At least it is a reliable source of electricity, though very costly!
UK gives green light to £38 bn Sizewell C nuclear plant | Tallbloke's Talkshop
This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 2.7 million hits and blog is updated regularly most days.
At least it is a reliable source of electricity, though very costly!
UK gives green light to £38 bn Sizewell C nuclear plant | Tallbloke's Talkshop
Known as the "Endangerment Finding", the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards for CO2. This has been something that has been needed for many years.
It is removing a log jam which prevents the removal of a whole host of other restrictive measures. In a statement, the EPA said that, if finalised, the move will save Americans $54bn (£40bn) in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards, including an electric vehicle mandate passed by the Biden administration.
Trump to scrap landmark finding that regulates carbon emissions - BBC News
Matt Ridley calculates that even in a best case scenario, with the most generous estimate of how useful a wind turbine might be, the people in the UK are spending £25 billion a year to reduce global emissions of CO2 by 0.00002 or two hundredths of one percent. Tell that to a Just Stop Oil militant!
When any policy is considered in a rational way, whether to proceed or not depends on the cost and the benefits. The only exception is when our very existence is threatened, such as in a war. That is why it was so important to get as many local councils to sign up to a "climate emergency", as this provided the very reason to avoid asking about the cost. Only in this case it is becoming ever harder to maintain the immediacy and severity of the threat. Hence the need for the constant announcements of some sort of "unprecedented" weather event, backed up by a fully compliant Met Office.
The Frightening Cost of Net Zero | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Here is a very useful website which shows, at any time, how much electricity is being generated in the UK and what fuel is being used to generate it, how much it costs and lots more. All the data is simply displayed and easy to read and understand.
I have just been given a copy of a new book by Jonathon Porritt entitled "Love, Anger & Betrayal". It is a book praising the activists in Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. Porritt is clearly completely brainwashed in so far as the "Climate Emergency" is concerned and so he believes these folk who held up traffic for hours at a time are heroes. I think the sales of his book will be quite small among the majority of the UK population who thought they were simply nuisances who should not have been allowed to disrupt the country as they did. I do wonder if Porritt is not breaking the law himself in encouraging this type of action. He needs to go through a programme to re-educate him.
This latest ruling seems to defy reality, in so far as how will they be able to decide how to apportion the degree of damage caused by any individual nation's emissions, let alone an individual company. Also, does anyone seriously believe that Russia or China is going to accept this ruling, or even India or Brazil for that matter. Maybe some of the foolish Western nations might fall for it - but their voters certainly won't. It is complete nonsense.
Pacific nations applaud 'lifeline' climate ruling | Daily Mail Online
Suspicions Mount as Met Office Continues to Open More Junk Temperature Measuring Sites
Evidence continues to mount that the UK Met Office is chasing ‘hottest evah’ temperature extremes by deliberately siting new measuring stations in locations likely to be affected by heat spikes and unnaturally warmed ambient air. In the last 10 years to the middle of 2024, 81.5% of new sites were junk Class 4 and 5 operations with potential internationally-recognised errors up to 2°C and 5°C respectively.
All has been revealed in a court case between a rich land-owner and an electricity company.
At the heart of the dispute is an argument over so-called ‘constraint payments’. This term describes cash that is paid to wind farms to compensate them for either switching off their turbines, or reducing capacity, when the grid has become too full to take on more electricity.
The system is designed to cope with power surges during times of high wind speeds. Initially, it was rarely used.
In 2010, the first year of its existence, ‘constraint’ fees cost consumers £174,000. But as more wind farms have been built in remote areas bottlenecks in the grid have become more commonplace.
As a result, upwards of £300million a year is now being spent under the ‘constraint’ scheme, which has now cost bill-payers the grand total of £1.8billion, according to the REF.
What’s more, critics believe wind farm operators can sometimes make more, under the rules, by switching off their turbines than from making electricity.
Those seeking to promote renewable energy often claim that fossil fuels receive huge subsidies which exceed the subsidies given to renewables. That is nonsense which is clearly explained in the following article:
The $7 Trillion Fossil Fuel Subsidy Swindle | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
It is the massive subsidies given to solar and wind that are the problem, plus their intermittency which means you need to have constant back-up supply. But rather than admit this obvious point they would rather muddy the water by claiming that it is the other way round.
More on the story about Reform stopping the funding of renewables and the massive costs being paid in subsidies
Farage bursts the green bubble | James McSweeney | The Critic Magazine
Who is Pinchbeck? I hear you ask. She is the recently appointed chief executive of the UK Climate Change Committee, a body that is supposed to advise the government about how to reach net zero. She is 37 years old and has been in executive positions at the World Wild Life Fund and other green organisations. As far as I can tell she is not qualified in any science,or engineering field, so quite what advise she is qualified to give I am not sure. Is there no one more qualified to advise the government? I hear you say. Perhaps those more qualified don't give the advice which the government wants to hear! The linked article gives more detail, but it is quite alarming.
You can read more about Ms Pinchbeck here:
Emma Pinchbeck: "When I see pylons, I see protection. Not harm" - New Statesman
The truth is that fossil fuels are indispensable. Without them there would be no pharmaceuticals, no chemicals, no plastics or – more directly relevant to the arts – no cosmetics, no paints, no synthetic dyes, and no artificial fibres.
The arts flourish here because we are a rich country with millions of patrons to support them. Ordinary people buy their tickets, bringing revenues to venues; they pay their taxes too, and that funds the subsidies that keep high-cost operations such as ballet, opera and arts festivals afloat.
