but only a bit)

Only one side in this 'debate' has any interest in discovering and publishing the actual truth of the subject, the other side is only interested in obscuring that and misleading the public.

So no, they're not even slightly equal in this regard.

Hi

Interesting ..... in order then,

1. On the contrary, I really see no reason for this to continually be raised in the argument. I know that it related to a paper which is referenced on a web-site which is specifically designed to provide a resource for the 'anti-sceptical' position to argue points in a coordinated manner. It seems that there is agreement that the possibility of global cooling being taught in the 1970s is a reality, so there is no logical reason to continually raise a historical analysis published a number of decades later as evidence in order to counter what has already been accepted. What I do have an issue with is the contention that the paper related to AGW as it doesn't ... just read the sources that it references, or if you don't have time, just look at the titles ... yes, the may relate to warming or cooling, but AGW ? ....

2. The reason is that 'Global Dimming' was described as being responsible for the "slight temporary cooling trend", whereas global dimming research based on pan evaporation seems to conclude that the period of dimming has a much wider span. The paper referenced attempts to convey the scale of the observed dimming in terms of W/sqm of the earth's surface. Quite interestingly, although there is comparatively little exchange between the air-masses of the northern & southern hemispheres and dimming aerosols are relatively short-lived, according to long term pan evaporation records, dimming also occurs at significant levels in Australia ...

3. Agree, however, as previously raised, the teachers don't set the syllabus, the examination boards do ... perhaps this is where the problem is then. With Oxford and Cambridge boards being offshoots from their respective universities then holding responsibility for the syllabus being taught, perhaps someone should ask them to explain as it would be far more interesting to discover what they were thinking at the time that the syllabus was set than the argument, based purely on a basic historical count, that I've seen so-far.

4. Obviously not, but at least a couple of references were provided, as opposed to a pure emotive positioning. The point being countered was that the IPCC was "political tool to delay the action that the scientific consensus at the time was already clear needed to be taken" and that this was "in order to give the USA in particular" .... which is supposition, all supposition. One link describes the IPCC remit as defined by the UN, interestingly, not the 'big bad, polluting' USA, the other helping to describe the reporting frequency, which doesn't really support a theory of excessive delay.

5. That's exactly what I've been saying all along ... 'There are vested interest groups which would have everyone believe that consensus is fact .... but 'in fact', it's not.' ... I'm glad to see that you agree !!

6. A selective quotation of text followed by an emotive position .... .... let's just take the quote in it's full context and deconstruct it so as to find what is so emotive about it .... "I would consider that there would be many involved in the global debate with vested interests to protect. It matters not what their relative size and corresponding access to funding is, just the point which they need to protect, and why they need to protect it. This could include a myriad of reasons, ranging from the survival of global businesses, to the personal reputation of an individual. Obviously, this means that a mixture of misinformation, politics, and discrediting opposing viewpoints often take precedence over open & honest debate .... Importantly, this applies equally to all concerned .... " .... so, which point is rubbish, vested interests on all sides ?, the ability to provide misinformation without significant funding ? (these boards are full of misinformation which is given for free, (just look for references to 'snakeoil' - ), are there not businesses protesting their vast commercial interests at one end of the scale and authors of published scientific papers jealously protecting their research and personal reputation upon which their future earning potential rests at the other ? ... so that just leaves two possible points for contention - the 'misinformation, politics, and discrediting', which considering ample evidence, happens all the time - there's even websites dedicated to providing 'on message' readymade arguments, one was referenced in this latest set of exchanges .... and of course, the really emotive word 'equally', which simply brings us back to the personal reputation point, but hasn't and approach using "politics and discrediting" been the approach which has been employed in this exchange ... memory, teachers, consensus, IPCC, USA .... and as for 'truth', "Even if you are a minority of one, the Truth is the Truth" (Gandhi) ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

There was a special page created for people wanting to talk about George Monbiot.

Surely this page was intended for news rather than history ?

Why pick on Monbiot?

There has been twenty times more written on the global Cooling/Warming debate - and there are separate threads on that issue.

However as Martyn has seen fit to grace us with his contributions on that debate, I suppose that subject has the 'official' seal of approval.

I just wanted to discuss the point raised by spgsc531 in post#326

Strong rumours that the green levy will be moved from energy bills to the taxpayer. Heard it here first

Rumours that were also repeated in the Telegraph.

