A Critical Misunderstanding

16th January 2008

Derek wrote the following paragraph - which I misunderstood & took umbrage to...

Interested to have all your views as to what should be changed in our Report and the new material, such as a critical appraisal of small- scale renewables, which might be needed for an update. And when? Could we not "save the planet from bankruptcy" by abandoning stupid, unnecessary and prohibitively-expensive carbon-emission regulations? .

Reply From Me

Dear Derek,
I must say - I feel like I'm writing to a brick-wall... I find it absolutely astonishing that you should say:

"Interested to have all your views as to what should be changed in our Report and the new material, such as a critical appraisal of small- scale renewables, which might be needed for an update."

I must conclude that this group has it collective head stuck so far in the sand that it will never build a set of sensible, workable policies which would be actually be popular with the electorate...

The idea that you think UKIP should focus on debunking AWG, rather than finding workable solutions, is arrogant beyond belief. This is not a 'tougher stance' - it's political suicide. Even George Bush had to back-down over AGW. It would make UKIP look like a bunch of dinosaurs...

How and why would you be critical of microgeneration? To what end?

Reply From Derek

The word "critical", as used by a scientist, does not mean "destructive"; it means "balanced as to the pros and cons" which was the methodology of our Report . Neither is it the function of a music or drama critic to destroy performers or performances; it is more to reward excellence and promote careers. In fact I included this particular sentence in appreciation of the useful contributions you have been making to the debate so as to get your views wider consideration. I am truly sorry that by my choice of a word I have caused you offence.

However I cannot apologise for wishing to debunk AGW for which there is no valid evidence and no scientific consensus in support, merely a pack of politically-motivated lies and a few crap computer models. Such hard evidence as we have, for instance that the average world atmospheric temperature has not increased since 1998 despite a significant increase in CO2 levels, does not encourage me to accept your approach. This is not about what we believe; it is about hard data for or against. If you are open-minded about this question, do please read the attachments and then show me where I have gone wrong.

Reply From Me

Hi Derek, I apologise for misunderstanding your use of the word 'critical'. I read that sentence as meaning quite the opposite of it's intended meaning...

Thank you for being willing to take my views on board.

The reason I think that the debunking is a bad idea is because it is - inescapably - a big grey area. No-one can say either way whether we're causing it or not. This is a debate for scientists - not policy makers...We need to be dealing with the black-and-white issues we can extract from it because we need to formulate positive policies.

The black-and-white issues I can see follow - I don't believe any of these points could be refuted:

1. We need much greater self-sufficiency for energy.
2. The ideal situation is for all our energy to come from local, non-polluting sources.
3. Nuclear is unpopular, expensive, slow to build, difficult to remove, it's less safe than renewables, and it causes leukemia in children (studies strongly suggest).
4. Renewables are struggling to develop against the established behemoths of the fossil fuel & nuclear industry, and the government is giving them no special help. On the contrary - they seem intent on bringing them into disrepute by promoting inappropriate technologies.

The most important point I have to make is this:

UKIP has absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by fully supporting the microgeneration market - in addition to other means of generation. This means removing regulation and taxes, making all meters 2-way, setting buy-back tariffs, and perhaps investing in providing storage in the grid too.

It would be pragmatic, and politically expedient, to support non-polluting technologies above all else - until science can definitively say whether GW is anthropogenic or not.

For a political party to become embroiled in the argument itself would be a mistake.

Reply From Derek

Dear Tim

Of course I accept your apology, though it was quite unnecessary. In the heat of debate, there can always be misunderstandings in a thread of this kind!

But your belief about AGW that "No one can say either way whether we are causing it or not" etc does cause me concern. You are a thinker in this area but have still not taken on board the scientific position which is:-

1: THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE DATA TO SUPPORT THE UN-IPCC AGW HYPOTHESIS; and

2: THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITIES OF RELIABLE DATA WHICH SHOW THAT THE AGW HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE.

Please don't take my word for this but sit down for half-an-hour to play Prof Bob Carter's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI which deploys the existing climatic data step-by-step in a very basic presentation leading to this inescapable conclusion. If you are still not convinced, please tell me why not.

I have no business or political interest in this matter. Like you, I simply want UKIP (and indeed mankind) to avoid being misled by a bunch of unscrupulous crooks who are misrepresenting a scientific consensus in favour of the AGW myth where none exists. If we cannot proceed on a basis of truth then no progress at all is possible. If UKIP descends into representing only what the voters want to hear it is at the level of the other Parties but smaller and ultimately more vulnerable.

You have convinced me that microgeneration can have an important role to play in energy supply planning but I believe it could be self-defeating to bolster your arguments through a misplaced evangelical saving of the planet.

I do hope that this is helpful.

Reply From Me

Hi Derek,
I'm glad we're still good... I do rather enjoy the discussion. although I must admit - it's the getting through that really does it for me ;^)

I'd be horrified to think I came across as evangelical :-( - I do love this world though...

The point I'm making is not that I believe or disbelieve AGW - rather that it is largely irrelevant to the matter in hand...

I'd like to believe we weren't causing it - but the fact still remains that we need energy - we can't rely on Gazprom, and polluting the environment is unlikely to be good for it...

We have the technology to produce renewable energy - please - can we commit to encouraging them by any means possible? I can't see why we wouldn't...

Next Installment

TBA

Comments

This is a sporadically moderated blog. I am not responsible for anything below!

There are no comments for this page.

To add your own comments, click here to login or register