Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

Featured

How to Deal With Energy Bills?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1305

2022-10-13

NetZero Watch explains the government's proposals for reducing the burden on electricity consumers.

"These generators are now receiving a subsidy top-up to incomes that are already well in excess of what was expected. There can be no justification for such a burden on the consumer"

"renewables are intrinsically expensive, and claims for dramatically falling costs are misrepresentations of the facts"

Will it work?

"The precise mechanics of the temporary Cost-Plus Revenue Limit will be subject to a consultation to be launched shortly"

Don't hold your breath - this "consultation" will be with energy providers, not with consumers.

"No one doubts that it is feasible to save householders and businesses billions of pounds, but whether this likely to be realised through this opaque and Byzantine procedure is open to doubt"

But NetZero Watch also has a plan that would reduce bills for the consumer ...

"The total savings delivered for winter 2022–23 would thus amount to £41 billion, or just over £1,500 per household" 

but in subsequent years

" further savings of £32 billion, or nearly £1,200 per household could be delivered"

What's not to like?

Plenty, according to the Good Law Project that points out that the Government's plan to reach Net Zero is illegal as it doesn't explain fully how it will get there in the allotted time-frame.

It has taken the Government to court in an attempt to force it to so, and (no surprise here) to its great delight, the Government has caved.

"Good Law Project is thrilled to have worked alongside our friends at ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth to deliver this landmark victory"

So HMG is now legally obliged to redouble its efforts to achieve Net Zero and is urged to 

"pull the plug on new fossil fuel developments and invest in real solutions to the myriad crises we face: developing the UK’s immense renewable energy potential and insulating people’s homes"

Yeah, right. For how many years have they been doing precisely that, and where have we ended up? 

Still, it's vital that HMG acts within the law, so to the freezer and the bankruptcy courts with the proletariat.

 

Students For Climate Science

Details
Category: Green
Hits: 1306

2022-10-10

"This is the full interactive seminar with Paul Burgess, a climate specialist who has been developing a mathematical model of climate change for the past 30 years! In this mind blowing 1 hour and 45 minute lecture, your eyes will begin to open as you see the way they have twisted the stats to try and prove climate change is real"

Paul Burgess talks climate change for Students against Tyranny. He has made it his job to investigate and work out the truth about climate change (in so far as that may be within the capabilities of any one man). He isn't just repeating what others have told him.

Pay attention - the first two graphs set the scene most eloquently.

(103 minutes)

 

 

Whither Ukraine Now?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1357

2022-10-06

Clayton Morris does the research for us so that we don't have to pull it all together for ourselves:

(39 minutes)

"How far have these ... stalwarts of journalism fallen?"

 

Like / Dislike these videos here.

 

Burning Forests Is Not Green and Never Will Be

Details
Category: Green
Hits: 1447

2022-10-04

It always struck me as a daft idea that felling and burning  "renewable" forests whilst promising to plant more and more trees wherever there is a "spare" patch of land and paying farmers to grow trees i.p.o. food is good, whilst just burning coal and gas is bad.

Even assuming that you grow as much wood as you burn (highly doubtful - trees take years longer to grow than to burn) you would still get the same amount of CO2 (or less!) into the atmosphere by not bothering and continuing to burn the coal and gas. Even the pollutant content would be worse from burning wood than from coal and gas. 

Why not just burn the coal or gas and keep the existing forests to take up the CO2? And think of the fuel (and CO2) that would be saved by not transporting the wood pellets half-way across the world.

OK I simplify, but I'm in the right ball-park. The BBC admits it all:

"The BBC report explains that although burning wood produces more greenhouse gases than burning coal, the electricity is classed as renewable because new trees are planted to replace the old ones and 'these new trees should recapture the carbon emitted by burning wood pellets'. However, 'recapturing' the carbon takes decades"

Only decades? Has anybody done the maths?

So the idea is a non-starter in the first place even on the green advocates' own terms.

And the balance sheet of CO2 production against absorption is in practice too complex to monitor and thus to control (prove me wrong!).

But of course it's worse ... the rules of the game are being flouted.

"Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop"

The Daily Sceptic has the story.

 

Purge of "Scientific" Papers

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1274

2022-10-03

Alas, the actual papers are not yet identified, but Wiley is one of the biggest publishers of science in the world.

And we are not talking about the odd paper - we are talking an initial tranch of over 500 papers published in only the last two years. "Tip of the iceberg" comes to mind.

"Further retractions are expected as the investigation proceeds"

All credit to the publishers for (perhaps belatedly) grasping the nettle.

Money talks as they say, and big money rests upon the publication of such papers. And competition is fierce to get one's work published in reputable journals, so admitting that your reputation may not reflect the reality is a huge move.

Let's hope this signals the breaking of the dam.

The Epoch Times has the story.

Hindawi Blog post by Liz Ferguson, Senior Vice President, Research Publishing, Wiley. 

 

Page 306 of 337