Polls show public ignore press attacks on wind-farms


4:03 pm - May 1st 2013

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

A survey of Britons has found that we are less likely to vote for political parties that oppose wind farm developments.

The poll by ComRes asked about voting intention for tomorrow’s local elections.

It also found that 69% of voters either don’t mind or would vote for candidates who support local wind farm developments.

The Comres poll found that 34% of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate who declared support for wind power, compared to only 24% who said this might be a negative factor in their decision.

By political affiliation, 33% of Tory voters were more likely to support a candidate who backed wind farms. That rose to 40% for Labour and 41% for Liberal Democrats leaning voters.

This is an extraordinary finding given the virulent campaign the newspapers and Tory MPs have run against wind-farms.

A separate poll by the Department of Energy and Climate Change also released this week found that public support for onshore wind power has reached a 12-month high.

Support for the use of renewable energy rose from 79% to 82% in the last three months (though within the margin of error).

More significantly, support for onshore wind power increased to 68% (+4) over the last three months. Support for wind energy is now at its highest level since the surveys began.

Opposition to onshore wind power fell to a meagre 11%. Just astonishing.

It underlines how little impact newspapers have these days on changing public opinion, especially on obvious issues such as climate change and clean energy.

More reading: Carbon Brief and Business Green

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


It’s an interesting coincidence that in conversation with a number of people recently they have all expressed scepticism about what they’re told in the media, the newspapers in particular. Largely they feel the world inhabited by journalists and their owners has little or no overlap with their own lives.

2. Thornavis

OK so voters don’t necessarily see this as their top priority, which is not terribly surprising. Given also that every political party and large chunks of the media have spent the last decade banging on about the carbon free paradise that awaits us if only we put our faith in windmills then it’s hardly surprising that it’s taking a while for the reality to dawn.
When we start seeing the effects of this folly things may change rather rapidly. Probably not many voters will read this before going to the polls but maybe they should.
http://liberum.eu.bdvision.ipreo.com/NSightWeb_v2.00/Handlers/Document.ashx?i=e7f798d1a60646efb76a03a030054be9

3. Dissident

Yet worldwide we are squandering 1.9 trillion dollars annually subsidising the fossil fuel industries free ride!

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm

That is more than enough to switch to renewables within a decade. Move to your next goalpost denialists!

4. Richard W

Dissident, did you actually read the IMF energy subsidies report?

Of your figure 50 percent of energy subsidies is accounted for by the Middle East and North Africa region.

Emerging and Developing Asia were responsible for
over 20 percent.

Central and Eastern Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States accounted for 15 percent.

Latin America and Caribbean made up over 7½ percent.

Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for about 4 percent.

“The only advanced economy where energy subsidies were
a non-negligible share of GDP was Taiwan Province of China at 0.3 percent of GDP (electricity)”

What “we” can actually do about squandering $$ on energy subsidies is not clear to me.

5. Dissident

How about the fact that we have a global economy for a start Richard W. those subsidies make fossil fuels artificially ‘cheap’ and prevents a level global market (their price is rising exponentially, if it wasn’t do you seriously think fracking, calthrates & tar sand would be used?).

Renewables like wind & solar are on the verge of being competitive – so how about taking the smart route and stopping globalised fossil fuel corporations from taking advantage of bribery & corruption in the Middle East, Russia etc…

Btw claims that renewables are unreliable is a fossil fuel company telling you porkies. Ever hear of finite resource, and mechanical breakdown???

6. Thornavis

Dissident

“Renewables like wind & solar are on the verge of being competitive”

Always assuming your idea of competitive is the sort of subsidies you’ve been complaining about being given to fossil fuels. You do also know I assume that wind needs gas as a back up, which according to you is uneconomic, so you are arguing for an end to subsidies to the thing that keeps your favourite subsidised energy source going. Brilliant.
Solar is next to useless at our latitude.

“Btw claims that renewables are unreliable is a fossil fuel company telling you porkies. Ever hear of finite resource, and mechanical breakdown???”

