As far as I can make out, he also wants to cover most of Norfolk in solar panels - but but the environment! And create a huge unsightly chain of monolithic pylons from Scotland down the East Coast of the UK, blighting some of the most beautiful countryside in the UK in his madness. He is mentally ill and the kindest thing to do, and best for our beleaguered country, would be to put him in a secure facility. Where he can't harm anyone or himself. Maybe he's had too many bacon sandwiches, it's the nitrates.....None of this is about "saving the planet" its about being FIRST. At this rate, we'll be the first to have the lights go out. Have we all forgotten basic biology from school? CO2 is the gas of LIFE!
(1) Is Climate Change a threat? A. Yes. There is no remaining doubt on the fact of CC, although disagreement on the type of damage.
(2) What is the objection to continued use of fossil fuels? A. FF make CC worse via emissions.
(3) Timetable? A. As early as practicable, so start now.
(4) Method? A. (4) to (6) are where the Milliband approach breaks down - there is a limit on new windmills, while Solar et al leave pollution at end of life. Nuclear is best, but slow to build (so start now).
(5) Transition? A. We need Gas generation for the next 20 years and maybe more.
(6) Cost? A. High. Essential we enable private sector finance. HMG sets the plan, Private capital gives finance. HMG may need to underwrite some risks eg R&D on carbon capture techniques. Introduce Carbon Emission Tax if measurable.
I agree. Wrong allocation of money & efforts to Electric Vehicles etc, and - so far - failure to start building SMR nuclear, build flood defences, encourage competitive private capital, and more.
Sue - Goodness - be quick and tell world leaders this, and then they will stop spending time & money on countering CC. Clearly they do not have your greater insight.
You assert that [alleged anthropogenic] climate change is a threat but give no substantiation. I can give you a dozen and more carefully referenced reasons showing that alleged man-made CO2 global warming is a hoax: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
That post contains links to the work of many independent scientists who provide proof, which has never been credibly rebutted, that the alleged dangerous global warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is a scam. One of these is Professor William Happer who I reference in one of my earlier comments on this thread, currently the top comment. I suggest you study what he says about CO2 and perhaps reconsider your stance.
Thank you, Douglas. Not being a geo-scientist I cannot judge. It seems a preponderance of scientists agree there is CC, and I take account of the increased wild fires, floods, record temperatures and melting ice. If science does not support CC I wonder why so many agree with the theory.
As I thought, in your unscientific naivety you have failed to realise that alleged man-made global warming is a global conspiracy sustained only by lies and brainwashing. Your list of climate change fearmongering topics (wildfires, floods, etc) leads me to suggest that you visit Paul Homewood’s website: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/.
Paul has accumulated a huge library of posts debunking the climate change hoax. He tabs his posts with keywords which allows the reader to pull up all his posts on a particular topic, either from his keyword cloud or his search bar.
The great thing about Paul’s approach is that as often as not he uses the propagandists’ own data to rebut their false assertions. Do it now, for your own good!
Thanks for the thought, Douglas. It is interesting that most commentators are able to engage in respectful dialogue, seeing the different points of view; but some see any different view as being contemptible, and the proponent as ‘the enemy’. I suspect they would do better in a country with dictatorship enforcing uniformity rather than a liberal democracy.
Are you aware of the many geo engineering experiments being conducted by the US government alone? The wildfires in Europe last summer can be directly attributed to one such experiment they have admitted to. There's a great deal of tinkering about that the population is not aware of.
Your 'necessity' argument re. (1) and (2) is like Swiss Cheese - full of holes. Therefore the rest of your argument is rendered pointless and irrelevant.
But I didn't say you were wrong; I said your points (1) and (2) were full of holes, and they are, not because I say they are, but because that is a fact which can be demonstrated meticulously, at length, if one bothers to really take the time to look into it.
So therefore your criticism is off target because you start by accusing me of saying something which I didn't.
