Friday
Jun282013
by 
Josh
Josh Sans raison - Josh 228
Jun 28, 2013 Energy: costs Energy: shale Energy: wind Josh Wind turbines 
Andrew Simms hilariously titled article is here. It is so funny I have just repeated it. He seems to be worried that we might have too much prosperity, be able to keep the lights on for longer and generally ignore mad renewable schemes like Wind turbines for many many years. This sounds like great news to me.
Reader Comments (44)
Hahaha, what a funny post!
I thought Josh'es title was in jest, but the Guardibluurggh's article has exactly that title.....
It reeks of desperation and that is incredibly funny!
Your Grace and Josh have both overlooked the fact that Andrew Simms has a solution to all our problems - and it does not involve shale gas.
The four-day week: less is more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/feb/22/four-day-week-less-is-more
"More free time, fewer carbon emissions and an answer to our economic woes. Why aren't we all working a four-day week?" Guardian, 22 February 2013.
One has to wonder where the Grauniad finds idiots like Andrew Simms.
Nice one Josh.
Wind turbines? You mean swift-killers, surely.
'But it's our turn to wear the sack cloth and ashes! We've been bad, we should be punished for our carbon sins! Fracking gas is the Devil's flatulence, we must resist.'
Guardian writers could teach the Opus Dei a thing or two about self punishment.
I like this old classic:
http://www.tfheaven.free-online.co.uk/modernparents.jpg
Pessimists don't use logical argument as it is in their nature to believe they will loose. Hence whinging is their only outlet.
Loved this comment in the linked article
We should be building barrages across the Severn like they're going out of fashion. Any nation which refuses to utilize it's god-given resources is doomed to failure, and deservedly so.
Not sure if it's ironic by accident or by design.
Interesting that all of the higher rated comments on Simms' article are pretty scathing.
Every so often somebody pens a few concise but descriptive words.
The following from WUWT seems relevant to the subject of this post:-
anyone been to Flatwater Chicago? reckon you might find Andrew Simms in the centre.....
What sort of bizarre parallel universe does the (loss-making) Guardian and its readers inhabit?
Does its circulation extend beyond the BBC, Westminster and Notting Hill?
Enquiring minds need to know!
Seems like our Shale Gas will outlive The Guardian. Ironic really, allowing all our trees to be used for the dead tree press, rather than as BioMass.
Great remark from 'Sapphire Rising' in the comments on Simms piece
'Honestly the way you talk you would think that people want to be warm, comfortable and well fed just to irritate you personally.'
Sapphire has a point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
"100 MONTHS TO SAVE THE WORLD"
Said Andrew Simms in 2008.
His monthly updates have appeared under 'Climate Change" or 'Environment'.
This one was quietly slipped in under 'Comment' (or Komment)- either by Simms or an embarrassed Editor because by 2017 at the latest we shall have reached 'tipping point', according to arch-pessimist Simms.
As we shall all be 'doooooooomed I tell ye' by then, who cares about 40 years hence ?
I have not read and contributed to the Graun's blogs for several years, because I was sickened by the green bias of the moderators. Rarely could I get a comment posted at all if it was sceptical of the warmist faith, or it would be held up for hours or days.
So I was surprised to find when I followed the link and read the comments that the Greens are getting a slating and the reccommends do not appear to be tampered with. Each of the highest reccommends being from what appear to be sceptics, or as I prefer to say, realists.
I stopped visiting the Graun blogs when a comment from a warmist received reccommends numbering in the thousand.
Is there a sea change at the Graun?
"Is there a sea change at the Graun?"
-----------------
Well the tide is certainly going out on global warming. They need to find something else to float their boat.
Dave L
As this was slipped in under the 'Comment' banner the Green Stasi were probably not operating as 'immoderators'.
If you check the blog about the unfortunate swift which deliberately committed hari-kiri just to make a point about 'bird-chompers' you'll find plenty of deletions as usual.
One can only hope that Monbiot will be writing about the shale gas bonanza or 'suicidal swifts', he's bound to want to upset somebody, usually his fellow 'greens' these days !
The best comment on that article was something like:
"You've just stumbled upon a massive cache of something very valuable...panic!!!"
my thoughts exactly!
James
Simms is the epitome of a shining wit, unless Dr Spooner would have another view
Where oh where did the figure of 40 years come from? It is in excess of 400 years.
Even if it is 400 years....WHAT THEN?!?
*giggle*
James
Dearieme -ref swift killers. Are you referring to the
White-ThroatedShort-Sighted Needletail?The 40-years figure is an estimate of the recoverable shale gas. Here too the enviros enter to muck up the works. The article leaves the impression that because of "fear of fracking" the haul may be limited to 10 percent of overall shale gas. I'm not a geologist but I'm guessing that isn't a great average.
Overall, reading the piece was like watching a bad skiier, careening from fallacy to non sequitir before finally landing in a big messy heap.
Shell has a plant in Arabia that converts natural gas to a liquid. That would be a nice use of a 400 year supply of shale gas.
The grauniad moderators must be on strike or having a gender equality meeting or something. Somebody managed to slip the phrase 'preening tossers of Brighton' past them.
Would never have been allowed in the days before I got cast into the outer darkness for crimes unspecified........
The Bishop is with Latimer in the Grauniad's outer darkness- it would be interesting to know how many other Bishop Hill readers are there too.
@Messenger
Me too.
I changed my Guardian profile to reflect my status. I don't think they've noticed. He he.
Jun 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM | Turning Tide
Why doesn't a proper qualified guardian reading climate scientist eve go and refute some of the complete twaddle that turns up in these comments. At the same time as defending their science from some ridicule they could be enhancing their own reputation. They would at least be doing a reasonable argument from authority.
Why would anyone think Sweden would be uninhabitable in a century......
