59 3 mins 9 yrs

Unknown

Excellent article here by Chris Booker flagging up the extraordinary dangers we face from an energy policy driven by eco chimeras;

‘As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours’ worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time. It seems the perfect storm is upon us.

The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

‘Three more events last week brought home again just what a mad bubble of make-believe these people are living in. Under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive, we lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth to our average electricity demands. We saw a French state-owned company, EDF, being given planning permission to spend £14 billion on two new nuclear reactors in Somerset, but which it says it will only build, for completion in 10 years’ time, if it is guaranteed a subsidy that will double the price of its electricity. Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to our electricity bills every year.

Within seven years this new tax will rise to £30 a ton, and by 2030 to £70 a ton, making it wholly uneconomical to generate any more electricity from the coal and gas-fired power stations that last week were still supplying two thirds of our electricity.’

What does this all mean? One day, soon, the lights will go out. In the meantime, you will pay more,  and all because of a political failure to confront eco-lunacy.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

59 thoughts on “TURNING OUT THE LIGHTS…

  1. Well it has been said that the Eco druids will not be happy untill we are all living back in that cave rubbing those two sticks together to make fire .. it looks like that wish might come true.

  2. as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming

    Booker is a laughing stock, and rightly so. His contribution to climate science is the equivalent of what an astrologist contributes to astronomy.

  3. Fair comment from Booker. He has an eye for detail which bureaucrats would rather we didn’t know about.

    “As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours’ worth of stored gas left to keep us warm ..”

    I see that the Energy Minister (give me strength) has reacted like American morons in the wake of Sandy and vowed to clamp down on price rises. As Worstall says (and as someone said about fuel prices in the North East after that storm):

    When things are in short supply and high demand then the price does have to go up. It is this which increases supply and reduces demand. Insisting that, in a market system, you will not allow the market to work is just a great way to make sure the lights do go out.

    Yes, I know, there is no intelligence test to become a politician. But do we really have to have out and out morons doing the job?

    If we want to maintain low gas supplies then by all means intriduce price controls.

    I see also that 20,000 lucky households across NI, Scotland and the north of England are currently without power in these freezing conditions. Truly they are the vanguard, showing us how it will be in the near future when renewables are failing the power a kettle.

    How fortunate tens of thousands are to be shivering in the dark knowing that that they’re doing their bit “to save the world”. That alone should give them a warm glow of satisfaction to see them through.

  4. Booker has a point about the lack of gas capacity, but he is bonkers on global warming.

  5. Global warming is bonkers

    If anyone mentions ‘Global warming’ within earshot, uproot the mnearest frozen tre and smack them on the back of the head with it .. it mighjt knock some sense into them 😉

    The Global warming religion followers are now clutching at ever decreasing shortening straws .. if that ice age cometh, the Global warming howling at the moon druids will be demanding we pump more Co2 into the atmosphere to warm the planet back up again.

    Global warming, Climate change .. whatever.

    Your truly

    Global warming
    Climate chnage denier Infidel

    Anyway, are the state not adding 10% climate tax to heating bills to save the planet … is that not working .. will 20% do the trick 😉

  6. Wind is currently supplying 15% of the UK’s electricity. Unlike gas, it can’t be sabotaged by Putin.

  7. Peter, on March 24th, 2013 at 7:07 PM Said:
    Wind is currently supplying 15% of the UK’s electricity

    Yeah, and how much of that 15% is subsidised?

  8. Global warming is bonkers

    No it’s not, it’s happening. Melting glaciers all over the world are visible evidence of it.

    druids will be demanding we pump more Co2 into the atmosphere to warm the planet back up again

    So you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Many of your bone-head denialist fellow-travellers don’t even accept that, but most of them are also creationists who think the earth is only a few thousand years old.

  9. Peter, on March 24th, 2013 at 7:22 PM Said:
    How much of the nuclear contribution is subsidised?

    Not enough, we need more of it.

  10. Perhaps they could spend a small perecentage of all that Carbon credit tax on building many more nuclear plants 😉

    Gory Al’s skim off alone could supply millions with guaranteed power for hundreds of years.

  11. Peter.

    The Glaciers are melting are they? no wait don’t tell me .. 99,9% of all climate scientists agree.

    I am an athiest.

  12. Harri

    To be clear, you are in favour of subsidising nuclear but not wind?

    Google “melting glaciers” and you’ll get the idea.

  13. Peter

    We can exchange information from different scientists all day with opposite opinions untill we are both blue in the face .. whats the point, I pay all the extra charges and taxes, I am allowed,as you are an opinion on the subject.

