Driving in the bush with my son on Saturday I saw some gigantic wind turbines on top of a small range, and he told me there was a line of them stretching up to Crookwell, quite a way away. That got us talking about the fantasy of wind power, while later the talk took me to another excellent Judy Curry piece, the origin of which I have begun to read. Since it is nearly 350 pp long I will give readers bits of the Extensive Summary instead.

Written by two members of the European Parliament, Katinka Brouwer and Dr Lucas Bergkamp, its title is Road to EU Climate Neutrality by 2050. Spatial Requirements of Wind/Solar and Nuclear Energy and Their Respective Costs. Does it apply to those Downunder? Well, yes, it does. The EU has endorsed the objective of achieving by 2050 ‘climate neutrality’, that is, net zero greenhouse carbon emissions. The two authors, assisted by a team of qualified peer reviewers, have sought to find just what that would mean in practice, and why the Commission would not prefer going nuclear rather than embarking on a great expansion of solar and wind sources. Since much of the rest of the world has said ‘we too’ and our own PM seems to be dickering with same goal, what Brouwer and Bergkamp have set out in their book-length report ought to be of great interest.

So here are the take-home messages. The first is that the EU’s 2050 goal ‘involves a high risk of ineffectiveness’. Nuclear power, they argue, can hedge against this risk. Second, nuclear power offers substantial advantages over any combination of wind and solar power. Third, the cost advantages of nuclear power increase once system costs are added to the equation. Fourth, they increase further the higher the penetration of wind and solar. Fifth, even if ‘climate neutrality’ were achieved, the resulting decrease in average global temperature would be so small it would not even be noticed. Semi-finally, there is no proven pathway that would lead to a zero outcome. Finally, Europe cannot prevent other countries from doing what they see as in their national interest, and unless and until they agree with the 2050 goal and take it seriously, the EU goal is a pipe-dream.

There are some memorable lines in the report, and here are two:

While nuclear requires a tiny bit of land to provide a whole lot of power at a low cost, wind and solar require a whole lot of land to provide a tiny bit of power at a high cost…

 EU climate neutrality is an ideal that may never become reality in our interdependent world. The reality is that the EU cannot limit emissions in the whole world, and that the proposed solution, renewable energy, is an ideal with serious side effects.

Plainly the authors plump for nuclear, and I have respect for their arguments and the data they provide. One aspect of land-use I hadn’t thought of, mostly because I regard the nuclear alternative for Australia as presently both difficult and unlikely, is that nuclear power plants can be placed where we already have coal-fired generators. The demolition of the EU alternative energy scenario is thorough, especially because it is central to that scenario that fossil fuels be retired from the system as alternative energy sources are introduced. What is required is an astonishingly large transition.

There is a lot of head-scratching from the authors about the transition. They warn that

Depending on variables such as electricity demand and capacity factors, in realistic scenarios, there is not enough land to meet all power demand if the Czech Republic and The Netherlands were to rely solely or predominantly on wind and solar power. In the Czech case, it is even out of the question that the available land will be sufficient to cover all electricity demand.


As the penetration of wind and solar increases, competing land uses, landscape protection, and nature protection will increasingly come under pressure, resulting in land price increases and deterioration of the living environment. In the Czech Republic, if only 30 % of the power is generated by renewables, all available land is occupied with wind and solar.

It just ain’t gonna work, at least for those two nations. And if not for them, for whom will it work? The authors do not say, and to find the answer you would have to do the same detailed analysis. Their report has already been taken seriously by the Czech Government, but not, so far at least, by the Netherlands Government, let alone by the EU itself. The current freeze in Germany has produced outcomes like the one shown in the following image. What then — back to candles?


Solar panels in the German freeze


The authors take for granted that fossil fuels are not to be used at all as part of ‘carbon neutrality’. I certainly wouldn’t do that here, and Poland, which has large supplies of coal, is no less adamant that coal will remain part of its energy mix. Indeed, the authors show that fossil fuels are still a large element in the EU’s own energy mix right now. And that leads them to point out, not only that the amount of land needed to provide a wind-and-solar only electricity mix is simply not there, but that even to provide a nuclear hedge  would require so many new nuclear generators every day until 2035.

So what do they recommend? Their basic thrust is to put nuclear on the same footing as wind and solar. They point out that wind and solar get astonishingly large assistance from government policies of all kinds that is not available to any other supplier of ‘non-carbon’ energy, and that has the effect of making alternative energies apparently cheaper. It is an apparent cheapness only, because where real money is involved, the whole electorate pays, by transferring funds to the government, which then provides the funds to people doing research, for example, but only research that assists the providers of alternative energy. The authors have a simple statement about the issue.

Because current EU policies favour renewable energy over nuclear energy, assessment of the relative cost of both technologies can easily be led astray and reflect the policy status quo, rather than anything inherent to these technologies.

For a long time people here in Australia have been arguing the toss about the relative cheapness of alternative forms of energy.  As in Europe, those discussions start with the ‘policy status quo’, so we get claims that solar energy is now cheaper than coal. Well, it may be, but let us look at the whole cost of both forms of electricity provision.  My guess is that solar won’t finish up ahead, but first we need to do the sort of careful data collection and analysis that this important paper sets out.

ENDNOTE: Dr Curry offers us another interesting paper at https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/12/a-climate-of-dialogue/. Here two European scholars who have worked and published together take issue over how important climate change actually is. You’ll learn a new word: ‘pacated’, which seems to mean ‘peaceful’ or ‘respectful’, which the debate is. I thought it was the authors’ invention, but no. It is an obsolete alternative for ‘placated’ or peaceful.




Join the discussion 232 Comments

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    These points, or similar, have been made many times before. The climate phenomenon bears a strong resemblance to the mass hysteria associated with the COVID pandemic.
    It appears to be equally unlikely to be susceptible to reason.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    My apologies for forgetting to add the image, but it is now embedded.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    Environmentalist are really showing what they are – frightened children who do not want to work. The anti nuclear rhetoric for all of my life has put a break on development and improving our physical environment. The science and technology lost of greening our interior and the ability to provide spaces to live in these areas has been wasted.
    Wind/Solar are immature concepts and are more wasteful of mining and materials than fossil fuels.
    I have a electric power hedge trimmer. Charge the lithium battery for 8 hours and it lasts for half an hour. First time use it lasted close to 45 min.
    Now the battery is dead. I have a friend who has a petrol hedge trimmer and it older than my electric hedgetrimmer. It is more powerful and does no run out.
    My electric hedge trimmer has to be thrown away. The blades are good, the stem and handle are good. Its is such a waste.
    I know of some who is a proud Tesla owner with solar panels on their home. The Tesla is 18 months old and is showing signs of battery fatigue. The car does not travel the 350 – 400km any more – closer to 300 km.

    • Stu says:

      The Tesla you refer to is clearly a lemon, if the story is true. In any case here is the Tesla warranty so he should have no problem getting it rectified.

      “ Battery and Drive Unit Warranty
      The Battery and Drive Unit in your vehicle are covered for a period of:

      Model S
      Model X 8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
      Model 3 Standard Range
      Model Y Standard Range 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
      Model 3 Long Range
      Model 3 Performance
      Model Y Long Range
      Model Y Performance 8 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.’

      And regarding your hedge trimmer, you do realise the battery has to be charged when it goes flat! LOL.

      • Stu says:

        Sorry that table did not copy well. Here is a clearer version.

        Model S and Model X :
        8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

        Model 3 Standard Range and Model Y Standard Range :
        8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

        Model 3 Long Range, Model 3 Performance, Model Y Long Range,Model Y Performance. :
        8 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

    • Boambee John says:


      “Wind/Solar are immature concepts and are more wasteful of mining and materials than fossil fuels.”

      I have to disagree. Wind and solar are ancient technologies, improved with modern technology. The extent to which their efficiency can be further improved is, to say the least, debatable.

      • John Stankevicius says:

        Thanks Boambee – well pointed out. Ancient technology which has reached a limit. What you can get away with by saying environmentally friendly using solar and wind never ceases to astound me. The people that go on about this, I find are devoid of reality.
        Please enlighten me how far solar and wind progressed since the beginning. Of the industrial revolution.

  • Stu says:

    Don, an interesting piece. The study you refer to and your comments seem a little caught up in the usual mischievous misdirection in the debate. It is framed in the all or nothing argument. I know of nowhere that the intention is to get almost immediately to all solar and wind. Commonsense sees the existing power generation running down over time and alternatives ramping up. It makes no sense to throw away existing infrastructure until it reaches obsolescence (the case with most of current NSW generation). The question is about the make up in the longer term and that will be influenced by engineering and science changes over those almost 30 years. Prediction of disruptive technology change is fraught with risk, both ways.

    Similarly there is the claim that there will be no measurable reduction in global temperature by 2050. This neatly obscures the commonly expressed aim of the proposed changes to prevent “greater increase” than 2.5 degrees. Perhaps the authors (or our Jo) can advise what they think temperatures might be if we go on, business as usual, ramping up still higher carbon emissions.

    And all this continues in an environment where consumption (burning one way or another) of fossil fuels continues to be free of bearing the social/economic costs of the pollution emitted. It is not a level playing field.

    I would be interested to hear your views on another recent book. “The new climate war” by Prof Mann. I recall in the past you expressed no support for his science but this book is as much about the background to the current argument and does regurgitate some of the work in “Merchants of doubt”. Certainly it makes some claims that should not be just dismissed lightly without counter argument.

    • Stu says:

      Sorry I should have added the question “do you think wind energy is a total myth or just the idea of it being the total solution”? Big difference. There is plenty of evidence of the cost effectiveness of current large scale wind installations in Europe and North America.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “There is plenty of evidence of the cost effectiveness of current large scale wind installations in Europe and North America.”

        Yes, I’ve noticed:


        • Stu says:

          That is rubbish – what is expected from Nova. Go to actual news sites and you will find the bulk of the failures relate to gas fired units and the fact that Texas has no interconnect with any other state so as to avoid federal rules. So, no backup. Plus their deregulated grid is in disrepair. Republican policy at work. Gov Abbott is blaming “green new deal” which has had no implementation anywhere yet and Texas had been governed by Repubs for 20 years.

          • spangled drongo says:

            So what you are saying is that in order to make unreliables work you have to have the right religious mental attitude.

            Not surprising you would think like that when you believe in evidence-free science.

            It’s faith wot counts.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that Wiki graph again over the last 30 years or 50 years and wrecks every argument that the donkeys use to forecast future co2 emissions.
    And the leading co2 emitter hopes to start down the net zero path in about 40 years. What a sick joke and yet the donkeys still believe in their fanatical religion.
    Don’t forget that Lomborg and Shellenberger etc quote Nordhaus’s work about the cost of net zero and agree that NZ govt is correct in their estimation ( 0.1% of global emissions) of 5 trillion $.
    Therefore Aussie’s cost would be 55 Tr $, USA 690 Tr $, the EU about 500 Tr $ by 2050. Anyone not starting to see a problem and of course no measurable change to temp or climate by 2100 and for the next thousand years. See my previous sources for all of the above.


  • spangled drongo says:

    When even Greens leader Bob Brown is horrified at the damage just one wind farm can do to the environment [and he is absolutely right] why oh why can’t Greens have the integrity to admit the total destruction that will be done to the environment with this crazy philosophy?

    When probably all current wildlife habitat, world-wide, will have to be used to provide enough siting for these unreliables, it will totally destroy any raison detre the Greens ever had.

    It makes any possible nuclear problems look non-existent in comparison.

    Not to mention the current seriously non-existent F/F problems.

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD and we Aussies should adapt to any weather or climate, because we would alternatively waste endless Trs $ forever and achieve nothing.
      Firstly we should build new HELE coal power stns ASAP to cover us for the next 100 years and forget about dirty, toxic and useless/clueless S&W that will quickly destroy our environment.
      And of course this toxic mess has to be replaced every 20 years and paid for again and again.

      • Stu says:

        Do you want to come and check out the “toxic mess” around the power stations on Lake Macquarie and in the Hunter. The toxic ash piles and lakes at Eraring will be repeated even with your fabled HELE generation. Be realistic. And the environment in the Hunter is not looking all that flash with enormous holes everywhere. At least all the land forever off limits around here due to mine subsidence is preserved for nature. But you insist S&W are dirty and toxic. Try again.

    • Stu says:

      Oh you simplistic fellow. One particular wind farm on one particular island does not make your case. “ all current wildlife habitat, world-wide, will have to be used to provide enough siting for these unreliables, it will totally destroy any raison detre the Greens ever had.”. Rubbish. All the turbines sited near Canberra seem to operate quite happily with sheep and cows all around, not to mention the wildlife. And don’t forget to include the growing number of very large turbines off shore in Europe and north America and soon here. They are now up to 13MW size. I am not aware of wind energy even starting to catch up with the destruction and death so far recorded for nuclear power (Chernobyl and Fukushima, although One Mile Island was trivial). And I note today a pipeline leak of petroleum into San Francisco Bay, no leaks reported from wind turbines there.

