STT’s Take on the ‘Global Warming’ Story

STT’s Spidey Senses are tingling: that fiery ball of gas looming
over the horizon might just have something to do with it?


Now and again, STT gets a comment that seeks to pin us down as “anti-wind”, “climate deniers”. Here’s one from Enough Already:

I agree with your specific arguments against wind turbines, but even hosting AGW-denial articles puts me off. It perpetuates stereotypes of dumb bogans when we need all possible intelligence on this side!

I consider the wind turbine industry as greedy environmentalism armed with slick propaganda. You can’t effectively fight articulate propaganda with conspiracy theories like AGW-denial. We anti-wind folk need to stick to science.

CO2 is well understood as the main source of radiative forcing; it moderates the more powerful water vapor that cycles in and out. The Earth would be mostly frozen without that “trace gas,” CO2, but most denial arguments dumb that down by saying there’s just not enough CO2 to matter (sip a glass of water with “just” 400 ppm of cyanide and see how it goes). Denying AGW is like denying the whole CO2 greenhouse effect.

While Enough Already doesn’t appear to level that charge fairly and squarely against STT, his or her comment is worthy of dissection and defence on our part.

Dear Enough Already,

We apologise if some of those who appear on our pages with views contrary to your own concerning “AGW”, as you put it, offend your sensibilities.

We agree that “intelligence” is a useful weapon in any public or political discourse; hence our own particular choice of language. For example we do not claim to be “anti-wind folk”; nor do we accept such a tag.

The guff about STT (or any other repository of common sense, for that matter) being “anti-wind” is … well … just plain silly.

That’ll teach them for being “anti-wind”!!


STT loves a summer breeze just as much as the next family sweating on the beach – we’re partial to a ‘winter-stormy’ when jumping into the surf for a little ‘board action’ – and we’re pretty fond of the howl of wind, mixed with heavy rain drumming on an iron roof in June. And sailing just wouldn’t be the same without a little puff of the stuff, to fill the jib.

No, it’s the nonsense that is wind power that’s the target for STT – for obvious reasons:

There’s Only One Problem with Claims that Wind Power ‘Kills Coal’: and that’s the Wind

Language matters.

As George Orwell – a bloke who knew a thing or two about the way words are employed by the powerful and corrupt – put it:

If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.

The use of words and phrases such as “anti-wind”, “denier”, “denial”, “belief” and “believer” have no place in science, politics or economics. The latest hysterical abuse of our mother tongue is the phrase “climate denier”.

No one at STT, well actually no one anywhere, denies that there is such a thing as the “climate”.

That word, by definition, incorporates within it the concept of “change”; for if the climate had not changed over the 4.6 billion years that our Earth has been lapping around the Sun, it would have probably remained a solid frozen lump of ice; and we would not be here arguing the toss about a few degrees, one way or the other.

ice age earth
As it was 700 million years ago: good job things warmed up a little.


The nonsense peddled by climate hysterics is premised on some ‘Goldilocks fantasy’ that, at some point in the recent past (we can’t quite pin down when) the climate was “just right”. Ever since, apparently, we’ve been lurching towards a man-made climate catastrophe. STT grew up in the 1970s and was terrorised in school with forecasts of a looming ice age. 20 years on and the reign of terror was reversed: global incineration was next on the menu.

While we note your use of the term AGW, we understand that to incorporate “global warming” as an irrefutable fact. It is, however, a theory with which there is only one problem: and that’s the evidence. Even the most hysterical have been forced to accept the fact that global surface temperatures have not budged for 18 years, despite human generated CO2 emissions increasing at a rollicking rate: generally referred to as “the pause”. The last piece STT read on the topic takes us back to our childhood with warnings about, wait for it, another looming ice age:

And it’s the lack of evidence for global warming that appears to have shifted the terminology to “climate change”: a tautology if ever there was one.

