Choices, choices

Now, let us suppose you have the choice between an 80 meter wind turbine blotting the landscape and not generating anything on days when there’s no wind and even days when there’s too much. Compared to say a 7 meter fracking rig that produces gas day in day out and doesn’t need the ‘green’ subsidy either?

Truly difficult decision isn’t it?

Well it is if you’re an enviroloony…


The energy department has dismissed a report that “60% of the UK countryside could be exploited” for fracking, the controversial gas extraction method.
The Independent reported that more than 32,000 square miles could be affected, notably in south, north-west and north-east England and central Scotland.
It said it based this on official maps, but the department called the 60% figure “nonsense”.

It is nonsense of course, fracked gas may be available in 60% of the country, but (and this is a big but) it’s not available in commercial quantities which means companies who may wish to extract shale gas are only going to do so in areas where they will make a profit…

Executive director John Sauven (Greenpeace) said: “Two thirds of England, including large swathes of countryside, is now under active consideration for a risky, polluting, expensive form of fossil fuel extraction.
“The potential for shale gas to bring down bills is overhyped, while experts agree local opposition is a serious threat to the industry’s viability.

Well they would say that, despite all evidence to the contrary in the USA where shale gas extraction has caused energy prices to nose dive. As for expensive, how he could say that with a straight face when the subsidies paid to wind farms which are far more environmentally unfriendly I simply do not know…

Actually I do, it’s called hypocrisy. The environmental lobby has been coming under ever increasing scrutiny over their wild claims on global warming that they cannot afford to back down in their support of power tax penury bird mincers and carbon capture idiocy for it being exposed as the vast con it really is.

They had their chance when our idiot governments allowed them to set policy for energy for the nation only for it to be taken out of their hands by government greed and now they have to ride the tiger knowing in the end they are the ones who will be bitten when the government turns around and admits its energy policies were based on lies.

That day is coming and the tattered armies of the enviroloonies know it which is why they continue to do their level best to wreck the country whilst they still have the power to do so…

It really does appear to be as simple as that.

19 comments for “Choices, choices

  1. Greg Tingey
    December 2, 2012 at 8:59 am

    As usual, you are conflating very different arguments, & spoiling what cases you have.
    Fracking, DONE PROPERLY is a good idea, done badly it’s a very bad idea indeed – think Gulf of Mexico oil spills, for instance.
    Wind power is a bad joke.
    We need serious tidal & lots of small-scale water, though.
    And nuclear, of course.
    And GW is real – but the rip-off being perpetrated under the “GW” banner by the cosy combination of the power companies & guvmint is also real.

    • December 2, 2012 at 11:58 am

      Oh dear. Are you one of these idiots who say that the recent freezing cold winters are because it’s getting warmer? Sounds like it. Lookm Tingey, I’m coming to the conclusion you are a robot. Listen up

      The MET (HADCRUT) and GISS figures both show temperatures flatlining since 1998 and falling since 2010. Falling as much as the whole 0.7c increase since 1850. At the same time, since 1998, co2 emmisions have increased by nearly 10%

      Ergo – increased co2 does NOT raise temperatures, certainly not in any significant way at all.

      Occam says it is the sun that is the greatest factor in climate. You may have noticed how it gets colder a night, yes? The next factor are the oceans, which cover c70% of the planet. None of the models cater for solar periods, or the oceans behaviour. Add to that, we don’t even know how clouds form and behave. You may also have noticed that it is often colder when the sun is obscured by clouds? Yes? Well, the models don’t handle clouds at all well.

      So three major factors affecting climate are at best very poorly handled by the models. Yet, climate “science” is the ONLY science in which the results from models are given precedence over what is happening in the real world.

      I could go on. I won’t. The fact is that what you think is science is nothing of the sort, it’s politics mixed with fanaticism a very nasty mix indeed. An those who believe what others tell them without doing their own research are idiots. I am sure you would agree, yes?

      Here’s a graph assembling all the real world temperature data from the past ten years. They have fallen. The data is used from the main climate resource centres.

    • David A. Evans
      December 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm

      You might be interested in these videos which demonstrate how ENSO distributes energy.

      No hypotheses offered, just observation.


    • December 2, 2012 at 4:51 pm

      Oil extraction is not fracking.
      There is no global warming
      Nuclear power is expensive
      Tidal causes serious erosion
      Your points make no sense

  2. graham wood
    December 2, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Tingey said: “And GW is real” Really? I think you are confusing GLOBAL warming with the happy and very welcome advent of summer, which with the rest of the seasons appear to come round with unceasing regularity. Likewise, the “warming” bit has been replaced by the “cooling” bit, called winter, as at present.

    The reality is that AGW as a cause of global warming is such a gigantic fraud that on the basis of the old cliche, the bigger the lie the more people will believe it, like the naive alarmists of today.
    The reality is that puny man cannot “warm” the tiny space enclosing his back garden, never mind globally! As they say: ‘get over it!’
    He remains a passive and helpless onlooker as the great climatic and weather features of the world operate as they always have done in random, and often inexplicable fashion.
    Only God, the all powerful upholder of the uinverse he created is sufficient to direct and control such climate patterns.
    Anybody who requires proof need only turn to the pages of the New Testament to see how Jesus Christ so frequently wrought miracles over the natural elements of wind, sea and storms. He remains in control!
    Or for that matter, read the last few chapters of the book of Job.


