Hi well said, but logic presumes that at some point Constraint payments must change from renewables to gas generation. No one in business would keep the gas generators running for no payment, and Constraints must move from wind farms to gas. This will effectively double the price of electricity in the UK and simultaneously double the risk of Outages. It is unlikely that EAF steel making will become reality in the UK. Already the steelmakers have been informed that The Grid cannot provide a connection until 2032 at the earliest, not 2028, with the result that the Scunthorpe blast furnace closure programme has been delayed. Too late for Port Talbot. In any the EAF furnaces were going to be 250000 tonnes units, bringing UK steel production down from 5.6 million tonnes to 1 million tonnes over the four EAF units. Job losses are inevitable
Can you say how much renewable subsidy costs per household, in terms of what each household pays?
Quick math, the video says subsidies are approx £14bn pa. There are 28.4m households in the UK. Does this mean that on average, a household pays 14bn/28.4m = £490pa just towards subsidies?
Or can I deduce from my bills, how much I'm paying for subsidies?
You need to remember net zero is nothing to do with science or economics or making life better for the masses - it’s a globalist scam that has been pseudo-scientifically bolted onto natural climate change / weather events in order to rinse the masses of ever more (until the bubble bursts) tax money, in the heavily veiled and deceitful premise that they are saving planet earth from an unstoppable climate Armageddon
All manner of corrupt scientists, chancers, grifters, shills etc have joined the globalist funded mission because there’s currently lots of money to be had - some people are getting extremely rich via renewables and other engineeringly incompetent net zero tat - £41Bn is reportedly ‘missing’ from the world bank climate fund! Missing? Not on your Nelly, it’s more likely securely stuffed away in multiple off shore bank accounts awaiting the next money making scheme
Mr Turver, 'net zero' and 'cliamte change' are not about the environment, ecology or even energy. They are inventions of the state to control what people can do and how they live.
Excellent talk by David Turver which I attended in person.
The big uncertainties about the cause of climate change include the thermal flywheel effect and absorption of gases by the oceans, and the effect of clouds. I quote from the NASA Facts paper
'The Importance of UnderStanding Clouds' (dated 2005 but downloaded today)
which states: 'Clouds absorb and reflect solar radiation and absorb and emit thermal radiation.... Many scientists consider the uncertainty about the feedback of clouds on the climate to be the major obstacle to credible predictions of climate change'.
This supports papers published by William Happer, including Radiation Transport in Clouds published last month (and his other papers on CO2 saturation). On this basis why is the UK hell bent on rapid net zero carbon emission targets, with the almost certain consequence of trashing the UK economy and energy security?
The Land Reform Bill is currently being considered by the relevant Parliamentary committee and ''will place a legal obligation on owners of landholdings over 3000 hectares to engage with local communities about how they use their land, including a requirement to produce land management plans to set out how they use their land and how that contributes to key public policy priorities, like addressing climate change and protecting and restoring nature.''
I actually think critics in this space really do need to make use of the conspiracy theory label towwards the proponents of planetary doom caused by co2.
Excellent as ever. The conversations I have with people around me show that many "ordinary" people know that Climate ChangeTM is a scam for some to line their pockets, while we grow colder and poorer (isn't David Minibrain an incidental beneficiary of some of Crazy Eyes Ed's policies?), it's just the idiocracy governing us who haven't got the memo.....
Thank you for this excellent summary. Now we only have to get it through some thick heads in Parliament, and out to any part of the mainstream Press more willing to shout loud truths than peddle the despicable lies that Labour and energy lobbyists are pushing.
The great British Public needs to get angry, and soon.
"wind and solar can never deliver security because we cannot control the weather". Of course we can control the weather. We just need a bit more hubris and conceit. Surely Ed knows how.
Thank you David, read, and this week also watched, with usual great interest. I share a couple of things which have come my way this week. First, Panorama: "Rewiring Britain" https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0027wm5/panorama-rewiring-britain-the-race-to-go-green I expect that for some, this will be their (mild) introduction to the notion that the current plan is not cost-free as advertised, and will have an impact on rural Britain, which the current government despises (along with the retired and the entire private sector). Health and safety warning: Miliband appears (as does Slye), so keep a bucket handy - I just managed to hang onto my breakfast.