Of course, the climate “changes” – change is endogenous to the model. Whether that change is significant or “dangerous”, as the most strident hysterics would have us believe, is yet to be seen. Humans have tolerated severe ice ages and, somehow, miraculously managed to survive. If the planet warms, as we’ve been lately warned, STT is pretty confident we will survive that too: it’s called “adaptation” – a feature of humanity, oft referred to as “ingenuity”.

However, in the main, we leave the topic of global warming or climate change (whichever is your poison) to others.

STT takes the position that man-made emissions of CO2 may increase atmospheric temperatures. But we don’t concede that wind power has made – or is even capable of making – one jot of difference to CO2 emissions in the electricity sector; principally because it is NOT – and will never be – an ‘alternative’ to conventional generation systems, which are always and everywhere available on demand:

South Australia – Australia’s ‘Wind Power Capital’ – Pays the Highest Power Prices in the World and Wonders Why it’s an Economic Basket Case

Let’s assume, as we do, that man-made CO2 emissions in the electricity sector are a problem. Then the only presently available solution is nuclear power; unless, of course, you’re prepared to live in Stone Age darkness.

Our attack is directed at a meaningless power source; that is insanely expensive, and utterly pointless, on every level. For those on both sides of the argument (including “AGW deniers” as you refer to them) that foolishly connect industrial wind turbines with global warming (or climate change) they, in effect, box themselves into a logical corner.

On the one hand, if the AGW hysterics are wrong (and icebergs start turning up in Port Phillip Bay), then, applying their (by then failed) man-made CO2/warming argument, we should scrap every last (planet cooling) wind turbine and start burning coal and gas as fast as humanly possible to warm the joint up, in order to prevent the ‘big freeze’.

chris turney stuck in ice
AGW barrackers become stuck in their own paradox …


On the other hand, if the AGW “deniers” are wrong, temperatures start to rise, and Australia looks set to become a boiling desert devoid of all life forms (save card-carrying “Greens”, of course), then the hysterics will claim absolute licence (if not high moral imperative) to carpet this, and every other country, in an endless sea of giant industrial wind turbines. Having pinned their arguments against wind power on the basis that CO2 caused AGW is a furphy, the “deniers” would be forced to logically concede their opponents’ case; and, with it, to also concede the need for a completely wind powered electricity system.

Hence, STT seeks to completely disconnect claims for and against global warming, and wind power generation.

As wind power can only ever be delivered (if at all) at crazy, random intervals it will never amount to a meaningful power source and will always require 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time with fossil fuel generation sources; in Australia, principally coal-fired plant. As a result, wind power generation will never “displace”, let alone “replace” fossil fuel generation sources.

Contrary to the anti-fossil fuel squad’s ranting, there isn’t a ‘choice’ between wind power and fossil fuel power generation: there’s a ‘choice’ between wind power (with fossil fuel powered back-up equal to 100% of its capacity) and relying on wind power alone. If you’re ready to ‘pick’ the latter, expect to be sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark more than 60% of the time.

Wind power isn’t a ‘system’, it’s ‘chaos’ – the pictures tell the story: this is the ‘output’ from every wind farm connected to the Eastern Grid (based in NSW, VIC, TAS & SA – and with a combined installed capacity of 3,669MW) during May.

May 2015 National

Consider a country where its electricity supply was exclusively based on wind power generation; a place where businesses would attempt to run around the vagaries of the wind; where houses would be well-stocked with candles and their occupants left to keep food cold with kero-fridges or iceboxes – and those homes otherwise run on wood, sticks or dung, used for cooking or heating. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

As soon as that country had the chance (due to the availability of technology and/or as a process of economic development) it would build a system based on power generation sources available “on-demand” (ie coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, geo-thermal).

Its people would then be able to enjoy around the clock illumination; factories could run to the clock, and not the weather; homes would be heated and cooled according their occupants’ needs, making life safer and more comfortable (no-one need be frozen to death or expire from the heat because the wind stopped blowing); economic development and prosperity would follow, as night follows day.