      • spangled drongo says:

        When it comes to “simple” stu, you are a world leader.

        Have you worked out yet how much land is needed to power the world, 24-7?

        And as Neville points out above, that is only a fraction of the real problem you create.

        And still it eludes you completely.

        • Stu says:

          Go back to my first post. Yes it is crazy to consider powering the whole world with S&W with the technology of today. That is not being proposed. Who knows what is around the corner. Do you? But it does make sense to use the technology we have to reduce the carbon footprint and maybe hold the world to no more than 2.5 degrees increase. So forget your crap about reducing the temperature. We are talking about a reduced change not reversal. Things will still probably be bad enough with that, but with too many people with your way of thinking it is the best we can hope for. Oh and also the trillions you talk of never take account of the lower operating cost of renewables. Check out current world revenues for coal, oil and gas, several trillion, per year. There is money in muck.

      • John Stankevicius says:

        Stu – the ash is used as a fertilizer

      • Boambee John says:


        “All the turbines sited near Canberra seem to operate quite happily with sheep and cows all around, not to mention the wildlife.”

        Do you exclude birds and bats from your definition of “wildlife”?

  • John Stankevicius says:


    Battery not flat – is dead with in 4 yrs – would na happened if it was unleaded!!!

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Stu – have you considered leaving Oil in its natural state – the earth in Azberjan is hot – it cooks the surface. In USA, the Europeans saw the Indians ‘burning” the lakes – oil on the lakes.
      We are harvesting oil for its good and the side effects of pollution are not causing uninhabitable environments.
      Re the Tesla warranty – too frightened to sent this on due the reaction – and having 500 weird looking people outside my door with a burning crucifix on my front lawn.

  • Ian Macculloch says:

    From the Wall Street Journal this morning on the cost of being cold in Texas – home of the frozen wind turbine and snow covered PV cells

    Enormous new demand coupled with constrained supply caused natural gas spot prices to spike to nearly $600 per million British thermal units in the central U.S. from about $3 a couple weeks ago. Future wholesale power prices in Texas for early this week soared to $9,000 per megawatt hour from a seasonal average of $25.

  • BB says:

    The world temperature data shows that from about 1840 to the present day it has risen about 1°C. That is from HADCRUT4 global mean. The proposition is put forward that humans are responsible because of our emissions. The principal one focused on being CO2. In 1960 it was 0.03% of the atmosphere, now 0.042%. That is 0.012% in 61 years so 0.0002% per annum and in the same period the temperature has risen by 0.8°C. There are many who think this can be changed because surely we are headed for doom! Humanity has leverage on 3% of the CO2 gases produced in any one year. So the 0.0002%
    can only be altered by 3%. Instead of 0.0002% if we were to stop all CO2 anthropogenic emissions it would reduce overall emissions by 0.000006%. Australia has leverage on 1.4% of that 3% so a reduction of 0.00000008% that is if we stop everything and end civilisation. In the unlikely event that we in Australia reach zero emissions in 2050 it cannot possibly change anything. Otherwise you will have to believe by changing the amount of CO2 emissions by 0.8 ppb some noticeable effect will occur! I think there needs to be a study done to determine if tails can wag dogs.

    Those who believe think to achieve this principally we need to change from coal to renewable energy. One of our largest electricity generators is Bayswater. Is that achievable? I have done a model on this here http://www.spasmodicenergy.com/StorageModel.aspx?year=2019&station=1020&size=3&number=3000&type=Pumped&store=300
    This is my website and yes it is slow currently I am working on this and since recently I had to move to a another web host there is a problem with some of the pages but this one is working and it is accurate. To replace Bayswater you need 9 GW of capacity if you apply wind to the task this will occupy 4000 km². To get stability you will need 300 GW hours of storage. The whole infrastructure will cost $45 billion to be equivalent. Bayswater supplied nearly 16 TW hours in 2019 the overall consumption on the Australian eastern grid in that year was 205 TW hours. Note that the wind will be supplying 23 TW hours in the year but if it is to be stable that is the cost that must be paid only 16 TW hours is usable because of the energy storage there will be times when much of this energy must be dumped.

    • Stu says:

      Last time I looked the proposed Kurri Kurri battery will be 1200 MW, add in the proposed 250MW AGL Lydell battery and you are well on the way. As the proponents of coal and gas say, let the market decide. As AGL have said it would cost $900million to keep Lydell going ten years past 2022. Their proposals for alternative generation and storage will be much cheaper and even more reliable. The problem that people forget when raving about big coal generators is that if you have a plant made up of individual 500mw plus generators, and they go offline, which does happen it leaves a big hole in the grid supply.

      • Boambee John says:


        So Kurri Kurri (1200MW) plus Liddell (250MW) gives a total of 1450 MW, but for how long? What is their delivery capacity in MWh? How are they to be charged? With ruinables? What about conversion losses (you always get less out than you put in, at least until perpetual motion is perfected).

        Reality is a bitch.

      • BB says:

        Well first we need to think about the fact it should be just as important to those that believe humanity must reduce emissions and those that don’t whether the proposed solutions actually work. The problem for the believers is that in fact wind is not going to displace coal even though you are being told by the activists that it will. If you are going to talk about battery storage you need to use a measure of storage that is megawatt hours. For instance the Hornsdale power reserve has a megawatt rating of 150 MW and that means it will supply 192 megawatt hours. That costs $161 million. It does sound impressive doesn’t it. The problem with wind is that it will not provide stable electricity supply so the proposal is that the batteries you mention will fix this. Okay a hypothetical let us assume you want to stabilise a wind power station of 100 MW. I have the data for 10 years of generation in five-minute increments so I can accurately forecast the average you will get from this. It does vary but the best I’ve seen so far for a year is 28% so let’s go with that. This means on average it will produce 28 megawatt hours per hour. Wind is too variable for battery energy storage to be viable. The AEMO calls them wind droughts they are frequent and they are long. A typical example occurred at 11 AM on 5 June 2020 from that point the average until 8 PM on 6 June 2020 was 6%. This is 33 hours that the whole of wind on the eastern grid dropped to that. At the time the registered capacity for wind was 7.7 GW. Normally it would produce 2.1 GW. Let us get back to our 100 MW wind power station. Normally it would put out 28 megawatt hours per hour so normally over 33 hours there would be 924 megawatt hours produced. Instead of that 55 megawatt hours were produced. Subtracting the expected from the actual gives us the size of the battery we would need to stabilise one small wind power station of 100 MW. That is 869 MW hours so Kurri Kurri battery when you calculate the megawatt hours could stabilise a wind power station of 200 MW and Liddell about a 40 MW one. Battery storage currently costs $107 million per hundred megawatts so Kurri Kurri will cost $1.3 billion. In Australia we only have coal and gas as the baseload and we depend absolutely on them. The wind drought I have discussed here meant for 33 hours the output from wind dropped by 1.7 GW and you put forward the myth that a single turbine going off-line for repair in a coal-fired power station is a serious event. It is not Bayswater has turbines that are 660 MW each, in 2019 one or more of them was off line for 243 days. That is why the wind drought above was not noticed you just need to crank the underutilised coal stations up a bit. If you are to achieve what you think ought to happen reliable baseload emission free sources of energy must be constructed. Batteries are toys if they can build them in the terawatt range then maybe. Pumped storage is much bigger and cheaper but how many snowy Mountains do we have? My calculations show we need at least 10. I say again renewables are a fools folly which are nowhere near enough to replace fossil fuels. As for Liddell it produces about 12 TW hours per annum wind about 18 TW hours probably now so to replace it on average two thirds of all wind infrastructure we have has to be again built you think that will happen in a year? I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but the current thinking from the activists is delusional.

        • John Stankevicius says:

          Thank you BB. This is excellent. The explanation is well explained that even someone like me can understand it.
          I look forward to your website

    • Stu says:

      BB you wrote “ Humanity has leverage on 3% of the CO2 gases produced in any one year. So the 0.0002%
      can only be altered by 3%. Instead of 0.0002% if we were to stop all CO2 anthropogenic emissions it would reduce overall emissions by 0.000006%. ”

      Your figures are totally bogus, amongst other things confusing stocks and flows.

      • BB says:

        I gave you a detailed explanation of how I derived the figures you give me nothing but a glib comment. My figures are not at all bogus explain where they are wrong. Australia contributes .8 ppb. You have faith that that is wrong I doubt you understand. You also have faith that renewables are the answer to the problems you see in the world. Why because your priests of told you so. Remember me when major blackouts start here in Australia. It is already happening overseas.

        • Stu says:

          “ Human activities have increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
          Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
          and nitrous oxide began to rise around two hundred years ago,
          after changing little since the end
          of the last ice age thousands of years earlier. The concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) before 1800, to 396 ppm in 2013100, 101. This history of greenhouse gas concentrations has been established by a combination of modern measurements100–103 and analysis of ancient air bubbles in polar ice47, 104, 105 (Box 2.1, see page 10).
          Particularly important is CO2. Enormous amounts of it are continually exchanged between
          the atmosphere, land and oceans,
          as land and marine plants grow,
          die and decay, and as carbon-rich waters circulate in the ocean. For several thousand years until around 200 years ago, this ‘carbon cycle’ was approximately in balance and steady. Since the 19th century, human-induced CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture and deforestation have disturbed the balance, adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than it can be taken up by the land biosphere and the oceans (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). On average over the last 50 years, about 25% of total CO2 emissions were absorbed by the ocean—making
          sea water more acidic208—and 30% was taken up on land, largely by increased plant growth stimulated by rising atmospheric CO2, increased nutrient availability, and
          responses to warming and rainfall changes (though the mix of these mechanisms remains unclear)109–111. The other 45% of emissions accumulated in the atmosphere112–114. These changes to the carbon cycle are known from measurements in the atmosphere115–121, on land and in the ocean122–125, and from modelling studies109–111.
          The dominant cause of the increasing concentration of CO2
          in the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels123. Over the last two centuries, the growth of fossil-
          fuel combustion has been closely coupled to global growth in energy use and economic activity126. Fossil- fuel emissions grew by 3.2% per year from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 3.3), a rapid growth that is dominated by growth in Asian emissions and has exceeded all but the highest recent long-range scenarios for future emissions126–128.
          Although fossil-fuel emissions of
          CO2 have grown fairly steadily,
          the upward march of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere varies from year to year. This is caused mainly by the effects of weather variability on vegetation130–132, and also by sporadic volcanic activity: major volcanic eruptions have a significant indirect influence on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, causing temporary drawdown of
          CO2 through the promotion of plant growth by the light-scattering and cooling effects of volcanic haze132–136. By contrast, the direct contribution of volcanic emissions to atmospheric CO2 is negligible, amounting to around 1% of current human-induced emissions’

          Academy of Science – Australia

          • spangled drongo says:


          • Boambee John says:


            If the Australian Academy of Science does not know the difference between “more acidic” and less alkaline, they have lost their way.

          • BB says:

            I think you entirely miss the point! If Australia is only .8 ppb what sort of leveraged do we have? Renewables are remarkably useless in this respect even so. How much can we change that .8 ppb by applying ineffectual power generation? You are on the side that we must do something but it doesn’t seem to matter that the something is useless. By the way all this alarm has only the effect of benefiting China we push our energy costs up industry closes where it is it go mainly China. We can’t burn our coal here oh no no we must export it. There it is burnt and used in manufacture which we in turn by the product of! Only makes this sense if one is a Marxist and believes China should take over the world.

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Hi BB

      Ian Macculloch has excellent articles from Dr Zharkova https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
      The article is titled “modern grand solar minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling”
      I hope the link works.

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Hi BB
      As read an article about how solar and wind are unable to compete with Fossil Fuels due to mass. The mass of solar and wind is approx .0067, fossil fuels 1.65 while Nuclear is approx 20,000. I cannot remember the measurements of the numbers.
      Cold you educate me please on this and if this is correct.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    BB – thank you for bringing to light mans effect on Co2 is only 3%. Thank you for the calculations – I will save this. I read this in another article by a mathematician who concluded we do not cause MMGW by CO2 emissions.
    The interesting point which you raise is the increase in temp since 1840. A recent interview with the former environment minister in Germany (physicist) was concerned about the CO2 targets which he though were impossible and cause harm. It pointed out the earth was coming out of a cold mini ice age in 1840.

  • Ian Hore-Lacy says:

    Don thanks for good article!
    You say that in Oz ” nuclear power plants can be placed where we already have coal-fired generators.” True, but those are mostly on coal fields and use potable water for cooling the condenser circuit. Nuclear plants could be put on the coast and use seawater for cooling, as about half the world’s 400+ plants do now. That would save evaporating about two thirds of melbourne’s water requirements if all coal plants were replaced by coastal nuclear plants.

    Economically the system costs are the killer for wind and solar (or any intermittent sources) and they increase rapidly as share increases. Modelling for Australia shows that they are likely to overtake generation costs (LCOE) by 40% share. I will send you my summary of all this.