So we have paid Tata Steel (a great company) £500m to reduce the port Talbot workforce by 3,000 and produce steel without welsh coking coal (miners jobs anyone?). The semi anthracite welsh coal will also lose jobs, as will the infrastructure that they all supported.
I keep looking for an update on nuclear SMRs but it seems the investment decision is still scheduled for 2029 and operational in the mid-2030s. This is one decision Miliband could genuinely speed up.
It is reported that Miliband is flying to New York to grandstand at the ongoing UN General Assembly which ends on Friday. The delegates there will no doubt cheer him on just like the mad Labour Party conference delegates. He needs to be called out on the fact that the majority non-Western world countries only play lip service to the politically-confected “climate crisis” and year-by-year are increasing their consumption of fossil fuels faster than the global deployment of so-called renewables. The so-called global energy transition is a false propaganda fiction.
I wouldn't mind so much if he actually had a vision for an industrial strategy to make the kit here even if its only assembling it but it wont be. Had hoped Reeves rhetoric about growth would result in some reigning back but clearly ive called that wrong and we are now on a one way trip to a fiasco which wont fully play out until after they've been expunged from office.
Our challenge here in this community which David has bought together is to have an approach that deals with the slow burn disaster that is unfolding to counter the eco evangelists. They can cite heavy rain or the odd hot day and use it to reinforce their narrative and continue to brain wash joe public about climate change and the need to deliver all these mad cap ideas. I submit though that until the lights start going out (and i can't see that till later this decade earliest) joe public isn't going to be easily influenced.
For sure and David does a great job in focusing on the key issues. My point though is we don't have the easy cut through that the eco lot can deploy in citing any form of weather is somehow driven by climate change. ie people can see and experience weather and are easily led down the garden path that its all related to climate change having been brainwashed for over a decade. Conversely majority wont be interested in CfDs, Capacity Market, Balancing Mechanism, Intermittency etc etc they just want the power to flow when they turn the switch on as it always has. Thus until they find themselves in a situation when that power isn't there majority wont have an interest.
Im afraid I come back to power cuts as the inflexion point for the electorate to wake up but i really can't see that being a significant threat until at the end of the decade.
I really don’t see power cuts as being a threat, it just won’t be allowed to happen due to generation
The last major outage was due to lightning strikes on transmission lines coincident with pressure valve failure in a gas fired power station. There is nothing happening now, or proposed, that would stop that. And the main disruption it caused was due to the train operating systems needing rebooting
We get a couple of power cuts every winter. It’s always distribution lines. Again, nothing is being done that will stop that
I was taught about climate change at school in 1979 so it’s great that we’re finally getting to grips with it. We sorted CFCs, we sorted acid rain, now we need to sort CO2
Thank you David - my goodness, this Sunday arrived quickly!
Does anyone know how, in the face of all the lobbying money from Big Oil sloshing about (so the mantra goes), all the major UK political parties came to be thus captured? As I think I've reported here, the Lib Dems' policy is Miliband's.
I'm just off on a (very short) tour of the forty new hospitals that Boris promised. The only comfort is that Miliband's legacy will probably be similar, his plans having been put in the Treasury's crusher.
I don't know whether Ed knows, but I read some months ago that the number of new hospitals built in the first thirteen years of the NHS was ....... zero.
Almost everything Miliband says in his speech is false yet the Labour party delegates cheer him on. They are all mad. We have seen such madness many times in the past, e.g. as recounted by Charles Mackay in his 1841 book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”.
Mackay famously said “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one”.
Well done David for your efforts in fighting this madness. I’m reminded of the apolitical presentation by Professor William Happer on the madness of the establishment’s demonisation of CO2, the gas of life, which he explains has negligible adverse impact on global climate but is hugely beneficial to agriculture and forestry. He ends his slideshow by calling on all who can to fight the madness. Well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nhssPW77I&t=11s.