Explain why they are porkies, have you seen the figures for the total wind input into the grid and the figures for the number of days that wind is making any significant contribution or even a contribution at all ?

Finite resources ? Are we back to ‘peak oil’ again ? That thing that has been about to happen ever since I was a young man forty years ago and yet somehow, like the great thermopocaylpse the CAGWers keep promising us, is continually getting deferred.

7. Shatterface

By political affiliation, 33% of Tory voters were more likely to support a candidate who backed wind farms. That rose to 40% for Labour and 41% for Liberal Democrats leaning voters.

33%, 40% and 41% aren’t majorities

This is an extraordinary finding given the virulent campaign the newspapers and Tory MPs have run against wind-farms.

Its extraordinary that some people cling to the idea you can have affordable light and heat without investing in nuclear power.

8. Dissident

On the verge of being competitive without subsidies. Fossil fuels are automatically finite, it is solely the exponential increase in the price of them that makes barely usable fracking, tar sands and calthrates a supposedly viable option. Do you understand that denialists?

9. Dissident

And as Shatterface has stated, nuclear is another option – not the Cold War plutonium factories of course, Thorium (more common element) and intergral fast reactors (using available energy in so called nuclear waste)

10. Richard W

Dissident,

I would get rid of fossil fuel energy subsidies without a second thought. But unfortunately there is no mechanism for doing that. Saudi Arabia and the likes of Iran would not take kindly to you or anyone else telling them what they can or can’t subsidise. You are ignoring the reality of where fossil energy is subsidised. Do you remember the riots when some countries tried to reduce food subsidies.

“so how about taking the smart route and stopping globalised fossil fuel corporations from taking advantage of bribery & corruption in the Middle East, Russia etc”

That is just sloganised gibberish that is designed to tick some boxes. Saudi Arabia produce their own crude and heavily subsidise its consumption for domestic consumers. How exactly are you going to stop them, bomb them?

” Btw claims that renewables are unreliable is a fossil fuel company telling you porkies. Ever hear of finite resource, and mechanical breakdown???”

I was not aware I mentioned renewables or even made any claims.

11. Shatterface

Renewables like wind & solar are on the verge of being competitive

Only with each other.

“It underlines how little impact newspapers have these days on changing public opinion, ”

Err, yes Sunny. As I’ve been shouting for years, this is because newspapers chase the opinions of their readers, not mold them. The reason most newspapers are (small c) conservative, right wing and reactionary is because most of the newspaper readers in the country are, not because Murdoch runs them.

“Yet worldwide we are squandering 1.9 trillion dollars annually subsidising the fossil fuel industries free ride!”

Well, sorta.

“Dissident, did you actually read the IMF energy subsidies report?

Of your figure 50 percent of energy subsidies is accounted for by the Middle East and North Africa region.”

And, well, sorta.

There’s two different sets of energy subsidies. There’s “real” subsidies, actually shelling out cash to make energy cheaper. That’s around $500 billion a year and is indeed almost all developing countries or oil producing nations. This should obviously be stopped and climate change would reduce significantly if it were.

The other $1.4 trillion in that calculation is rather different. It’s that energy is not “taxed the same way as other consumption expenditure”. This is, slightly bizarrely, described as a subsidy. So, therefore, that VAT is 20%, spending on domestic energy VAT is 5%, that’s a 15% subsidy to domestic energy.

By which argument 0% VAT is a 20% subsidy to The Guardian.

It’s a fun argument but the two “subsidies” most certainly aren’t the same.

13. Dissident

@tim, you are on about confirmation bias where tabloids are concerned. Of course they tailor to pre existing prejudice. Difference is, science and its extension technology is independent of what fits in the knee jerk sphere

14. Thornavis

Dissident @5

Your argument seems to be that fossil fuel prices are rising rapidly thus making such things as fracking economic and that this therefore proves that fracking is also uneconomic. However wind and nuclear are economic because fossil fuels are expensive. You don’t think that
there might be a contradiction there ?
Ironically this makes coal very attractive too, which is why the Chinese burn so much of the stuff. You really haven’t factored in demand here which is increasing drastically, how are you going to meet that demand without exploiting every energy source available ?
Have you read that report I linked to at the beginning, makes for grim reading doesn’t it ?