  • Neville says:

    I’m now convinced that Bill Gates has lost it completely and should stick with computer software.
    He has just written a silly book that makes ridiculous suggestions about energy use and now he also claims that SLR will put so many of the coastal cities at risk.
    Willis checks out his claims using an exaggerated example and finds that Gates claims are complete nonsense. Big surprise NOT.
    Of course Bill has just bought a new home on the coast himself, so we can quickly understand that he ‘s not very serious at all. But I’m sure that blog donkeys will truly believe him, minus any evidence to the contrary.


    • John Stankevicius says:

      Neville – I was reading a blogger who calculated that is every piece of ice and snow melted that the ocean levels would rise by 320mm or 1 foot. No disaster at all.

      • spangled drongo says:

        John, I don’t think that is right.

        If all the ice covering Antarctica , Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly.

        But in actual fact sea levels are not rising so land ice is not net melting.

        The Pacific, the biggest bit of ocean in the world has a current mean sea level lower than its first recording in 1914 [at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour].

        • Stu says:

          Land ice is in fact net melting. And beyond that, the earth is absorbing a lot of excess heat, most of which is being absorbed by the oceans. And guess what, when you heat water it expands. And even if we moved to zero carbon today the oceans will keep on expanding. But you stick with your simplistic views on sea level measurement. I know you are not convinced so save your time replying.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And as usual our stu produces not one scrap of EVIDENCE.

            I wonder why I’m not convinced?

            Particularly when throughout his lifetime mean sea levels have not changed and he has been too obtuse to even notice.

            Do pay more attention to the real world, stueyluv.

          • Boambee John says:


            Stu don’t want no steenkin’ evidence, he’s got feeelz.

  • Boambee John says:


    I will ask again, with no confidence that you can answer.

    On climate change, the Null Hypothesis is that the climate has been changing under natural influence for millions of years, albeit there is now some human influence (demonstrated by UHI).

    What are the experimental results or empirically measured data that prove that human influence now predominates?

    The output of computer models is neither experimental nor empirical.

    • Stu says:

      Simple answer, amongst others, the rate of change – unprecedented in the paleo and other records. But if you believe that mankind can burn in 100 years the carbon that it took nature 100 million years to sequester and there is no impact on the climate system (which has shown strong correlation) then sorry mate I cannot help you. As for the 0.04 percent CO2 in the atmosphere I am reminded of the amazing result of taking tiny 5mg pills each day and the resulting effect on my bodies 89,000,000 milligrams signs. BTW do you understand the mechanisms by which the earth is habitable through much of the latitude range? Never mind.

      • Boambee John says:


        So all you have is flannel and waffle, nothing empirical. Thanks for confirming it.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez:

        “Simple answer, amongst others, the rate of change – unprecedented in the paleo and other records.”

        Yeah, simple but incredibly dumb.

        Just check the “rate of change” [warming] at the end of the last ice age.

        Probably 10 times the current rate.

        You never cease to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the real world.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a quote from Shellenberger ( latest IPCC expert reviewer) and Dr Hansen ( former head of NASA GISS) about the unbelievable safety of Nuclear power. Of course most of our energy around the world comes from FFs ( 80+%) and there has to be higher numbers of deaths from those sources.

    But don’t forget that countries like China now have a very high percentage of their total energy from coal ( 67%) while the USA only derives about 17% of their T energy from coal. But China at 76 is now close to the first world average life expectancy of about 81 and that recent big increase has only occurred when coal usage has surged. So therefore I know Shellenberger and Dr Hansen are not telling us the full story about the benefits of FFs.

    Here’s their quotes + graphs about energy and safety from the different sources of base-load power. Dilute S&W power are a dirty , unreliable, toxic environmental disaster and Energy dense power ( see graphs) are the only reliable base-load sources of energy on the planet.


    “Bottom Line”:

    “The best energy is the smallest and densest that creates the most power for the least environmental impact. That’s nuclear energy. Only nuclear has high power density like the newest natural gas plants but zero emissions unlike fossil fuels. Nuclear’s incredible power density is the reason for its extremely small waste output, easily contained in a few cans.

    Because wind and solar require so much land and air, they expand the impact of energy production, reversing recent global trends that allow us to use less land for food and energy production in order to leave more for nature. In addition, seasonal variation guarantees that a fossil fuel backbone will always be necessary, as the leading wind and solar countries in the world have long known and prepared for. Because nuclear replaces both fossil fuels and renewables, current environmental harm from energy sprawl and future environmental harm from global warming are both mitigated. And yet human flourishing is assured”.

  • Neville says:

    BTW that Shellenberger link above has horizontal arrows to pan through vast numbers of graphs and all types of data on energy around the world. PLEASE check out the data and WAKE UP.
    And I do trust his sources today, but wouldn’t have trusted him a few years ago when he was in his FULL ON left wing extremist mode helping out the Obama, Biden donkeys. And of course their clueless BS merchant friend and so called SCIENCE adviser Holdren.

    Thanks again to Dr Pielke jnr for exposing these donkeys and today he and Shellenberger work closely together trying to expose the mitigation fra-d and con tricks. And both have recently testified before Congress for the Republican party.

  • Neville says:

    Nuclear power is very safe and very reliable and Dr Hansen tells us that it has saved about 1.8 mil lives compared to FFs.
    But how many MORE lives have been saved because we’ve now moved into an era of much higher life Exp of about 72 for the 7.8 bn people around the world?
    And don’t forget that we’ve seen an increase of 4.1 bn people since 1970 and all much healthier and wealthier as well + urban living has increased around the globe.
    Yet AOC and Greta tell us we only have a few years to live and both + DEMS are urging Biden to declare a Climate EMERGENCY ASAP.
    Just unbelievable but true. OH and FF energy is still above 80% of world TOTAL energy.

  • Neville says:

    David Middleton tells the truth about the Texas energy grid collapse and it certainly wasn’t due to the collapse of FF + Nuclear generation.
    And he supplies the graph data to prove it from the suppliers for Feb.


    • Stu says:

      “ While ice has forced some turbines to shut down just as a brutal cold wave drives record electricity demand, that’s been the least significant factor in the blackouts, according to Dan Woodfin, a senior director for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s power grid.

      The main factors: Frozen instruments at natural gas, coal and even nuclear facilities, as well as limited supplies of natural gas, he said. “Natural gas pressure” in particular is one reason power is coming back slower than expected Tuesday, added Woodfin.

      “We’ve had some issues with pretty much every kind of generating capacity in the course of this multi-day event,” he said.

      But you keep on with your not very informative statistical spaghetti.

  • Neville says:

    At the David Middleton link above he provides a tally of the energy generated by all sources for the 16th FEB. Solar is 2% and Wind 6% and 92% is FFs and Nuclear.

    The breakdown for 16 February 2021:
    MWh %
    Wind Generation 73,395 6%
    Solar Generation 20,134 2%
    Hydro Generation 3,833 0%
    Other Generation 682 0%
    Natural gas Generation 759,708 65%
    Coal Generation 204,655 18%
    Nuclear Generation 98,394 8%
    Total 1,160,801 100%

    Fossil fuels accounted for 83% of our electricity generation yesterday. Fossil fuels + nuclear accounted for 92%.

    “While there is plenty of blame to go around, ERCOT had a “dress rehearsal” for this in 2011. At least back then, they successfully employed rotating outages. We haven’t lost power, while many of our friends have been without power since early Monday morning.

    Texas has more wind power capacity and natural gas production than many, if not most, nations. This cluster frack is inexcusable and an embarrassment to the Great State of Texas. We now know that President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were 100% correct when they asked FERC to ensure that our coal-fired and nuclear power plant fleets be kept in service”.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Let’s do an experiment. Put a standard ice-block on the bench, and time how long it takes to melt. Raise the temperature by 1 degree, and repeat. Multiply the time difference by umpteen trillion tons. Worry.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    To relieve your stress, book a holiday on Tuvalu.

  • Neville says:

    It’s wonderful to see a young Environmental scientist telling the truth about their so called climate crisis or emergency. And of course he just adds to the accuracy of the detailed Lomborg, Shellenberger, Pielke, Christy, Spencer etc research over the last few decades.

    Vijay Javaraj completed his degree and works at the University of East Anglia. Phil Jones and the HAD centre would not be pleased . Here’s a quote and the link and his judgement about the anti FF policies is very accurate.


    “So, there is no actual climate emergency. Instead, what we have celebrities, activists, un-elected political bodies like the UN, and even some climate scientists religiously promoting a popular doomsday belief.

    The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.

    Be a climate realist”.

    Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and resides in New Delhi, India.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova updates some of the latest problems for Texans and they certainly need more of HIPPO Gore’s glo-bull warming.
    Even fish tanks are freezing. But don’t worry, our silly donkeys will still insist we need more cooling.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Viv Forbes gets it:

    Waiting for Wind

    Australia’s elected appeasers
    Push mad energy plans, just as teasers.
    But while coal powers Asians
    And nukes help Caucasians
    Dumb Aussies sit praying for breezes!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some interesting scenes behind the energy wokery:

    “The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic [steady] increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases … Antarctic sea ice area has modestly expanded and warming has been nearly non-existent over much of the Antarctic ice sheet.”


    “The surface mass balance data for the Greenland Ice Sheet from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that over the past five years, the surface of Greenland has averaged a gain of about 400 billion tons per year, which is slightly above the 1981-2010 mean.”

    Plus a lot more:


  • Neville says:

    Dr Spencer has found UHI effect problems with some of the US temp data and he and Dr Christy intend to do something about it.
    Best of luck to them if they can make a difference, but I’m sure it won’t be easy.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Very true, Neville.

      UHI can be produced considerably by simply installing a single wind-proof panel of fencing. It doesn’t take much.

      When I tended livestock on large, unfenced properties and camped out for weeks at a time, every night, if I cut down a few branches and built a windbreak before unrolling my swag, the increase in warmth was very noticeable.

      It was common Aboriginal practice, too.

      Imagine the warming a huge structure would [and does]create, compared to surrounding bushland?

      Cities are often at least 6c warmer than surrounding natural areas.

      And this is where by far the most of the official thermometers are placed.

      How much did they say we had warmed since the industrial rev?

      Only 1c?

      CO2 must have a cooling effect.

      • Stu says:

        “ CO2 must have a cooling effect.”. I think you might be right out on a fragile limb with that unsubstantiated claim. Good luck resisting gravity with that. Given that atmospheric CO2 has increased by a third since industrialisation, how come we are not all freezing. Do you understand why the earth is habitable and not permanently minus 32 degrees C?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu thinks that global temperature is directly proportional to atmo CO2 whether hot or cold and also lets his wokery rule his reason as usual. Oh dear!

          But I also forgot to mention that most of the thermometers in the very cold and remote latitudes are conveniently placed either beside a black tarmac runway and/or in a locality that requires a vital central heating system, potentially providing a UHI effect far in excess of big cities.

          From the undeniable existence of these factors, having a UHI effect that is at least double any tiny true global warming is quite possible.

          If that were the case stu, please explain how you could argue that CO2 causes warming?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu is too dumb to recognise sarcasm?

          • Stu says:

            Oh I get it, all the measurements in the world are affected by UHI, and the scientists in charge of calibrating and measuring this stuff are all imbeciles (and in a global cabal) and you guys are correct. Got it.

            And while you are at it please respond to my question “ Do you understand why the earth is habitable and not permanently minus 32 degrees C?”. And don’t just say yes or no explain your answer in light of the rest of your scientific “opinions”.

          • Stu says:

            BJ, your “sarcasm” is so pathetic it is hard to recognise, if even real. Stick to your day job or you might starve.

          • spangled drongo says:

            They’re not imbeciles, stu, they’re just as woke as you are.

            But as any real scientist will tell you, as Neville shows above, to correct for UHIE you have to remove warming as populations increase but all they do these days is keep adjusting upward:


            And by the way, we all know about the greenhouse effect but the known unknown with additional CO2 is feedback from WV.

            That is why you are forever unable to provide your evidence [and will never admit it].

          • Boambee John says:


            “ Do you understand why the earth is habitable and not permanently minus 32 degrees C?”.

            You produce the “killer” evidence, experimentally or empirically measured, to prove that the Null Hypothesis is wrong, then I might consider answering your question. Or I might just wave my hands around, and spout feel good waffle, as you habitually do.

  • Stu says:

    SD, “ the known unknown with additional CO2 is feedback from WV.” Oh so you agree additional CO2 maybe causative. We are making progress here.

    • spangled drongo says:

      The only progress you make. stu, is with your ignorant assumptions that assume the assumptions of the leaders in weather wokery know what is unknown.

      And you also think that is science.

      It is neither.

    • spangled drongo says:

      But it is good to see that you finally admit that you are incapable of providing any evidence to support your CAGW argument.

