A Low Cost Solution To The Climate Crisis

President Obama is spending $29 billion per year to buy the version of climate science he wants.

A simple solution would be for Congress to spend $50 billion on global cooling research. Scientists could then write papers saying that cold and snow is caused by cold, rather than by heat.

APTOPIX Winter Weather Aftermath

They could also say that the lack of warming is caused by a lack of warming, rather than missing heat.

ScreenHunter_1697 Apr. 28 09.16

NASA could then report the actual temperatures, rather than the fake ones mandated by the White House.

This would save the world trillions of dollars, plus the added benefit that children might then grow up to believe that scientists aren’t all criminals or idiots.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to A Low Cost Solution To The Climate Crisis

  1. daveandrews723 says:

    For the non-scientists among us, what does 0 represent on the graph? Is that an average temperature for a past period of time? It seems like the average departure from 1996 to the present is +0.24 degrees. What is it a departure from?

  2. gator69 says:

    $50 billion? I would be happy to make that happen for half that amount, and 10% of what I save the taxpayers. 😉

  3. Mohatdebos says:

    Get with it! The U.S. Economy stalled in the first quarter because of bitter cold in the warmest year ever. Get with the common core new math — down is up, up is down. (Sarc off.)

  4. Children will not know what science is

  5. John Greenfraud says:

    The Ministry of Truth has judged your comment to be in violation of consensus opinion. You are fined 10 credits by the truth arbitrator. Please note that repeat violations may result in additional fines and/or account suspension.

  6. tabnumlock says:

    Scientists have always been liars and scumbags, just like everyone else but worse.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      Not always, there are just a reflection of our out of whack society, God forbid we have a women running for President that in a just society she would be behind bars.

    • Shazaam says:

      Actually I would rephrase that slightly. To: Most government funded scientists are and have always been liars and scumbags, just like everyone else but worse.”

      And were I to wordsmith it completely, it would read thus:“Tax-Parasites are and have always been liars, cheats and scumbags.” This more properly includes politicians and bureaucrats in the collection of liars, cheats and scumbags.

      How’s that?

  7. Menicholas says:

    Mr. Heller,
    All of these ideas make so much dang sense that they seem certain to be completely ignored by the climate establishment and the Democratic regime now in power.
    They are immune to logic, blinded by and to their own idiocy, and completely committed to the path they have chosen.
    Your website helped bring me in from the cold, after several years of being just too sick about the whole thing to even bother arguing much with the dolts who inhabit the comment section of the newspaper and periodical websites.
    The battle will be won in the hearts and minds of those children you speak of, of that I am certain.
    It is not hard to convince young men and women that the older generation are a pack of fools even when they are not.
    How many of the adults can we reach in the meantime?
    I suspect a lot.
    Maybe enough, and maybe in time, to swing every election from now until Hell, or the Drake Passage, freezes over.

  8. Chris Barron says:

    To add perspective, $29 billion is still less than the loss of productivity by workers which chose to watch the OJ Simpson trial

    Quote “The media outlets served an enthusiastic audience; one company put the loss of national productivity from employees following the case instead of working at $40 billion”

    • gator69 says:

      The source of the “$40 billion” claim, and it wasn’t a company, it was one poorly written book…

      The O.J. Simpson Trials: Rhetoric, Media, and the Law

      Amazon shows only 1 review, and 0 stars out of 5…

      User reviews

      User Review
      My name is Natalie Singer. I was a witness in this trial. In this book I am referred to as “Valerie” Singer. If they couldn’t get something as simple as a witness’ name correct I would be very concerned about how many other facts they got wrong as well.


      To add perspective, that was only one year, not three decades. To add perspective, the $29 billion does not include lost productivity of workers who blather on about fake cises. To add perspective, the $29 billion, does not include non-governmental spending. To add perspective…

      The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.
      A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each year.


      • Chris Barron says:

        Almost $1 trillion in hidden health costs for using fossil fuels
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2013/04/08/how-much-do-health-impacts-from-fossil-fuel-electricity-cost-the-u-s-economy/s‘ but

        I don’t intend playing ‘swap the biggest number’ all night….but as both our sources use estimates and show no form of accounting we would be daft to compete, life is too short ….but it’s curious to note you quoting the CEI….who on their site host the following message
        “Global warming is happening and man is responsible for at least some of it”

        ….Are they correct or are they wrong Gator ?