The second item is an interview with energy historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, author of the book 'More and More and More....'. In this he argues that not only is there no "energy transition", there has never been one in the history of our species. For example, more wood was consumed in making pit props for coal mines in one century than had been burned as fuel in the previous century - there have only been energy additions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7MPU109fY Fressoz pulls no punches.
I watched the Panorama documentary. This linked review by a Net Zero nutter is useful in giving an overview. The video is a massive hostage to fortune by all the usual suspects, e.g. Mr Slye (by name, sly by nature) repeating that 95% grid decarbonisation by 2030 is doable, although difficult.
There is no questioning of the science, no questioning of Net Zero being unilateral and therefore pointless, they never interviewed anyone who was against the official narrative (renewables good). Miliband spouts his ludicrous justifications: energy security (no mention of interconnector risks), avoiding dependency on foreign tyrants (no mention of Qatar or Biden who sabotaged Nord Stream), “clean” renewables...
Incredible, “Climate Action Hubs” sponsored by the Scottish so-called Government which kids itself that Scotland can reach Net Zero by 2045. The UK Uniparty of climate ideologues needs to be swept away, including the SNP.
The government's sniffy, dismissive response to the petition is an appeal to the authority of the IPCC and 'overwhelming consensus' re. the 'settled science'. But the IPCC itself has no scientific authority; it is just a bureaucratic UN organisation which pools scientific research and constructs policy summaries for policy makers and governments loosely based on the interpretation of that research - but in actual fact, tailored to meet the demands of a political narrative more than to accurately reflect the wide range of uncertainty of that scientific research and data.
For example, IPCC AR5 (2013) was forced to admit that there was a genuine scientific debate re. the explanation of The Pause (1998-2013). That inconvenient Pause - which generated hundreds of scientific papers attempting to explain it) was subsequently just erased from the record by statistical sleight of hand and by 'adjustments' to the data. IPCC AR6 (2021) didn't mention it as far as I'm aware, and if it was mentioned, it was only in passing. IPCC also provided a statistically robust (albeit far from scientifically robust) statement re. the attribution of global surface temperature rise since 1950. The temperature record before that was deemed not sufficiently accurate and cumulative emissions prior to 1950 were deemed not to be sufficient to realistically affect global mean temperature. Hence:
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period."
[IPCC AR5, 2013]
But guess what? By 2021, AR6 had updated the Settled Science to include an attribution statement since 1850 - when in fact the planet was naturally warming, having naturally cooled during the Little Ice Age, which was in fact the coldest the planet had been since the end of the last glaciation some 12,000 years ago. AR6, in its semi-religious fervour, laid claim on behalf of industrial greenhouse gases to ALL surface warming post 1850 - but note that they sneakily downgraded the 'extremely likely' post 1950 warming to only 'likely' when attributing post 1850 warming and just 'very likely' when referencing post 1950 tropospheric warming. That's the Settled Science for you!
"The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979 and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s."
[IPCC AR6, 2021]
But this doesn't stop climate fanatics (and our Green Blob captured government agencies) from arrogantly and dismissively claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the entire post industrial warming of 1.2C is due to human beings, thus singling out the Industrial Revolution as the source of ALL climate and climate-related extreme weather change over the last 175 years. It's patently nonsense, but it sticks, because the factually challenged and scientifically illiterate morons in government and institutions just launder the IPCC manufactured consensus and 'attribution' statements to lend authority to their evidence-free claims of a 'climate emergency'. The Trump administration HAS to change this; it MUST take on the authority of the IPCC and dismantle the Settled Science.
That the IPCC is just a collection of opinions has been my argument to the government recently. Even is this is the “authoritative source” you are still required to produce a verification document of the science as it is being applied to the real world. It becomes an engineering matter. If every new build has to do a physical electrical inspection even when the plugs are rated to 240V any climate science prediction that influences tax on the population should have the same scrutiny.
