Skip to content

New PM’s Right Hand Man – Britain’s “unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm, the Climate Change Act

July 14, 2016

By Paul Homewood  

 

decc

 

Does Theresa May’s abolition of DECC actually mean we will see a change in climate policy? Or is it just a way to save money and make space for Liam Fox’s new Trade Dept?

One clue that may give us hope is that the new PM’s right hand man and key advisor is a guy called Nick Timothy, who has made his view on the Climate Change Act crystal clear only recently.

The GWPF report:

 

Nick Timothy is Theresa May’s right-hand man and a key adviser. In April he wrote a hard-hitting attack on Britain’s “unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm – or rather, the act of harm inflicted upon industrial Britain by Parliament – that was the Climate Change Act.”

 

TIMOTHY Nick Barrie

Nick Timothy on Britain’s steel crisis and the Climate Change Act

 

[…] It is a bad habit of mine to shout at politicians being interviewed on the radio in the mornings, but last Tuesday – the day Tata Steel was due to decide the future of the Port Talbot steel plant – I read a column that enraged me.  In his Financial Times column, Janan Ganesh argued that the people who lose out from globalisation, those who are forced out of work or find their wages undercut, should simply be ignored by the Government.  “Rich democracies may have to live with a caucus of permanently aggrieved voters amounting to a quarter or a third of the whole,” he argued.  “A seething minority is still a minority.”

Writing off a third of our entire population might seem extreme, but it is typical of the political and media classes who know little of life beyond the Circle Line, the Underground route that marks the boundaries of London’s wealthy centre. These elitists propound a philosophy of international liberalism that benefits the wealthy but often undermines the prosperity of many of their fellow citizens.  They can be found in each of the major political parties, the top ranks of the civil service and, of course, in the comment pages of the Financial Times. […]

Either way, our passivity in response to China’s trade policy is not the inevitable result of globalisation but a deliberate decision taken by the Government. And the same can be said about Britain’s lack of a long-term industrial strategy. Given that ministers say that steel is a “strategically important sector”, it is striking that there is no strategy in place to promote and protect it.  Thanks to Government policy, big infrastructure projects use not British steel, but foreign imports.  Thanks to the Climate Change Act – legislation not imposed on Britain by uncontrollable forces but introduced by Labour and supported by all political parties – wholesale electricity prices for British industry are twice those paid by their EU competitors.

One might argue that steel is not a strategically-important industry for Britain and it does not merit special support. But that is not what ministers say. And it does not explain the unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm – or rather, the act of harm inflicted upon industrial Britain by Parliament – that was the Climate Change Act.

http://www.thegwpf.com/nick-timothy-theresa-mays-right-hand-man-on-uk-steel-crisis-unilateral-climate-policy/

 

The PM has a lot of things on her plate to worry about, without adding the Climate Change Act to it. In any event, Parliamentary numbers simply don’t add up if she attempted to do anything drastic about it.

Nevertheless, there may just be a gleam of hope that, with the scrapping of DECC, we have turned a corner.

20 Comments leave one →
  1. July 14, 2016 7:54 pm

    Wholesale Electricity prices to UK industry are twice that of the rest of Europe. Wow that’s a relief I thought it was far worse than that.

  2. July 14, 2016 10:25 pm

    New Energy minister wrote Climate policy papers : I hope he’s grown up now.
    Greg Clark’s own website says :

    Greg was appointed as Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in October 2008, having previously been Shadow Minister for Charities, Social Enterprises and Volunteering. Greg was responsible for two landmark policy papers in Energy and Climate Change policy: “The Low Carbon Economy” and “Rebuilding Security”, which set out how a Conservative Government will make Britain a leading player in the low carbon economy. (About section)
    ………………………..
    (from a 2010 speech)
    We have plans for a clearer, crisper set of policy guidance, which shows respect for the expertise and specialist knowledge that planners bring.
    It is our intention that at the heart of that revised policy there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Applicants should expect to see their proposals approved provided they are in line with neighbourhood plans, local plans and national policies – including, of course, provisions on climate change and environmental protection.

    From those lines hte Guardian concludes he’s a CAGW True Believer
    He’s the new Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy minister.

  3. Alan permalink
    July 15, 2016 7:18 am

    “Nevertheless, there may just be a gleam of hope that, with the scrapping of DECC, we have turned a corner.”

    From your keyboard to God’s eyes.

  4. ottokring permalink
    July 15, 2016 8:54 am

    I watched Energy questions on Thursday morning and was wondering why Andrea Leadsom was playing a completely straight bat on all questions.
    I don’t believe that even Mme May is far-sighted enough to whip the repeal of the CCA, but we can hope that it will be quietly ignored in future.

    • dennisambler permalink
      July 15, 2016 9:57 am

      She could start by replacing the Grantham cohort within the Climate Change Committee. Ideally scrap the committee, but it is probably mandated within the CCA. I see Ben Gummer is now a member of the Cabinet Office.

  5. Bloke down the pub permalink
    July 15, 2016 9:48 am

    The climate change act includes provisions for reducing its impact should the UK find itself making deeper cuts than the rest of Europe. As this is demonstrably already the case, the government could make big changes, possibly without the need to put it to a vote.