      • gator69 says:

        ….Are they correct or are they wrong Gator ?

        Been hitting the bottle again? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          So, clearly then….you think their assertion is bollocks too.
          If they’re going to start telling me that manmade global warming is a real effect which is observable today then I’m going to doubt they know much about anything.

        • gator69 says:

          How many, killer? You never did answer.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Solving the problem of fuel poverty by removing wind subsidies is impossible.
          We both know that

          Removing wind subsidies will only save the lives of the unkown number of deaths caused by the existence of the subsidy but yet all the other fuel poverty deaths will still occur.

          In the long run it is better to eliminate a larger number of fuel poverty deaths by more robust measures, such as making provisions to supply them with free insulation (already takes place in the UK) and give people who are at risk increased benefits.

          Why would it be beneficial to help a small unknown number of members of a group when it would be far more noble to help every single person in that situation ? Or do you just want to pick who dies and who lives ?

          Back to the CEI…..whom you go to for quotes and who says global warming is taking place and your own CO2 emmissions are causing it – do you think they are honest ?

        • gator69 says:

          I did not use CEI for their stance on global warming, that is a straw man argument, strawman.

          How many, strawman?

        • Chris Barron says:

          No you didn’t , you used CEI because they said something you wanted to hear.

        • gator69 says:

          Wrong again strawman! Can you figure out why I actually used them? Or are you not intelligent enough to figure it out?

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          You obviously used them because they made a statement which you agreed with……I guess you’re not a fool and did check out how they came to those figures didn’t you ?

          You did do that, didn’t you ? ….. They don’t say how they arrived at their figures, so you can help us with that now…..

          You do know where their figures came from, don’t you ?

        • gator69 says:

          First of all, I started this discussion over UK deaths, since that is your homeland, and your endorsement directly effects only the UK. You keep throwing up worldwide figures on coal, which is a false argument, as anyone knows the Chinese coal industry work force is practically a slave colony, with little protection.

          Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.
          Yet the latest Office of National Statistics figures show that there were 25,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in winter 2010.
          Meanwhile the latest WHO research suggests that 30 to 40 per cent of the excess winter deaths can be attributed to fuel poverty.


          So there is the raw number from 2010 or before. That answers your question, but let’s figure out how many wind kills.

          This chart shows fuel poverty households doubling from 2004 to 2009.

          One of the major factors behind increasing fuel poverty in the UK is government policies instituted to meet carbon stabilization targets, the most aggressive in the world.

          The average annual bill for a customer using electricity and natural gas is about 6 percent of median household income now, up from 3.3 percent in 2004. Since 2004, the cost of energy in the UK increased by 117 percent–more than six times faster than UK household income (which only increased by 18 percent since 2004). If these trends continue, energy’s share of median household income in the UK will reach 7.4 percent by 2013, 8.2 percent in 2014, and 10 percent in 2015.

          And with these cost increases, the death toll keeps rising. So a doubling from 2004 to 2009, and 7800 deaths in 2010, means that a conservative estimate puts government mandated renewables at about 3500+ per year, 5 years ago. And again, the figures are rising.

          This chart breaks down renewables by type, and wind is 67% of the problem.


          When it comes to wind and solar power, onshore wind power is the most effective form of renewable energy in terms of capital cost. It only costs approximately 9 times as much as conventional power generation. On average across Europe, the capacity utilization is about 23%.

          Offshore wind power is about 17 times more expensive to install, but its increased capacity factors mean that it should be significantly more productive than onshore installations. Nonetheless, in addition to the significant additional capital costs, offshore wind power appears to have major problems with costlier long term maintenance and questionable reliability.


          So with wind being overall the most expensive of renewables, 67% of 3500 is 2345 involuntary and innocent humans sacrificed in 2010, and again, he numbers keep rising. But just to be fair, let’s call it 2000 per year killer.

          The killer claims, without citation: You posted a figure for injury related industrial deaths. Black lung disease is not an injury related death statistic according to official figures….the very reason it is kept out of official figures is to hide the terrible toll death toll of coal mining disease. A work related disease is not thought of as an industrial injury

          That’s not what the law says, so you will need to prove that…

          Illnesses created by the work environment, like medical conditions caused by exposure to chemicals, are also compensable. In general, any injury or illness that requires the worker to see a doctor or that results in disability or death qualifies for workers’ compensation benefits. A doctor must be able to verify that there is objective medical evidence showing that an injury or disease exists and that work exposure was the major cause.