Wasn’t it the last government who said net zero was the whole basis of our economy for the next few decades? It’s rare that almost all political parties agree on the same thing, and those that don’t are hardly credible
It’s pretty fair to say that Miliband has promised little more than Boris Johnson promised in the British Energy Security Strategy, so it’s not fair to pin it all on Ed
I think not. It's not called Net Zero (democratic legitimacy) for nothing you know. Absolutely nobody got to vote for this industrial, economic and environmental sabotage masquerading as collective insanity - not even our glorious MPs as it happens!
Net Zero was introduced as a statutory instrument amendment to the Climate Change Act 2008 at the fag end of May's dreadful premiership, which was waived through by politicians with no vote and very little debate. How could you have voted for it, or indeed CCA2008?
Don’t patronise me. Your comments are all petty, unrealistic and unsubstantiated. Why don’t you try to debunk the William Happer presentation linked in the top comment (currently my own)? If you can’t, please just buzz off.
As far as I can make out, he also wants to cover most of Norfolk in solar panels - but but the environment! And create a huge unsightly chain of monolithic pylons from Scotland down the East Coast of the UK, blighting some of the most beautiful countryside in the UK in his madness. He is mentally ill and the kindest thing to do, and best for our beleaguered country, would be to put him in a secure facility. Where he can't harm anyone or himself. Maybe he's had too many bacon sandwiches, it's the nitrates.....None of this is about "saving the planet" its about being FIRST. At this rate, we'll be the first to have the lights go out. Have we all forgotten basic biology from school? CO2 is the gas of LIFE!
It’s not just pylons, they are spending eye-watering sums on undersea interconnectors down the east coast between Scotland and England, filed under “climate malinvestment”: https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/09/26/work-begins-on-huge-uk-scotland-energy-link/.
(1) Is Climate Change a threat? A. Yes. There is no remaining doubt on the fact of CC, although disagreement on the type of damage.
(2) What is the objection to continued use of fossil fuels? A. FF make CC worse via emissions.
(3) Timetable? A. As early as practicable, so start now.
(4) Method? A. (4) to (6) are where the Milliband approach breaks down - there is a limit on new windmills, while Solar et al leave pollution at end of life. Nuclear is best, but slow to build (so start now).
(5) Transition? A. We need Gas generation for the next 20 years and maybe more.
(6) Cost? A. High. Essential we enable private sector finance. HMG sets the plan, Private capital gives finance. HMG may need to underwrite some risks eg R&D on carbon capture techniques. Introduce Carbon Emission Tax if measurable.
Even if man made climate change is a threat, mitigation is the wrong strategy.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/risk-net-zero-worse-climate-change
I agree. Wrong allocation of money & efforts to Electric Vehicles etc, and - so far - failure to start building SMR nuclear, build flood defences, encourage competitive private capital, and more.
Human Induced Climate Change is a fairytale. A myth. Fake.
Sue - Goodness - be quick and tell world leaders this, and then they will stop spending time & money on countering CC. Clearly they do not have your greater insight.
Obviously they don't.
You assert that [alleged anthropogenic] climate change is a threat but give no substantiation. I can give you a dozen and more carefully referenced reasons showing that alleged man-made CO2 global warming is a hoax: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
That post contains links to the work of many independent scientists who provide proof, which has never been credibly rebutted, that the alleged dangerous global warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is a scam. One of these is Professor William Happer who I reference in one of my earlier comments on this thread, currently the top comment. I suggest you study what he says about CO2 and perhaps reconsider your stance.
Thank you, Douglas. Not being a geo-scientist I cannot judge. It seems a preponderance of scientists agree there is CC, and I take account of the increased wild fires, floods, record temperatures and melting ice. If science does not support CC I wonder why so many agree with the theory.
As I thought, in your unscientific naivety you have failed to realise that alleged man-made global warming is a global conspiracy sustained only by lies and brainwashing. Your list of climate change fearmongering topics (wildfires, floods, etc) leads me to suggest that you visit Paul Homewood’s website: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/.