    Climate scientists huh .. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

    I do know that if Global warbling warming don’t reach here soon, I will off to warmer climes 😉

  14. * I will be off to warmer climes 😉

    Oh, and it don’t help the AGW cause when you have the IPCC jetting off all over the globe to the most exotic locations on the planet, staying in 5 star luxury and living the life most of us can only dream about.

    Another thing, if and it is avery very large IF , AGW is a just and noble cause, the very nano-second the State and Politicians got involved, it was all surely doomed to turn to dust (no pun intended) … for every noble step foward the Eco freindly type of good-willed and kind hearted folk make .. the Politicians and there attitude and penchant to lie every time they move there lips, the AGW movement will take six steps back .. don’t blame me for the scepticism blame the lying corrupt immoral politicians.

  15. Peter

    See ..

    Sea Ice Page

    Good snowfall gives new life to glaciers
    Suresh Sharma, TNN Dec 3, 2012, 05.46AM IST
    Tags:Snowfall|himalayas|Himachal Snowfall|Himachal glaciers|global warming|GlacierMANALI: With high-altitude mountains in Himachal Pradesh experiencing up to 100 cm fresh snowfall in November month after 10 years, the abundance of snow on mountains has rejuvenated nearly one thousand glaciers and has ensured uninterrupted supply of water for drinking, irrigation and hydel projects.

    Even after years of research on glaciers and climate of Himalayas, scientists have failed to learn the pattern of the weather here. While scanty snowfall and rising temperature in last decade had sparked the possibilities of fast shrinking of glaciers, good spells of snowfall in last three years have changed the trend with glaciers almost growing to their original size. Some scientists say that despite heavy snowfall in winters, the extreme heat in summers is causing the melting of the glaciers with abnormal speed and others say extreme cold in winters is neutralizing the minor effect of risen temperature in summer. Overall, speed of melting of glaciers has reduced over the past few years only due to good snowfall in winter months.

  16. To be clear, you are in favour of subsidising nuclear but not wind?

    Can you answer the question please?

    Oh, and Watts has about as much credibility as Bonkers Booker.

  17. To be clear, you are in favour of subsidising nuclear but not wind?

    Can you answer the question please?

    Absolutely .. is that clear enough.

    Oh, and Watts has about as much credibility as Bonkers Booker.

    That’s your opnion .. not mine.

  18. Peter

    I did say we could exchange different opinions all night ..

    Are these scientists bonkers too ? just a few of too many to post.

    They do not believe in ‘Global warming’ either

    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
    Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
    Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
    William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
    Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
    Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]

  19. Harri

    Gteat consistency on the subsidy of energy, your credibility is zero.

    My opinion of Watts is shared by 99% of climate scientists.

    Did you check out those melting glaciers? No? Here’s a link to help you get started. This is visual evidence, independent of all temperature records.

  20. Harri

    I have respect for Spencer and Svensmark from your list, the rest are totally discredited. Isn’t it interesting that most of them are not climate scientists? Richard Dawkins is an eminent bioligist, but to my knowledge he has never spoken on climate change, probably because it’s not his field. You know, horses for courses?

  21. My opinion of Watts is shared by 99% of climate scientists.

    There’s that magic number again .. with all due respect Peter .. prove that figure is correct.

  22. Peter

    They are pictures .. posted by who?

    I did say we could exchange Google links untill the cows come home.

    I still say Global warming is bullshit.

  23. Peter

    Fair enough and Touche .. but if you could now please be as kind as to providE me at least with a link to that magic 99% figure you mentioned.

    Or did you make it up.

  24. Sleep time soon..

    Peter, and please I implore you, don’t resort to the ‘Think of the cheeeldren’ line, it has (thanks to the Lefties) been done to death and now has about the impact and meaning as being labeled a ‘Racist’ .. both at one time were terms which had an impact and actualy meant something, but know almost meaningless.

  25. “The survey found that as of 2007 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believe human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiated its occurrence”

    Link here

    “A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004). Several subsequent studies confirm that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.”

    Link here

  26. Peter, and please I implore you, don’t resort to the ‘Think of the cheeeldren’ line,

    Where did I say that? my interest is in the difference between truth and lies.

  27. Truth and lies .. what like Al Gores ‘Inconveniant truth’ where he uses a faked photo of the two ‘stranded polar bears’ miles out to sea, where in reallity and in truth, they were only 100 yds from shore 😉

    Those kind of lies?

  28. Phantom

    Thanks but the link will not play ‘Content not allowed’ I am on my business machine and will nlt allow certain content .. and I am not that brave enough to throw the wife and girls off the desktop 😉

    A tongue lashing x 4 is not a pretty sight.

