Rambling Bob Ward’s Response To Peter Lilley

Posted: December 28, 2016 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Paul Homewood critiques the response from the Grantham Institute’s mouthpiece Bob Ward to Peter Lilley’s analysis of the costs of the Climate Change Act by 2030

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.thegwpf.com/report-reveals-300-billion-cost-of-britains-climate-change-act/

It is now two weeks since Peter Lilley’s study on the cost of the Climate Change Act was published.

As yet there has still been no pushback from the government, or their lackeys at the Committee on Climate Change.

There has, however, been a rambling, incoherent rant from the Grantham Institute’s Bob Ward in response. More on that in a moment.

First though, a quick rehash of Lilley’s findings.

View original post 1,686 more words

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    What about the cost of all the power cuts we’ll get when it’s not windy and there isn’t enough alternative electricity generation?

  2. rishrac says:

    With the new law passed here in the US, I am no longer sure what passes for disinformation. If I make a comment on another board that is American and isn’t considered ” factual ” that I’ve read here, then I’m in violation of that law. After all tallbloke is foreign. Should I be reading this ? I regret not getting a video up to tallbloke on how the planet axis can lay over in its trip around the sun so that that one pole is facing away from the sun twice a year and the other towards the sun twice a year. The tilt angle doesn’t change.

  3. oldmanK says:

    Quote from rishrac: “I regret not getting a video up to tallbloke on how the planet axis can lay over in its trip around the sun so that that one pole is facing away from the sun twice a year and the other towards the sun twice a year.” That would be very very interesting (it is another challenge to the insolation curves as construed over the millennia). Pls do try.

    But then – quote: “The tilt angle doesn’t change.” Tilt can change, way beyond the ‘established’ limits. It has also done so repeatedly – and the evidence is mounting. These past ten days WUWT has provided some links that have clinched the case. Gathered from a horde of papers trawled over this past year, I find the evidence ‘incontrovertible’. However none of the papers have a clue of the real events that ensued. As to the actual triggering cause,,,, that remains an enigma.

  4. Jay says:

    I read the first part of the report, including the 22 items in the Summary and Conclusions. To me, these items should be required reading for policy makers and the general public in any country of the world contemplating renewables. They well describe the ways in which governments and bureaucrats falsify their proposals using one-sided arguements, false cost/ benefit analyses, incomplete economic models, and prevarications about real impacts.
    I especially wish I could force California’s Jerry Brown and the state’s Epa and Carb to produce reality reports by taking guidance from these types of failures.

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