The Cleggeron transport minister Phillip Hammond has caused hoots of derision with his ludicrous claims – made on the BBC Daily Politics Show last Wednesday – that wind turbines do not attract subsidy. They do, and they also benefit from an electricity tariff that forces us, the suffering public, to pay ludicrously high charges for this so-called “renewable” energy.
Andrew Neil, the host of the show, has decided to check out the veracity of Mr Hammond’s claims and he has blogged about his efforts. Good on him, but what he has written shows that when anyone, absolutely anyone, at the BBC writes about climate change, they get it wrong. Mr Neil claims that the only “subsidy” that windfarms receive is through the the higher electricity charges. He ignores/misses/doesn’t know the full facts, namely that these monstrosities do receive direct subsidies through a variety of routes, including help with so-called infrastructure development. The truth may be deliberately buried under screeds of bureaucracy and regulation, but the subsidy gravy train is definitely in motion. And of course, Cleggeron climate change nutter-in-chief Chris Huhne sings their praises at every opportunity, as well as preventing any possibility of the UK adopting sensible energy policies.
Oh, and Mr Neil, windfarms also wreak huge environmental damage by killing wildife, destroying the countryside, bringing misery to rural communities and by gobbling up huge quantities of rare earth metals in their maunufacture.
Chaps, you need to fix the URL in ‘the full facts’ link.
Thanks kindly for linking to my humble blog. Much appreciated.
I think Hammond has been playing with his organ for far too long, and has totally lost the plot. Not that any of them had the plot to begin with, and their rampant ignorance of just about everything is breathtaking. I see no end in sight, the country is going to be foisted with these bird-mincing eyesores for a long time to come, and with the “smart” (and I use the word in its broadest terms) grid, you’ll be deprived of electricity and prosecuted for over (or mis-) use of whatever power is still available.
Stock up with candles, batteries and paraffin. The BBC will be OK, though, they need only rub a couple of rent boys together for “personal” power, and the power requirements for transmission of the bias and government propaganda they so freely broadcast will, no doubt, be exempt from any restrictions, and paid for by the poor licence tax payer. Their problem will be that the public, sans electricity will only be able to use their televisions for limited periods. Except of course, for listeners, who will be forced to use wind-up radios to hear the biased BBC, which should mean a whole new lease of life for the likes of “Today”, and all that goes with it.
Where is the revolution? Is it coming? What do you mean, “No”?
I like it all, except the last word!
“they need only rub a couple of rent boys together“
You are Martin and I claim my £5.
I am afraid that the British people need a rather hard slap in the face for them to wake up, that slap is coming and sooner than you may think.
The UK stands on the edge of disaster, the economics of the loony bin are about to bear fruit. Debt is becoming unsustainable and the growth that the political imbeciles thought was coming is not, quelle bleeding surprise, the fake money printed off by the hundreds of billions has shot its bolt and its back down the sinkhole again.
The regime will run out of money and where do you think the cuts will come? The rich connected will not be suffering and the political class will be the very last to feel the pain and you can bet the farm that the EU will see its tribute come what may. The regime scum will look after their own first and last and always and screw the proles.
The drones will be hard put to watch their beloved get me outa here coz I is a d list celebrity chimps on ice featuring the cast of some 4th rate soap if there is no electricity. I suppose that after a few days staring at a blank TV screen the proles will suddenly wake up from their waking coma and get mob angry.
It’s a religion.
One can tell enormous lies when the topic is “climate change”. It will never be questioned or headlined by the MSM. Can you imagine a “Tory” telling a lie on a BBC programme and the press to ignore it completely?
As far as the non-Guardianista press is concerned, last week News International announced triumphantly in the Times that it was “carbon neutral” – hooray!! Then, yesterday – in the Sunday Times Colour Supplement – Bryan Appleyard inserted the following conclusion into his “more in sorrow than anger” article on climate scepticism
Nevertheless, the science says that global warming is happening and that human activity is almost certainly the cause. There are important arguments to be had about the rate of warming, about its impact, and about “climate sensitivity”, the degree to which the climate responds to small changes. But the simple truth is, unless some staggering new development reveals factors at work that have concealed themselves for 40 years from the best scientists in the world, denying the basics of the case is irrational, mere prejudice. Piers Corbyn claims to have such a revelation but, since he refuses to share his methods, he need not trouble the reasonable person.
The article (behind the Times paywall I’m afraid) is in effect an extended lament that there are political difficulties in the way of “combatting climate change”. However Appleyard asserts (as above) quite baldly that the science is in and anathematises Piers Corbyn. Corbyn, BTW, is not a publicly funded “scientist” and quite rightly refuses to share his methods (which earn him a good living from people who have to pay real – not taxpayers’ – money) with the general public. Mind you dubbing climate scientists as “the best scientists in the world” shows how deep Appleyard has drunk of the AGW (taxpayer funded) booze.
Appleyard is, of course, singing from the same songbook as Richard Black and, I suspect, for the same reason. Appleyard would be out on his ear in two seconds if he didn’t toe the Murdoch line. (The younger Murdochs that is: the old man is, I think, rather too indulgent of his children’s religious beliefs and is, anyway, interested in making money from the AGW gravy train.). Black would also very probably be out on his ear – or worse, in Salford – if he peeped that maybe, maybe AGW and its “science” and its “scientists” are expensive crapola.
However, it bears repeating, that I don’t have to read or pay for the Times or Bryan Appleyard: I am compelled by force of law to contribute to Black’s salary.
Typing ‘Wind turbines’ into Search on the BBC website brings up a page with a section called Elsewhere on the web: Editor’s Choice. The editors have, at the moment, chosen two other sites and three news stories. The two other sites are:
Renewable UK
Renewable UK, formerly the British Wind Energy Association, the professional body for the UK’s wind and marine industries, providing news, links and downloadable resources
Yes2Wind
Learn about the Yes2Wind campaign to use wind energy to tackle global warming
That strongly suggests on which side of the wind farms controversy the BBC stands. Surely they should be providing alternative sources of opinion and an obvious starting point might be, say, providing a link to No2Wind.
‘Andrew Neil, the host of the show, has decided to check out the veracity of Mr Hammond’s claims and he has blogged about his efforts.’
Well, he may have, but for commenters you had all of 2 days to get to be one of the 42 before the plug got pulled. Actually better than some of late.
On more active spin cycles, the way the comments of Mr. Black’s pean of praise for the Chinese and EU systems of government (neatly conflating the two) are shaping up, if it hits 20 I’ll be impressed.
Even the groupies seem to be having a problem singing its praises.