          The killer spews: Your assertion that miners give their lives voluntarily suggests you don’t know much about miners. They know there is a risk, they assume the risk factors and aspects are monitored and managed by the mine managers.

          I don’t think these 2000 people want to lose their jobs, as it is not a strike over work conditions that is threatening to close the mines. Obviously these 2000 people want to work at the mine.

          Two of Britain’s three remaining deep pit coal mines face closure in the next 18 months with the loss of more than 1,300 jobs under plans announced by the country’s largest coal producer.
          UK Coal is consulting on plans to shut Kellingley in Yorkshire, which employs 700 people, and Thoresby in Nottinghamshire, which employs 600.
          It will leave employee-owned Hatfield colliery in South Yorkshire as Britain’s last remaining deep pit mine.
          Jobs are also likely to go at UK Coal’s head office in Doncaster, South Yorkshire.
          It will mean the majority of the 2,000 people employed by UK Coal – which also operates six surface sites – facing a bleak future, just nine months after it was rescued from administration.


          The killer spews: There is no voice screaming more loudly about the need for reform in the mining industry than the miners themselves and to my knowledge there has never been a miner who said they would rather die of pneumoconiosis than not go down the mine to dig for coal. Ergo there is nothing voluntary about their death…Their choice is a bleak one….die of CWP or fail to support your family.

          People who have a conscience volunteer for dangerous work all the time, because they are willing to sacrifice for others, even those they do not know. My family has always volunteered for military service, knowing full well they could be sent to war. My father, brother and nephew have all been deployed into war zones, and my father died as a result of his wartime service.

          You are being purposely obtuse killer. Voluntary vs involuntary.

          Of course if workers see a way that additional safety measures are feasible, they will call for them. Amazing how you worked that logic out all on your own! 😆

          Britain’s most dangerous jobs

          Rubbish collector
          Estate agent


          By your logic the UK should stop all construction and garbage collection. Lovely! 😆

          You have presented false arguments all the way down (with no citations), because you know you cannot defend the deaths of innocents who have not volunteered for sacrifice. When your government mandates wind energy, they are killing over 2000 involuntary and innocent humans per year, and that is an underestimation. It is also an abomination, and you support it.

          Now that we have a very reasoned, reasonable, and conservative figure we need your answer.

          How many killer?

        • Chris Barron says:

          You really have to be in politics….you would be a hoot,

          First of all, when I talk about wind in the UK, i am told that wind is a worldwide issue…..when I relate coal issues in a worldwide context I am told ‘ just use the UK figures’

          There’s cutting your cloth to suit your argument, and then there’s having such a poor argument that you have to cut your cloth over and over……whats it to be really ? Is energy a world wide issue or not ? If it’s merely local then I can say all I want about the UK energy mix and the prospect for renewables and shouldn’t worry about your locale ? OK fine…

          And the sad thing is that I believe many fools would believe that the way you construct your figures is accurate. You have attributed a figure of 200 deaths due to fuel poverty exacerbated by wind subsiides ….based on nothing more than this
          “And with these cost increases, the death toll keeps rising. So a doubling from 2004 to 2009, and 7800 deaths in 2010, means that a conservative estimate puts government mandated renewables at about 3500+ per year,”

          You have claimed to have done the impossible….you have claimed to prove that the green subsidy, which amounts to 8% of our bills is precisely the same depth of financial poverty that everyone who died in fuel poverty experienced.

          how many of those 2000 contestable deaths would have been saved if there was no fuel poverty ? Your argument is that all of them were as a result of everyone being in financial poverty to the tune of 8% of their energy bills……does it not occur to you at all that anyone who was more than 8% in deficit would die regardless of the relief of subsidy which you propose ?. Yet again you only want to save as few people as possible and fuck the rest because they’re too expensive….do you expect to get a Nobel award because ‘saving some’ (of a contestable number) is better because it’s easier or cheaper to do. ? Wow, thats harsh.

          How many of the 2000 will definitely not die if their energy bill does not contain 8% green subsidy ? Of those, how many have not taken advantage of free insulation offers. Of those remaining, how many choose to spend some of their money on activities which are likely to be considered extravagant by others (smoking and drinking) ….and of the remaining group how many were elderly and frail and impossible to save ?….and then, of those remaining how many were not claiming their winter fuel allowance of between £100-£300 https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment

          And of those remaining, when their free winter fuel allowance didn’t negate the green subsidy effect, didn’t help them to heat their home, and they refused to go into care homes……how many are left ?

