SOT Dunkelflaute

And companies connect their "virtual" power stations to it, which in reality consists of remotely turning down their users' thermostats.

The plebs are brainwashed to clamour for it by the elites. While being threatened with being labelled deniers and bigots by the same elites. Who then say to the JSO, ER, and BLM s******ds that "we know where these bigots live".

my thermostat is manually set - by me.

There are two grids

One for the people who get 100% green power and another for the rest of us.

I don't think that is true. I think it is like religion, the basic idea comes from the people.

The anti-Nuclear power movement was a protest movement of the seventies.

There is a convincing scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming. Yes, there is uncertainty, there is scientific pressure and bias, but it comes from the scientific community.

The influencers are the new priests, but they aren't really the elites.

The elites will manipulate the ideas and the influencers, but the relationship is like royalty and the church.

We shouldn't underestimate the political difficulty of a massive nuclear building plan. For politicians it is easier to implement small scale iterative solutions. Like the windmills, politicians are just blowing in the wind, they don't like to commit. The moment they commit, they are accountable, they could be shown to be wrong.

Funded by the KGB and run by communists and useful idiots. And funded by Putins gas interests ever since. Why else would Germany - Russias nearest market - be so anti-nuclear?

No, it doesn't. Not any more.

All it needs is for enough people to be told they really need it, and it will happen

Right now there are growing murmurs in the not-the-guardian-or-the-bbc news, about how much Milliband's channel tunnel vision is going to cost, and request that he provides, with workings, a detailed plan that can be scrutinised by engineers to see if it works, and by financial people to see that it is remotely feasible....

...Let alone will result in any benefit to the country or the planet at all.

As one commentator said this morning "If we don't frack, we import gas and pay delivery costs in terms of emissions as well: If the price of renewables is to force our manufacturing to outsource to china, where it will be made using coal, we have actually made the global emissions scenario worse"

No such plan has been forthcoming.

What, people like those that ran the Former Soviet Union, you mean?

Straight from the Soviet Union.

Which scientific community are you talking about? Those with their snouts in the trough, or those that have a different message?

And where is this convincing argument for AGW? I’ve never seen one yet.

What’s an ‘influencer’?

Sounds rather like Animal Farm.

It was based, however, on the supoosed dangers of it - about which lies were spoken by the elites. Self-appointed elites, that is.

If there is uncertainty then there cannot be scope for a "convincing argument". There may well be global warming, that's one thing. Quite another is the extent if any for which humanity is to blame.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Wasn't it more about the weaponisation of nuclear?

The anti-nuclear lobby is probably still very much influenced by the "ban the bomb" thinking rather than considering the potential benefits of nuclear generating electricity.

The effectiveness of nuclear deterrence - and the USSR was totally scared of the USAs military potential - was hugely enhanced by making out that nuclear weapons would not only create flattened towns, but also inexorable radiation that would poison the earth and strip it of all life. And create a 'nuclear winter' that would last decades.

Naturally Hollywood commies jumped on the bandwagon and made it even scarier.

And the peaceniks took up a new banner.

Given that the West didnt need nuclear power at that point, except to make plutonium with, the oil companies were happy to go along with it too.

And strong government that could use taxpayers money to counter this threat with yet more nuclear weapons was popular as well

It was - like Climate change, a most *convenient* lie..

And trying to make it so introduces circular reasoning. Follow that chain.

's*it. Ive calculated the effect the CO2 makes using the radiation equations, and its utterly trivial - and less than the warming we are seeing'

'Can't have that. No more funding. Look if we introduce *positive feedback* then we can still save CO2 as the dominant cause of climate change, and the projections are utterly scary!'

'I *like* that. But suppose the reality is that something else is causing it? Maybe even the chaotic nature of climate itself.'

'Do you want a research grant or don't you?'

They were inextricably intertwined since the first power stations were in fact bomb factories, with a power station to get rid of excess heat.

And the demonizing of nuclear weapons was juts as good at demonizing nuclear power.

Russia with gas to sell and scared of NATO spent a fortune on the CND and then took over the greens as well.

Patrick Moore - original Greenpeace founder - is quite a sensible chap and thinks nukes are a good idea, but his organisation is now a right on hard left political movement that has nothing to do with the environment

And a lot to do with destroying capitalism. A laudable aim in Putins eyes.

For those that don't regularly follow WUWT:

In article snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@streater.me.uk> scribeth thus

Its more of a need for cooling than heating mind you some women discovered that if they painted the roofs of their houses white this did improve matters a lot!..