  • Neville says:

    Australia has just produced another record grain crop and wheat ( 33.3 mil tonnes from ABARE) ) is up on the previous record crop in 2017.
    Of course today very few farmer numbers produce these record crops and most Aussies live urban lifestyles and near the coast, (over 80%).
    Ditto NZ, USA ,UK etc and all modern,developed OECD countries. But coastal living is more of an Aussie feature than USA for example.
    And today more professional contractors harvest the crop from Qld to Vic, SA etc.


  • Neville says:

    More from the GWPF on the true costs of Offshore wind farms. Here’s the conclusion and like all of the S&W idiocy this is a dirty, toxic disaster just waiting to happen and repeated every 20 years. And ZERO change to weather, climate or temp by 2100 or for 1,000 years. SEE Zickfeld study, The RS & NAS study, the LW Conversation etc.


    8. “Conclusions All major political parties endorse the idea that the UK can be almost entirely electrified: heating, transport and industry will allegedly be switched away from fossil fuels, and any sector that cannot be handled the same way is supposed to switch to hydrogen, itself produced using electricity. The country’s future is therefore being wagered on the basis that offshore windfarms are going to produce cheap electricity in the very near future. This paper has confirmed the conclusions reached by Aldersey-Williams et al. and by Hughes that there is no hard evidence that any change in the cost structure of the industry is under way. It has also shown that the views of offshore wind advocates on the potential for cost reductions are incompatible with what windfarm developers themselves have said. Regardless, the government appears determined to proceed with its ‘net zero‘ project. The prospects for consumers and the UK economy therefore appear extremely dim”.

  • Boambee John says:

    Texas prepared for gerbil worming by going long on ruinables, with gas back up. Much the same as is proposed for here.

    That went really well //sarc//

    If nations prepare for cold weather (reliable, continuous power, insulation), then they can manage heat. Going the other way is a recipe for disaster.

  • Neville says:

    The so called NZ dream of more renewables is starting to look like more of a nightmare.
    As linked to before the cost would be a staggering 5 trillion $ and not change climate or temp by 2100 or way beyond. But it would bankrupt the country and leave it with a toxic disaster forever and plenty of power failures as well.


  • Neville says:

    More from Jo Nova on the Texas ruinables disaster and this is what we’re heading for if we insist on wasting endless billions $ more on clueless, toxic S&W.


  • Stu says:

    It must be so disheartening for you guys, bleating away and nobody of importance taking heed. The US has rejoined the Paris Accord and most of the rest of the world is in step. The FF funded “think” tanks are there for you to quote ad infinitum but their mostly unrecognised or otherwise not esteemed contributors words seem to be falling on infertile ground. Some of your climate aligned political figures like Governor Abbott are just looking silly, blaming young second term politicians from New York for the disaster in Texas. Even Don Junior totally screwed that one up blaming the “democrat” governor.

    How do you cope and continue your crusade in the face of such odds? When do you seriously expect to see some return on your time invested?

    While this is an interesting place to argue back and forth I doubt the climate component is having any mainstream results for you. But I admire your tenacity and brazen continued obfuscating the science facts.

    But of course good old boy BJ will fire back with his null hypothesis strand. So have a look here.


    • Boambee John says:


      You should have read and thought about that NASA article before claiming that it is the killer fact. Note this quote:

      “The way science works is that I go out and study something, and maybe I collect data or write equations, or I run a big computer program,”

      Maybe he collects data, or writes a computer program! Yes, it comes back to computer modelling. Surprise!

      Note also the emphasis on future activities. Perish the thought that the desired result might be more important than the actual data gathered.

      Keep trying.

  • Neville says:

    Interesting story about frozen Thresher sharks that washed up on the beach near Cape Cod in Jan 2018.
    Read down and see that the water seems to have been unusually cold in that area at the time.


  • Neville says:

    A new study of SST off SE Greenland has found that it is colder today than 80 to 100 years ago. Look at their graph and you’ll note that the warmer period had started by 1920.
    I’ve linked to the earlier Vinther study that found that the warming for Greenland then was also at a higher rate than our more recent warming. And I’ve also linked recently to the study showing recent cooling for Iceland and this study below seems to point to the AO and AMO as part of the reason. Who knows?


    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, the warmists’ conclusion that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, a heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years, is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., their conclusion is wrong.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Did you check my NASA link above, stueyluv?

    Is your main point by any chance: “Publish results that can be “validated” by GCMs even if not by measurement”?

    Because as you just admitted above, you do not have any measurable evidence.

    And neither does NASA but they assume and adjust their way ever upward.

    And I can understand the brainwashed kiddies believing it but you should be able to cope with the real world.

    • Stu says:

      SD, as I wrote above “ It must be so disheartening for you guys, bleating away and nobody of importance taking heed.”

      What keeps you going with such a poor record of success, which is getting worse. I still prefer the information from a very wide range of scientific bodies and people over your dodgy list, many of which like GWPF, have titles as misleading as the Australian Vaccination Network (now fortunately barred from such abuse).

  • Boambee John says:

    Poor old Stu, still thinks that politics is the answer if there is no scientific evidence. Sad, low energy!

    • Stu says:

      I am not talking politics I am talking fact, no one important is following you down the path of denial, but you keep on, you might reach the end of the cul-de-sac one day. Politics is in fact what you are trying to do and is all you have got. Keep on bleating BJ if it makes you feel good, thinking you know more than people much more qualified than you. (And in case you are confused I do not claim to be in that category either)

      • spangled drongo says:

        “I am not talking politics I am talking fact”

        Sorry stu, but you are just fullavit! You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you, and it is. All the time.

        You and the rest of your alarmist lot have never been able to provide one single empirical fact to support your political propaganda.

        Put up or shut up!

  • Stu says:

    But if you want politics, here is piece on the Texas power situation. Not at all like the rubbish from Jo.

    “ We all know by now that Ted Cruz went on vacation while Texas froze.

    Over the last week, millions of Texans have suffered in the cold as workers tried to restore power amid freezing temperatures and icy conditions. So far, the official local death toll from the snow, ice and power outages stands at 24.

    Rather than stay behind and help coordinate aid and federal assistance, the state’s junior senator went to Cancún, if only for a day, before widespread outrage brought him back to the United States.

    Of course, Cruz is not the governor. He has no formal power in the state government of Texas. His is more a failure of optics and political leadership than governance per se.

    Greg Abbott, who actually is the governor of Texas, doesn’t have that excuse. As Texans froze, he went on Fox News to falsely blame renewable energy and the as-yet-unrealized Green New Deal for the crisis in Texas. “This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America,” he said. “Texas is blessed with multiple sources of energy, such as natural gas and oil and nuclear, as well as solar and wind. But … our wind and our solar got shut down, and they were collectively more than 10 percent of our power grid, and that thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power on a statewide basis.”

    Faced with one of the worst crises in the recent history of the state, Republicans have turned their attention away from conditions on the ground and toward the objects of their ideological ire. The issue isn’t energy policy; it is liberals and environmentalists, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a New York congresswoman who was a child when Texas built its first wind farms — and climate activists.

    Amid awful suffering and deteriorating conditions, Texas Republicans decided to fight a culture war. In doing so, they are emblematic of the national party, which has abandoned even the pretense of governance in favor of the celebration of endless grievance.

    It should be said that there’s no mystery about the collapse of the Texas electrical grid. A once-in-a-century cold front spiked demand beyond the capacity of the system as Texans turned up the heat in their homes and plugged in their space heaters. At the same time, much of the infrastructure for power in the state was disabled by the snow and ice. What do you get when you add a sudden surge of demand to an equally sudden loss of capacity? A crisis, whose roots lie in a decade’s worth of deregulation and cost-cutting, of an energy “independence” that has left the state at the mercy of the elements.

    This disaster, in other words, is the fruit of policy, of specific choices made by lawmakers in Texas. And it’s this fact that helps explain the response to the crisis of Abbott and the Texas Republican Party, which has governed the state as a laboratory for conservative ideas for much of the last 20 years. When you don’t want to face the consequences of your actions as a lawmaker — when you’d rather demonize scapegoats than give answers — you fight a culture war.

    But then, this is just what it means to be a Republican politician now. Accountability is out, distraction is in. You don’t deal with problems, you make them fodder for zero-sum partisan conflict. As president, Donald Trump refused to treat the coronavirus pandemic as a challenge to overcome with leadership and expertise. Instead, he made it another battle in the culture wars, from whether you wore a mask to whether you remained away from public places. He spent more time trying to racialize the virus for cheap points — calling it the “China virus” and the “kung flu” — than he did giving guidance to the American public.

    Yes, Trump is an easy target. But you’ll find the same dynamic at all levels of Republican politics. At no point during the Georgia Senate race, for example, did the Republican candidates, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, produce a platform to rival the detailed policy proposals of their Democratic opponents. Instead, they ran on fear, identity and fealty to Trump. “Are you ready to keep fighting for President Trump and show America that Georgia is a red state?” asked Loeffler at one campaign stop. “We are the firewall to stopping socialism, and we have to hold the line.”

    This turn away from even the appearance of traditional governance is most apparent among the newest members of the House Republican caucus. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, also of Georgia, is a glorified social media influencer, seemingly more concerned with making content for fans than bringing aid or assistance to her district. And shortly after taking office, Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina announced to his colleagues that he would be building his congressional staff “around comms rather than legislation.”

    In his Inaugural Address, President Biden urged “unity.” This wasn’t a call for bipartisanship. It was a plea to “lower the temperature” and to “see each other not as adversaries but as neighbors.” Politics, he said, “need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path” and “every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.”

    Biden’s appeal stands in stark contrast with the reigning ethos of the Republican Party as it exists today. Nothing, not even a deadly crisis, will turn Republicans away from a politics that rejects problem-solving in favor of grievance-mongering.

    Our system has room for two major political parties. One of them, however imperfectly, at least attempts to govern. The other has devoted its energy to entertainment. It is a tragedy for the people of Texas that at this moment of danger, they have to deal with a government of showmen.”

    NYT. Jamelle Bouie

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      “ We all know by now that Ted Cruz went on vacation while Texas froze”.
      Exactly what was he supposed to do? Wear sackcloth and ashes? For God’s sake, have some brains.

      • Stu says:

        You missed this bit “ His is more a failure of optics and political leadership than governance per se.”. A bit like Morrison jetting off to Hawaii during the fires. In politics it is a tricky line. In the case of Cruz, he is being called for going, for lying about it, and for proving that he is all right Jack with his $300/night rooms in Cancun while resisting further help for the masses back home. Have you seen that the billing system in much if Texas means many are now paying ridiculous amounts for the power, if they can get it.

        So yes, sack cloth and ashes may have suited him better. And he left the poor poodle in the cold (LOL – shades of Mitt Romney)

    • Boambee John says:


      I started to read that diatribe, then scanned to the end. Surprise, the NYT! That rag is so woke, it makes WaPo look right wing.

      Try again.

  • Boambee John says:


    It seems that China also has lots of perseverance!

    “A joint report released Wednesday by the U.S.-based Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and Helsinki-based Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) found China built over three times as much coal-fired electrical power capacity in 2020 as the rest of the world combined.”

    Compare with

    “It must be so disheartening for you guys, bleating away and nobody of importance taking heed. The US has rejoined the Paris Accord and most of the rest of the world is in step.”

    Well, except for the world’s biggest CO2 emitter.

    • Stu says:

      “ China built over three times as much coal-fired electrical power capacity in 2020 as the rest of the world combined.”
      And think about it. If they were not investing the huge amount in renewable power each year they would have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world. Also quite a bit of that “new” capacity is actually replacing old plant nearer large population centres to reduce pollution. Quite a bit of the new stuff is closer to sources of coal, hence the start of the wind back in imports. And yes their home grown coal is more dirty than ours.

      • Boambee John says:


        “And think about it. If they were not investing the huge amount in renewable power each year they would have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world.”

        So, if they were not going big on ruinables, they would only have built twice as much as the rest of the world, nor three times as much?

        Think about that statement.

        “Also quite a bit of that “new” capacity is actually replacing old plant nearer large population centres to reduce pollution”

        Does this mean you are comfortable with Australia building HELE plants near large population centres to replace old plant and reduce our CO2 emissions? Or is it only China that gets a free pass?

  • Stu says:

    Has it occurred to you geniuses that only Texas had a major problem? The icy wind did not just appear over Texas, it was Arctic air that swept down through Canada. There are plenty of states north of Texas, many of which have higher proportions of power coming from renewable sources and do not seem to have had catastrophic failure. Of course you are so quick to jump on the “it is because of wind power” wagon that you missed this not so subtle point. Expected.

    • Boambee John says:


      Quite obviously, you did not read my comment yesterday, copied here just for you.

      “Texas prepared for gerbil worming by going long on ruinables, with gas back up. Much the same as is proposed for here.

      That went really well //sarc//”

      The big mistake Texas made was to give credence to those “experts”, you know, the people from the “very wide range of scientific bodies” upon which you tell us we should rely.

      Do try to bring even a smidgen of independent thought into your comments.