15. Thornavis

“Difference is, science and its extension technology is independent of what fits in the knee jerk sphere”

Science doesn’t suffer from confirmation bias, are you serious ? Technology is not an extension of science, the former has existed since long before the appearance of the latter.

16. moronictorynarrative

This is why greens are confident i guess not that i think they will win any seats barring some in East Sussex.

“Solar is next to useless at our latitude”. Says who? I run my electric car from the solar panels on my roof, as well as most of the other appliances in my home. I export electricity to the grid in summer, and use the electricity made by windmills or hydro in the winter when it tends to blow and rain a lot. How is this more irresponsible than burning dirty oil which will poison the planet, exactly?

Only because they never ask engineers. Money is made by the landowner, after that the money generally goes to non UK companies. Cable from Turkey, blades from Sweden, alternators and control systems from Germany transported on dutch/german trailers pulled by Dutch/Swedish or German tractor units, the whole lot paid for by levy on the bill which hits the poorest most. Oh, and we have to build 100% spare capacity, nuclear or gas, because the wind doesn’t blow all day every day.

19. Derek Hattons Tailor

Where do you live – dubai ? I’m betting it’s not Manchester.

20. Thornavis

Rob @17

Solar is next to useless as a substitute for the scale of energy production we need in this country. Your solar panels can’t power industry. You say you use hydro and wind in the winter but the electricity you are using comes from whatever sources are feeding into the grid, it can’t pick and chose which you get. When the wind isn’t blowing you need a back up and for that gas is best.
Why are we building expensive and erratic windmills that need a fall back supply in gas power, that will not be used all the time, as well as a subsidy from the poor ? We could just build the gas stations and have cheaper energy and less CO2 emissions, if that concerns you, as has happened in the US.
BTW it’s quite often windless in the winter especially when the weather is at its coldest, do you turn your electric off in case you are receiving any of that nasty unrighteous fossil power ?

21. Richard W

There is an experimental research solar meadow that has been opened at Edinburgh College. It will be interesting to see how such a northerly solar power installation operates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22282888

And yet the continuing use of fossil fuels without CO2 sequestration will destroy our environment. You wise guys and your economics, jeesh!

23. Dissident

Thornavis

The only reason China burns so much coal now is because you want cheapie goods from China NOW. In other words you have outsourced your true carbon footprint to China, in the process making Chinese people pay with their lungs, because you don’t have a problem with them breathing in toxic products of high sulphur coal. It’s on other side of the planet and doesn’t affect you right? Any grandchildren of you will though! Here is a video courtesy of NASA showing the near permanent smog stain over China…

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=155644781

24. Dissident

Science doesn’t suffer from confirmation bias, are you serious ? Technology is not an extension of science, the former has existed since long before the appearance of the latter.

If you are talking about such advanced things as wheels & spears Thornavis. Since the industrial revolution (triggered by scientific experiments) it has been investment in science that has lead to everything technology wise we use!

25. Dissident

“I would get rid of fossil fuel energy subsidies without a second thought. But unfortunately there is no mechanism for doing that. Saudi Arabia and the likes of Iran would not take kindly to you or anyone else telling them what they can or can’t subsidise. You are ignoring the reality of where fossil energy is subsidised. Do you remember the riots when some countries tried to reduce food subsidies.”

You do realise that it was using food as feedstocks for fuelling US style hyper wasteful SUVs etc that took food out of the global market, that priced the poverty stricken out of being able to afford said food – combined with an increase in (local/regional) extreme weather events that lead to those food riots – and the “Arab spring”

26. Shatterface

Of course, Medhi Hasan’s flying horses can always supply more wind for the farms by flapping their wings.

(Anyone who says there’s no such thing as flying horses is, of course, a bigot.)

