As opposed to your house being on fire, but then deciding you can’t use water hoses (nuclear power) but instead have to rely on thimbles to get water from the next village…
As opposed to your house being on fire, but then deciding you can’t use water hoses (nuclear power) but instead have to rely on thimbles to get water from the next village…
Yeah fantastic. Like realising your house is on fire and deciding to have a BBQ and bring out the sausages and beer.
Andrew H
10 months ago
Excellent news. Reality bites.
polidori redux
10 months ago
“EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
Or reality, as it used to be called when the adults called the shots.
“EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
Or reality, as it used to be called when the adults called the shots.
AC Harper
10 months ago
Politicians are always going to be swayed by the immediate over the distant (i.e. several elections away). Which is probably just as well in this case as Glorious Futures with no plans of how to get there are just dreams (or nightmares).
Totally agree, and this is the big problem with facing up to the climate crisis – human society is entirely embedded into the use of fossil fuels and to separate it is going to take incredible upheaval. We won’t really wake up to this issue until it becomes a genuine catastrophe – I’d say by that time it will be too late, but it’s too late already. Unless there are technical innovations to reduce CO2.
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power. Carbon-free energy would be done and dusted by now. Instead we have low-performance renewals and have only decarbonised 25-30% of electricity production (let alone all energy), and are still waiting on grid-scale battery technologies to be developed to fill in the sun-free and wind-free days.
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power.
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power.
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power. Carbon-free energy would be done and dusted by now. Instead we have low-performance renewals and have only decarbonised 25-30% of electricity production (let alone all energy), and are still waiting on grid-scale battery technologies to be developed to fill in the sun-free and wind-free days.
Totally agree, and this is the big problem with facing up to the climate crisis – human society is entirely embedded into the use of fossil fuels and to separate it is going to take incredible upheaval. We won’t really wake up to this issue until it becomes a genuine catastrophe – I’d say by that time it will be too late, but it’s too late already. Unless there are technical innovations to reduce CO2.
AC Harper
10 months ago
Politicians are always going to be swayed by the immediate over the distant (i.e. several elections away). Which is probably just as well in this case as Glorious Futures with no plans of how to get there are just dreams (or nightmares).
Terry M
10 months ago
the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda
Let’s hope so.
Terry M
10 months ago
the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda
Let’s hope so.
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
The incoherent logic of climate alarmists:
Climate change is a threat to food production (even though global crop yields continue to increase), therefore we must eliminate 30% of agricultural output.
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
The incoherent logic of climate alarmists:
Climate change is a threat to food production (even though global crop yields continue to increase), therefore we must eliminate 30% of agricultural output.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
10 months ago
YES .. Thank God!!!
Nicky Samengo-Turner
10 months ago
YES .. Thank God!!!
laurence scaduto
10 months ago
I’ve been avidly watching for years for the first sign that the Alarmists are going to start walking-back their silly theories. (The science is almost worthless, and the spin is much worse. Where did they ever get the idea that the human race is about to go extinct?!?)
I was hoping for something funnier, more Pythonesque. But this will do nicely.
NOAA’s recent data release showed a significant cooling trend since 2015. Before that we had 20 years of temperature plateauing. The media ignore this and instead we hear breathless articles about it being the ‘hottest day ever’ somewhere. Even if temperatures do rise – so what? Europe was 1-4 degrees warmer from 1000-1300 and it was a period of great prosperity. The whole climate narrative is the biggest fraud in history.
There will be many, many studies of this in the future. The growth of the catastrophic narrative would be fascinating if the consequences were not so destructive.
There will be many, many studies of this in the future. The growth of the catastrophic narrative would be fascinating if the consequences were not so destructive.
NOAA’s recent data release showed a significant cooling trend since 2015. Before that we had 20 years of temperature plateauing. The media ignore this and instead we hear breathless articles about it being the ‘hottest day ever’ somewhere. Even if temperatures do rise – so what? Europe was 1-4 degrees warmer from 1000-1300 and it was a period of great prosperity. The whole climate narrative is the biggest fraud in history.
laurence scaduto
10 months ago
I’ve been avidly watching for years for the first sign that the Alarmists are going to start walking-back their silly theories. (The science is almost worthless, and the spin is much worse. Where did they ever get the idea that the human race is about to go extinct?!?)
I was hoping for something funnier, more Pythonesque. But this will do nicely.
Peter Johnson
10 months ago
Seimens took a big hit in its stock price because their giant windmills are not performing as planned. In fact the entire industry is having performance problems. Not that the technology made any sense to start with. Not exactly surprising when you think about the size and speed of those blades. Just one more nail in the coffin of ‘green energy.’ If you want net zero you need nuclear – lots of it. The fact that Big Green opposes nuclear demonstrates that they don’t believe the global warming narrative – it is all about something else. I new term I heard was to calling environmentalists’watermelons’ – green on the outside – red on the inside.
