Tuesday
Aug202013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Hiding the evidence
Aug 20, 2013 Energy: wind The Telegraph has a big story on windfarms this morning.
The newspaper has learnt that a new Government row over wind farms is blocking a report that could provide official confirmation that the controversial turbines can harm rural areas.
Sources have said that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) — run by Ed Davey, a Liberal Democrat — wants to stop Owen Paterson, the Conservative Environment Secretary, publishing a major report that he has commissioned on renewable energy and the rural economy.
The report is apparently in its early stages, so it should provide us with months of fun. Lay in the popcorn supplies, I would say.
Reader Comments (32)
Story doubtless leaked from DEFRA
But all conclusions show that renewable energy negatively affects the rural economy. It's widely known that DECC hides the truth about the impact of wind turbine noise on human health and house prices. So why wouldn't DECC want to hide the truth about the impact on the rural economy?
The battle for the truth continues.
OT - there was a long section in Up All Night on 5Live last night covering peer review of code used for science, including the reasons why it is necessary and why it doesn't happen today.
They interviewed someone from Mozilla Science Lab for about 10 minutes, and she made some highly relevant points including the history and purpose of peer review
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038hbwj starting about 2:06 in
And don't you just love this bit:
DECC/quality assurance is an oxymoron. You don't have to read far in any DECC document to find a complete lack of any quality control.
Translated, this statement from DECC means
Phillip
You've picked up the very quote I read out to Mrs J about half-an-hour ago. The only difference is my comment was less polite than yours. IIRC I said "ie it'll be crap!"
My money would be on Paterson except that Davey will go crying to Clegg who will draw himself to his full height,look Cameron squarely in the knees, and demand that the report be shelved. Cameron, who appears to be having some sort of love affair with Clegg (there's no accounting for taste) will give in in case Wee Nick throws his toys out of the pram again.
Anyone care to bet against?
And there's me thinking that his back problem (which, incidentally, I wouldn't wish on anyone!) finally proved he had a spine.
They'll be telling me next that fracking deafens dolphins.
@Alan R
No, they'll just be demanding money to research dolphins.
(.. and delay while its done.)
Alan
I thought that was well established science. Didn't you get the memo? :-)
No Tricks Zone has a story about the toll taken by windmills on bats and birds but the report is being suppressed by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment.
In the same article it says "Currently 6.3 gigawatts of energy comes from onshore wind - equating to 4,074 turbines. The DECC has said that the country could produce between 10 ans 12 gigawatts of energy from onshore wind farms by 2020".
NOT IF THE WIND DOESN'T BLOW! sarc
Current output from all wind turbines 0.61 gigawatts at 0957.
Aug 20, 2013 at 9:05 AM | Mike Jackson
////////////////////////
Mike given your comment about the height of Clegg, have you considered the possibility that Cameron's back problem is due to him having to bend down all the time to look Clegg in the eye?
Then again, perhaps it is because he spends too much time stooping in the gutter; thats got to catch up with one sooner or later!
It is sad what politics has degenerated into and how little trust one can have in politicians.
So Ed Davey is again attempting to stifle facts that are against the established CAGW story. The man is an utter disgrace to his party and politics in general. He calls himself a Liberal Democrat, but like his predecessor he I'd neither Liberal or Democratic. Cameron should sack him regardless of the coalition agreements.
The Daily Mail is carrying a similar article. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397766/Lib-Dems-accused-trying-suppress-wind-farms-report-negative-impact-rural-economy.html
I do not know much about FOI requests. Does anyone know whether it is possible to put in a FOI request to see a copy of the draft reprot? If this is not possible, why not?
In fact it would always be useful to see all former drafts of all government reports. That would greatly inform one about areas of uncertainties and the extent of uncertainties. The drafts reports may well be more useful than the final reports.
These are publically funded works, so it is not easy to see why the public (who are paying for the work) are not entitled to see the full work in progress.
Richard Verney,
You might find Freedom of Information Act: The exemption for information intended for future publication helpful.
Roughly speaking, there is an exemption on the production of draft documents if there is a settled intention to publish the final document on a reasonable time scale. But you should read the whole thing rather than relying on that summary.
@ Aug 20, 2013 at 8:52 AM | AndyL
By any chance did you hear an item on Radio 5Live in the middle of last night about an early civilisation, from about 4-5000 years ago recently discovered ruins where the BBC said this civilisation had been wiped out by climate change?