  3. December 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Here’s another one for you Tingey. You claim to know better than a large number of climate scientists about AGW. Care to let us know your credentials?

    • Greg Tingey
      December 3, 2012 at 9:00 am

      Start with “Nature’s Calendar”
      A group-reporting scheme, with (now) tens of thousands of observers.
      Monitoring very simple things: when do certain trees & flowers open/leaf up – & in autumn, fruit & lose leaves, ditto for appearance / disappearance of Summer & Winter visiting birds.
      All of which are governed by both local weather & overall climate.
      Because the records have so many observers & therefore data-points, the error-bars are very small.
      Been going about 15 years, now … the figures are correlated against historical data, which in the UK is the best on the planet.
      Even allowing for year-on-year seasonal variations, the message is quite clear.
      The PLANET (not necessarily just us locally) is getting warmer, see also Brit Antractic Survey & other professional competent observations….

      PLEASE NOTE: I agree that there IS A “GW Scam” BUT that is to do with a giant state/corporate rip-off of the paying public for power/utility prices.

    • December 3, 2012 at 9:20 pm

      “You claim to know better than a large number of climate scientists about AGW”…

      Now that’s a bit ridiculous, since if you want to play the numbers game Jeremy then a MUCH MUCH bigger number of climate scientists disagree with the ones that you cite. I’ll see your 125 scientists and raise you with another 1250 against them…

      I am not taking sides in the AGW debate (or the GW debate, which is a different debate), but let’s not be silly about just choosing the so-called experts we want to choose, and saying there are a lot of them. There are a lot of wrong “experts” on both sides of every debate.

      Best to stick to discussing the data.

      • David A. Evans
        December 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm

        Iโ€™ll see your 125 scientists and raise you with another 1250 against themโ€ฆ

        Cite please.


        • December 4, 2012 at 12:22 am

          Close to the entire climate science research community. Just read and count the authors of their papers in the journals and you’ll soon have the numbers. And some strange “climate scientists” in that 125 by the way “A Professor of Marketing” Really?

          But as I said. It is about the data. Cite the data, I suggest.

          I have a PhD in chemistry from Cambridge university, by the way, and am the author of many science books. I am not taking sides here, just trying to suggest a more sensible approach for the debate.

          • David A. Evans
            December 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm

            Have you seen the work of that Professor of marketing?
            He has actually published regarding climate science.
            Most supposed climate science is really statistic and not a single statistician among them.
            I’m a mere control systems engineer so I suppose your doctorate trumps that. Not really.

            • December 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm

              The only thing that trumps anything is the Data. I have not even stated my interpretation of the data, although you seem to be assuming that might oppose yours. My point was to suggest more attention be given to data rather than to who sent letters to where, or indeed what qualifications any commenter has (on that issue I was merely anticipating the “care to let us know your credentials” query from Jeremy above.). The data is varied and open to a variety of interpretations and contains a great deal of uncertainty. Many people on both sides of the debate seem to have an unjustified certainty, in my opinion. And some on both sides seem more driven by their politics than by the science, which is silly.

              • David A. Evans
                December 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm

                My apologies, I misinterpreted that.

                I agree that data and its interpretation is what is important.

                I came late to the game as when I first came across the hypothesis at least 20 years ago, I dismissed it as ridiculous and didn’t give it another thought.

                Yes Climate changes continually but there’s no indication of any changes being outside natural variability. Watching datasets changing literally overnight doesn’t inspire confidence in those handling the data or their motives.


        • Andrew Duffin
          December 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm

          Since when did science go by votes?

          It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

          H/T to Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists who ever lived, who I am sure would have made mincemeat of the warmists; unfortunately he lived at a time when many of them (some even the same people) were trying to scare us all with the imminent next ice age.

          • December 4, 2012 at 6:53 pm

            Some analysts remain concerned about the imminence of a new ice age, indeed some suggest that AGW may be what is needed to delay it. As I said in my reply to David above, my original comment was not in support of any side of the GW and AGW debate.

            I don’t think you should be presuming to know what the late great Feynman would make of the current data though. Best to concentrate on the data itself, and on the inadequacies of the data if that is what you see.

  4. johnnyrvf
    December 2, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Whilst I agree that Nuclear is an expensive option, however one reason is that govts. use the Uraniun for their weapons programs, it is clean and efficient; when Thorium Reactors come on line they will be significanly better and cheaper in every way, ultimately the ‘hot’ fusion reactors are the way to go and whilst many doubters are happy to say that it will not happen soon, great strides are being made at the J.E.T. laboratory at Culham, in Japan and at the construction site of I.T.E.R., ultimately it is these technologies that will be the most efficient and clean producers of energy with Fusion being much more renewable than wind or water.

  5. David A. Evans
    December 3, 2012 at 5:44 am

    A challenge for our readers.
    Without prior knowledge of their locations, find the three, that I know of, CCGT plants on Deeside on Google maps.


    • December 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm

      The only Deeside I know of is in Scotland and I was wondering what Prince Charles was possibly up to on the Royal Deeside Balmoral estate, but then I realised there are other Deesides, not only in Wales but also in Canada and Australia and probably Africa too. Then I decided life is too short to bother taking up your challenge… ๐Ÿ™‚

      • David A. Evans
        December 4, 2012 at 9:24 pm

        You’re probably right.
        The only point to the question was their small footprint compared to subsidywind farms.


Comments are closed.