27. Thornavis

Dissident @ 24

I don’t know if you are ignorant of history or just asserting bollocks in the hope that someone might believe it. If you seriously imagine that before the Industrial Revolution there was no advanced technology you are deluded. I will give you just one example, though there are plenty of others – glass making. Do you think the scientific revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth century would have been possible without that knowledge ? There are a host of others from metal working, paper manufacturing, printing and even your beloved windmills.
It’s also highly debatable that the Industrial Revolution was driven by scientific discovery. The massive growth of international trade and the earlier agricultural revolution also need to be factored in as vital
elements.

@23

I probably shouldn’t bother with that comment it being such a ludicrous combination of self righteous ranting and strawman arguments. If you want to get personal about it though I am quite proud of my support for Chinese people getting richer as result
of globalisation and the desire of western consumers for cheaper goods, none of which is anything to be ashamed of. Your support for energy policies that will harm the poor of this country and lead us to economic stagnation is though.

28. Dissident

@ Thornavis

The days of cheap oil are gone.
http://chartsbin.com/view/oau
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5936
We have used up most of the easy to get, high quality crude. The exponentiating price of it is the only reason for costly, environmentally destructive oil sands to be even considered as a fuel source! The costs of oil are also far greater than the bald numbers in the first link indicate too. Ditto for gas, in the future ditto for coal. But then you say so what to that don’t you?

Speaking of coal, it’s true costs are not borne out in the price you pay for electricity generated by burning it. You pay extra taxes elsewhere to fund those true costs, and still defer most of it to your children. (This PDF is US centric, yet there are no rational reasons to not use it as a ballpark figure for what we in this country, or any other country pay for that matter)
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf
You sweep this dirty secret under the carpet too.

Here is a link to a document showing our consumption patterns are inexorably increasing our true carbon footprint. This country uses an accountancy trick called exteriorising to hide it. As your fossil fuel companies do.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/1646/1646.pdf
Once again you don’t care as you are in the ‘I’m alright jack’ camp.

We don’t have to rely on fossil fuels though. Neither for peak demand nor baseload. Yet you choose to ignore the consequences of staying hogtied to fossil fuels. Worse, you deny there are any, and act as if renewables will cost the earth!

Who is the ignorant one?

29. Thornavis

Dissident

You can post as many links as you want about carbon footprints, I don’t care, I don’t accept the catastrophic AGW scenario or think that there’s any moral problem with increasing energy use, so as far as I’m concerned it’s irrelevant. As to costs I don’t doubt there are all sorts of hidden ones it’s the way our screwed up energy supplies work and a large part of the reason they are screwed up is because of government meddling. A large part of that meddling is due to the obsession with renewables and, as Germany is already finding out, they aren’t the answer to anything, unless you’re a Green fanatic or subsidy farmer.
BTW I might read your links if you read and respond to the link which I posted right back at the beginning of the thread. Can you fault any of its conclusions ?

30. Thornavis

One other thing while I’m back here and having had a quick look at some of your links. You seem to think I’m pro coal, which I’m not, all I did was point out that its use is increasing due to greater energy demands in countries like China and that its costs have fallen relative to other fossil fuels. It’s no use going on about true costs either, as I’ve pointed out the true costs of renewables are just as hair raising.

31. Derek Hattons Tailor

Dissident – its a fairly basic principle of economics that as the scarcity of a commodity increases, so does its market value. This is why gold is more valuable than tin, because there is less of it and its harder to find and get out of the ground. Ergo, as the scarcity of oil/gas/whatever increases, so does its market price, meaning previously uneconomic reserves become economic, aided by technological advances.
It’s no different to the renewables “market”, as the subsidies increased and the technology progressed it became possible to make a (lopsided, dogmatic, special interest group) economic case for using it. And “global warming”, or whatever it’s called this week, is no longer on any sane agenda, even the BBC don’t talk about it any more, so it can’t be true.

@ Dissident
So you want us to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, India, Venezuela etc and impose your views on fuel pricing?
OOOOKAAAY!

