Vested interests, lies and dissembling - more from the climate change debate

***

I'm not a 'climate change denier' - denying climate change would be akin to believing the earth to be flat. Nor am I a denier of man's contribution to that changing climate - again it seems wholly reasonable that the activities of 6 billion humans will have an impact on the climate. I do, however, deny that the solution lies with more government action and intervention. Or indeed that we need to search for a solution with such urgency.

But enough of me and more on the IPCC, which seems to be on a mission to discredit all the good work on climate being done. If the IPCC want to keep folk like me on side and willing to accept the need for action they need to stop lying, making it up and dissembling. And definitely to stop using reports from Greenpeace activists as the basis for their proposals - especially Greenpeace activists with a direct financial interest in the subject matter (renewable energy) under discussion.

And the IPCC should take especial note when their dissembling is pointed out by prominent climate change activists:

I’d have loved to have had a fully independent study conducted by the IPCC on the prospects for renewable energy over the coming century. I’d have been even happier had that independent IPCC study concluded that 80% renewables by 2050 is a realistic option. But what I don’t want are recycled campaign reports masquerading as ‘proper’ science leading the assessed scenarios – and the media – because their originator has managed to lever himself into a pole position on the team of lead authors. That stinks. And it stinks doubly because the Greenpeace report was originally co-authored by the European Renewable Energy Council – an industry lobby group whose prospects depend on state subsidies which can be expected to be further increased once its views are given the ‘official’ stamp of approval from the IPCC.

.....

Just a thought...

****

What follows isn't to take sides in the debate (such as it is) about Sarah Wollaston's alleged criticisms of Tory Whips. Although I would find it difficult to support Mrs Wollaston given how she voted on this occasion. However, her criticism of the whips - or rather the Observer's probably partisan reporting of the event - raises an interesting question:

The Observer has learned that last Monday Wollaston told a closed meeting of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers that when she asked to sit on the committee that will scrutinise the health and social care bill she was informed by a government minister that she could only do so if she remained completely loyal. She told this newspaper: "It is made very clear to you that if you are on a bill committee you support the government. I was not prepared to accept that."

It is understood that Wollaston wanted to table a range of amendments to the bill, which will hand GPs responsibility for commissioning NHS services, in the biggest shakeup in its history. But she was warned that the only changes she would be able to put forward were ones suggested by, and acceptable to, the government.

Now in one respect, Mrs Wollaston is a member of a club - one that got her elected as an MP - and has to play by that club's rules. Which means that, if they don't want to put her on a particular committee, they don't have to. And frankly, why should they want to put someone on a committee scrutinising the Government's Bill who wants to change it?

In another respect, this illustrates the problem with the whip system and with the independence of MPs. Mrs Wollaston, may still have to opportunity to influence the progress of the bill - either through supporting cross-party efforts or through later stages. I appreciate - and understand - her frustration.

However, I wanted to return to a related nonsense - the barring of councillors from contributing to debates on the basis of "interests". Assuming that Mrs Wollaston still practices as a doctor, it would not be possible for her to contribute at all to discussions about these matters were she a councillor and the decision within the remit of a local council on which she served.

For my part, I'd rather have input from those with real knowledge even where (as is so in this case) the individual has a direct personal interest in the outcome. An interest that could potentially affect that individual's financial circumstances.

...

Frank Thoughts #2: Why Social Workers are Bad

***


"We'll never solve society's problems so long as there are social workers in the way. Why should they sort people's lives out? They'd all be out of a job!"

Editors note: These Frank thoughts are all comments and observations made by my father, Frank Cooke, over the years.