Nigel Farage's Reform Party are currently leading the polls here in the UK, so when they announce a policy it could have far reaching implications. So the announcement that they would stop funding wind farms must cause concern and uncertainty in the market. This is no longer a market-driven economy, it has become a government-driven one and that is a retrograde step.
Net Zero Watch: Clean Power 2030 projects risk becoming stranded assets
Given the growing number of observations at odds with the consensus, some scientists have been asking if that simplicity (of the current models) has been deceiving. For example, contrary to all model predictions, the eastern Tropical Pacific has cooled. Also, models cannot explain the increased frequency of blocking weather conditions over Greenland in summer, and although it was correctly predicted that the Arctic would warm faster than the rest of the globe, the observed Arctic temperature is far greater than expected. These are fundamental issues.
The UK Met Office are on the hook and wriggling like mad to avoid answering very simple, but rather awkward, questions. Read all about it in this excellent summary.
It's not only the Met Office that are feeling the heat, but their boss, the minister who has them in his portfolio. Peter Kyle MP has a choice. He can either defend the indefensible behaviour or he can demand changes.
I have written to him via my MP to ask three simple questions:
1. 1. Will
he ask the Met Office to issue a public apology for continuing to pass off data
as if it was from over 100 weather stations for many years after they had
closed them?
2. 2. Will
he call for the Met Office to only use CIMO class 1 or 2 stations to announce
record temperatures?
3. 3. Does
he agree that new weather stations should only be approved if they achieve CIMO
class 1 or 2 status?
He could not have picked better people. At last there is a chance that the USA will have a sensible policy on climate.
Trump administration hires 3 outspoken climate contrarians for Department of Energy | CNN
When will the public finally hear the truth about the disgraceful way in which the Met Office ride roughshod over all scientific principles to feed us with phony temperature records using totally unsuitable weather stations? Never if the establishment get their way, but the truth will out, as they say, and more and more of it is oozing into the public domain.
The Met Office–Where Science Went To Die | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Paul Burgess has just put out a video about the "acidification" of sea water and how some activist scientists are trying to claim that the change is as high as 25%. Paul goes through the numbers and explains how their reasoning is flawed. Well worth watching.
At the academic safe-space known as “The Conversion” Thomas York explains to baffled renewables fans why wind farm developers are mysteriously pulling out at the last minute. He doesn’t spell out the baby-nature of the economic reality, but we can read between the lines.
Nigel Farage's Reform Party took control of Kent County Council in this year's elections and they are now looking at ways to save money. This article explains the details.
Cutting out the climate and net zero policies are a major part of this.
Super sleuth, Ray Sanders has caught out the Met Office again cooking the books on temperature measurements. This shameless lot are trying to brazen it out, hoping their previous good reputation will make people think they are pillars of society. But as case after case start mounting they will find it gets harder and harder.
Some people are trying to claim that this summer is comparable to the record year of 1976. Paul Homewood has looked at the details and finds that, so far, 2025 is some way behind.
Comparing This Year’s Heatwave With 1976 | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Matt Ridley has written an excellent article on this in the Telegraph (4th July) He points out that the Met Office make alarmist predictions based on an impossible scenario called RCP 8.5 which assumes we burn ten times as much coal in 2100 as we did in 2000 and that the world's population grows to 12 billion - way more than any demographer thinks is likely. Also there is no improvement in technology to make us more efficient - completely mad! In 2020 the BBC admitted that this scenario was very unlikely. And yet the Met Office will not see sense.
Matt thinks they are using this deliberately in order to scare people by grabbing headlines. They believe their reputation is such that they are untouchable, but they may have miss-judged this and over-reached themselves. More and more people are beginning to look more closely at this taxpayer funded organisation and wondering exactly what are they up to other than weather forecasting.
More restrictions on the freedom of the individual are being proposed, but will enough people vote for it? Just 12 car trips person per year would be allowed!
The Berlin Constitutional Court has declared the “Berlin car-free” referendum admissible, paving the way for a possible drastic reduction in car traffic.
Berlin Moves To Ban Autos From Inside The City. Widespread Chaos Looms
Time for Donald to cut off their funding!
A group of unelected officials in something called the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has decided that humans have the “right” to a stable climate and thus, you have the right to pay for it. The court that nobody has heard of says “states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown.”
A Blobocrat Court rules that perfect weather is a “human right” « JoNova
Researchers have studied things like pebble layers, shell fragments, and coral rubble in Fiji to find out what has happened there in the past. Yanan Li and others drilled cores to find debris pushed 120m into the mangroves by the worst of the worst tropical cyclones. Handily, they also had two bad storms recorded in the last century to calibrate what they found. Awkwardly, the big storms were more common in the Little Ice Age.
Tell that to those who want to ban CO2. Carbon dioxide – the gas branded as public enemy number one – is not destroying the planet. It’s enhancing life on it. Across the globe, elevated CO2 levels are supercharging plant growth and delivering bountiful crop harvests at unprecedented rates.
CO2 Sustains Greenhouse Farming Revolution – Watts Up With That?
What the National Energy System Operator (NESO) figures tell us is that a third of daily generation will have to be constrained. At an average price of £100/MWh, that works out at a cost of £3.3 billion, just for summer alone.
Throwing Away A Third Of Our Electricity | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
The Australian government has decided to offer 280 “Climate Visas” to be raffled off each year to the 10,000 people of Tuvalu, in case it sinks in 2100AD. Naturally 3,000 people applied for the lottery, inspiring mass headlines that implied a third of the nation are so terrified of the seas rising that they want to leave.