        • gator69 says:

          Running away from the deaths caused by programs you support again? All the hand waving in the world will not change the fact that what you promote kills innocent people who did not volunteer for immolation.

          BTW – The rounded down and conservative figure was 2000 per year, and not 200.

          How many Killer?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Never has maths been called hand waving with such bravado !

          You claim 2000 per year will die as a result of renewable subsidies (or do you wish to change the number again having abandoned your previous 31,000 number ?)

          You just posted a graph which shows the doubling of energy cost in 10 years

          The director of Ofgen states that the average household pays 8% of their energy bill towards renewable support)

          How is it the case that when the price of domestic energy has doubled in 10 years, and the rise in income is so low during the same period, that you can attribute ALL of the deaths to a mere 8% of a much larger difference ? Go ahead and explain, I doubt that you can.

          In your world no deaths are caused by the much larger gross energy price rises which go into the back pockets of the energy companies……while you claim to be saving 2000 lives by campaigning for the removal of subsidies, many more times that figure are killed behind your back as the energy companies pat you on the back and say “there there, thanks for making us even more profitable” Or do you want to argue that the energy companies will give that profit to the people whom have been plunged into energy poverty as a result of the 10 year doubling ? Or maybe the energy companies could find jobs int he energy industry for everyone whose income is low due to unemployment.

          Meanwhile back on the nuclear ranch, the UK government has signed a 35 year contract to guarantee a £95 per MWh to new nuclear, when the wholesale market price is just £55 MWh, this brings the cost of nuclear down to a little below the cost of non-subsidiese onshore wind. In other words, EDF energy are going to get almost £100/MWh for all electricity it produces, and if the market price is less than £100 (currently it is £55) the government is going to make up the difference.

          Don’t argue about renewable subsidies when nuclear subsidies are going to cost many times more….yet again, nuclear gets much more money than any other electricity generator – and when you add in the cost of nuclear decommissioning the cost nearly doubles again. Renewable subsidies operate on a reducing scale over time….nuclear subsidies are guaranteed for 35 years…….if the builders of nuclear plants as well as the constructors of graphs which claim ‘shows nuclear to be the cheapest’ think it is so cost effective, why do they argue for special measures in order to make their business profitable ?

          Oh how many deaths from fuel poverty ? That all comes down to how much money gets given to nuclear…….the two new plants which will receive £40/MWh subsidy will be operating at a combined 2.5GW capacity, or in other words 2500 x 40 = £100000 per hour….or £876 million per year – How many of the families in fuel poverty because of an income deficit of 8% or less could be helped by even a small fraction of £876 million ? All of them could.

        • gator69 says:

          Strawman alert! 😆

          I am not advocating nuclear in the UK, or subsidies for it. So zip it.

          You have provided nothing to refute my carefully researched claim, and again, that 2000 per year was rounded down massively out of kindness to you, straw man.

          How many killer?

        • Chris Barron says:

          So Gator, back to the matter in hand…where did the CEI get their figures from ?
          They don’t say so perhaps you can help us

        • gator69 says:

          I knew you were eithet to dense, dishonest, or both, to figure it out.

          How many killer? You have never answred this question.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “I knew you were eithet to dense, dishonest, or both, to figure it out.

          How many killer? You have never answred this question.”

          Not 2000.

          Your assertion is that if 2000 people in a particular group were relieved of 8% green energy contributions they would not die.

          Those people who are in income deficit of between 9%-100% are outside your group and you don’t mind if they die of fuel poverty…….you’re a fair weather saviour with a waterpistol….trying to put out fires with a waterpistol…..you carry on calling me what you want, but at least we know you are selfish.

          I’ve said before I would support the removal of green subsidies for wind if you can guarantee fuel poverty would come to an end, and it’s perhaps a sign of your intelligence that you realised it is better not to take me up on that, because you would soon be wrong, and we both know it

        • gator69 says:

          More ridiculous babbling from the strawman…

          I’ve said before I would support the removal of green subsidies for wind if you can guarantee fuel poverty would come to an end…

          There are no perfect answers strawman, people will always die. You advocate a sysytem that kills more people.