      • Stu says:

        “ Texas prepared for gerbil worming by going long on ruinables, with gas back up. Much the same as is proposed for here”. Um, yes, just like Arizona, Utah, Nebraska et al. Why did they not fail to the same degree. Answer – preparedness. There are plenty of renewable supplies functioning throughout cold areas. The difference is the privatisation and deregulation of the Texas power system allowed the generators to ignore Federal regulations to “winterize” their systems. Of course in normal times Texas is a lot more hot than freezing cold so they have got away with it, until now. Like many things the problem arises due to the decisions made on an economic not engineering basis, i.e. maximise profits, ignore risk. Please don’t misuse this situation to promote your war on renewables. Just the language you continually use gives away your ideological position, stop pretending it is science based.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Um, yes, just like Arizona, Utah, Nebraska et al. Why did they not fail to the same degree. Answer – preparedness.”

          As usual stu hasn’t got a clue and gets his info from wokey sources.

          The fact was, Texas had a huge influx of moist air [humidity was 100%] and those states further north didn’t.

          Moist, freezing air causes the blades to ice up and they stop turning.

          So, the sequence of events was, wind turbines iced up from February 8 to 10 and their power output dropped 93%. Natural gas ramped up quickly to cover the shortfall, increasing an incredible 450% but then suffered from supply disruptions.

          Thanks to market-distorting policies that favor and subsidize wind and solar energy, Texas has added more than 20,000 megawatts (MW) of those intermittent resources since 2015 while barely adding any natural gas and retiring significant coal generation.

          And suffered the consequences.

          • Boambee John says:


            What SD said.

            We realise that you have a belief issue that you psychologically cannot challenge, but don’t try to inflict it on the world.

            PS, looking forward to your response on China.

          • Stu says:

            “ but then suffered from supply disruptions.” Major disruption way beyond the loss of wind power. And one of the four nuclear plants shut down.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Coal and nuclear are the only serious cold weather generators.

            But even gas kept providing power, unlike wind.

            Some equipment in some nuclear plants in Texas has not been designed for extreme cold weather because there was never a need for this.

            According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the shutdown of the nuclear reactor was caused by a disruption in a feedwater pump to the reactor, and that caused the plant to trip automatically and shut down early Monday. It represented about 1,280 megawatts of the 30,000 megawatts of outages.

            There was no underlying danger to the reactor itself, experts said, and the trip was part of normal safety operations protocol.

          • Stu says:

            SD “ But even gas kept providing power, unlike wind.”. Hmmmm, the figures quoted earlier by Nev show wind at 6% of the power generated (I understand it only ever gets to 10%) and gas was down by over a third. So your statement earns four Pinocchio’s .

  • spangled drongo says:

    Texas, like so much of the world these days, has encouraged the building of wind turbines through direct subsidies and by paying for wind generation, rather than paying for electricity purchased. This guarantee of revenue means generating companies do not have to consider market demand, they can build wind turbines endlessly with no risk. They can even pay others to take their power and then be reimbursed by the government with our tax dollars! Since 2006, federal and Texas subsidies to wind power, have totaled $80 billion, this foolishness is explained well on the stopthesethings website.

    “The wind power excess capacity has distorted the generation mix in Texas to a dangerous and unbalanced level. Natural gas, coal and nuclear generating companies have too little revenue to increase or fortify their plants, since wind can generate as much as it wants and is guaranteed revenue for the electricity it generates.”

    And the stu-pids keep telling us how cheap these unreliables are but following this fierce winter storm that knocked out power for millions of Texans, some residents are reporting colossal spikes in their electricity bills, with some asked to pay more than $17,000 for just a few weeks of service.

    • Boambee John says:


      “some residents are reporting colossal spikes in their electricity bills, with some asked to pay more than $17,000 for just a few weeks of service.”

      Those seem to be people who chose to use an app that allowed them to buy on the spot market, rather than have a fixed price contract.

      Not smart.

    • Stu says:

      And give us the figure for subsidy including tax write offs for the fossil fuel industry in Texas over that period. And is it not funny that renewables have a significant toehold in the most fossil fuel industry intensive state in the US, governed for the last 20 years by hard headed republicans. Just think about that.

      As for the $17000 billing, people should take note before signing up to suppliers offering wholesale rating. It can get a bit like playing the CFD game in financial markets – high risk, high reward, high cost, if it goes wrong. Anyhow the big bills were not to do with renewable cost, it was the market rate for all that fossil power. You said yourself the renewables failed so they had to be paying for fossil power, right?

      • spangled drongo says:

        The only “subsidies” for F/Fs are genuine tax deductions like all normal industries.

        Your unreliables, as with EVs, get so many exemptions, free passes and handouts that we will now all go broke as we go woke.

        • Stu says:

          Yeah, right. No totally wrong. But you keep on in your fact-less dream world.

          “ A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year, it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.
          Despite nations worldwide committing to a reduction in carbon emissions and implementing renewable energy through the Paris Agreement, the IMF’s findings expose how fossil fuels continue to receive huge amounts of taxpayer funding. The report explains that fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies and that they remain largely attached to domestic policy. Had nations reduced subsidies in a way to create efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015, the International Monetary Fund believes that it “would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.”. Forbes

          And from. EESI org. “ Historically, subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industry were designed to lower the cost of fossil fuel production and incentivize new domestic energy sources. Today, U.S. taxpayer dollars continue to fund many fossil fuel subsidies that are outdated, but remain embedded within the tax code. At a time when renewable energy technology is increasingly cost-competitive with fossil power generation, and a coordinated strategy must be developed to mitigate climate change, the broader utility of fossil fuel subsidies is being questioned.

          There are many kinds of costs associated with fossil fuel use in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution resulting from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. These negative externalities have adverse environmental, climate, and public health impacts, and are estimated to have totaled $5.3 trillion globally in 2015 alone.”

          • Boambee John says:


            And the negative externalities of ruinables?

          • Boambee John says:


            EESI, would that be the Environmental and Energy Study Institute?

            “Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting sustainable societies. Today, our mission is to advance science-based solutions for climate change, energy, and environmental challenges in order to achieve our vision of a sustainable, resilient, and equitable world.”

            An entirely technology neutral organisation, of course! //sarc//

          • Stu says:

            “ And the negative externalities of ruinables?”. Are you suggesting burning fossil fuels has no negative externalities. In fact they are huge, yes?

          • Boambee John says:


            “Are you suggesting burning fossil fuels has no negative externalities. In fact they are huge, yes?”

            All generation systems have some negative externalities, from burning animal dung up to nuclear power generation. The issue is the balance between those costs and the benefits gained.

            Are you suggesting that solar, wind and batteries have no negative externalities. In fact they are huge, yes? And the benefit provided does not include reliable, continuous, power.

            Contrary to the ruinables “experts”, on whose every word you seem to gaze in wonder, the current technical state of solar, wind and batteries is inadequate for their intended purpose. To that extent, all of their negative externalities are costs for no real benefit.

            PS, do you regard the EESI as an impartial arbiter on these issues, or do you accept that their output suffers from the same self-intetest as FF proponents?

  • Boambee John says:


    Nothing more about China yet? Avoiding the issue?

    • Stu says:

      China will likely get to net zero before we do. They are making huge leaps with renewables. FF are a transition thing in one of the fastest growing economies.

      • Boambee John says:


        You are deliberately avoiding responding to my earlier questions. I will repeat them here, so you don’t have to go back.

        “And think about it. If they were not investing the huge amount in renewable power each year they would have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world.”

        So, if they were not going big on ruinables, they would only have built twice as much as the rest of the world, nor three times as much?

        Think about that statement.

        “Also quite a bit of that “new” capacity is actually replacing old plant nearer large population centres to reduce pollution”

        Does this mean you are comfortable with Australia building HELE plants near large population centres to replace old plant and reduce our CO2 emissions? Or is it only China that gets a free pass?

        PS, if you believe that China is heading to net zero, you live in a fantasy dreamworld.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another more honest way of checking fossil fuel subsidies compared to renewables. Yes FF subsidies are higher but most of those are paid by govts other than OECD govts and of course compared to the energy produced the subsidies paid to renewables are about 25 times higher. IOW chalk and cheese and just more proof that dirty, toxic, unreliable S&W are a disaster for a modern economy.

    The enlarged blue graph tells us the true story.

    This article was written on NOV 2013 and I remember reading it at the time. The graph on the left tells the true story that FFs subs = $63.72 and renewables subs = $1,724 and that’s per billion BTUs of energy production.

    Nov 13, 2013,08:36am EST
    “Renewables Get 25 Times The Subsidy That Fossil Fuels Do”
    Tim Worstall



    “There are various ways that you can look at the various subsidies that go to different types of fuels and of course people will pick the one that best supports the case they want to make. For example, various green types would point to the fact that globally the subsidies to fossil fuels are far higher than those to renewables. I, desiring to make a rather different case, might point to the fact (yes, both are indeed facts) that renewables in the US receive 25 times the subsidy that fossil fuels do. That both are correct, both are straight facts, depends on the point that the details of what is being measured are different.

    Mark Perry makes the second point well with this chart:

    Per unit of energy produced renewables do indeed get 25 times the subsidy of fossil fuels. This is for the US alone of course.

    Elsewhere in the world it is indeed different, as Bjorn Lomborg points out:

    Global fossil-fuel subsidies do exceed those for renewables in raw dollars—$523 billion to $88 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. But the disparity is reversed when proportion is taken into account. Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that renewables still receive three times as much money per energy unit.

    But much more important, the critics ignore that these fossil-fuel subsidies are almost exclusive to non-Western countries. Twelve such nations account for 75% of the world’s fossil-fuel subsidies. Iran tops the list with $82 billion a year, followed by Saudi Arabia at $61 billion. Russia, India and China spend between $30 billion and $40 billion, and Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, U.A.E., Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria make up the rest.

    These subsidies have nothing to do with cozying up to oil companies or indulging global-warming skeptics. The spending is a way for governments to buy political stability: In Venezuela, gas sells at 5.8 cents a gallon, costing the government $22 billion a year, more than twice what is spent on health care.

    There’s another point that should be made here too. Those fossil fuel subsidies described above, they’re not subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them. Yes, certainly, there’s some leakage as the higher demand for fuels stimulated by the subsidies leads to higher prices for producers. But this is still conceptually different from the renewables subsidies which are expressly designed to go to the producers. Indeed, given the way that most of the green energy subsidies are constructed the producers are subsidised by directly over-charging the consumers.

    These are, as I say, very different types of subsidies. We’re not wandering around throwing money at Exxon and Shell but we are very much doing so for their counterparts in the renewables industry. And we’re not subsidising the consumption of renewables but certain foreign countries are for their citizens”.
    Tim Worstall

    I’m a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the… Read More

  • Neville says:

    So stu thinks that China will be at net zero before Australia?
    Just checked over at Wiki for all electricity production from S&W and interesting findings.Don’t forget this isn’t for TOTAL energy used but just electricity from S&W.

    China 3.9% from solar and 4% from wind.

    Australia 8.1% from solar and 8.5% from wind.

    USA 2.8% from solar and 7.29% from wind.

    • Stu says:

      Nev, are we going to play wiki v wiki. Here are some later figures than yours.

      “ Although China currently has the world’s largest installed capacity of hydro, solar and wind power, its energy needs are so large that in 2019, renewable sources provided 26% of its electricity generation — compared to 17% in the U.S.A. — with most of the remainder provided by coal power plants. In early 2020, renewable energy comprised about 40% of China’s total installed electric power capacity, and 26% of total power generation — with solar and wind combined having more capacity than hydropower. Nevertheless, the share of renewable sources in the energy mix had been gradually rising in recent years”

  • Boambee John says:


    One issue relating to the Texas problem is the advice from the climate science “experts”. More than 20 years ago, the infamous Climate Research Unit in East Anglia (home of the Climategate emails) firmly forecast that snowfalls would be a thing of the past. Does their failure in this respect give you any concern about their other predictions?

  • Stu says:

    “ advice from the climate science experts……. firmly forecast that snowfalls would be a thing of the past”. Where exactly? Smacks of being a typical internet misinformation stream.

    So, was that all the “experts”, one or two, maybe a dozen?

    The whole East Anglia thing has been debunked many times.

    You really should move on.

    • Boambee John says:


      It was a statement by David Viner of the CRU, published in The Independent, not one of the leaked emails. You really are not on top of this issue.

      Still, you are partially correct. The idea that the CRU has any credibility has indeed been debunked many times.

  • Boambee John says:


    Have you started working on the negative externalities of ruinables yet?

    Cobalt mining in Congo, rare earth processing in China? Then there is the extensive land clearing for wind farms and solar arrarys, and long transmission lines. Don’t forget the deaths of millions of birds and bats in wind farms. (St Bob Brown can help you there, but only in his own backyard.)

    Then there is removal of expired windmills and solar cells. Those multi hundred tonne concrete and steel foundations won’t just evaporate, while windmill blades and old solar cells are too expensive to recycle. (Perhaps add the cost of recycling them to the initial price, rather than subsidising them?)

    And then there are the dead batteries. Apart from being a major fire hazard, they might not be good for people who handle them.
    All that and so much more.