I think that “green/red” label was coined by James Dellingpole. I personally disagree with it because to me there’s nothing socialist about the green movement. Authoritarian and draconian, yes, but not remotely interested in the material needs of ordinary, working people. In fact, environmentalism in its current incarnation is a deeply conservative, anti-modern and profoundly elitist movement that actively seeks to make life more expensive and inconvenient for working people: see the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests,which are basically about trustfunded toffs stopping people getting to work. It’s fine for the insufferable Emma Thompson to fly back to London first class from LA for an Extinction Rebellion protest, the real problem is apparently those nasty oiks having stag dos and sunning themselves in Spain. So I don’t buy this at all, Mr Dellingpole.
No one seemed bothered by protests either, until JSO targeted posh events like Wimbledon. You can stop workers from getting home, but don’t dare interrupt the entertainment of your superiors.
No one seemed bothered by protests either, until JSO targeted posh events like Wimbledon. You can stop workers from getting home, but don’t dare interrupt the entertainment of your superiors.
I think that “green/red” label was coined by James Dellingpole. I personally disagree with it because to me there’s nothing socialist about the green movement. Authoritarian and draconian, yes, but not remotely interested in the material needs of ordinary, working people. In fact, environmentalism in its current incarnation is a deeply conservative, anti-modern and profoundly elitist movement that actively seeks to make life more expensive and inconvenient for working people: see the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests,which are basically about trustfunded toffs stopping people getting to work. It’s fine for the insufferable Emma Thompson to fly back to London first class from LA for an Extinction Rebellion protest, the real problem is apparently those nasty oiks having stag dos and sunning themselves in Spain. So I don’t buy this at all, Mr Dellingpole.
Peter Johnson
10 months ago
Seimens took a big hit in its stock price because their giant windmills are not performing as planned. In fact the entire industry is having performance problems. Not that the technology made any sense to start with. Not exactly surprising when you think about the size and speed of those blades. Just one more nail in the coffin of ‘green energy.’ If you want net zero you need nuclear – lots of it. The fact that Big Green opposes nuclear demonstrates that they don’t believe the global warming narrative – it is all about something else. I new term I heard was to calling environmentalists’watermelons’ – green on the outside – red on the inside.
John Riordan
10 months ago
“Towards the end of last month, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
That’s because, Frans, even in the EU, political action is very often the result of confronting reality. The truth is that the technologies to deliver Net Zero do not exist and until they do, the politics will simply act as an expensive way shouting into the void.
The real good news in this article is that – at long bloody last – policymakers seem to be accepting that the right answer all along was nuclear power. Not accepting this was always demented of course, but better late than never.
Excellent news. Reality bites.
Yeah fantastic. Like realising your house is on fire and deciding to have a BBQ and bring out the sausages and beer.
Do you think that cancelling the BBQ would change the weather?
As opposed to your house being on fire, but then deciding you can’t use water hoses (nuclear power) but instead have to rely on thimbles to get water from the next village…
Do you think that cancelling the BBQ would change the weather?
As opposed to your house being on fire, but then deciding you can’t use water hoses (nuclear power) but instead have to rely on thimbles to get water from the next village…
Yeah fantastic. Like realising your house is on fire and deciding to have a BBQ and bring out the sausages and beer.
Excellent news. Reality bites.
“EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
Or reality, as it used to be called when the adults called the shots.
This
This
“EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
Or reality, as it used to be called when the adults called the shots.
Politicians are always going to be swayed by the immediate over the distant (i.e. several elections away). Which is probably just as well in this case as Glorious Futures with no plans of how to get there are just dreams (or nightmares).
Totally agree, and this is the big problem with facing up to the climate crisis – human society is entirely embedded into the use of fossil fuels and to separate it is going to take incredible upheaval. We won’t really wake up to this issue until it becomes a genuine catastrophe – I’d say by that time it will be too late, but it’s too late already. Unless there are technical innovations to reduce CO2.
human chatboti
I’m not normally a spelling fascist but that raised a smile.
I’m not normally a spelling fascist but that raised a smile.
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power. Carbon-free energy would be done and dusted by now. Instead we have low-performance renewals and have only decarbonised 25-30% of electricity production (let alone all energy), and are still waiting on grid-scale battery technologies to be developed to fill in the sun-free and wind-free days.
Totally agree.
Totally agree.
human chatboti
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power. Carbon-free energy would be done and dusted by now. Instead we have low-performance renewals and have only decarbonised 25-30% of electricity production (let alone all energy), and are still waiting on grid-scale battery technologies to be developed to fill in the sun-free and wind-free days.
Totally agree, and this is the big problem with facing up to the climate crisis – human society is entirely embedded into the use of fossil fuels and to separate it is going to take incredible upheaval. We won’t really wake up to this issue until it becomes a genuine catastrophe – I’d say by that time it will be too late, but it’s too late already. Unless there are technical innovations to reduce CO2.
Politicians are always going to be swayed by the immediate over the distant (i.e. several elections away). Which is probably just as well in this case as Glorious Futures with no plans of how to get there are just dreams (or nightmares).
the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda
Let’s hope so.
the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda
Let’s hope so.
The incoherent logic of climate alarmists:
Climate change is a threat to food production (even though global crop yields continue to increase), therefore we must eliminate 30% of agricultural output.
