Wind Up or Wind Up?

I am by no means up to speed on the truth about the effectiveness of windfarms in reducing CO2 emissions, though I know one of the most obvious downsides….that you need another ‘always-on’ source of generation as a back up….as such any information that sheds light on the subject would be welcome..Just don’t rely on the BBC to provide it.

This is an interesting tale from Colonel Blimp in the comments concerning Roger Harrabin’s decision not to publish research that indicates wind farms produce no savings at all in CO2 emissions…and if so the whole exercise is an entirely pointless exercise in spending large amounts of money on the usual Labour inspired white elephants.

Blink and you might have missed UKIP’s conference but this must have been one of the more interesting statements made at it…and yet ignored by the BBC.

Odd you might think as there’s a big controversy over this subject…as noted at Bishop Hill.  Booker in the Telegraph, and the Guardian where the defence for wind farms is stridently put.


Harrabin says there just isn’t space to mention such research…..yes, I suppose the BBC website just can’t cope with a few extra lines….perhaps it could remove one of the stories about UFO’s that’s on there now? 

Balance is one thing, deliberately hiding evidence or research that inconveniently sheds doubt on the ‘consensus’ is another.

Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Wind Up or Wind Up?

  1. CMB says:

    Assuming the translations are correct, it looks like there is even more fun in Germany over the use of wind power.


  2. Guest Who says:

    ‘Harrabin says there just isn’t space’
    Sounds like a variation on the ‘accuracy won’t fit’ theme I keep getting played when pointing out that what is often headlined is not a fair representation of the story.
    Quite an indictment of any ‘news’ entity that puts professional integrity and trust at its core.
    As you say, even allowing for their quaint ‘but we clarified elsewhere’ notion in excuse, to claim that an infinitely expandable web page can’t cope with being thorough is risible.


  3. Old Goat says:

    CO2 emissions are a red herring, have been universally adopted as a reason to do stupid things, and have no bearing upon climate change whatsoever. CO2 shouldn’t even be in the equation. We’ve been well and truly had, and the lie has gone far too far to be halted, with vehicle manufacturers and just about everybody else and his/her brother on the “emissions” bandwagon.

    I think we all know, by now, that the idea of windfarms everywhere is a preposterous one, and that arsehole Davey bleating about keeping energy costs down for everyone, when they are likely to have to pay several hundred pounds more per year for it, really takes the biscuit.

    Anyway, the UK is finished, what with the eco-green scam, and drop-forged Dave giving all your money away to despotic countries, and the failure of just about everything else in a country which once bore the proud prefix “Great” – I’m glad I left.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      Yes, but I find that not many people outside of academic circles talk about the calibration of CO2 warming at the Earths surface or why it can be calculated by different methods to be so irrelevant as to be undetectable. My guess using the Unified Theory of Climate is that emissions would have to be a thousand times greater than all past emissions put together, just to raise the temperature by One Kelvin, but that assumes that volcanic CO2 makes up only 10% of the man-made/volcanic CO2 emissions.


    • Stan Arnold says:

      I left too. Best move I ever made. If the Brits keep voting for idiots, they get what they deserve.


      • MellorSJ says:

        I left too. But I had to come back because of my parents’ health.

        I cannot believe the nonsense the Brits get up to. And the beeb!


  4. Richard Pinder says:

    The BBC said it did not report the Judithgate Scandal because it was out of date by the time scientists told them about this IPCC imposed scientific fraud in Astronomy.


  5. Ian Hills says:

    IPCC admission not broadcast – shock, horror –

    “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”


  6. Old Goat says:

    Just heard on the news that an electric car, powered by “wind turbines” has just broken some speed record or other.

    Powered by wind turbines? How do they work that out, then? Presumably it has batteries, which were charged by electricity, so the source of the electricity to charge it is immaterial – it’s electricity, wherever it comes from (Bet it took a week or so to charge…).


    • Guest Who says:

      There was a Chinese bloke who suckered almost every brain-dead ‘sciencey-stuff’ MSM eco-bimbo into covering his car that had a fan on the front that powered forward travel to the wheels via the passage of air through it… via said powered motion.
      There is only one thing perpetual in all this, and that is the calibre of reporting in this arena.
      The question is… driven by ignorance, or agenda?
      Either way, if we are being charged for it, it’s fraud.


      • Guest Who says:

        They might have got away with the lack of exhaust pipe money shot, with the inevitable ‘see… no emissions’ (just a few hundred miles away at a coal-fired station), but George R’s post below suggests even the wind-generated aspects may struggle, especially if macro-generated and coming across the current grid.


  7. George R says:



    • Guest Who says:

      ‘The REF study comes as campaigners push for a UKIP-backed petition on the Downing Street website to get the 100,000 signatures needed to force a parliamentary debate on wind power.
      Can’t see a problem with that… though it seems a lot less gets rushed to ‘debate’ by our ‘holding power (neat double meaning there) to account’ fraternity when they are on the wrong side of the fence.
      Who could object? And if so… why?
      Questions are being asked.
      I would have signed the petition on this basis, but it doesn’t seem phrased as much as seeking to see the basic (woefully justified) eco/energy enviROI principles debated, as getting MPs to reject localised projects.
      Get one like that I’m in.
      The comments are mostly good though, with some asking why those in power are not either listening or understanding.
      To the latter I’d say they are either as thick as batshit or simply still totally, venally corrupt, and to the former they seem to operate on a ‘speaking for the nation’ broadcast-only basis as credible as the state broadcaster, while issuing the odd ‘lessons learned’ bit of patronising guff when it’s too late and no one is again will be found accountable.
      Any windfarms in Rochdale?


  8. George R says:

    “George Osborne’s CO2 tax will double UK electricity bills”

    (First report in piece)

    by Christopher Booker.