          How many lives is your agenda worth killer?

          Answer the question and quit being a weasel.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “There are no perfect answers strawman, people will always die. ”

          And that’s the crux of it for all fossil fuel worshippers ? i guess thats how yoiu put up with the thought of the millions of miners worldwide all dying of suffocation due to CWP disease..

          Meh………get over miners, people die anyway, you volunteered …it wasn’t as if you had no other option apart from let your family starve… “tough shit miners” – Gator

        • gator69 says:

          Miners volunteer, those that you and your government kills with wind mandates do not volunteer.

          We covered this already. My family has sacrificed through military sevice, voluntary military service.

          You never did tell me how many humans you are willing to sacrifice against their will.

          How many killer?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Are you really trying to compare the urgency of someone trying to save their country fro an enemy through voluntary military service with the pressure of someone watching their family starve because they don’t wish to go down a mine and likely become a victim of one of many mining related diseases ?

          You treat those volunteer’s lives as if they’re worthless, yet without them you wouldn’t have any electricity from coal, so don’t you think you need to be ‘just’ a little bit more grateful of their personal sacrifice ?

          However, your bloody mindedness seems to be contagious, because I note that if I use such mental attitudes I come up with an argument which says ‘nobody has the right to expect to be able to afford as much energy as they need to heat their homes.’

          Thankfully though the truth is that the rest of us expect that people who cannot afford it can still access it……..so we pay winter allowances, not as vouchers but as cash into the bank accounts of the people who need it the most, and they choose their own priorities.

          Obviously this is something which you feel with such great passion that you are willing to say anything to convince others that you are right……but I wonder, what do you hope to expect by sharing such views here ? If you really feel so strongly I assume you have taken action….you have written to the politicians who make the decisions haven’t you….you have got out there with your banner and shouted at them haven’t you….or have you just settled for bitching, bitching and bitching again ?

        • gator69 says:

          Emotional straw man hand waving is not an answer killer.

          Volunteers are not involuntary. Stupid much? 😆

          How many killer?

        • Chris Barron says:

        • gator69 says:

          Strawman alert!

          That is not due to my advocacy. Quit changing the subject and answer the question killer.

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          William Clegg (not his real name), aged 72, lives in Birmingham with his wife Mary. He has arthritis and bronchitis. The central heating in their home had a history of breaking down and it eventually stopped working altogether. The cold temperatures in the home were exacerbating his health problems.

          Mr Clegg’s local council neighbourhood office referred him to npower’s Health Through Warmth scheme to see if he could receive any help towards replacing his boiler. As a result, he had a new boiler installed. This cost £2,532, and payment was split equally between Mr Clegg and the npower Health Through Warmth crisis fund.

          Mr Clegg said: “I’m extremely grateful for the help I have received. When the old boiler was condemned, it was very difficult for my wife and me.

        • gator69 says:

          Strawman alert!

          Quit changing the subject and answer the question killer.

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Oftentimes the way to help those at higher risk of death is to identify them, but that is much harder to do than we might think. Usually the first time anyone knows that someone has fallen victim of fuel poverty is when their corpse is discovered.

          Their is significant help available for anyone in fuel poverty in the UK, the main problem is making those at risk aware that they can receive free help from many sources.

          When Ethel’s heating broke down, she was facing a long wait until it was fixed. Luckily, Age UK were there to spread some warmth.

          *Ethel Livingstone, 82, lives in South Yorkshire

          ‘A couple of winters ago, my central heating broke down and I started to get very cold.

          I can’t get around very well any more, and can’t make it upstairs, so I only live on the ground floor of my house.

          Fortunately, I was able to call my cousin, Audrey – who lives about 150 miles away – and she arranged for an engineer to come and fix the heating.

          The problem was that there were so many people whose heating had gone up the spout that they couldn’t guarantee that they’d get to see me very quickly. That was when Audrey called Age UK.’

          ‘I feel so much safer at home now’

          ‘They were marvellous. I had an electric bar heater, but was a bit frightened of using it because I fell over once in front of it. Fortunately, it wasn’t actually on, but that scared the living daylights out of me.

          Well, Age UK swapped my heater over for a much safer one and they set it up in the living room to keep it warm.

          The engineer turned up about a week later to fix my heating, thank goodness. Fortunately, Age UK allowed me to keep the heater they gave me, because I didn’t want to get in a bind again.