The incoherent logic of climate alarmists:
Climate change is a threat to food production (even though global crop yields continue to increase), therefore we must eliminate 30% of agricultural output.
YES .. Thank God!!!
YES .. Thank God!!!
I’ve been avidly watching for years for the first sign that the Alarmists are going to start walking-back their silly theories. (The science is almost worthless, and the spin is much worse. Where did they ever get the idea that the human race is about to go extinct?!?)
I was hoping for something funnier, more Pythonesque. But this will do nicely.
NOAA’s recent data release showed a significant cooling trend since 2015. Before that we had 20 years of temperature plateauing. The media ignore this and instead we hear breathless articles about it being the ‘hottest day ever’ somewhere. Even if temperatures do rise – so what? Europe was 1-4 degrees warmer from 1000-1300 and it was a period of great prosperity. The whole climate narrative is the biggest fraud in history.
There will be many, many studies of this in the future. The growth of the catastrophic narrative would be fascinating if the consequences were not so destructive.
There will be many, many studies of this in the future. The growth of the catastrophic narrative would be fascinating if the consequences were not so destructive.
NOAA’s recent data release showed a significant cooling trend since 2015. Before that we had 20 years of temperature plateauing. The media ignore this and instead we hear breathless articles about it being the ‘hottest day ever’ somewhere. Even if temperatures do rise – so what? Europe was 1-4 degrees warmer from 1000-1300 and it was a period of great prosperity. The whole climate narrative is the biggest fraud in history.
I’ve been avidly watching for years for the first sign that the Alarmists are going to start walking-back their silly theories. (The science is almost worthless, and the spin is much worse. Where did they ever get the idea that the human race is about to go extinct?!?)
I was hoping for something funnier, more Pythonesque. But this will do nicely.
Seimens took a big hit in its stock price because their giant windmills are not performing as planned. In fact the entire industry is having performance problems. Not that the technology made any sense to start with. Not exactly surprising when you think about the size and speed of those blades. Just one more nail in the coffin of ‘green energy.’ If you want net zero you need nuclear – lots of it. The fact that Big Green opposes nuclear demonstrates that they don’t believe the global warming narrative – it is all about something else. I new term I heard was to calling environmentalists’watermelons’ – green on the outside – red on the inside.
Whilst I agree with you, you are a bit behind the times with the “water melon” label. That has been around for years.
I think that “green/red” label was coined by James Dellingpole. I personally disagree with it because to me there’s nothing socialist about the green movement. Authoritarian and draconian, yes, but not remotely interested in the material needs of ordinary, working people. In fact, environmentalism in its current incarnation is a deeply conservative, anti-modern and profoundly elitist movement that actively seeks to make life more expensive and inconvenient for working people: see the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests,which are basically about trustfunded toffs stopping people getting to work. It’s fine for the insufferable Emma Thompson to fly back to London first class from LA for an Extinction Rebellion protest, the real problem is apparently those nasty oiks having stag dos and sunning themselves in Spain. So I don’t buy this at all, Mr Dellingpole.
No one seemed bothered by protests either, until JSO targeted posh events like Wimbledon. You can stop workers from getting home, but don’t dare interrupt the entertainment of your superiors.
No one seemed bothered by protests either, until JSO targeted posh events like Wimbledon. You can stop workers from getting home, but don’t dare interrupt the entertainment of your superiors.
Whilst I agree with you, you are a bit behind the times with the “water melon” label. That has been around for years.
I think that “green/red” label was coined by James Dellingpole. I personally disagree with it because to me there’s nothing socialist about the green movement. Authoritarian and draconian, yes, but not remotely interested in the material needs of ordinary, working people. In fact, environmentalism in its current incarnation is a deeply conservative, anti-modern and profoundly elitist movement that actively seeks to make life more expensive and inconvenient for working people: see the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests,which are basically about trustfunded toffs stopping people getting to work. It’s fine for the insufferable Emma Thompson to fly back to London first class from LA for an Extinction Rebellion protest, the real problem is apparently those nasty oiks having stag dos and sunning themselves in Spain. So I don’t buy this at all, Mr Dellingpole.
Seimens took a big hit in its stock price because their giant windmills are not performing as planned. In fact the entire industry is having performance problems. Not that the technology made any sense to start with. Not exactly surprising when you think about the size and speed of those blades. Just one more nail in the coffin of ‘green energy.’ If you want net zero you need nuclear – lots of it. The fact that Big Green opposes nuclear demonstrates that they don’t believe the global warming narrative – it is all about something else. I new term I heard was to calling environmentalists’watermelons’ – green on the outside – red on the inside.
“Towards the end of last month, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
That’s because, Frans, even in the EU, political action is very often the result of confronting reality. The truth is that the technologies to deliver Net Zero do not exist and until they do, the politics will simply act as an expensive way shouting into the void.
The real good news in this article is that – at long bloody last – policymakers seem to be accepting that the right answer all along was nuclear power. Not accepting this was always demented of course, but better late than never.