    We look forward to your report.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the 2020 BP stats on primary energy and this is for year ending 2019 and minus the BS from the usual con merchants.


    And their chart for changes in 2019, see page 6 TABLE 1. Please click the link and you’ll find that FFs generated 84.3% of global energy, S&W + bio fuels 5%, Hydro 6.4%, Nuclear 4.3%.

    Now the next thing we have to isolate is just the S&W energy and I hope to find this out soon. BUT we do know that to arrive at NET ZERO by 2050 would bankrupt every country on earth and is a mission impossible.

    And we also know that this dirty, toxic S&W disaster has to be repeated every 20 years and will wreck the environment and have no measurable impact on temp or climate beyond 2100 and for the next thousand years.

  • Neville says:

    Here at Our World in Data we find that in 2019 just 3% of the World’s primary energy was generated by S&W.
    And 7% of world electricity generation comes from S&W.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s the per capita wind generation for China 701 KWH and Australia 1918 KWH or OZ about 2.7 times higher than China.


    • Boambee John says:


      And how can Stu object to a per capita measurement. After all, he thinks it is the best measure for CO2 emissions!

    • Stu says:

      Yes indeed, if you want to play that game. China’s emissions per capita are much lower than ours. So them having a lower wind generation figure is no big deal. But multiply by population and they are clearly doing a huge job of implementing renewable energy. Back to you genius.

      • Boambee John says:

        And, just remember (according to Stu) if they hadn’t installed so much solar and wind, they would only “have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world.” Instead, with all that extra solar and wind, they built three times as much!

        See how ruinables increase the need for FF power in China!

        • Stu says:

          “ See how ruinables increase the need for FF power in China!”. Mate you have outdone yourself this time, brilliant deduction – not. Your flawed logic is astounding.

          • Boambee John says:


            I was going to post a detailed response to this, but it isn’t worth the trouble.

            I simply suggest that you re-read my comment at 0630 on 21 February and your response at 0759 that day. You seem to follow the school of thought that arithmetic is a tool of white privilege, to be ignored when it doesn’t suit your argument.

          • Stu says:

            Simple answer, poor expression. Clearly I meant that without the renewables they would have built even more coal power, ie more than three times. I should have said “twice as much as they have built”

          • Boambee John says:


            Minor correction.

            Simplistic answer, appalling expression.

            Truth is you stuffed it up, but are too much of a weasel to admit it. And it took multiple reminders from me to make you, after you stuffed it up a second time.

  • Neville says:

    Also see down at the OWI data page that in 2019 Australia generated 2.5% of primary energy from Solar and China 1.41%.
    From Wind Australia PE 2.71% and China PE 2.55 %. And Australia , China and Spain about the highest % of their PE from Solar in the world.


  • Neville says:

    Just a quick check of some countries’ GDP per year + pop + OZ net zero cost of 55 T $ by 2050.

    USA about 21 Trillion $. population 332 mil

    China 14.5 T $ pop 1400 mil

    Australia 1.5 T $ pop 25.5 mil. Net Zero cost = 55 T $ by 2050.

    Germany 3.8 T $ pop 84 mil

    Japan 4.9 T $ pop 126 mil

    UK 2.7 T $ pop 68 mil.


    • Stu says:

      Typical attempt at misdirection by poor comparisons. You neatly jump from annual figures for everything to suddenly a 28 year total figure for comparison to inflate it. In any event where did you pull the $55Trillion from, and even if valid which I doubt, where is the net benefit figure, after all renewables are much cheaper to run. Typical of the negative camp is to inflate the apparent costs, ignore the savings, refer to cost of “net zero” but somehow no reference to net cost of achieving net zero emissions.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Typical of the negative camp is to inflate the apparent costs”

        Typical of the alarmist camp to ignore the cost of back up for when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.

        How are you going with estimating the negative externalities of ruinables? Head still buried in the sand?

  • Boambee John says:

    From the US Department of Energy.
    Sunday 14 February at 2000 hrs
    Texas electricity in megawatt-hours:

    Natural gas. 43, 798
    Coal. 10,828
    Wind. 8,087
    Nuclear. 5,140

    Monday 15 February, during the height of the storm, at 2000 hrs

    Natural gas. 30,917
    Coal. 8,023
    Wind. 649
    Nuclear. 3,785

    Draw your own conclusions

    • Stu says:

      Yes, major problem with all sources. Total cock up by the designers and managers of the current grid system. And that includes the decision to not interconnect with either of the two main continental grids, to avoid federal rules, and thus depriving Texas of backup.

  • Neville says:

    My Dad told me to never argue with a fool and it’s incredible how often that seems to be very good advice.

    BTW I just threw around a few morsels above and of course D 2 as usual didn’t understand anything.
    I could’ve joined all the dots for him but chose not to and I’ll just repeat AGAIN that if NZ has to find/waste
    5 trillion $ to reach NET ZERO ( see NZ govt report + Lomborg’s expert maths/stats team agrees) then OZ would have to waste 55 T $ ( NZ 0.1% compared to OZ 1.1% of global co2 emissions) the USA ( 13.8%) 690 T $, China ( 29.5%) 1475 T $ etc.
    How many more times do I have to repeat myself before it sinks in????
    Dr Indur Goklany has just brought out his new report and it’s very good news and backs up Lomborg and Shellenberger’s latest books that there’s been a “False Alarm” and definitely “Apocalypse Never”. Please WAKE UP.


  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s the latest data on the top 25 economies on the planet and Australia is now at number 13.
    A few surprises as Nigeria and others have started to jump the queue.
    Certainly many thousands of trillions $ to be wasted for a ZERO RETURN if these countries actually followed the NET ZERO emissions garbage by 2050.
    China (and developing countries) must be laughing at the others stupidity and sensibly have claimed poor, developing country status for the next 40 years. See the full 25 countries profiles near the end of the article.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s Lomborg in 2019 explaining about Net zero co2 emissions and the cost to NZ of 5 T $.
    Don’t forget there wouldn’t be 1% of voters anywhere who actually understand any of this, but reality will bash them around the ears as their standard of living quickly drops and this will have to start long before 2050.
    Frances’ yellow vests are still waiting for Macron’s next move after he threw in the towel over the fuel pricing riots and those increases were chicken feed compared to net zero by 2050.
    Lomborg is correct that net zero is a guaranteed loser and in more ways than most people understand.


  • Stu says:

    Nev, you do rely on simplistic interpretations of often poor quality papers put out by people like Lomborg, who is not widely accepted as an expert.

    Here is some stuff from the NZ report more on song. “ The studies all support the conclusion that the overall impact of decarbonisation on the economy will be small relative to projected growth. However, different macroeconomic models disagree on whether the impact on GDP will be negative or positive. This disagreement centres on distinct model assumptions around market imperfections and whether the economy operates at full capacity.
    General equilibrium models, like the Commission’s C-PLAN model, assume that the economy is at an equilibrium usually without any unused resources. This means that, for instance, the additional investment required to decarbonise will necessarily reduce investment somewhere else in the economy. The European Commission’s general equilibrium modelling results are similar to ours, with the net zero emissions pathway reducing GDP by 0.6-1.3% relative to the baseline in 2050.”

    Quite different to the bland claim of a $5trillion “cost to NZ”. And keep in mind all economic activity counts as part of GDP

    “ Table 12.2 presents the results of economic modelling, using the Commission’s Climate Policy Analysis (C-PLAN) model. The modelling shows that Aotearoa can continue to grow its economy while taking actions to reduce emissions and achieve the country’s domestic emissions reduction targets for biogenic methane and all other greenhouse gases.
    Under current policy settings, GDP is projected to grow to $512 billion by 2050. This is likely to be an overestimate as this does not factor in the negative climate and trade impacts of not acting on climate change.
    By contrast, Aotearoa taking action in line with our proposed emissions budgets – i.e. TP3 and TP4 – would result in GDP growing to about $508 billion by 2050. This is approximately equivalent to GDP being less than 1% lower in 2050 or reaching the same level about 6-7 months later in 2050.6
    Looking out to 2035, our modelling suggests that reducing emissions to meet our proposed emissions budgets would cost Aotearoa no more than $190 million each year over emissions budget 1, $2.3 billion each year over emissions budget 2, and $4.3 billion each year over emissions budget 3. It is difficult to estimate the benefits of action with any accuracy as there is significant uncertainty in how the benefits will actually be realised”

    Just like with climate science the economics is complex and open to different assumptions and views (economics, like political science often contains much hot air).

    And as usual you and your fellow travellers keep misleading by referring to negligible reduction in temperature by 2050, when as stated over and over the goal of emerging policy is to limit the amount of “increase”. Do you have trouble grasping that concept?

    • Boambee John says:


      “Nev, you do rely on simplistic interpretations of often poor quality papers put out by people like Lomborg, who is not widely accepted as an expert.”

      “Not widely accepted as an expert”: Translation, says things with which Stu (self acknowledged as not an expert) doesn’t like to see.

      “Poor quality papers”: Translation “Stu doesn’t want to hear that”.

      Below pathetic. You accept that you do not understand the subject, but have an (adverse) opinion on everyone with whom you disagree.

  • Neville says:

    Stu your stu-pid idea that Lomborg is some random lightweight couldn’t be further from the truth.
    His group of 24 leading economists, science, maths and stats experts include about 3 REAL Nobel laureates and they advise govts around the world.
    Their advice almost always takes the precautionary approach and they only recommend any action when they are sure that there will be a guaranteed benefit at the end of the project.
    The idea that net zero will yield some return in the future is ridiculous and I’ve linked to studies that find that there will be no change for a thousand years EVEN if we were able to STOP all human co2 emissions today.
    You should read Dr Goklany’s latest report then add that to Dr Christy’s and Dr Humlum’s reports to the GWPF twelve months ago.
    These 3 scientists actually follow the data/ evidence and are very sceptical of the IPCC UN approach although at least 2 of them have been expert reviewers over the years.

    • Stu says:

      Nev Anyone and anything associated with GWPF is somewhat tainted.

      “ The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a UK-based think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change…… Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics said that “Some of those names [on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council] are straight from the Who’s Who of current climate change sceptics … To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US. It’s just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn’t been through scrutiny,”

      “ The similarly-named Global Warming Policy Forum (thegwpf.com) describes itself as “a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Global Warming Policy Foundation” and a “London-based think tank which conducts campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s remit as an educational charity.” Its Director is Dr Benny Peiser, the same as the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and its Chairman is Neil Record, who also chairs the BP-funded pro-free market Institute of Economic Affairs.

      The reason for the formation of the Global Warming Policy Forum as a seperate entity can be traced to a report by the UK Charity Commission (PDF) that looked into the Global Warming Policy Foundation when “Concerns were raised with the commission that the charity was promoting views that were of a political rather than an educational nature.”

      The Commision examined the GWPF’s website, blog, and publications, and came to the conclusion that the GWPF lacked its claimed neutrality, as it “promoted a particular position on global warming.” The Charity Commission also ruled that the GWPF did not constitute as an educational resource: “The [GWPF] website could not be regarded as a comprehensive and structured educational resource sufficient to demonstrate public benefit. In areas of controversy, education requires balance and neutrality with sufficient weight given to competing arguments. The promotion of a particular view or position would not equate to education.” (Emphasis added). “

      But you keep up your adulation. BTW Lomborg has no science training, least of all climate science, just saying!

      “ The GWPF has rejected FoI (Freedom of Information) requests on at least four different occasions. Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on climate Change and the Environment comments:

      “These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by…the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves…The GWPF was the most strident critic during the ‘Climategate’ row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders.”

      • Boambee John says:


        “Nev Anyone and anything associated with GWPF is somewhat tainted.”

        And is the EESI that you quoted on Sunday any less conflicted? The truth is that none of the pressure groups on either side is completely pure in its motives. Only mugs like you believe that some of them are.

        None of the groups on either side of the climate change debate can claim to have completely pure motives.

        I note the mention of the infamous University of East Anglia, hume of the CRU, source of the discredited “snowfalls will be a thing of the past” failed prediction, Climategate and so much more. LOL.

        • Stu says:

          “ snowfalls will be a thing of the past” failed prediction”

          One of the great poor quotes of the debate. I admit in line with some of Tim Flannery stuff here.

          So yes, there is bias here and there but I contend the field is much more polluted on the negative side. As the saying goes “follow the money”.

          And BTW, East Anglia was merely a focal point, and not driving the science.

          • Boambee John says:


            “So yes, there is bias here and there but I contend the field is much more polluted on the negative side. As the saying goes “follow the money”.”

            Nice of you to admit finally to bias on the alarmist side.

            “Follow the money”.

            There is money on both sides.

            “Researchers” on the alarmist side might not pull in billions, but they do quite well as individuals. Companies involved in ruinables also do very well on subsidies forced from FF companies. It would be fair to describe some ruinables companies as subsidy farms with a sideline in energy production.

            As I said earlier, neither side is pure of heart, so it is good to see you gradually moving towards a recognition of that reality.