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

There was a special page created for people wanting to talk about George Monbiot.

Surely this page was intended for news rather than history ?

Hi Eric

I agree ... it just looks like having energy in the news at the moment has both extremes of the debate playing politics ... which isn't really surprising considering that it was all started by a political party enjoying a day out at the seaside , countered by large business with vested interests , which is, in turn, countered by the renewables side .... it's going on all over the place at the moment ... :eek: ... thanks EdMillipede !

At least there's one reassuring point .... if representatives towards the extremes of both camps are arguing with my positions at the same time using the same old stories, then they're just wasting their time .... I'm just comfortable with my position as I consider it to be both well reasoned and logical .... after all, even though it's October and has been really dull for the past 2 days, it's 22C in the house and we're not likely to need any heating, including supplementing hot water, for at least another month - could do with a few cooler days now though so that the HadCET monthly average doesn't cause a hysterical panic either way :cool: .... don't you just love the foresight to have masses of insulation and renewables sources before the bandwagon was even built !! ... :rotfl:

HTH
Z

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Eric

I agree ... it just looks like having energy in the news at the moment has both extremes of the debate playing politics ... which isn't really surprising considering that it was all started by a political party enjoying a day out at the seaside , countered by large business with vested interests , which is, in turn, countered by the renewables side .... it's going on all over the place at the moment ... :eek: ... thanks EdMillipede !

At least there's one reassuring point .... if representatives towards the extremes of both camps are arguing with my positions at the same time using the same old stories, then they're just wasting their time .... I'm just comfortable with my position as I consider it to be both well reasoned and logical .... after all, even though it's October and has been really dull for the past 2 days, it's 22C in the house and we're not likely to need any heating, including supplementing hot water, for at least another month - could do with a few cooler days now though so that the HadCET monthly average doesn't cause a hysterical panic either way :cool: .... don't you just love the foresight to have masses of insulation and renewables sources before the bandwagon was even built !! ... :rotfl:

HTH
Z

*slow clap*

Leeds_Solar

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Interesting ..... in order then,

1. On the contrary, I really see no reason for this to continually be raised in the argument.

If you don't try to equate the situation regarding global cooling in the 70s with the situation now with global warming, then you'll not regularly see people like me refuting it.

They are nothing like each other - and please don't pretend that wasn't what you were implying by stating that there was a consensus around cooling in the 70s, it's pretty obvious this was your intent.

zeupater wrote: »

I know that it related to a paper which is referenced on a web-site which is specifically designed to provide a resource for the 'anti-sceptical' position to argue points in a coordinated manner.

unless that website is google, then whether it's listed there or not is pretty irrelevant.

I hope you've realised by now that I've no need to be spoon fed my points by some website.

What I do have an issue with is the contention that the paper related to AGW as it doesn't ... just read the sources that it references, or if you don't have time, just look at the titles ... yes, the may relate to warming or cooling, but AGW ? ....

I've done this before, and I'm afraid I'm not going to wade through 4 decade old papers again, suffice to say that I didn't find anything to contradict the paper's assertions.

Even a quick glance though clearly refutes your original assertion though, as there are clearly a lot of papers that are predicting warming.

zeupater wrote: »

In the 1970's, consensus, based on the research-based evidence available at the time, was that the earth was cooling and we were on the cusp of entering into another 'ice age'. The facts remain the same, but consensus performed a complete U-turn over a period of only 15-20 years ...

2. The reason is that 'Global Dimming' was described as being responsible for the "slight temporary cooling trend", whereas global dimming research based on pan evaporation seems to conclude that the period of dimming has a much wider span. The paper referenced attempts to convey the scale of the observed dimming in terms of W/sqm of the earth's surface.

well I'm still confused about your point. If it's that the cooling period was longer than the 70's, well yes it roughly ran from the late 40s through to the late 70s, and the dimming also seems to have been occuring for a long time as well.

As I said though, all I was attempting to point out was that the teachers weren't wrong to be teaching about this trend at that point, just wrong if they extrapolated from that to a longer term cooling trend.