          Age UK also persuaded me to get something called a falls prevention check, which has helped with my balance and hopefully I won’t tumble over and cause myself a mischief.

          That and getting a home fire safety check from the Fire Service means I feel so much safer at home now – I can take whatever the British winter throws at me now!’

        • gator69 says:

          Strawman alert!

          Enough blathering strawman.

          Quit changing the subject and answer the question killer.

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’ve told you how many is acceptable Gator. None….did you choose to ignore me saying it.

          Here it is again NONE IS ACCEPTABLE

          When have I claimed anything to the contrary ? I haven’t

          I asked you to tell me how many and you have gone from 31000 to 2000 and now you have no real idea because if you did then you would be doing better than Age UK who say they don’t know for sure.

          What we know for sure (according to Age UK and many other concerned organisations) is that the situation is dynamic, because the only definition of ‘fuel poverty’ is that a household spends more than 10% on fuel.

          My rich brother in law has a huge house with poor energy efficiency, running his old boiler and without benefiting from any loft insulation meant that he spent more than 10% of the household income on fuel and was one of the families included in the ‘fuel poverty list’

          There are a large number of middle income people in fuel poverty.They do not go cold and they do not starve, but the fit the criteria of spending more than 10% of their household income on heating their home in winter.

          How many of these fit and healthy fuel poverty sufferers did you make an allowance for in your made up group of 2000 dead people ? I doubt that you knew they existed

        • gator69 says:

          If you are not lying, and mean that zero lives is your answer, then quit advocating for wind power.


        • Chris Barron says:

          15.9 million US households in fuel poverty …how many is acceptable gator ?


        • gator69 says:

          God you are stupid!

          I am advocating against increased fuel poverty, strawman.

          Obviously you lied when you said zero.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Because I am not a fool on a par with you, i cannot claim to be able to calculate a fanciful number like you

          All i can say is that no winter deaths are acceptable. Help is available to anyone who needs it, as long as they are identified before the situation they experience takes it’s tolls

          I have looked at many websites of charities, NGO’s and government departments who say they do not know exact numbers of deaths. You are the only person, in fact, who claims to know for sure – so I think that speaks for itself

          What also speaks for itself is that you attribute those deaths to wind subsidies

        • gator69 says:

          Your moronic hand waving does not negate the fact that the policies for which you are an advocate increase fuel poverty, and deaths.

          Be a proud killer, wear it like a man, or STFU.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “I am advocating against increased fuel poverty” – Gator

          I am advocating the same thing as you. However your ‘cure’ seems to be ‘just remove renewable subsidies’

          i say that that approach would only single out particular people, making it a piss poor solution.

        • gator69 says:

          You’re a liar.

          You advocate for wind, which increases fuel poverty.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Your moronic hand waving does not negate the fact that the policies for which you are an advocate increase fuel poverty, and deaths.”

          First prize for the drama queen award is yours for the taking….your solution of ending fuel subsidies (presumably you mean nuclear subsidies and coal subsidies too – you didn’t say ?) …is stunning in the way i falls short of helping the majority. Piss poor and not a long term solution.

        • gator69 says:

          Accosting for the poor, and trying to diminish death is being a drama queen? Then give me my tiara! 😆

          I am against all subsidies.

          Your turn killer.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “You advocate for wind, which increases fuel poverty.”

          That does not make me a liar.

          I do not advocate for wind subsidies…I have said …in fact I have proven in a way you were not able to deny, that wind can turn a profit even without subsidies.

          I do advocate for wind. You advocate coal……….did you also advocate the coal subsidies,

          “Federal coal subsidies are forms of financial assistance paid by federal taxpayers to the coal and power industry. Such subsidies include direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, grants, lost government revenue such as discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to the negative effects of coal use.”

          in the Uk we have to pay similar subsidies for coal….yet you remain strangely silent about the effect of THOSE subsidies killing people, yet by the simple application of your own argument it would be impossible for you to deny that

          So I suppose what you do now is man up and say “Yeah coal subsidies kill people too, but people die every day anyway”

          Big man , eh ?

        • gator69 says:

          I have not advocated anything but cheap and reliable power.

          You advocate for wind, which is neither, and is subsidized.

          I don’t live in the UK killer.

          Until wind power is no longer subsidized by your government, you are advocating for more fuel poverty.