Placed in the practical context of the needs of a functioning society, wind power can be seen as the patent nonsense that it clearly is. If a country didn’t have a conventional power system (as we have), it would build one, anyway.

Once people grasp that fact, the rest of the wind industry’s ‘case’ falls away.

Talk about “wind farms being in the right place” just sounds silly; ergo, with arguments about distances from homes; separation from bird nesting sites or migration routes etc, etc.

All of these other considerations – while legitimate – simply jump to the periphery and dilute the strength of the key argument.

Keep hitting our political betters with the pointlessness of wind power as a generation source and the rest falls away.

What reasonable decision maker would back policies that favour something that has no economic benefit? Moreover, as the central claim that wind power reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity is a complete falsehood, the justification for the hundreds of $billions in subsidies directed to wind power looks like pure lunacy, at best; or graft and corruption (aka ‘crony’ capitalism), at worst.

What the wind industry hates most are facts.

STT dishes them up on a daily basis. The facts outlined above – and which we’ve detailed many times before – are unassailable.

Wind power is a fraud, pure and simple.

Australia has just locked in a $45 billion electricity tax which will be directed as subsidies to wind power outfits to generate power which has NO commercial value.

Were that same amount to be applied to building state-of-the-art nuclear power plants, Australia would enjoy cheap, dependable power for a century to come. Moreover, anyone concerned about AGW, as you clearly are, should be pleased as Punch knowing that the power being generated will not add a single gram of the ‘dreaded’ CO2 gas to the atmosphere. And, who knows? Maybe, just maybe, the Earth’s climate will remain constant – forevermore fixed in a “just right” Goldilocks state.

If only the climate was as easy as porridge to get ‘just right’.

14 thoughts on “STT’s Take on the ‘Global Warming’ Story

  1. STT
    Thank you for your reply and just to clarify. We agree the windmill cannot boil the jug without the grid connected

    Does this mean that when the windmill and the grid are connected to our house it is still only the grid boiling the jug?

    That the windmill is useless, only producing harmonics and giving greenies a fuzzy feeling.

    How can a windmill farm put a meter on their output supply into the grid and get paid for producing nothing or paid for producing harmonics which are dangerous to the grid and with the associated high earth voltages dangerous to people?

    With reference to an earlier story. Germany’s Wind Power Debacle
    Germany is now saying a surplus of wind energy is overloading their grid
    Is it correct if a windmill produces no electricity then they are only overloading their grid with dangerous harmonics?

    They then unbelievably say they should send the surplus to industrial areas
    They also say the wind farms get paid for electricity that is not used. What! If no one is using electricity the windmill just spins around. Electricity is not like water flowing in a river

    With the fraud involved someone should be going to gaol?

  2. STT
    1) Are you aware that the current electricity supply for NZ and Aus. is 50 cycles per second? Yes. And that windmills cannot produce this?
    2) That windmills may not be able to produce any real electricity
    3) That windmills only produce harmonics
    4) That if the grid is disconnected the windmills may not be able to supply electricity to a house to boil a jug
    5) That windmills are not only totally inefficient they are totally useless
    6) Historically windmills were used to charge batteries for the supply DC power
    7) That windmills may be a fraud

    1. Brian,

      STT’s responses start in CAPITALS:

      1) Are you aware that the current electricity supply for NZ and Aus. is 50 cycles per second? Yes. And that windmills cannot produce this?


      2) That windmills may not be able to produce any real electricity.

      YES, if ‘REAL’ means ‘active’ power.

      3) That windmills only produce harmonics.


      4) That if the grid is disconnected the windmills may not be able to supply electricity to a house to boil a jug.

      YES, turbines will not operate without power from the grid.

      5) That windmills are not only totally inefficient they are totally useless.


      6) Historically windmills were used to charge batteries for the supply DC power.