Quite interestingly, although there is comparatively little exchange between the air-masses of the northern & southern hemispheres and dimming aerosols are relatively short-lived, according to long term pan evaporation records, dimming also occurs at significant levels in Australia ...

well, it might be if you gave a reference for your source. I've had a search, and can't see anything to particularly support this. What I have found though indicates that there aren't really any significant pan evaporation records in Australia before the 60's, and as I suspected, pan evaporation isn't really a very good proxy for sunlight levels at the surface anyway, as it also depends on wind levels and vapour levels.

a collection of relevant papers / presentations are here if you're interested, though they're maybe a bit out of date. http:// https://www.science.org.au/natcoms/nc-ess/documents/nc-ess-pan-evap.pdf

3. Agree, however, as previously raised, the teachers don't set the syllabus, the examination boards do ... perhaps this is where the problem is then. With Oxford and Cambridge boards being offshoots from their respective universities then holding responsibility for the syllabus being taught,

There's a theory related to the scientific method around generational paradigm shifts, whereby essentially many of those who teach a subject are largely reflecting in their teaching what they themselves learnt at university. I'd suspect this is at play in this situation, with the warming hypothesis taking a generation to really transition to the state where it's being taught at high school level.

This doesn't apply so much to those actively involved in research in the field, as they're far more likely to read most / all of the latest research in the field.

4. Obviously not, but at least a couple of references were provided, as opposed to a pure emotive positioning. The point being countered was that the IPCC was "political tool to delay the action that the scientific consensus at the time was already clear needed to be taken" and that this was "in order to give the USA in particular" .... which is supposition, all supposition. One link describes the IPCC remit as defined by the UN, interestingly, not the 'big bad, polluting' USA, the other helping to describe the reporting frequency, which doesn't really support a theory of excessive delay.

If I were just making this up now off the top of my head then it would be supposition, if it were related to me by someone involved in the negotiations at the time, then this is not supposition,it's political history.

I'm not sure what part of the US's last 2 decades of failure to sign up to any global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would lead you to think this was even worth questioning tbh.

5. That's exactly what I've been saying all along ... 'There are vested interest groups which would have everyone believe that consensus is fact .... but 'in fact', it's not.' ... I'm glad to see that you agree !!

Yes, but you miss the necessary caveat that AGW isn't a readily falsifiable hypothesis, so unfortunately it will only become a fully confirmed scientific fact after it's actually happened.

The consensus position of scientists specialising in the field and national & international scientific bodies is the best we're going to get.

It matters not what their relative size and corresponding access to funding is

this is the point that is rubbish.

If one side is spending tens / hundreds of millions on global PR and lobbying efforts specifically to spread disinformation, then obviously the size of their war chest matters (as does the level of their access to policy makers).

The fact that they choose to spend so great a proportion of their funds on this effort, and so little on actual research is very telling though IMO.

If they genuinely believed there was any significant doubt, then they'd have been much better advised to channel their funding into scientific efforts to refute the hypothesis. They obviously don't consider it very likely that any research they fund would help them to refute the IPCC position.

The only times I'm aware of that sceptics have actually mounted a significant research effort in recent years, they've ended up supporting the IPCC position via that research. (eg the Watts inspired effort to replicate the global temperature record, or analyse the US station network to see if problems in the network could explain the warming trend)

spgsc531

Leeds Solar


Have you not realised yet cardew never responds to questions with facts, just trolls for argument.


read back many threads you will soon see he has been ridiculed many times.


he just will not answer with facts, probably due to being shown up many times in return with actual facts.


just a heads up


this might help you understand him

spgsc531 wrote: »

Ignoring everything else, this really did make me chuckle. Well done cardew.

Leeds_Solar

As a counterpoint to the whole IPCC process, consider the situation with CFC's and other Ozone depleting chemicals that was also a global issue on which a scientific consensus formed through the 80s.

In this situation, the world's politicians took advice from their scientists, then effectively moved straight to the process of negotiating a global treaty to counter the threat.

They didn't feel the need to establish a global scientific committee to further investigate the subject, and report back every 5 years or so, allowing politicians to make out that the science wasn't settled and more research was needed, let the IPCC do their job etc.

TBH, grudgingly I have to give Thatcher her dues on this subject. As a scientist, she understood the science when it was presented to her, and then effectively talked down to anyone else who didn't get it, and basically forced them to agree to take action.

I suspect that if she's remained in power a few years longer, that she'd have taken the first IPCC report, banged heads together and shamed the US into taking a lead on the action needed, and we'd be in a far better position now.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Why pick on Monbiot?

I don't think anybody is 'picking on him'. But what he said, might have said or should have said several years ago can hardly be described as 'news'