Otherwise Boeing could have flown their 737 MAX planes in the UK straight away. They had all the data and models to say they were safe. And those models are way more precise than climate ones. But apparently only climate science and Covid science get a free pass. Or most exactly an accountability bypass.
Roger Pielke's The Honest Broker (THB) substack provides a balanced and authoritative commentary on the IPCC and other climate issues. Prof Pielke was essentially forced out of his tenured university position for failing to follow what is now orthodoxy.
Here’s hoping that Trump “puts a stake through the heart” of the climate change hoax. It shouldn’t be difficult as the cabal’s climate change narrative is very stupid and obvious and easy to debunk: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
We see it with the Hunga Tonga warming spike which they ludicrously pretended was due to man-made CO2. How did they ever think they would get away with that, calling it “global boiling”, when it was bound to dissipate before long, as now seems to be happening: https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/global-boiling-is-toast-will-global.
You are being governed by idiots just like we had in North America.. we fixed it..
Many in North America voted for Trump and we will vote in a Conservative government in Canada that will mean the end of NetZero.
The UK needs to change its politics and the best bet is the Reform Party … Its inline with Trump and After reviewing the plan its your only hope.. Even getting good results in the polls will push the envelope.
Thank you - NY Climate Act: Net Zero Cure is Worse Than the Disease https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/02/19/net-zero-cure-is-worse-than-the-disease/
Hi well said, but logic presumes that at some point Constraint payments must change from renewables to gas generation. No one in business would keep the gas generators running for no payment, and Constraints must move from wind farms to gas. This will effectively double the price of electricity in the UK and simultaneously double the risk of Outages. It is unlikely that EAF steel making will become reality in the UK. Already the steelmakers have been informed that The Grid cannot provide a connection until 2032 at the earliest, not 2028, with the result that the Scunthorpe blast furnace closure programme has been delayed. Too late for Port Talbot. In any the EAF furnaces were going to be 250000 tonnes units, bringing UK steel production down from 5.6 million tonnes to 1 million tonnes over the four EAF units. Job losses are inevitable
Superb stuff Dave, keep up the good work please.
(Although I would have hoped that a room full of engineers could have plumbed your mic directly into the camera!)
HI there, a good post, thank you for posting. I have also recently posted a substack on the cure worse than the disease here-
https://tomed.substack.com/p/net-zero-threatens-the-uks-future
I hope you enjoy. All the best.
Can you say how much renewable subsidy costs per household, in terms of what each household pays?
Quick math, the video says subsidies are approx £14bn pa. There are 28.4m households in the UK. Does this mean that on average, a household pays 14bn/28.4m = £490pa just towards subsidies?
Or can I deduce from my bills, how much I'm paying for subsidies?
Some of the subsidies are paid by businesses. I don't know the split.
Thank you. Excellent talk, too.
Not sure how I found this but wanted to share https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/19/climate-scientists-officially-declare-climate-emergency-at-an-end/
Good, except that they shouldn’t have conceded that there was ever a “climate emergency” in the first place.
You need to remember net zero is nothing to do with science or economics or making life better for the masses - it’s a globalist scam that has been pseudo-scientifically bolted onto natural climate change / weather events in order to rinse the masses of ever more (until the bubble bursts) tax money, in the heavily veiled and deceitful premise that they are saving planet earth from an unstoppable climate Armageddon
All manner of corrupt scientists, chancers, grifters, shills etc have joined the globalist funded mission because there’s currently lots of money to be had - some people are getting extremely rich via renewables and other engineeringly incompetent net zero tat - £41Bn is reportedly ‘missing’ from the world bank climate fund! Missing? Not on your Nelly, it’s more likely securely stuffed away in multiple off shore bank accounts awaiting the next money making scheme
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/41-billion-world-bank-climate-finance-unaccounted-oxfam-finds
Mr Turver, 'net zero' and 'cliamte change' are not about the environment, ecology or even energy. They are inventions of the state to control what people can do and how they live.
Excellent talk by David Turver which I attended in person.