  6. AlecM permalink
    July 15, 2016 9:58 am

    Earth’s climate is determined by a thermodynamic equilibrium which ensures net zero warming from increase of [CO2]. The biggest mistake by Hansen was in 1969 when he imagined he had nailed cloud aerosol optical physics – in reality he missed a key part.

    It’s all so easy to work out by anyone with an engineering background. The water cycle is the dependent variable, correcting for variation of albedo and [CO2], the latter being mainly set by ocean temperature.

    The experimental proof is that following the 1980s and 1990s fast warming, the PID control system of the planet has corrected that temperature rise. We are now entering a new Little Ice Age and in 30 years time, that too will correct.

    Dame Slingo, an expert on cloud physics, has to accept that she was wrong and let the rest of us live without absurd histrionics from the Met Office and the Green Blob

  7. July 15, 2016 10:27 am

    The Climate Change Act 2008 states that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline. However, the Secretary of State may by order amend the percentage if it appears to the Secretary of State that there has been significant developments in the scientific knowledge about climate change. Job done if the new Secretary of State so decides.

    He needs to act fast to prevent the situation that is occurring in South Australia from happening here on a regular basis. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/14/14000-per-mwh-the-price-south-australia-pays-for-renewables-madness/

  8. July 15, 2016 11:16 am

    Paul –
    your site grows consistently in quality and stature. Congratulations, and long may it continue.

    This posting is very relevant. If this fellow Tim really is a trusted adviser to our new PM, then I think we may well be seeing a glimmer of hope. The very concise and nicely put together view by Mr Timothy at GWPF should give us much encouragement, although as others here have pointed out, the Climate Change Act -while it exists -constrains any possible row-back. Mrs May will have to bide her time, but if, as seems possible, global temperatures continue to fall over the next 6 – 12 months, opportunities will occur for sceptic elements in high places to raise the standard of common sense from the trenches, and perhaps even to consider going ‘over the top’. They may find allies where they least expect. Mrs. May’s cabinet appointments certainly look like a step forward to me.

    • AlecM permalink
      July 15, 2016 11:45 am

      Global mean lower troposphere temperature is presently falling at an unprecedented rate (see Roy Spencer). This is because the recent El Nino pushed hot water far to the North, an adaptation by ocean currents to the enormous warming of the planet in the 1980s and 1990s.

      That heat, rapidly spewing to Space, was from a period of AGW equivalent to about half the 2.8 W/m^2 attributed by the IPCC to [GHG] increase from the end of the last ice age.

      However, those two warming events were nothing to do with [GHG] increase, which factor is controlled to near zero; they were both aerosol events. The lesson is that the planet self-controls in its present configuration with polar ice caps and 67% clouds.

      What politicians have been fed, which is that the control system is ‘positive feedback’ with imaginary surface IR pushing the GHE like pressure in a balloon, has been deliberately engineered fake science from Science Fraud in 1976, rubber stamped by the Charney Report. Let’s hope we can bury this bad science ASAP, also the plodders who believe it.

      • July 15, 2016 12:07 pm

        AlecM –
        like your description of a hydrologically-mediated equilibrium, which agrees with my own, albeit armchair, analysis.

        As a biologist I’m very used to seeing feedback mechanisms in the natural environment and my base position is that we should assume that this is the case with the atmosphere unless there are very good reasons to believe otherwise. In my opinion the warmists need to show that the relatively small greenhouse changes produced by CO2 can destabilise this. There are possibilities for them here, of course – for example, CO2 is generally distributed in the atmosphere, spatially and in altitude, whereas water vapour is definitely NOT. But I can’t get them to engage on this point, and I assume that they can’t or won’t look at it from this aspect. They rely on models which somehow seem to produce a positive water vapour feedback on temperature. This seems to me a seriously dubious concept.

        Of course, many will find my position unconvincing, as it is easy to show that in past times quite rapid swings in global temperature have occurred, trumping such feedback, and it is not easy to identify the provocation(s) which preceded them. CO2 is claimed one of the culprits, and its greenhouse fingerprint looks like evidence.

      • AlecM permalink
        July 15, 2016 12:33 pm

        The answer is very simple to any competent scientist or engineer. Positive water vapour feedback is an artefact, use of ~double real low level cloud optical depth, ~1/3rd higher albedo than reality. This is also related to incorrect low level cloud negative feedback, underestimated by a factor of ~4.

        This was discovered in 2010 by G L Stephens when he was working with Trenberth, but he did not apparently realise its significance.

        The positive feedback is produced in hind casting when they calibrate the GCMs to past temperature rise in the ’80s and ’90s (that was not from CO2). The temperature rise in modelled sunlit ocean air is ~twice the temperature fall under clouds; exponential evaporation kinetics give the extra humidity. It’s imaginary yet the average temperature is correct.

        Basically, the modellers have been desperate to prove the 1981 predictions by Hansen, yet in that paper GISS made a bad mistake, to claim ‘negative convection’ restricts temperature gradient to <= 6.5 K/km, also to claim that surface exitance is a real energy flux rather than a potential energy flux in a vacuum to a perfect radiation sink at absolute zero.