          Wear it like a man, or STFU.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “I am against all subsidies.” – Gator

          So stop letting coal off the hook by defaulting on government loans which force the taxpayer to have to pay the bill…and that is just one of the hidden costs of coal which contributes to the group of coal subsidies which drive up taxes and the cost of coal itself.

        • gator69 says:

          I don’t live in the UK.

          How many killer?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Just calculated.

        Over April, wind in the UK managed a 95% reliability factor of 3.6% of nameplate.

        Impressive… NOT !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Andy says “Just calculated.”

          So after all this time you had the answers right in front of you !

          All you need to do now is accept that as more is installed more can be gauranteed.

          The US spent $16 million on Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis compensation payments in the month of April. The health factors associated with wind power are less likely to draw such large hidden costs.

          The total cost of fossil fuel related health issues is nearly $1 trillion per year in the US, Hidden cost ? Or subsidy ? .

        • AndyG55 says:

          “So after all this time you had the answers right in front of you !”

          Gees you are an IDIOT, Chris…

          .. the final data for April is only just in. I posted that on May 1st, BOZO.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “.. the final data for April is only just in. I posted that on May 1st, BOZO.”
          And it was during April, before you knew the figures were in, that you asked me to do your homework. BOZO

          3.6% guaranteed for April. At a cost on a par with new nuclear (10% guaranteed)….pretty impressive considering that IF wind needs decommissioning you don’t lose all the profit you ever made with the special measures required, as is the case for nuclear (current estimates for UK nuclear decommissioning are over £160 billion)

          I’m only talking as customer of the energy business….as time goes on I find it more and more difficult to support the nuclear money pit when their are cheaper alternatives…….for the £160 billion of decommissioning money required by nuclear in the next 15 or so years enough wind could be installed to produce more electricity than nuclear ever did in the UK.

          Speaking in a local context, I have always said that my preferred method for generating electricity in the UK is tidal power, considering we are an island and have the third largest tidal range in the world…it is reassuring to see the new lagoon projects have got the green light, even from the greens. This will generate over 15% of demand for 20 hours a day due to the predictability of tides….in other words more than nuclear in it’s own right

          As well as producing affordable reliable energy which has no hidden costs and no politicised supply chain, a national roll out of tidal power will generate substantial knock on revenue for the economy

        • AndyG55 says:

          Not my homework.. YOURS..

          and you didn’t have a clue…. AS USUAL

          Let’s face it Chris, you really are the very depths of a no-hoper.

          An ignorant child-minded twerp.

        • AndyG55 says:

          of look.. sushi machines

        • AndyG55 says:


          4. Negative Impact On Marine Life
          When the virtues of tidal energy are touted, one key factor that is often left out is the effect it has on the surrounding marine life. Fish, birds and marine mammals are often adversely affected by the use of tidal energy. It disrupts their natural habitat, as well as their feeding and mating habits.
          Marine life becomes accustomed to a certain tidal cycle. When tidal energy is obtained, this natural cycle is disrupted, which wreaks havoc on a marine life ecosystem. Over the course of time, these actions could have severe consequences, as certain species of marine life would become endangered. In addition, the mud flats where birds prefer to feed are also impacted negatively.

          5. Collects Water and Dirt
          During the collection of tidal energy, a great deal of water, dirt and other assorted detritus begins to collect along the coastline, leading to increased pollution. This can also cause problems for marine life who live and feed along shore lines, as well as create additional issues for work crews.
          The point of tidal energy is to decrease the current strain on the environment, not add to it. The collection of pollution along the shore during the obtainment of tidal energy is just another one of the many unintended consequences that are liable to take place. Tidal basins are also known to experience a significant decrease in their salinity.

          end quote.

          So the UK, having now destroyed their hills and once beautiful scenery with ugly bird chomping, useless, wind turbines, .. want to destroy their natural coastal estuaries and coastline.

          Go for it , I say. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Oh and please, don’t mention wave energy. I’ve already laughed enough for one day. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Tell ya what though..

          Isn’t it fortunate that the UK still has enough COAL and GAS to make all the steel and cement and copper and other myriad of components that make up those toys.

          NONE of these toy alternatives would be remotely possible without COAL and GAS. 🙂

        • Chris Barron says:

          No that oil would have been possible without wind Andy

          Coal slurry, polluting watercourses, killing fish, depriving other fish, insects and birds of food…..