            As for ” one of the great poor quotes of the debate”, I doubt that Viner slipped up. He was regurgitating what the models told him was going to happen. Unfortunately, except for the Russian one, the models, to use a scientific term, are crap.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Perhaps some of you global alarmists would like to explain why the small Pacific island nations are still begging for funds to ameliorate sea level rise, when they have been sitting securely above the waves for at least the last twenty years.

    • Boambee John says:


      Aaaannnnnyyy daaaayyyy nooww they will go under. Just ask any one of the many alarmists who have “researched” the matter, completed “studies” or written “reports”. They’ll tell you, once they complete writing their next grant application.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu’s paper at least admits it does not know if the tide gauges are telling it correctly or not but in fact those sites are actually sinking somewhat so the mean sea levels are, if anything, actually falling more.

    But certainly not rising.

    And as by far the majority of Pacific atolls are gaining area, the rest of the Pacific [which is the biggest ocean in the world] is not doing anything either.

    Moreton Bay and the Gold Coast, with shorter histories, are showing current king tide levels mostly considerably lower [but never higher] than 70 years ago.

    If people like stu ever made personal observations of the world around them on a continual basis they would know that global warming is basically a hoax and all that is happening is natural variability.

    When our continent has such a huge frontage to this huge ocean and there is no observable evidence of any mean sea level increase, we can relax.

    And refrain from wasting those multi-trillions.

    • Stu says:

      Are you claiming all sea level gauges show no rise or just FD? Please provide links to some papers. Oh, and once again, pinning your hopes on king tides “ current king tide levels mostly considerably lower [but never higher] than 70 years ago.” shows you still do not understand sea level, do you. FYI, it is not about king tides.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, how many time do I have to spell it out for you?

        If the highest annual tides [king tides] are observed at normal barometric pressure [or, if not, adjusted for that] and they occur during good, not windy, weather, they are the best indicator of sea levels to the average person.

        The greatest influence on SLs is possibly wind but there are many others but over long periods there is overwhelming evidence that the biggest piece of ocean in the world is doing nothing, SL wise.

        When the world’s tide gauges have all been “chipped” for at least 20 years we might have a better idea but until then, in a world where the lands are rising and falling, as Morner said, there is nothing happening, even in the world’s hot spots like the Maldives.

        • Stu says:

          Canute, next you will be saying we should use the lowest minimum temperature in the year to establish the temperature trend. I think your SL measure based on king tides does not cut it in hydrography. Try this one “ the level is better defined as mean sea level, the height of the sea surface averaged over all stages of the tide over a long period of time.”

          • spangled drongo says:

            Try this one, clever boy; mean sea level is certainly the best measure but unless you are looking at a full tide range marked out against a tide-stained cliff face and at the lowest possible tide, mean sea level is impossible to ascertain in a single observation. It requires long periods of tide data.

            Whereas HAT level can be seen at a glance and also rising king tide level has much more effect on humans than rising MSL.

            Your complete lack of real world observations, experience and knowledge is, as usual, only too obvious.

          • Stu says:

            Tell that to the experts Canute

          • Stu says:

            I am just heading out for a race on the water, no problem with the HAT today, carry on carrying on without me. Cheers

          • spangled drongo says:

            Good luck, and don’t forget to pay attention, stueyluv.

            If you are trying to win, that is.

            But then I doubt you would be doing any serious ocean racing. But some facts may help you.

            Here are some of Morner’s comments on the “accuracy” of satellite sea level measurements which shows, as we all well know today, they, as with so much of modern climate science, are just computer-generated, statistical stu-pidity:

            “Now back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean, as measured by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

            “Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something, but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original data which they suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor”.

            “So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences meeting in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!”

          • Boambee John says:


            “I am just heading out for a race on the water,”

            Recreational boating would have to be one of the most irresponsible activities that could be undertaken by someone who claims to be concerned about rising CO2 emissions and sea levels. What penance, sorry, indulgences, sorry again, offsets are you paying for to offset this selfish activity?

            Gaia weeps when a recreational vessel scars her oceans.

          • Stu says:

            SD, “…satellite sea level measurements which shows, as we all well know today, they, as with so much of modern climate science, are just computer-generated, statistical stu-pidity”. So, your beloved Roy Spencer Huntsville satellite temperature measurements (the earth is not warming) are bogus also, okay.

            BJ, “Gaia weeps when a recreational vessel scars her oceans.” Once again you demonstrate your great ability to jump to conclusions, wrong ones, in order to make some crazy point. Actually my sailing race involved fully two minutes of engine time the rest of the three hours was all using the wind. Oh, hang on, I forgot for a moment your animosity towards wind power.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu, Stu, Stu

            The use of the engine is not the only issue.

            There is your transport to and from the mooring area, the carbon (dioxide) budget for the construction and maintenance of the vessel, and for it’s future disposal.

            You must kearn to think more wholistically if you are to do your bit for Gaia.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, if you don’t know the difference between the temperature and sea level measuring processes of satellites then you should not be commenting.

            And a true-believer like you should at least be doing what I do; when you go sailing, whether it is in races or single-handed solo circs, you don’t use an engine at all.

            My current boat does not even posses one. My previous 37 footer I used to row if I couldn’t sail.

  • Neville says:

    What a joker our Stu is and he even believes sceptics are as well funded as the con merchants and alarmists.
    The 3 people that I’ve linked to all held recent talks at the GWPF and can hold their heads up because they’ve used proper data/evidence from PR sources.
    But all the dopey claims from so many alarmists are just wishful thinking or very inaccurate or just plain wrong. Here are some recent claims by NOAA that are ridiculous, to put it mildly.
    And so called dangerous SLR is just make believe and now more of the data from around the world supports this POV. And of course net zero by 2050 will never happen and would bankrupt every country making the attempt.


  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova reports on more of the alarmist’s unfounded exaggerations and wishful thinking.
    But alas the people don’t seem to be listening and little more observed reaction that the extremists are seeking.
    But just wait when the extra pain starts to bite and you’ll see more of the French yellow vest type reaction all around the world.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Doom is king! You can’t win with cli-sci.

    Now, all the existing and proposed solar farms could unleash unintended consequences on the environment, including global warming:


    • Stu says:

      I am surprised you find this article acceptable to your belief system which seems always ready to dismiss anything relying on modelling. “ we used an advanced Earth system model to closely examine how Saharan solar farms interact with the climate. Our model takes into account the complex feedbacks between the interacting spheres of the world’s climate – the atmosphere, the ocean and the land and its ecosystems.“. Perhaps you have reformed. Do tell.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu still doesn’t grasp the theory of sarcasm.

        If you like one set of models, then you are stuck with the conclusions of other models.

        Or you could get smart, and look at empirical reality? Nah, that would destroy your whole belief system.

        • Stu says:


          • Boambee John says:


            What makes you think that I agree with the models to which SD referred sarcastically? If it ain’t empirical, it ain’t science.

            PS, perhaps that bunch should have taken a few measurements rather than waste time with models?

      • spangled drongo says:

        You really are that obtuse, stu?

        You obviously don’t do sarcasm, eh?

  • Neville says:

    Meanwhile our idiot Climate Council is busily yapping about possible 50 c days in Melb and Syd by 2040. And their ABC has been promoting this garbage this morning and granting interviews etc.
    But this is a pack of lies and if Aussies closed down right now and didn’t emit a molecule of extra co2 until 2040 it wouldn’t make ZIP difference to climate temp or anything else.
    But this is the level of the CCs and ABC’s climate science/ stu-pidity and real scientists , Journos etc should be condemning this until these con merchants clean up their act.
    Just unbelievable that this goes on and on and nobody condemns these fools at all and on it goes month after month and year after year.
    I’m sure their sports stars truly believe these lies and unscientific junk, but other honest Aussies should tell the truth using proper data and evidence and at every opportunity.
    And China will keep building more coal generators until 2060 and ditto India, Africa, the rest of Asia etc for a very long time. So why don’t we ever call out the liars and BS artists?


  • Neville says:

    Biden and Kerry would have to be gold medal con merchants and hypocrites when compared to other fra-dsters lecturing us on so called CAGW.
    They lecture the world yet both have a monster personal co2 footprint like their mate Gore and a myriad other giant HIPPOS in the USA and around the globe.
    But they also have giant egos that equip them on their ignorant quest and interesting to see that China, India and Russia at least understand the real situation.
    But garrrwwwd help the rest of the donkeys who can’t think or add up simple sums or understand very basic data and evidence about the REAL WORLD over the last 100 years or 50 years or 30 years.


    • Stu says:

      Standard denialist tactic to try and bring the whole debate down to the level of personal responsibility in face of a global problem, typical. Particularly ridiculous when criticising the carbon footprint of a person with the role and responsibilities of the president of the USA. On the scale of relevance/importance to the world you probably outshine him many times over. It just makes your silliness more starkly apparent. Try some of the other worn out tropes, just for a change.

      • spangled drongo says:

        The penny refuses to drop for obtuse stu.

        He doesn’t seem to recall that the similar Dem Doomers like Gore and Obama also purchased the essential seafront mansion by that ever rising ocean?

        Is that also part of their “responsibility”?

        Or is it just possible that they really don’t believe in what they preach?

        • Stu says:

          “ Gore and Obama also purchased the essential seafront mansion by that ever rising ocean? Or is it just possible that they really don’t believe in what they preach?“.

          No mate, it is just that unlike you they are concerned about things beyond their own life horizon and their own self interest. What is your excuse?

          • spangled drongo says:

            So the world champion hypocrites now have their own stu-pid champion.

            Who happens to be so thick he thinks these people live a lie out of concern for others.

            Who happens to be so thick he thinks people like me who know, and can show, a little extra CO2 is a good thing in so many ways, need an excuse for exhaling.

            Who happens to be so thick he makes these statements based on a complete absence of any supporting, measurable evidence.

      • Boambee John says:

        Poor old Stu uses an old trope to defend hypocrisy.

        But, he also owns a big kids toy to sail around laps, and call it a race. He is just like those he defends.

        • Stu says:

          “ he also owns a big kids toy to sail around laps, and call it a race.” Ouch, and what do you do, play the pokies or just sit around bitching on the internet?

          • Boambee John says:


            A bit sensitive are you? Afraid that you might be held to having to “try and bring the whole debate down to the level of personal responsibility in face of a global problem”.

            It is interesting that you both enjoy a pastime that emits large scale CO2, and decry the concept of personal responsibility for an issue, climate change, which seems to be a personal obsession with you.

            Perhaps if you really are concerned, rather than just political point scoring, you might take some personal responsibility. What is that phrase? “Think global, act local”?

            Ditto for Gore, Obama and the rest.

            Those who wish to turn the lives of others upside down should lead by example. The rest of us might start to believe there is a crisis when those who tell us there is a crisis act as if they actually believe that there is a crisis, as the Instapundit says.

            PS, I walk with my wife, enjoy the company of our children and grandchildren, read a lot of books, enjoy the company of others, since you ask. You might try the same, and get a warm inner glow for saving the planet at the same time.

  • Stu says:

    “ A bit sensitive are you? Afraid that you might be held to having to “try and bring the whole debate down to the level of personal responsibility in face of a global problem”.

    Not at all I am accusing you of doing that with your ref to Gore and Biden, wake up and pay attention.

    “It is interesting that you both enjoy a pastime that emits large scale CO2, and decry the concept of personal responsibility for an issue, climate change, which seems to be a personal obsession with you.”

    See my previous point. And how do you derive a figure for the CO2 emissions of my particular pastime which you know nothing about?

    “Perhaps if you really are concerned, rather than just political point scoring, you might take some personal responsibility. What is that phrase? “Think global, act local”?
    Ditto for Gore, Obama and the rest.”

    See above comments. Are you a slow learner with poor cognitive ability?

    “Those who wish to turn the lives of others upside down should lead by example. The rest of us might start to believe there is a crisis when those who tell us there is a crisis act as if they actually believe that there is a crisis, as the Instapundit says.”

    Once again classic denialist rubbish “turn the lives of others upside down”, how exactly and on what time scale, oh please try harder you poor thing.

    “PS, I walk with my wife, enjoy the company of our children and grandchildren, read a lot of books, enjoy the company of others, since you ask. You might try the same, and get a warm inner glow for saving the planet at the same time.”

    So sorry I had no idea you were infirm and reduced to only reading and talking with family. But please don’t rubbish others still able to lead an active life, even at greater years than your yours. It almost smacks of envy. BTW, I also do the things you describe (don’t most people) but also have a wide range of physical pursuits to keep fit and engaged with society. Tapping on a keyboard to debate with a SOB is a mere fraction of my time, wasted though that effort is with people unable to even concede the benefits of the slightest risk management.

    • Boambee John says:

      Poor old Stu, didn’t even notice that I didn’t bring Gore and Biden into the conversation, I just picked up on his inane response.

      Forgot that he has previously mentioned his sailing boat, big enough to have an auxiliary engine. (But it does have solar cells – do you have an electric engine, with batteries charged by the cells?)