      YES, 32 volt Dunlite wind generators coupled to lead-acid car batteries were the standard remote power systems for remote properties and sheep stations in Australia. Diesel generators took over when 240AC became standard, with DC/AC converters forming part of the system.

      7) That windmills may be a fraud.

      NO, we disagree. Wind power IS a fraud.

  3. The major problem with this whole debate is, to buy into the windmill scam one needs to (It is helpful) buy into the global warming, carbon is a pollution scam. One has possibly also bought into the CFC’s scam.

    CO2 is heavier than air. It has to be to fall down here to feed the plants. CO2 cannot be down here feeding the plants and up there as a greenhouse warming gas.

    1400AD – 1800AD saw a little ice age. Of course the planet warmed, it was also desired and welcomed.

    The Medieval Warming was 1 degree warmer than today
    The Roman Warming 2 degrees warmer than today, and
    The Minoan Warming nearly 3 degrees warmer than today
    Much of the Holocene matched the Minoan

    CO2 in atmosphere is currently 400ppm. Good
    If CO2 drops to 250ppm life chokes
    If CO2 drops to 150ppm life ceases to exist
    At 280ppm the planet was close to extinction
    At 400ppm we are just above the threshold
    We could comfortably live at 2000ppm and receive a benefit

    That folks gives you an idea as to how much we are being lied to.

    The Greenies should be on our side exposing the lies.
    And why aren’t they?

    The Greenies are a put up job

  4. Excellent Comment in a Letter from someone in Melbourne, published in the Australian newspaper, he said:

    “In our near north we have a volcano belching out masses of emissions. Greenies would say that the dust cloud shields the sun and thus cooling takes place. However, the effect of this one Volcano would mitigate all of Australia’s annual efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. The cost of fighting nature is proving to be extreme as demonstrated in our ever-increasing power bills.”

  5. Comment from the founder of the Greens said it all in a 60 Minutes story back in 2004:

    “CHARLES WOOLEY: Professor James Lovelock is one of the world’s leading environmental scientists. This distinguished British researcher warns the climate clock is already at five minutes to midnight. Now, in Australia, we’re being told that wind power is one of the answers.

    DR JAMES LOVELOCK: I wish it were, but it’s not. At the best, wind power cannot provide more than a tiny fraction of the energy needs of civilisation. It’s a nice idea. It looks good. It’s showy. I think it’s one of those things politicians like because it can be seen that they’re doing something. But in practice, it’s not really a useful remedy.”

  6. There is not one nation on this planet that can say that all their sparks are produced by fans, not one, let alone sparks all the time.

    Wind is good for a lot of things, but not for sparks. The windweasel grubs are fighting a losing battle, and thank god for that.

  7. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak and commented:
    **** Now and again, STT gets a comment that seeks to pin us down as “anti-wind”, “climate deniers”. Here’s one from Enough Already: I agree with your specific arguments against wind turbines, but even hosting AGW-denial articles puts me off. It perpetuates stereotypes of dumb bogans when we need all possible intelligence on this side! I consider the wind turbine industry as greedy environmentalism armed with slick propaganda. [ 1822 more words. ]…/stts-take-on-the-global-warmin…

    1. Andrea. If you think AGW deniers are dumb bogans then you are a part of the problem. Mankind’s contribution to global warming is about a billionth. Besides we want a warmer planet with more CO2. The Sun’s sunspot activity has all but ceased. The planet is heading into an Ice Age. We just hope it is a mini rather than the full on Ice Age that is due. Not long to wait.

  8. In humans’ history, the “consensus” has rarely got it right. That consensus is what has driven the greed of the builders of the fans that are causing our rural problems. If only the voter would look outside conscience votes, but they will not. It is fashionable, it is a shame that we are lead so easily by those who happily use fossil fuels (Mother Nature’s battery), but who are quick to knock it.

Leave a Reply to Nimbynet Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s