The big uncertainties about the cause of climate change include the thermal flywheel effect and absorption of gases by the oceans, and the effect of clouds. I quote from the NASA Facts paper
'The Importance of UnderStanding Clouds' (dated 2005 but downloaded today)
which states: 'Clouds absorb and reflect solar radiation and absorb and emit thermal radiation.... Many scientists consider the uncertainty about the feedback of clouds on the climate to be the major obstacle to credible predictions of climate change'.
This supports papers published by William Happer, including Radiation Transport in Clouds published last month (and his other papers on CO2 saturation). On this basis why is the UK hell bent on rapid net zero carbon emission targets, with the almost certain consequence of trashing the UK economy and energy security?
Excellent talk. Are the real conspiracy theorists in charge of policies? https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newscottish-national-adaptation-plan?utm_source=publication-search
Brilliant post (of Oct 2024).
The Land Reform Bill is currently being considered by the relevant Parliamentary committee and ''will place a legal obligation on owners of landholdings over 3000 hectares to engage with local communities about how they use their land, including a requirement to produce land management plans to set out how they use their land and how that contributes to key public policy priorities, like addressing climate change and protecting and restoring nature.''
https://www.gov.scot/publications/agriculture-reform-implementation-oversight-board-minutes-27-september-2024/
I actually think critics in this space really do need to make use of the conspiracy theory label towwards the proponents of planetary doom caused by co2.
Excellent as ever. The conversations I have with people around me show that many "ordinary" people know that Climate ChangeTM is a scam for some to line their pockets, while we grow colder and poorer (isn't David Minibrain an incidental beneficiary of some of Crazy Eyes Ed's policies?), it's just the idiocracy governing us who haven't got the memo.....
Thank you for this excellent summary. Now we only have to get it through some thick heads in Parliament, and out to any part of the mainstream Press more willing to shout loud truths than peddle the despicable lies that Labour and energy lobbyists are pushing.
The great British Public needs to get angry, and soon.
"wind and solar can never deliver security because we cannot control the weather". Of course we can control the weather. We just need a bit more hubris and conceit. Surely Ed knows how.
Thank you David, read, and this week also watched, with usual great interest. I share a couple of things which have come my way this week. First, Panorama: "Rewiring Britain" https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0027wm5/panorama-rewiring-britain-the-race-to-go-green I expect that for some, this will be their (mild) introduction to the notion that the current plan is not cost-free as advertised, and will have an impact on rural Britain, which the current government despises (along with the retired and the entire private sector). Health and safety warning: Miliband appears (as does Slye), so keep a bucket handy - I just managed to hang onto my breakfast.
The second item is an interview with energy historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, author of the book 'More and More and More....'. In this he argues that not only is there no "energy transition", there has never been one in the history of our species. For example, more wood was consumed in making pit props for coal mines in one century than had been burned as fuel in the previous century - there have only been energy additions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7MPU109fY Fressoz pulls no punches.
I watched the Panorama documentary. This linked review by a Net Zero nutter is useful in giving an overview. The video is a massive hostage to fortune by all the usual suspects, e.g. Mr Slye (by name, sly by nature) repeating that 95% grid decarbonisation by 2030 is doable, although difficult.
There is no questioning of the science, no questioning of Net Zero being unilateral and therefore pointless, they never interviewed anyone who was against the official narrative (renewables good). Miliband spouts his ludicrous justifications: energy security (no mention of interconnector risks), avoiding dependency on foreign tyrants (no mention of Qatar or Biden who sabotaged Nord Stream), “clean” renewables...
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/rewiring-britain-the-race-to-go-green-a-power-struggle-with-no-clear-winner/.
Thought ye might want a butchers at this?
''5.1. Challenges--“Preaching to the converted”
''Climate action is not a priority for the majority of people, particularly at the moment during the cost-of-living crisis.''
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2025/01/scottish-climate-action-hubs-models-research/documents/climate-action-hubs-models-research/climate-action-hubs-models-research/govscot%3Adocument/climate-action-hubs-models-research.pdf
Incredible, “Climate Action Hubs” sponsored by the Scottish so-called Government which kids itself that Scotland can reach Net Zero by 2045. The UK Uniparty of climate ideologues needs to be swept away, including the SNP.
