Note the bait and switch

Climate change report:

In the last
decade wind and other renewables have grown
to the point that they now provide nearly a tenth
of UK generating capacity. With nuclear power
generating 16% of total UK electricity, a quarter of
electricity generation is now low carbon.

There\’s a difference between generating capacity and generation isn\’t there children?

Casuistry from these ghastly little shits.

Bugger the lot of it, them, their plans and their micro-management.

Could we please just have a carbon tax at the Stern estimate of the social cost of carbon and let us all sort if out from there?

10 comments on “Note the bait and switch

  1. There’s lots in the report to suggest we’ve found the mother lode of imbecility.
    Just one example: boasting that progress is being made to reduce carbon emissions by 80%, because 60% of houses with cavity walls have now had cavity wall insulation installed.
    In fact, installing this insulation justs creates a vapour barrier and does nothing to reduce your fuel bills. It will devalue your house though, if the surveyor finds it.

  2. Twas ever so Tim, I just assume that ALL such ‘reports’ and claims are inevitably lies, distortions and sophistry. Saves so much time.

    Note how nuclear is suddenly acceptable as ‘low catbon’ as well?

  3. “Could we please just have a carbon tax at the Stern estimate of the social cost of carbon”

    So no doubts about CAGW then Tim? Is “carbon” still the spawn of the Devil and is Stern still Gaia’s chosen prophet?

  4. “Could we please just have a carbon tax at the Stern estimate of the social cost of carbon and let us all sort if out from there?”

    Why?

    And whatever is a “social cost”? Like “social justice” a nonsense phrase.

    There is no evidence ‘carbon” is having any effect on climate and more importantly, even it were having the effect claimed there is no evidence that it would be overall negative and abundant evidence that it would be over all positive.

    So we may just as likelyas a “social cost” suppose a “social benefit” so why are we not being paid commission on our “carbon” outputs as a reward?

  5. Good on you Umbongo, let’s keep hammering Tim on this peculiarity in his thinking.

    How can such a rational guy have swallowed the AGW hoax so badly?

  6. John B, I have a large pile of felled brush and scrub wood at a property I own in BC, Canada. I’m planning a burn this Christmas, with hot punch and so on, but regardless of the festivities I’ll be sending several hundred tons of cee oh too into the air.

    Where do I go for my cheque?

  7. In the last 40 years we (mankind) have burned more than 170 billion tonnes of coal and more than 120 billion tonnes of oil, in addition to a lot of natural gas (equivalent to 60-odd billions tonnes of oil), wood, peat etc. It is beyond reasonable doubt that this has contributed *something* to global warming.
    It is my personal opinion that the long-term secular cycles are much more significant, but we have no control over the sunspot cycle and we do have some over fossil fuel consumption. For which reason I wish to see some *realistic* analysis of the total energy used to manufacture, construct, maintain and repair an aluminium windmill and its connection to the grid and the net amount of electrical energy that it will contribute, after transmission losses, at the point of consumption. I have yet to see a single such analysis for any windmill.
    @ Fred Z – there is a difference between recognising that mankind has contributed to global warming and swallowing Gore’s ridiculous claims.

  8. @John77

    “In the last 40 years we (mankind) have burned more than 170 billion tonnes of coal and more than 120 billion tonnes of oil, in addition to a lot of natural gas (equivalent to 60-odd billions tonnes of oil), wood, peat etc. It is beyond reasonable doubt that this has contributed *something* to global warming…”

    Listen carefully – I shall only say this once…

    For a typical hydrocarbon, there are about twice as many hydrogen atoms as carbon atoms. So when you burn something, and equal number of CO2 and H2O molecules go up the chimney.

    Water has about 30 times the ‘radiation absorbsion/re-emmision’ capability of CO2. So perhaps we should be 30 times as worried about that? I wonder why we aren’t – it would be much easier to extract water from flue gases than CO2. At this point you might begin to understand that this scare has almost nothing to do with real science.

    And then you look at the emission figures, the CO2 atmospheric concentration data and the average global temperature, and you see an interesting thing. CO2 emissions are going down, but CO2 concentration is going up. Human input is minimal compared to natural swings. Oh, and as CO2 concentrations are going up, the average global temperature is going DOWN.

    So whatever we may be contributing to ‘global warming’, it isn’t actually warming anything. We don’t need to guess about ‘reasonable doubt’ – we can see this in the figures. That is why this whole CO2 scare and tax regime is a sham…

  9. @ Dodgy Geezer
    Read THIS carefully – I do not wish to have to repeat myself if you *persist* in ignoring hard facts.
    Burning stuff releases potential (chemical) energy in the form of heat. That was the whole point of a coal fire. So burning 170 billion tonnes of coal increases the local temperature. Some of this heat will be gradually lost to outer space but not all of it (‘O’ level physics). So burning coal (and oil, and gas, and wood …) contributes *something* to global warming.
    You seem to have imagined I waffled on about CO2: I did not – that is theory not hard fact.
    In future kindly save your primary school lectures about CO2 for the naive persons who believe that it is the sole cause of climate change and do not say, as I did “It is my personal opinion that the long-term secular cycles are much more significant”
    Incidentally, the typical hydrocarbon has more than twice as many hydrogen atoms as carbon atoms – ‘O’ level chemistry: the normal formula is Cn, H2n+2, with the exception of C2H4. CH4 is far more common than C2H4. As benzene (C6H6) is normally used in petrochemicals rather than for combustion I should be obliged if you would not try to tell me that it balances out the normal excess of H atoms over double the number of carbon atoms.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.