Paul has accumulated a huge library of posts debunking the climate change hoax. He tabs his posts with keywords which allows the reader to pull up all his posts on a particular topic, either from his keyword cloud or his search bar.
The great thing about Paul’s approach is that as often as not he uses the propagandists’ own data to rebut their false assertions. Do it now, for your own good!
Thanks for the thought, Douglas. It is interesting that most commentators are able to engage in respectful dialogue, seeing the different points of view; but some see any different view as being contemptible, and the proponent as ‘the enemy’. I suspect they would do better in a country with dictatorship enforcing uniformity rather than a liberal democracy.
Are you aware of the many geo engineering experiments being conducted by the US government alone? The wildfires in Europe last summer can be directly attributed to one such experiment they have admitted to. There's a great deal of tinkering about that the population is not aware of.
Your 'necessity' argument re. (1) and (2) is like Swiss Cheese - full of holes. Therefore the rest of your argument is rendered pointless and irrelevant.
Jaime - I am wrong on point (1) CC (because you say so), therefore anything else I say is pointless and irrelevant. Good logic there.
But I didn't say you were wrong; I said your points (1) and (2) were full of holes, and they are, not because I say they are, but because that is a fact which can be demonstrated meticulously, at length, if one bothers to really take the time to look into it.
So therefore your criticism is off target because you start by accusing me of saying something which I didn't.
So we have paid Tata Steel (a great company) £500m to reduce the port Talbot workforce by 3,000 and produce steel without welsh coking coal (miners jobs anyone?). The semi anthracite welsh coal will also lose jobs, as will the infrastructure that they all supported.
Meantime: https://www.tatasteel.com/media/newsroom/press-releases/india/2024/tata-steel-commissions-india-s-largest-blast-furnace-at-kalinganagar/
3m to 8m tonnes p.a. another triumph for UK plc.
Was Port Talbot using Welsh coal? From where?
Ffos y Fran amongst others. The same semi anthracite used by Aberthaw power station
I keep looking for an update on nuclear SMRs but it seems the investment decision is still scheduled for 2029 and operational in the mid-2030s. This is one decision Miliband could genuinely speed up.
Nuscale was deselected today. GE Hitachi, Holtec, Rolls Royce and Westinghouse left in the running
Any update on the site selection strategy promised by the last government? Or the also promised revision of EN-6?
It is reported that Miliband is flying to New York to grandstand at the ongoing UN General Assembly which ends on Friday. The delegates there will no doubt cheer him on just like the mad Labour Party conference delegates. He needs to be called out on the fact that the majority non-Western world countries only play lip service to the politically-confected “climate crisis” and year-by-year are increasing their consumption of fossil fuels faster than the global deployment of so-called renewables. The so-called global energy transition is a false propaganda fiction.
I wouldn't mind so much if he actually had a vision for an industrial strategy to make the kit here even if its only assembling it but it wont be. Had hoped Reeves rhetoric about growth would result in some reigning back but clearly ive called that wrong and we are now on a one way trip to a fiasco which wont fully play out until after they've been expunged from office.
Our challenge here in this community which David has bought together is to have an approach that deals with the slow burn disaster that is unfolding to counter the eco evangelists. They can cite heavy rain or the odd hot day and use it to reinforce their narrative and continue to brain wash joe public about climate change and the need to deliver all these mad cap ideas. I submit though that until the lights start going out (and i can't see that till later this decade earliest) joe public isn't going to be easily influenced.
Don’t you see the role of this community is to raise challenges so that the outcome can be improved and be even more successful than Ed envisages?
For sure and David does a great job in focusing on the key issues. My point though is we don't have the easy cut through that the eco lot can deploy in citing any form of weather is somehow driven by climate change. ie people can see and experience weather and are easily led down the garden path that its all related to climate change having been brainwashed for over a decade. Conversely majority wont be interested in CfDs, Capacity Market, Balancing Mechanism, Intermittency etc etc they just want the power to flow when they turn the switch on as it always has. Thus until they find themselves in a situation when that power isn't there majority wont have an interest.