          The proposed turbines for the tidal lagoons have been signed off by the greens as being the lowest impact devices for marine life as possible. And chopped up fish feed other fish and seabirds, it doesn’t go to waste unlike fossil fuel related contamination.

          Like i say, my issues are as a consumer, and assuming I have choices i choose not nuclear, I choose for for a reduction in coal, an elimination of nuclear, and once we stop throwing £millions each year at a Trident nuclear missile program which we can never use the money will be available to find the required solutions

          I understand it might not be your preference. You might be willing to pay for coal and gas forever…..forever meaning for as long as it is comfortably affordable for you personally to pay for it. That’s fine with me, that’s your choice.

          So how long will coal last Andy ? not forever, not for 200 years at current consumption….gas in 200 years will be almost all coming from very difficult to extract sources, which makes it incredibly expensive. nuclear will be ridiculously expensive too if the well meaning Japanese don’t manage to recover all the uranium from the sea.

          Although you may think you’re family will be rich enough to pay much more on their energy than they do now I don’t know what mine will be able to afford ….will the government provide handouts (not subsidies, you hate that term) ?

          I haven’t seen any reasonable suggestions for where our energy will come from in the next century Andy….what have you seen that I haven’t ? Don’t blame me for supporting a supply chain free source of electricity….it might not be your cup of tea but I personally don’t want to be in debt to Putin or the other Russian mafia members. Currently over 50% of our coal is from Russia and there are very few alternatives……

          What have you got for me on the future of fossil fuels Andy ? Humour me if you want but I’m only asking as an informed consumer…..if you can’t convince me of the security of affordable fossil fuels then don’t blame me for thinking other alternatives are a good idea. You try to put me down as if you have expertise int he subject so don’t shy away now and give me nothing…..you’re the expert, where’s the secure energy at affordable prices coming from ?

        • Chris Barron says:

          300,000 people told not to use tap water for drinking, washing or bathing, thanks to coal spill

          Tons of fish killed, insect life (food for the fish and some birds) adversely affected.
          But they get a slap on the wrist and a nominally low fine.

          I guess that is reflective of the coal industry’s environmental commitment…..and the same people moan about a few fish lost to turbines as if they hold some sort of moral ground on the subject !


          One of the largest coal ash spills

          You have to remember that to us Brits coal disasters are more than just regrettable, thanks to this terrible occurence . In Aberfan in 1968, a colliery spoil tip collapsed on a school, killing 112 children and 28 adults

          And yet nobody seems to learn much….here’s a coal slurry pond above a kids school

          I think the coal industry has had long enough to prove itself a clean and morally robust industry but has failed in most regards. That’s my opinion….your view of these incidents may well differ

          Coal in a stream…one of many polluted watercourses

          If you can convince me that coal is safe and secure I might change my opinion, but lets see if the coal industry sorts it’s problems out off it’s own back first….I suspect that they won’t if history is anything to go by

          Nobody thought for a moment that such a disaster was possible…every year the 112 dead children are honoured in special services at Aberfan


          Coal combustion is probably called clean because of the latest combustion technologies and stack scrubbers………but the support system required to run coal plants carries serious health risks and costs which do not seem to be very well mitigated.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Country road,
          Take me home
          West Virginia
          Polluted mama

          …John Denver

          {West Virginia slurry spill….mmmm, yum}

      • Menicholas says:

        According to my calculations, not having an entire country composed entirely of marathon running super-genius workaholics is costing our country 37 trillion dollars every single month, with the biggest losers being the fat, stupid and lazy.

        Where is my research grant to study this nightmarish problem that, quite literally is weighing us down, dumbing us down, and sitting us down…in front of the TV?

  9. sabretoothed says:

    A classic on Tim Flannery Having read all about a woman in Melbourne today with a terrible disease called Munchausen’s Syndrome – which means she faked having cancer to gain attention, followers and their money, who then blamed it on this dreadful ‘disease’ and a childhood without toys – brought to mind all the other flakes who would have us believe stuff that just isn’t true.

    Like ‘Flannery Syndrome’- a nasty acquired disease – treatable with time – but endemic in certain parts of the wide brown land – and absolutely alive and pulsing in the little country community in which I live. http://pickeringpost.com/glance/-flannery-syndrome-a-disease-for-the-deluded-/4794

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s