      Wants to save the world, but not if it involves personal sacrifice.

      Silly Stu thinks that switching to ruinables will have no effect on anyone’s lifestyle, head full of cotton wool where there should be brains.

      Thinks that people who read are infirm. Sorry, I didn’t tell you everything I do, only enough to tempt you into your usual sneering response. So pig ignorant he thinks he can tell someone’s age by their pastimes.

      Silly Stu touts risk management, as long as it doesn’t affect him personally. Responsibility is for lesser beings, not for the Stus of this world.

      Ignorant, stupid, irresponsible, selfish, and those are his good points.

      • Stu says:

        Give up. I admit you are an excellent exponent of the art of drawing false conclusions from little information and making silly statements. As for your age and activity I did say sorry and did make similar assumptions based on the information you provided. As for boats you are nowhere near the mark. The “auxiliary engine” is all of a few horsepower, and is used as backup for safety. The solar panels support a small fridge, VHF radio and LED lights both navigation and internal. Oh and she is more than 30 years old and all of 21 feet long. I am sure you will find all that disgusting and wasteful. How are your cars going?

        As for risk management there you go again, clearly I referred to collective action by society, which you have indicated is anathema.

        I give up it is like talking to a wall, a wailing wall.

        • Boambee John says:


          “As for your age and activity I did say sorry”

          Indeed you did, but not for the insult, only to be contemptuous and patronising. Give the false regrets up.

          “How are your cars going?”

          Only got one car.

          “As for risk management there you go again, clearly I referred to collective action by society, which you have indicated is anathema.”

          Still as thick as two short planks. I don’t necessarily see collective action as anathema, just collective action to solve a non problem. All pain and no gain is anathema.

          But you are the one who babbles on about climate change, demanding collective action, which you are markedly reluctant to join at the individual level. When told Australia can have no practical effect in the (non) problem at a global level, you fall back on examples of our contribution to the world wars, and urge that we should do our bit for the climate.

          But you reject any analogous suggestions that you should “do your bit” at an individual level by taking some personal responsibility.

          Practice what you preach, or shut up.

      • Stu says:

        And BTW, if you stopped using emotive terminology like “switching to ruinables” you might seem smarter and your message may be more acceptable. At least unlike some of your fellow travellers you don’t resort to insulting diminutive forms of name for participants here, thank you.

        • Boambee John says:

          “stopped using emotive terminology like “switching to ruinables”

          Says the regular user of the emotive terminology “denialist”. Physician, heal thyself.

          • Stu says:

            Hardly the same is it. You clearly deny the findings of the worlds top climate scientists. Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable yet you choose to demonise it all by calling it ruinables. One is a statement of fact, the other a wild unsupported opinion. So I won’t concede that to you. If we started calling you guys “destroyers” and fossil fuel burning assets as “evil machines” you might have a case

          • spangled drongo says:

            “You clearly deny the findings of the worlds top climate scientists.”

            Only because those “findings” are not supported by any evidence.

            Which makes those “findings” fakery.

            But you deny this.

            So what does that make you?

            BTW, did you check those sea levels when you went sailing?

          • Boambee John says:


            “Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable”

            Except when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine and the batteries are flat. Events which happen frequently.

            Do you deny that wind, solar and batteries, in their prrsent state of development, cannot provide the reliable, continuous, power necessary to maintain a modern civilisation, regardless of what the “worlds top climate scientists” might say? Or do you continue, Micawber like, to expect something to turn up?

            You remain irredeemably naive or stupid, you decide.

          • Boambee John says:


            So you concede that ruinables are inadequate in “their present state of development”, but claim that “Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable”

            Perhaps I am missing something, but something that is “inadequate” doesn’t seem to merit the description “cheap, cost effective and reliable”, particularly the description “reliable”.

            But you keep your head buried in the sand!

        • Stu says:

          “Do you deny that wind, solar and batteries, in their prrsent state of development, cannot provide the reliable, continuous, power necessary to maintain a modern civilisation”

          Of course not, that would be stupid. The key words are “in their current state” and that includes the current state of backup storage, hydro, pumped hydro, grid batteries etc.

          And for SD yes I did check the “tides” before sailing, so what?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “yes I did check the “tides” before sailing, so what?”

            That’s not what I asked, stu.

          • Boambee John says:


            My reply ended up.out of order, look above your comment for it.

          • Stu says:

            SD, your question was just silly, so I responded in the only sensible way. Your confusion regarding tides and sea level is on par with your misunderstandings about weather and climate.

          • Boambee John says:


            Almost as silly as you conceding that ruinables are inadequate in “their present state of development”, but claiming that “Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable”

            If tbeir present state of development is inadequate, they can’t be cost-effective and reliable.

          • Stu says:

            BJ please do try and keep up. We are not in a position to replace all fossil power TODAY, but we can move towards that point. No one is suggesting we do it overnight. This is typical of the negative sensationalism from your side. It is similar to the doom mongers (often denialists in disguise arguing there is no point doing anything) overlooking the actual position of needing to begin change now. It is a bit like smokers and lung cancer (strangely enough this links back to the people supporting the tobacco lobby), the sooner you stop the better your prospects of remaining healthy.

            And yes the only fossil power cheaper than grid scale renewable power now is that coming from legacy generators where the plant has long been written off financially. There is no sign of players keen to build new coal plants here except for our National Party friends (taking money from the big players) and of course the isolated Joel Fitzgibbon. If there is a need for medium term new fossil power it most likely come via gas, and lots of government subsidy.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Your confusion regarding tides and sea level is on par with your misunderstandings about weather and climate.”

            Stu, Australia is arguably the most tectonically stable continent in the world and our best tide gauge tells us that mean sea levels are LOWER today than the first measurement made over a century ago.

            When that data is supported by the increasing size of Pacific coral atolls it is telling us that sea levels for the largest piece of ocean in the world are not increasing.

            The person here that is clearly confused “regarding tides and sea level, weather and climate” is very obviously you.

          • Stu says:

            So Mr Drongo what has any of that got to do with me going sailing? The only relevant factors on any day are the weather and the state of the tide. If you can find me daily advice on the state of the SL on this part of the east coast that is relevant to the activity of sailing please show me where. And based on your clear pronouncement that SL is not rising why on earth would I want to check it before sailing anyway. And don’t try and cover your silly reply with claim of sarcasm.

            I look forward to the briefing for the next Sydney Hobart yacht race and the opportunity to ask about the state of the sea level. LOL. (That is sarcasm).

          • Boambee John says:


            I think you misunderstand the phrase “present state of development”. It does not relate to the scale of development, but to the technical capabilities of solar, wind and batteries. Still, you might learn in a couple of years when Liddell and another major plant in VIctoria close down.

            “If there is a need for medium term new fossil power it most likely come via gas, and lots of government subsidy.”

            So, pretty much like ruinables now?

  • Neville says:

    This is the first time I agree with Putin/Russians but it’s great to see them check the data/evidence on Kerry’s/Mann’s so called climate crisis and then use their veto in the UN Security council.
    The liars and con merchants won’t be pleased but they should never succeed when they only resort to fantasies about their fantasy planet like Kerry, Biden, Johnson, EU, USA and so many of the countries around the globe trying to latch on to all their fra-dulent nonsense in the belief it will lead to further $ down the track.

    So far China’s chosen the 2 bob each way bet but this will change as they absorb the big guy+ Hunter Biden scandal and whether it starts to emerge as a more serious problem ( for Biden) in the US over the coming months.

    And India also knows that their so called CAGW is just more BS and fra-d and is not a security threat. Just check the REAL WORLD data from Lomborg, Shellenberger, Goklany, Humlum, Christy, Spencer, Curry, Ridley etc. OH and anyone else who is interested in the data and not the mixed up fictional nonsense coming from the crazy religious fanatics.

    See the highlights below and the link.

    “Tuesday saw the highest profile discussion of climate change in the U.N.’s central body for promoting global peace. But Russia, which holds a veto as a permanent member of the Council, warned against any move to recognize warming as a threat to global security.

    Moscow’s stance left the Security Council’s U.K. presidency stabbing at a broken panic button.

    “It is absolutely clear that climate change is a threat to our collective security and the security of our nations,” said British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who presided over the meeting.

    Leaders from many of the Council’s 15 members spoke of the droughts, floods, deserts, storms and rising seas eating away at the foundations of peace. They conjured up a future of regional collapse and millions of climate refugees looking for safe harbor.

    Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne challenged the world to imagine if 2017’s Hurricane Irma had not only forced the near abandonment of Barbuda, but hit Antigua too.

    “What would have happened to the entire population of my country?” he said.

    In 2020, the U.S. under then President Donald Trump blocked a German effort to draft a sweeping Security Council resolution naming climate change as a threat to global security. Last week, the U.S. officially rejoined the Paris Agreement and on Monday, climate envoy John Kerry said “the climate crisis is indisputably a Security Council issue.”

    “The climate threat is so massive, so multifaceted,” said Kerry, “we bury our heads in the sand at our own peril.”

    But Russia’s representative to the U.N. Vasily Nebenzya said the Council should not take on the work of other U.N. agencies that specialize in climate, “where this is dealt with by professionals.”

    The Security Council has recognized climate change’s role in instability in the Central African Republic, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Somalia and throughout West Africa.

    But Nebenzya said the link between climate change and conflicts was specific to certain countries and there was “no justification” for making that connection globally.

    That “would even be dangerous,” he said, because “considering the climate the root cause of security issues is a distraction from the true root causes.”

    As an example, Nebenzya blamed the destabilization of Africa’s Sahel region on NATO’s “willful” regime change campaign in Libya in 2011.

    China, which has been Russia’s ally on this issue in past meetings, voiced narrower concerns. “Any role the Security Council plays on climate change needs to fall within the Council’s purview,” said climate envoy Xie Zhenhua.

    But Xie supported the core sentiment raised by Johnson, Kerry and others, leaving Russia isolated among the five permanent members of the Council. “Climate change has become a pressing and serious threat to the survival, development and security of humankind,” Xie said.

    More aggressive pushback came from India’s Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar. He said there was no “accepted methodology” to show climate change was a cause of conflicts”.

    Full story

  • Neville says:

    China has turned to the USA and coal imports have increased in the 4th quarter by 748% because of their dispute with Australia.
    We forget that the USA is a big producer and exporter of coal around the world and it’ll be interesting to see what happens over the next 4 years.
    Will the left wing con merchants and extremists bring further real change or will there just be tiny adjustments at the margins?


  • Neville says:

    Zoe Phin checks out our planet’s fast changing global greening, using DATA from NASA over the last 10 years.

    Not that the religious fanatics will readily accept the data and I’ve enjoyed talking about this fact to some silly youngsters a while ago and they seemed to behave like poor Greta at the UN and got very upset that co2 could be responsible for any useful purpose.
    But even a poor old bloke like me is entitled to get some fun out of life.


  • Neville says:

    Gotta love the so called predictions about the climate and human well-being etc over the last 50 years and amazing that they’re almost had a perfect zero score.
    From the first Earth day through to all the climate/weather disaster predictions and 4.1 mil more humans now live much wealthier and healthier lives all around the world and huge jump in life expectancy since 1970 and also for the 1 billion extra Africans over that very short period of time.
    This coverage from a leading University tells the truth about all their silly forecasts over the last half century. Yet Biden, Kerry and the DEMS etc still fall for this religious fanaticism hook line and sinker.


  • Neville says:

    Just a quick look at more of the world’s pop data. Today – 7.8 bn and UN projections to 2050- 9.8 bn and 2100- 11.2 bn.
    Today’s co2 levels of 414 ppm and an increase since Paris COP 21 of about 2.8 ppm per year.
    If by some miracle we could hold co2 level increases to just 2.8 ppm per year until 2050 co2 levels that would be about 498 ppm.
    And if by some monster miracle that 2.8 ppm per year held until 2100 that would still mean co2 levels would climb to about 638 ppm by the end of this century.
    If our pop was 9.8 bn by 2050 and 11.2 bn by 2100 the levels would be much higher than 498 ppm and 638 ppm ppm, unless we stopped all FF generation now and changed to Nuclear today.
    But with the crazy push for dirty, toxic, unreliable and dilute S&W we will have no chance and must face an extreme future lack of reliable energy and an environmental disaster over the entire planet.
    But as long as we have normal electoral cycles these crazy ideas should have a very short time to run and hopefully more sane people will be voted in, although we’ll have an incredible toxic/environmental mess to clean up for a long time into the future.
    Here’s the UN pop link.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu’s complete and determined ignorance of sea levels is like climate science’s complete and determined ignorance of corals and climate. Facts are of no assistance and they must suppress discussion and obscure any evidence that contradicts their tenuous claims:


  • spangled drongo says:

    And Susan Crockford actually dares to tell it like it is:

    “In the State of the Polar Bear Report 2020, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) on International Polar Bear Day, zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford explains that while the climate change narrative insists that polar bear populations are declining due to reduced sea ice, the scientific literature doesn’t support such a conclusion.”


Leave a Reply