PW
DAVE'S IMPOTENCE
Cameron's love affair with his 'comfort blanket', as Lord Tebbit calls Clegg, pales into insignificance compared with his total subservience to his 'one-woman focus-group'.
You may have missed this from Tim Montgomerie in the Times last week.
"YOU'VE BEEN SAMMED; NO 10'S REAL MODERNISER"
"From arming the Syrian rebels to gay marriage, the PM's policies tend to reflect his wife's core values.
The Mayor of London's desire to acquire the keys of Downing St is well known and Boris couldn't keep his eyes off Cameron at a recent event. The Mayor kept trying to focus on the wider conversation but his gaze kept returning to the face of No 10's current resident. But the object of Mr Johnson's attention wasn't - at least on this occasion - David William Donald Cameron, but Samantha Gwendolyn Cameron (Nee Sheffield).........................She was a prominent supporter of the decision to legislate for Gay Marriage. Rumoured to have voted for the Green Party in the past, she is credited with Mr Cameron's early emphasis on Climate Change".
No wonder 'Dave's' support for fracking is half-heartened, ambivalent and far too late !
toad
That was apparent back in 2008 by the following quote
'Yet Samantha’s influence is political as well as personal. According to Nick Boles, a family friend and founder of the Policy Exchange think tank, she was the vital factor in her husband’s belated support for gay rights – as late as 2003, he did not support the repeal of Section 28, the clause in the Local Government Act that banned councils from promoting homosexuality.
David has also credited her with pushing him towards a more eco-friendly approach: “She was Green a long time before other people,” he says. “She supported Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth right back when we first started going out with each other.” '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3088625/Tory-party-conference-Is-Samantha-Cameron-ready-for-the-spotlight.html
She probably is a Europhile too. In fact, I suspect Sam Cam is the core reason the Conservatives failed to get an overall majority in 2010 and the driver for the relentless rise in UKIP support.
PHAROS
Not everyone is prepared to accept that "behind every successful man etc".
We have an even worse example with the uxorious, 'I worship the ground that Miriam walks on' Clegg.
His wife's acceptance of a Directorship with Acciona, the Spanish wind-turbine company, purely on the strength of his appointment as Deputy PM was unpardonable.
So let us summarise: UKIP are against wind farms because of environmental damage. UKIP are pro fracking regardless of environmental damage. UKIP are against relaxation of planning regulations in the UK. UKIP are for relaxation of planning regulations in the UK if it's for fracking.
Let me offer you some advice: UKIP are a protest party. Their support is going to be relentlessly falling
as we approach GE 2015. I wager you a crisp £50 they won't get a single MP at GE 2015. The best case scenario for them is to take 10% of the vote away from the Tories, thus giving you a Labour government or at least a Labour/Liberal coalition.
I hope this concentrates your mind.
Mike Jackson
Not me! Cameron seems determined to split the Tory Party in two atm (might not be a bad idea either). For Cameron to already be making plans to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems (assuming they are not totally wiped out), will completely demoralise the right of the party. The long speculated upon flight to UKIP by Tory MPs may then finally actually happen.
Robinson
I will take your bet. At the same time the following is true; should UKIP prevent the Tories from winning the election (and Labour get in) then more people will vote UKIP in the future. I am a conviction voter and I am sick of voting for cardboard politicians, win or lose I will vote UKIP.
It doesn't matter whether we have a Lib/Lab colaition or a Lib/Con coalition. The policies are the same disastrous ones. So what's wrong with voting with conviction for something else, like UKIP?
I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the house price issue.
I'm not in a position to either buy or sell a house within sight or acoustic range of a windmill but, from what I've read, the latter would have the larger effect on my decision. Not like an infrequent tremor or, more likely, a train on the Balcombe Viaduct.
Ok Dung. On the morning following General Election 2015, I will give you £50 if UKIP has at least 1 MP. If they have precisely zero MPs, you will sent me £50. I will sent it via Paypal or similar, although I prefer sending a crisp £50 as that was the bet. Perhaps we can arrange it via a third party to avoid giving out address details.
Personally I'm with Carswell and Hannan. I think that being inside the tent putting pressure on the executive is preferable to being outside of it, helping the opposition win by splitting the vote. The Tory back benches do still have considerable power you know.
This would be the same DECC who commissioned a report on reusable supermarket bags and surpressed it when it said they are less environmentally friendly than single use bags (which at least in our household are reused before ending up in the plastic recycling bin).
