From this article, the conclusion:
The fake climate catastrophe has spawned a fake energy paradigm – replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar electricity. Wind and solar are claimed to be cheaper than traditional sources of electricity but non-fake accounting reveals that wind or solar electricity costs five or even ten times more than traditional electricity, exclusive, of course, of government subsidies and mandates. The reason it costs so much is that the erratic nature of wind and solar requires maintaining the traditional electricity generating system intact and ready to operate when wind and solar fail. Solar fails every night, every cloudy day, and more often in winter. Wind fails at random times, or somewhat predictable times, and often has a seasonal cycle. If the renewable energy advocates were logical, they would be advocating for nuclear. Nuclear is reliable and does not produce CO2.
Climate change and wind and solar electricity are a snipe hunts, diverting the country from serious problems in favor of imaginary problems with imaginary solutions that enrich the promoters and their political friends with status and money.
So what is that thing we knew all along? (And by “we”, I mean I and the Readers of this website.)
No climate model — not one, ever — has ever predicted the future reliably, even when the algorithms have been tweaked to the point where random data input yields exactly the same results. Aggregating (“unifying”) multiple models haven’t done so either.
Now read the article for the complete story.
As anyone who rides a motorcycle, owns a boat, or golfs knows.. if you cannot predict the weather more than 3 days in advance, why should I believe you can predict it 100 years out?
As someone who has built a number of computer based “Models” or simulations I can will tell you, the more variables you add, the more “sophisticated” your algorithms will appear, and the easier it is to control the outcome to produce the desired result either deliberately or subconsciously . ( and the more excuses, you can point to when things go south ) Sometimes the models worked as designed and were deemed correct……. until something changed and they no longer worked, but by then there was always a new predictive model.
As Dilbert’s Pointy Haired Boss declared.. “The model doesn’t need to be accurate, it just needs to have the desired outcome.”
Predicting the future is hard……. and usually wrong.
Conservatives, while technically correct, on issues like this, are simply flat out WRONG. They bleat “If the left just listened to reason/facts, they’d learn they’re wrong.”
Well, here’s a newsflash for you, Anthony Watt and other conservatives: THEY DON’T FUCKING CARE ABOUT BEING RIGHT. They simply care about power. That’s all this is. Screwing with your energy, whether it’s forcing you to use unreliable wind/solar to power your electric car that can go a max of 200mi on a charge (assuming good weather), or making you get rid of of your natural gas appliances, or killing off the Keystone Pipeline. You’re wasting your time arguing with them. The only option left is to destroy them and the power structures that give them the ability to control our lives (note this is true in other places, like COVID policy) and salt the earth so that they can never be reborn.
I was going to say something similar, but you stole it.
Had this conversation with my wokey step-daughter. “Ok, show me ONE, just ONE, climate change remediation proposal that doesn’t involve handing over power and authority to a lot of shit-heels in the US .gov or UN or whoever, and I might listen.”
There was of course no answer because people like her always think they are going to be the perpetrators of such fuckery, never the victims.
Voodoo energy can never meet the needs of the baseload.