@ Sunny
Actually the poll results do NOT show that
The most notable result is that Labour should have got a lot more seats than the Tories yesterday instead of one-third as many, LibDems and UKIP should have been invisible as 8% and 10% of voters translate into a tiny number of seats, but the relevant point is that the median voter was “Don’t Know” on Wind Farms – only 34% would be more likely to vote for a candidate favouring wind farms.
Please, please read the stuff you’re quoting to check that it supports your propaganda

Rob @17

I run my electric car from the solar panels on my roof

Yes, but most of us like to drive our cars out of the garage…..

35. Ivor Ward

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

36. Weed Killa

Dissident

You are a deceptive lying little git.

Defra wont even release FOI information on how much subsidies are given to each rip-off windmill, let alone the back-up power stations on constant standby when the damn things stop working from the 4% of UK energy output for ruining the British landscape.
All it achieves is to destabilise the whole countries power supply which Germany quickly found out and started building the largest Brown Coal burning power stations in the World to combat the power fluctuations.

Ministers and populations have been conned by lunatic Green advisors!

Its one of the biggest cons on the population of all time by millionaires and billionaires who all piled into the Greeny rip-off fledgling companies in the late 80’s and 90’s – knowing what the next mass-population scam was.

By the way they are all piling into buying up Farmland around the World so they can manipulate the food and commodity markets next.

London traders already killed over 30 million people by falsly raising the prices of basic foodstuffs, rice etc when there were no shortages or harvest failures.

If you have eyes to see against these sons of Satan – God reveals!

37. Robin Levett

@Weed Killa #36:

All it achieves is to destabilise the whole countries power supply which Germany quickly found out and started building the largest Brown Coal burning power stations in the World to combat the power fluctuations.

Are you Bob B in disguise?

Do try learning about German use of renewable energy sources before pontificating about it.

@ # 37
No, Robin, he’s a troll

39. Weed Killa

[quote]
The government’s transition to these intermittent green energy technologies is causing havoc with its electric grid and that of its neighbors–countries that are now building switches to turn off their connection with Germany at their borders.

The intermittent power is causing destabilization of the electric grids causing potential blackouts, weakening voltage and causing damage to industrial equipment.

The instability of the electric grid is just one of many issues that the German government is facing regarding its move to intermittent renewable technologies. As we have previously reported, residential electricity prices in Germany are some of the highest in Europe and are increasing dramatically (currently Germans pay 34 cents a kilowatt hour compared to an average of 12 cents in the United States). This year German electricity rates are about to increase by over 10 percent due mainly to a surcharge for using more renewable energy and a further 30 to 50 percent price increase is expected in the next ten years. These changes in the electricity generation market have caused about 800,000 German households to no longer be able to afford their energy bills.

The Destabilization Problem

More than one third of Germany’s wind turbines are located in the eastern part of the nation where this large concentration of generating capacity regularly overloads the region’s electricity grid, threatening blackouts. The situation tends to be particularly critical on public holidays when residents and companies consume significantly less electricity than usual with the wind blowing regardless of the demand and supplying electricity that isn’t needed. In some extreme cases, the region produces three to four times the total amount of electricity actually being consumed, placing a strain on the eastern German electric grid. System engineers have to intervene every other day to maintain network stability.
[/quote]

I Million Germans cannot afford energy bills already and the bills are going up even further over next 10yrs.

In German winter = Frozen to death literally – a GREEN GENOCIDE

The hidden real name of the Green Party is “THE AUSTRIAN GREEN PARTY”- this is the founder of all Greeny evils around the World!

Now you can put the two Govt posters above into Lying, Misleading, Troll status!

40. Dissident

So ‘intermittent’ renewables risk overloading eastern Germany’s power grid? What a self contradictory statement. You mean that supposedly unreliable wind generation of electricity has performed so well that the regional grid would have had problems coping with all that power (48twh in 2011)
http://www.newenergy.info/economy/companies/germany-keeping-more-wind-power-off-the-grid

The solution? Try storing all that unused electricity in batteries, and upgrading Germany’s power grid. Ever think of that? No of course not. Minor engineering and infrastructure upgrades don’t enter your fossil fuel addled brain do they?