I suspect that the 'draft' of this report, which will of course be watered down once the DECC have got their hands on it, will be, as Basil Fawlty would have put it, a statement of the bleedin' obvious...
Robinson, you may well be right. I think Farage has said he does not aim to ever form a government.
But if UKIP campaigns to abolish the climate change act 2008, they may well get my vote. I don't like to have to become "single-issue" as far as my politics are concerned, but this one predominates. It is also symptomatic of many other ills, as well as the ones it causes.
The three major parties all (apparently) signed up in equal measure to this monument to foolishness. Since they all like to compete for the middle-ground, then the one that breaks ranks may well get my vote (I consider my politics to be largely 'middle-ground'). If the prospect of seeing UKIP MPs frightens the crap out of the comfortable political classes, then all well and good. That is not my fault. They have done something very wrong by bowing-down at the altar of green anti-CO2 ignorance.
After they have repealed the climate change act they should turn their attentions to the BBC alleged 'science-coverage' which is still 50% environmental politics and cute animals.
Robinson
I will pay in any way you choose IF I lose ^.^
The executive is effectively Cameron and Clegg and this week Cameron announced plans to arrange for a second coalition if the Tories do not win outright. He is planning to continue the daft policies which we denounce on this forum, he is the wrong man with the wrong ideas, the wrong character, no vision and no integrity.
A vote for Cameron or Miliband is a wasted vote, not because one of them might not get elected but because this country has problems that neither of them will address.
'Robinson wrote:
quote
let us summarise: UKIP are against wind farms because of environmental damage.
unquote
An incomplete summary, but what would one expect from a proponent of windfarms? Let me help you fill in the bits you left out. UKIP is against windfarms because they are bad for the environment in terms of noise, visual intrusion and wildlife losses. UKIP is against windfarms because they stop working when the wind stops, and thus need backup equal to their plated output which wastes energy. UKIP is against windfarms because they tear up pristine wilderness (such as peat moors) leading to degradation of rare habitat. UKIP is against windfarms because they transfer money from the poor to the rich via electricity bills. UKIP is against windfarms because the majority of people don't like them and it is the duty of politicians to reflect the needs of their voters. UKIP is against windfarms because they obscure the reality that we need to break our dependence on the Middle East for our energy supplies.
Find an area where the local population doesn't object to the things, where the windmills won't damage the environment and are run without subsidy and where their output won't disturb the Grid which will be running on grown-up power. Then come back and tell us how well they're doing in midwinter when a huge high pressure system drops winds to zero knots over the entire continent of Europe. And while that's happening, do a quick ring round your elderly relatives and see how many of them are suffering from hypothermia.
quote
UKIP are pro fracking regardless of environmental damage. UKIP are against relaxation of planning regulations in the UK. UKIP are for relaxation of planning regulations in the UK if it's for fracking.
unquote
No. UKIP want to see UK natural gas and oil used where they can be safely extracted: such as Sandbanks in Poole Harbour, the most expensive housing estate in the UK. There is a fracked hole under there which doesn't seem to have made the houses fall down or dented their value. And please don't come over all stupid and start citing taps producing burning water -- you are not writing for Guardian readers here. If fracked oil and gas is there we owe a duty to everyone in this country to go after it with every fibre of our being.
A vote for UKIP is a vote for those who believe that we can't go on like this. It doesn't matter who is elected as a government in 2015, Lib/lab/con are all the same, but let me tell you a secret. Whoever you have supported up to now, if you go into that booth and vote UKIP you will come out with a great weight off your shoulders: no more defending Blair and Brown and that strange man they've got now, no more justifying the extraordinary priorities of Call-Me-Dave, no more squirming when you admit that you have voted for the collection of chancers and weirdos which is the Liberal Democratic Party. Vote UKIP and watch the two largest parties change their policies.
Think of the children. Frack for peace. Frack for jobs and prosperity. Frack for the forests. Frack for the environment. Frack for the old and the poor.
JF
Unsurprisingly Julian Flood is a councilor for the party of which I am a member, now that is conviction politics ^.^
Well said Julian Flood!
Aug 20, 2013 at 1:47 PM | Robinson:
The Tory back benches do still have considerable power you know.
I don't see where this is evidenced in terms of advancing any of the policies that people considering UKIP are looking for. Plenty of noise, but no progress.