Something else that might dissapear from the landscape not just windmills.
A gas turbine generators are smalll and efficent for the huge power they produce.
You drive around a town you dont notice telephone exchanges or water pumping station.So would you notice a micro power station inside an industrial unit.
Gas can be piped underground across the country for dozens of private and municiple generators.Dont need no smart grid .The final of Strickly on the telly need more power turn the gas valve up.
Good riddence Windmills and perhaps Elecrticity Plyons.
Kent Gatewood
"Shell has a plant in Saudi Arabia that converts natural gas to a liquid" - could it be that this no doubt massive investment has anything to do with their so far successful attempts to stop Shale Gas exploitation in the UK ?
I refer of course, to SHELL'S "Senior Climate Change Adviser" David Hone, who insists that NO fossil fuel should be extracted unless 'strangled' by Carbon Capture & Sequestration, which as we all know, cannot possibly work.
@Rob Burton
One or two knowledgeable posters put up good information and reasoned arguments, but no rational responses are going to get through to the kind of people who wear head torches in their own houses to keep their CO2 emissions down, or are planning to escape climate armageddon and the collapse of civilization in a small boat (both real examples of Guardian regulars, btw).
Possibly if any real climate scientist read the Guardian comments, they just shake their heads in disbelief and move on to something more productive.
Toad; that may be a conspiracy too far. Shell's "massive plant" is in fact in Qatar and it produces diesel from natural gas. Said diesel is sold across Europe as "V-Max" - and it is highly profitable. Developing shale in the UK would not have any impact on that.
The thing to remember is that Simms and his green friends actual want an energy crisis, has they seen this has an 'opportunity ' and there more than willing to pay the price , in others bodies if necessary.
So of course then oppose fracking whilst knowing renewable cannot cut it , for the end result of their ideas , energy shortages , is what they want .
So the more gas there is the worse the news for them , think of it this way if you wanted to keep people poor , you oppose any ideas to give them money for in your own self interest , that in effect is what they are doing .
@KnR "Simms and his green friends actual want an energy crisis"
But why?
The Guardian is full of people bemoaning "excessive consumption" (which they never define) but they all have (at a minimum) access to computing facilities and a reliable power supply.
If they think it would be better if everyone consumed less and lived more "sustainably", why don't they demonstrate such a lifestyle rather than just whingeing about people enjoying material things?
This is a story that hasn't been much publicised (or perhaps I missed it?):-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10150629/Coalition-facing-back-bench-revolt-over-wind-farm-subsidies.html
PotatoEd Davey has neatly got round the well publicised 10% subsidy reduction of onshore windfarms.
With all due respect, this blatant reversal of something recently approved by Parliament, to spread even more jam on BigWind's bread and butter is yet another reason why he should be impeached.
Not that he will be.
Turning Tide why , partly becasue it fits there idea of punishing people for their 'sins ' against nature and partly because its fits with their fantasy of going back to some past rural 'ideal' .
The greens have long moaned about energy being to 'easily available , the change has been they stopped doing in public given its was such poor PR with so many having to pick between eating and heating. But the desire is still there and manufacture energy shortages, through pushing ideas that know cannot work and attacking those that can is one way to bring this about .
I would give you 10,000-1 that you come with a clean green way of providing unlimited energy , then they would still oppose this for ideological reasons .
@KnR
But if they really think energy is too easily available, they could voluntarily reduce their own energy consumption, to demonstrate the lifestyle they ostensibly favour is actually feasible. Seems to me the difference between someone who calls themselves "green" and someone who doesn't in Western society is in the main very small indeed - "greens" enjoy all the same benefits accruing from (relatively) cheap energy as everyone else.
At the same time, while they might harken back to a rural ideal, if the Guardian commenters are representative, they are also bitterly jealous of anyone who actually lives in the countryside: they seem to think the rural population is composed entirely of middle-age white Tory votes in second homes, and they seem to take great delight in the idea of the views of such people being spoiled by wind turbines.
OT, but there's a mention of the Grauniad in Private Eye this week, concerning their purchase of new 'top level domains' for the internet. If you pay enough, you can have 'personalised' suffices, instead of boring old dot com, dot co.uk etc. Dot guardian and dot guardianmedia are so much catchier, don't you think?
Not sure I'd be too chuffed if I was a shareholder, though...
TT
"the kind of people who wear head torches in their own houses to keep their CO2 emissions down"
But how many do? Certainly not Monbiot or Hickman or Caroline Lucas. I'd take (slightly) more notice of them if they practised what they preached. #greensgobyair :-)
Great Josh !
Simms is daft as a toilet brush, but totally agree with the 4 day week. It is economically inefficient but who cares ?
The AGW fools should worry more about what happens when people finish realizing that no matter how much subsidy their windmills receive, the policies they push cannot supply one year's worth of power, much less 40.
"@KnR "Simms and his green friends actual want an energy crisis"
But why?
The Guardian is full of people bemoaning "excessive consumption" (which they never define) but they all have (at a minimum) access to computing facilities and a reliable power supply.
If they think it would be better if everyone consumed less and lived more "sustainably", why don't they demonstrate such a lifestyle rather than just whingeing about people enjoying material things?"
They make hypothetical environmental and climate "problems" that promote leftist ideology and solutions. The aim is to promote Marxism nationally and globally. The means are the leftist made up "problems" with the environment and the climate.
I am suffering pre-moderation at the Guardian. This is not a ban - exactly.
My comments are held up until the post is just about to be removed so as the historical record shows that I was allowed to speak but, in reality, no-one sees it.
On politics, economics and Dr Who my views are in close concord with the editorial slant of the Grauniad. Hence, no outright ban, perhaps?
But when Nuticelli and the SkS crew took over the moderation of the green articles my views were most unwelcome and pre-moderation began.