Just wait until the offshore capacity of the British isles are developed – the potential off our (ever so slightly windier) shores is approximately six times the total demand of this country. Combine that with a European wide super grid and a few batteries, and guess what the notion of ‘intermittent, unreliable’ etc will be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the aeging fossil fuel burning capacity of this country. Even gas will become obsolete. Or more accurately, run out.

Speaking of this country’s fossil fuel based power generation. How is it done? Is it a totally decentralised network of wind farms, solar panels etc where the failure of any one turbine etc wouldn’t even be noticed, or is it a highly centralised network of just a few old multi gigawatt power plants, do you seriously think there would be no problems there? Especially with much of the spare capacity been pared to the bone through pursuit of the ideology of endlessly maximising profit!

Have you ever seen megawatt valley? Power stations like Drax, Eggborough etc totally dominate the landscape from the Humber bridge to the Pennines. All the new wind farms installed in that area a frankly insignificant in comparison, and I live within a few miles of them, so I see with my own eyes the impact both have on the landscape. Frankly even a few thousand turbines is less of an impact aesthetically than the looming presence of those power stations!

For all the other contributors on this thread, more posts to come, what I am writing is really for the rest of you, especially Thornavis (I am in the process of reading through your link) – not that little weed troll…

@ #40 Dissident
(S)he’s just a troll but the greenies *are* claiming that wind power periodically generates so much electricity that it needs to be exported. Allegedly Norway has to shut down all (or nearly all) its hydro-electric stations to absorb the surplus from Denmark’s windmills [this from a Danish advocate of windmills – it just so happens that Denmark exports to the UK windmills that frequently fail to turn when the wind blows – who spent weeks trying to lie his way out of my comment that Denmark had a brown-out when a connector to Swedish nuclear power plants failed including a ridiculous claim that three nuclear plants had failed simultaneously causing a power failure in Denmark but not Sweden].
You can’t just charge any normal battery – if the claims are true then you need a whole series of Dinorwics to cope with the peak outputs of windfarms.
Also don’t talk rot about the Yorkshire landscape – too many Yorkshiremen read blogs.
Please treat his/her nonsense as nonsense without saying things that can so easily be refuted, which gives him/her unjustified credibility.

42. Dissident

@41 John77
Good point about the troll lol

I have heard of (when they become mainstream) electric car batteries used to augment the grid. With the exception of rush hour that would be a natural place to store excess charge, as when parked for much of the time what do cars do? Apart from rust of course…

If that idea does become feasible maybe it will do what is necessary to smooth out the ‘intermittency’

43. Weed Killa

Obviously upset you two morons.

Why did all the UK Windfarm projects recently go into overdrive before the rules changed for their subsidies?

Answer they go bust without them as thousands of wrecked wind projects lay broken in US deserts after the millionaires had walked away with Billions $$$ in taxpayer subsidies!

The biggest thing is
A MILLION HOUSEHOLDERS CANNOT AFFORD THEIR ENERGY BILLS TODAY IN GERMANY – with bills set to double and treble

Neither can Millions in The UK

You tunnel vision nihilists cannot comprehend this
– whilst you live in your brainwashed Green mental states doing the dirty work(useful idiots) for millionaires making millions from poor people from the energy subsidies

The Green movement and windmills would cease to exist when loads of hidden subsidies are removed – you bunch of subsidy parasites.

They are not businesses but socialised-cost, loss making nihilist projects – pure evil behind it.