  29. Peter

    The Canadian tourist done okay out of that photo though Gory Al paid her $50,000 for all ‘rights’ to it .. it did not shut her up though 😉

    I am no David Attenborough but I do know that Polar bears can swim for many many miles, so 100 yds to the shoreline should not have been too much of a problem .. and Gory AL’s propaganda video is shown to young kids in schools .. disgraceful

    Peter, here we go again, Google it.

  30. Phantom, on March 24th, 2013 at 9:11 PM Said:
    Look at it later

    You will like it

    I bet Peter won’t 😉

  31. Harri –

    Have you overdone the coffee tonight? Phantom thinks that the opinion of a communist comedian will sway you. Don’t rush to watch.

    Peter –

    Shouldn’t someone as concerned as you are about glaciers want nuclear power?

  32. Peter.

    Here are some more bullshit/lies ‘inconvenient lies’ from Gory AL’s fairy story DVD ‘Inconvenient truth’ .. and now I am thinking of the cheeeldren ..

    * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    * The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
    * The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
    * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

  33. Pete Moore, on March 24th, 2013 at 9:17 PM Said:
    Harri –

    Have you overdone the coffee tonight?

    No caffeine passes these lips, my body is my temple 😉

  34. Shouldn’t someone as concerned as you are about glaciers want nuclear power?

    Yes, and I do. Your memory seems short.

  35. Harri

    I give up, it’s like arguing with a goldfish. Obviously, you have not bothered to look at the melting glaciers, you much prefer strawmen arguments. So you can go forth and multiply, I won’t waste my time again.

  36. Peter – at 7:07pm you wrote:

    Wind is currently supplying 15% of the UK’s electric…

    All that I can find is 6% –

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8150919.stm

    As for this:

    “A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.

    Think about what the job of a ‘climate scientist’ would be worth if he went against the vaunted consensus. The examples of those who have done so litter the history of science – Tesla and Fleischmann being examples. That survey is worthless.

  37. Allan

    You are in the oil industry, right?

    And the links I posted are much more recent that 2003. Did you bother to check them?

  38. Allan

    Think what the job of an “oilman” would be worth if he “came out” in favour of AGW. I’m thinking end of career? No?

  39. Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon, has already said thathe believes in AGW.

    He says that it can be managed as an engineering problem. He restated it on a recent Charlie Rose show interview that I linked here.

    Smart oilmen disagree with Allan and crew.

  40. Peter – from the link which I posted, and to a BBC report (hardly impartial) one sees 2009 and not 2003 as you stated at 11.24pm and then your correction at 11.28pm fails to mention your error. Are you really going to tell me that the energy contribution made by wind power has gone up 150% in 4 years? If so, then show me.

    As for using Wikipedia as a ‘source’ on a matter such as ‘global warming’ or whatever it’s called today, I suggest that you cease to do so:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

    Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

    I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.

    Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.

    And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.

    Yeah – I’m a ‘kook’ in the oil industry too!

  41. So Allan the oilman

    Is the climate warming or not?

    And is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not?

    Yes or no will be fine.

  42. no it’s plant food that we would all die without. Because without it the trees and plants would die and we would all choke to death because the vegetation that eats the co2 is the filter system for the air that mammals breath.

    Turn out your lights, turn off, your heat, put on a sweater and burn candles.

  43. So Peter the provider of dodgy data –

    The climate may be warming but it looks as though it has ceased to be warming and may soon begin to cool as it always has done after it has been warming.

    CO2 is a gas essential for life and retains heat which would be lost to space thus ensuring that nights do not get too cold – water vapour does exactly the same.

    Let’s be clear: if you attempt to use Wikipedia as a reference on a matter such as this, I’ll call you out on it. Wikipedia can only be used as a reference on matters which are not in contention.

    Oh – and so much for your consensus:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

    In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

  44. The head of Exxon knows more about this than all you guys combined and he believes in AGW, despite financial motives to say otherwise.

    You’re just cherry picking to confirm prejudice.

  45. where did the head of Exxon get his degree in Planetary Physics and the the General Dynamics of Climate?

    Name the Universities and grade point average.

  46. The head of Exxon is a corporate hack. He knows nothing about anything and I’ve met his type before. I’ve made quite a lot of money from correcting the mistakes of that class of bozo.

  47. How does he know?

    What is his source of information?

    Do you even know? and if you don’t why do you accredit his knowledge?

  48. Peter, on March 24th, 2013 at 11:11 PM Said:
    Harri

    I give up, it’s like arguing with a goldfish. Obviously, you have not bothered to look at the melting glaciers, you much prefer strawmen arguments. So you can go forth and multiply, I won’t waste my time again

    That’s not very nice .. are you politely informing moi to fuck off 😉

    I won’t waste my time again

    Agreed.

Comments are closed.