With £2.4 million allocated the magic money tree arrives again.
The government's sniffy, dismissive response to the petition is an appeal to the authority of the IPCC and 'overwhelming consensus' re. the 'settled science'. But the IPCC itself has no scientific authority; it is just a bureaucratic UN organisation which pools scientific research and constructs policy summaries for policy makers and governments loosely based on the interpretation of that research - but in actual fact, tailored to meet the demands of a political narrative more than to accurately reflect the wide range of uncertainty of that scientific research and data.
For example, IPCC AR5 (2013) was forced to admit that there was a genuine scientific debate re. the explanation of The Pause (1998-2013). That inconvenient Pause - which generated hundreds of scientific papers attempting to explain it) was subsequently just erased from the record by statistical sleight of hand and by 'adjustments' to the data. IPCC AR6 (2021) didn't mention it as far as I'm aware, and if it was mentioned, it was only in passing. IPCC also provided a statistically robust (albeit far from scientifically robust) statement re. the attribution of global surface temperature rise since 1950. The temperature record before that was deemed not sufficiently accurate and cumulative emissions prior to 1950 were deemed not to be sufficient to realistically affect global mean temperature. Hence:
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period."
[IPCC AR5, 2013]
But guess what? By 2021, AR6 had updated the Settled Science to include an attribution statement since 1850 - when in fact the planet was naturally warming, having naturally cooled during the Little Ice Age, which was in fact the coldest the planet had been since the end of the last glaciation some 12,000 years ago. AR6, in its semi-religious fervour, laid claim on behalf of industrial greenhouse gases to ALL surface warming post 1850 - but note that they sneakily downgraded the 'extremely likely' post 1950 warming to only 'likely' when attributing post 1850 warming and just 'very likely' when referencing post 1950 tropospheric warming. That's the Settled Science for you!
"The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979 and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s."
[IPCC AR6, 2021]
But this doesn't stop climate fanatics (and our Green Blob captured government agencies) from arrogantly and dismissively claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the entire post industrial warming of 1.2C is due to human beings, thus singling out the Industrial Revolution as the source of ALL climate and climate-related extreme weather change over the last 175 years. It's patently nonsense, but it sticks, because the factually challenged and scientifically illiterate morons in government and institutions just launder the IPCC manufactured consensus and 'attribution' statements to lend authority to their evidence-free claims of a 'climate emergency'. The Trump administration HAS to change this; it MUST take on the authority of the IPCC and dismantle the Settled Science.
That the IPCC is just a collection of opinions has been my argument to the government recently. Even is this is the “authoritative source” you are still required to produce a verification document of the science as it is being applied to the real world. It becomes an engineering matter. If every new build has to do a physical electrical inspection even when the plugs are rated to 240V any climate science prediction that influences tax on the population should have the same scrutiny.
Otherwise Boeing could have flown their 737 MAX planes in the UK straight away. They had all the data and models to say they were safe. And those models are way more precise than climate ones. But apparently only climate science and Covid science get a free pass. Or most exactly an accountability bypass.
Roger Pielke's The Honest Broker (THB) substack provides a balanced and authoritative commentary on the IPCC and other climate issues. Prof Pielke was essentially forced out of his tenured university position for failing to follow what is now orthodoxy.
Here’s hoping that Trump “puts a stake through the heart” of the climate change hoax. It shouldn’t be difficult as the cabal’s climate change narrative is very stupid and obvious and easy to debunk: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
We see it with the Hunga Tonga warming spike which they ludicrously pretended was due to man-made CO2. How did they ever think they would get away with that, calling it “global boiling”, when it was bound to dissipate before long, as now seems to be happening: https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/global-boiling-is-toast-will-global.
You are being governed by idiots just like we had in North America.. we fixed it..
Many in North America voted for Trump and we will vote in a Conservative government in Canada that will mean the end of NetZero.
The UK needs to change its politics and the best bet is the Reform Party … Its inline with Trump and After reviewing the plan its your only hope.. Even getting good results in the polls will push the envelope.
Here is the plan..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGJGMf1QnVw