GREEN INSPIRED GENOCIDE OF European POPULATION

@ #42 Dissident
Nice in theory but marginal in practice – getting car owners to quit whatever they are doing/wherever they are going to plug their batteries into a charger when the wind blows at peak levels is a little easier than herding cats.
If you had two batteries per car and “intelligent networks” that recharged the spare battery when the wind was above-average it would help but suppose you have two days with no wind and thousands of electric cars just stop on the expressway because the batteries are flat?
For wind-power we need back-up equal to peak demand on the grid and ways to deal with peak windmill supply.
Me, I prefer legislation requiring all air-conditioning to be solar-powered and using windmills for intermittent power needs – as the Dutch do, windmills unconnected to the grid pumping water out of polders. It irritates me that instead of asking the Dutch experts the British “environmentalists” have listened to the Danish salesmen.

45. Dissident

@John 77

Yeah nice in theory. The devil is always in the detail! I was wondering about it because cars do nothing for 90% of the time on average. But like you say, it might be marginal gain…

46. Weed Killa

“the devil is in the details” is actually a modification of the original quote,

“God is in the details.”

(Dunno what your mis-leaders teach you in Masonic-skool)
The Pharisees saw the “devil in the details”. That was one way that they clashed with the Old Testament.

So Jesus was reminding them that “God was in the details” and that He still was in the details. From the rest of His sermon (on the mount), you can see that Jesus saw this as a major issue with that crowd.

The religious leaders had twisted the Old Testament into something convenient for them, “allowing” them to “obey” God’s law without actually obeying all of it.
The Pharisees obeyed a part of the law and called that obeying all of it. They left out the passages that they didn’t like to keep. They could do this by either ignoring those sections or explaining them away.

John 3:18

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

47. Dissident

@Thornavis

I have read much of what you linked to at post 2.
Some of the bullet points in the document I have used below:

? the financial crash, global recession, and Euro crisis;

– the basic science remains unchanged, the laws of Physics and Chemistry have not been refuted no matter how much noise is generated by marketeers and denialist propaganda.

? the massive contraction in the value of European utility share prices;

– the economy crashed because of short sighted policies in the finance sector.

? the near wipe out of the European listed renewable power sector;

– share prices are driven by short term bubble blowing and herding behaviour, why pay too much attention to the casino?

? the Fukashima accident and its impact on German energy policy in particular;

– the infrastructure of Fukashima proved vulnerable to tsunamis, if its backup generator was placed higher the reactor wouldn’t have gone into meltdown. The switch to fossil fuel based generation is far more dangerous in the long run.

? the US energy revolution;

– an exercise in short sightedly putting their foot on the accelerator as they drive headlong into the wall.

? the failure to agree new internationally binding carbon reduction targets;

– just shows how corrupting the fossil fuel industry’s billionaire bribe masters are.

? increased public concern over climate science following the ‘climategate’ email leaks and the acknowledged standstill in global temperatures since 1997;

– manufactured hysteria over misrepresented quotes taken out of context in a few emails amongst literally hundreds of thousands of emails, in numerous investigations they were exonerated. (That of course doesn’t stop denialists parroting it)
– there is no standstill in AGW, the extra heat is mixing into the huge heat sinks called oceans and busy melting ice sheets.

? the fact that renewable energy technologies have proven much harder and more expensive to deploy at the utility scale than originally thought;

– fossil fuel funded AstroTurf campaigns against renewables.

?the continued use of coal as the primary source of power generation in the fastest growing economies, especially China and India.

– the exteriorising of our carbon footprint, one of those pesky little accountancy tricks. Yet at the same time China has aggressively cornered the renewables market, and is busily investing billions to implement its own changeover to renewables.

Here is the first in a long list of disclaimers in that report…
“The circumstances in which this communication have been produced are such that it is inappropriate to characterise it as independent investment research, as it has not been prepared in accordance with UK legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research. Therefore, even if it contains a research recommendation, it should be treated as a marketing communication.”


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy: Polls show public completely ignore newspaper attacks on wind energy | moonblogsfromsyb

    […] via Sunny Hundal Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/05/01/polls-show-public-completely-ignore-newspaper-attacks-on-win… […]

  2. I’ve got your missing links right here (4 May 2013) – Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science

    […] The British public has completely ignored newspaper & Tory attacks on wind farms […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.