Im afraid I come back to power cuts as the inflexion point for the electorate to wake up but i really can't see that being a significant threat until at the end of the decade.
I can’t see power cuts ever being an issue
I really don’t see power cuts as being a threat, it just won’t be allowed to happen due to generation
The last major outage was due to lightning strikes on transmission lines coincident with pressure valve failure in a gas fired power station. There is nothing happening now, or proposed, that would stop that. And the main disruption it caused was due to the train operating systems needing rebooting
We get a couple of power cuts every winter. It’s always distribution lines. Again, nothing is being done that will stop that
I was taught about climate change at school in 1979 so it’s great that we’re finally getting to grips with it. We sorted CFCs, we sorted acid rain, now we need to sort CO2
Human Induced Climate Change does not exist. Thus there is no need to "sort" CO2.
😂
Thank you David - my goodness, this Sunday arrived quickly!
Does anyone know how, in the face of all the lobbying money from Big Oil sloshing about (so the mantra goes), all the major UK political parties came to be thus captured? As I think I've reported here, the Lib Dems' policy is Miliband's.
I'm just off on a (very short) tour of the forty new hospitals that Boris promised. The only comfort is that Miliband's legacy will probably be similar, his plans having been put in the Treasury's crusher.
I don't know whether Ed knows, but I read some months ago that the number of new hospitals built in the first thirteen years of the NHS was ....... zero.
Almost everything Miliband says in his speech is false yet the Labour party delegates cheer him on. They are all mad. We have seen such madness many times in the past, e.g. as recounted by Charles Mackay in his 1841 book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”.
Mackay famously said “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one”.
Well done David for your efforts in fighting this madness. I’m reminded of the apolitical presentation by Professor William Happer on the madness of the establishment’s demonisation of CO2, the gas of life, which he explains has negligible adverse impact on global climate but is hugely beneficial to agriculture and forestry. He ends his slideshow by calling on all who can to fight the madness. Well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nhssPW77I&t=11s.
.....and the audience lapped it up, so ignorant of the truth
Wasn’t it the last government who said net zero was the whole basis of our economy for the next few decades? It’s rare that almost all political parties agree on the same thing, and those that don’t are hardly credible
When all parties agree to loot the treasury, it doesn't mean the agreement is a good thing.
It’s pretty fair to say that Miliband has promised little more than Boris Johnson promised in the British Energy Security Strategy, so it’s not fair to pin it all on Ed
That is because they are ALL singing from the same hymn sheet. The Monster Raving Looney Party would have said virtually the same……
It’s the will of the people
I think not. It's not called Net Zero (democratic legitimacy) for nothing you know. Absolutely nobody got to vote for this industrial, economic and environmental sabotage masquerading as collective insanity - not even our glorious MPs as it happens!
I got to vote on it at the last election. And the one before that, and the one before that too
Net Zero was introduced as a statutory instrument amendment to the Climate Change Act 2008 at the fag end of May's dreadful premiership, which was waived through by politicians with no vote and very little debate. How could you have voted for it, or indeed CCA2008?
No vote in the house as they all agreed it. In every GE since I have voted for a party that supported that
The bought-and-paid-for mainstream media go along with this disenfranchising scam claiming it is legitimate and “no longer a matter of debate since all parties are committed to it”, dishonestly ignoring Reform UK who are committed to scrapping Net Zero: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/24/miliband-poised-to-wreck-britain-starmer-still-time-rein-in/.
But we all know Reform U.K. just pick anything they think they can sell to the easily fooled. That’s no basis for a sustainable political party
Don’t patronise me. Your comments are all petty, unrealistic and unsubstantiated. Why don’t you try to debunk the William Happer presentation linked in the top comment (currently my own)? If you can’t, please just buzz off.