        The latter problem arises from Goody who adapted Planck's 1914 bidirectional energy flux and radiation entropy idea between emitters in radiative equilibrium. But he specified a vacuum and the atmosphere is not a vacuum. The replacement theory is nearly ready; <iBit shows that the Earth's radiating surface is at ToA, not the physical surface. In IR radiative terms the Earth’s surface does not exist. There; that’s thrown a stone in the pond!

      • July 15, 2016 5:02 pm

        AlecM July 15, 2016 12:33 pm

        “The latter problem arises from Goody who adapted Planck’s 1914 bidirectional energy flux and radiation entropy idea between emitters in radiative equilibrium. But he specified a vacuum and the atmosphere is not a vacuum. The replacement theory is nearly ready; <iBit shows that the Earth's radiating surface is at ToA, not the physical surface. In IR radiative terms the Earth’s surface does not exist. There; that’s thrown a stone in the pond!"

        Do you have any further detail that Goody did this? In 1914 little or no distinction was given to thermal radiative intensity (the potential) and radiative flux (the through variable), all was called radiation! Where comes the idea that Planck had any energy flux or radiation entropy? I can find no indication of the accumulation of power (integral) ever mentioned at that time.
        Thank you.

      • July 15, 2016 5:12 pm

        Alec
        I would expect that you are correct. I think I recall the Stephens results, which were discussed at some length at Climate Audit, and of course Lindzen comes to much the same conclusion but from a different starting point. I’m not qualified to critique either approach. except to say that it fits what I would expect.

        My position is very basic, and relies on the assumption that the default position MUST BE that there is an existing restoring moment: a simple thought experiment should confirm this: imagine an atmosphere with only water vapour as a greenhouse gas, a limitless ocean of water, no CO2. The thermostat works. Add CO2 – what changes?

      • AlecM permalink
        July 15, 2016 7:26 pm

        @Will

        In Goody’s work you’ll see Planck’s radiation flux ‘pencils’. I don’t think Goody understood what was in Planck’s mind; Goody copied stuff and embellished it, reasonably competently I add. But he failed in one crucial area; not to do a simple energy balance, which is what I was rigorously trained to do.

        However, I have my own conceptual model of the behaviour of self-absorbed GHGs which bypasses the complicated mathematics…….

        I am presently trying to write it up in a quantitative form which will stand muster by whoever reviews it. The bottom line is that IR energy from a self-absorbed GHG band mutually annihilates with the same wavelength IR energy from black body condensed matter, including water clouds on Earth.

      • July 18, 2016 1:46 am

        @ AlecM
        “In Goody’s work you’ll see Planck’s radiation flux ‘pencils’. I don’t think Goody understood what was in Planck’s mind;”

        Thank you! Perhaps Goody also got strange ideas from C Sagan. I find no reference to Planck considering radiation, either intensity or flux in the presence of an opposing field strength (radiance). Maxwell’s equations, especially the J Poynting vector version; always sums all Poynting vectors at each spatial location to result in a singular Poynting flux, of correct magnitude.

        “I am presently trying to write it up in a quantitative form which will stand muster by whoever reviews it. The bottom line is that IR energy from a self-absorbed GHG band mutually annihilates with the same wavelength IR energy from black body condensed matter, including water clouds on Earth.”

        Wish you all the best! I do not understand your term ‘annihilates’. The concept still implies some generation of EM flux in a direction of higher field strength. Such has never been observed or measured.
        If you use the differential form of the S-B equation: Flux ∝ ε4σT³ΔT! The flux function now has a constant linear slope in ΔT going through zero at ΔT=0. At surface atmosphere 14-15 microns; the 2 meter optical depth of CO2 can and does have flux toward the surface, but only if the air is at a higher temperature than the surface.

  9. It doesn't add up... permalink
    July 15, 2016 3:21 pm

    Let’s see who get the energy minister portfolio, and whether there is also a climate minister. Too early to tell whether this is a battle May wants to fight. If she were serious she’d have given energy to Peter Lilley and kept it separate, much as she has done with DFiD, where Patel can be expected to wield a knife before it gets reabsorbed into the FCO.

  10. July 15, 2016 10:07 pm

    Paul : TIP : Anti-fracking paper retracted, maths error found

    On June 29, 2016—more than a year after publication—the authors retracted the study after discovering a calculation error. “PAH air concentrations reported in the original article are . . . incorrect. Correcting this error changes air concentrations significantly relative to those reported in the published article . . . [and] some of the conclusions reported in the original article.”

  11. July 15, 2016 11:11 pm

    TIP : we’ve all paid for a WWF anti-Brxit PR campaign, cos it’s being done thru BBC’s Harra ..He really doesn’t give a toss about the charter and impartiality ..he just uses the BBC photocopier to pump out masses of Greenblob propaganda whilst gatekeeping against views that challenge the GreenBlob.

    Tip #3 : Piers at Notrickszone. says RWE Conventionals is heading towards bankruptcy

  12. July 16, 2016 6:02 am

    Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
    Commonly known in Ontario as the Greed Energy and Economy Act of 2009

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: