Official: Wind Farms Are Totally Useless

Wind farms: scarring the English countryside (Photo: John Taylor)

Wind farms: scarring the English countryside (Photo: John Taylor)

Before I take my break, I cannot resist drawing your attention to a new report on wind farms – perhaps the most damning I have ever read. What makes it even more significant is that it has been sponsored by an environmental charity. Normally the people most busily pushing these bird-chomping, bat-crunching, taxpayer-fleecing monstrosities on our magnificent landscape are those who claim, ludicrously, to be green. Thank you, John Muir Trust, for reminding as that being green doesnt necessarily have to include economically suicidal schemes to destroy perhaps our greatest national asset: the British countryside.

Heres its summary:

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010. The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.

“Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”

“The wind is always blowing somewhere.”

“Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”

“The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”

“Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”

This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:

Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).

The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.

The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

Related posts:

  1. Wind Farms: the death of Britain
  2. Sorry, but wind farms are useless even against vampires
  3. Wind farms kill whales: blubber on the green movement’s hands
  4. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…

10 thoughts on “Official: wind farms are totally useless”

  1. Walt O’Brien says:7th April 2011 at 3:33 amWell, the other bit is they are a super device for hoovering up British subsidies ostensibly intended for British developers which are instead shell corporations for foreign interests which are taking the money the British taxpayer shells out for these monstrosities and pockets them offshore. They are a real job for the SFO, IMHO.

    A happy and safe vacation, and do something about the bloggatosis twitches, if this routine has chewed on your mind at all to the extent your feel a little suspicious of your own behaviour. The story of Hercules in its original version is the first clinical portrayal of PTSD, and he wasn’t fighting Viet Cong, he was fighting himself.

    Where the DT finds such achievers I have no idea, but I get the impression it is another General Electric or Rolls Royce: the best fuel yields the brightest flame, but who cares about the ashes, right? As Otto Lilienthal put it in his last words when he was dying as a result of trying out a new wing configuration on his test glider: “Sacrifices must be made.”

    I still want a piece of your editor. This was meant to be your apprenticeship and instead it has been damn near a hazing.

  2. Walt O’Brien says:8th April 2011 at 7:17 amHello, James. Thought you might be interested in who are possibly your main tormentors arisen from the depths of Hell, paid or otherwise.

    Please take a look at who is the contact person here, then please check with Damien to see if the IP address gives a location anywhere near Amherst, NY: Tonawanda, Buffalo, etc.

    Sorry, I am just completely exhausted with blogging altogether by these bar stewards. Do have a nice vacation. That they should go to the lengths they have indicates with what significant effectuality your work has put a properly cobbled bespoke boot into their smelly crab-infested groins.

    General Physics, BTW, are major-league consultants to the utilities on climate change and carbon trading. Please check out their ‘Climate Change” offerings.

    I rather suspect this would amuse Lord Tebbit as well.

  3. chris says:8th April 2011 at 5:48 pmPlease don’t stop writing about inefficient wind farms and their outrageous subsidies.

    Eventually, the lights are going to go out.

  4. Velocity says:9th April 2011 at 9:04 pma technology backed (subsidised, tax breaks, funded etc) by Govt …you can 100% guarantee it’s a pile of crap (see buses, trains, electric cars etc)

    ..add Windfarms to the list of crap

  5. David says:10th April 2011 at 4:03 pmEveryone who claims that wind farms are completely useless is wrong. Every effort to promote the sources which produce electricity and protect the environment at the same time is worth making.
  6. Don Stuart says:11th April 2011 at 10:23 am‘David’ – What do you mean ‘protect the environment’? In what way do windmills protect the environment?

    You’ve said absolutely nothing there. Typical windy rhetoric from a flatulent greenie.

  7. Nige Cook says:11th April 2011 at 12:28 pm“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” said Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (“L’enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs”).
  8. Axel says:15th April 2011 at 1:29 amLord Monckton is standing as a candidate for election to the Scottish Parliament on 5th May 2011. Vote UKIP in Mid-Scotland & Fife to GET MONCKTON ELECTED. Let’s all hear Lord Monckton lambast the Carbon Fraudsters on a Daily Basis in
    The Scottish Parliament. All you Scottish voters in the forthcoming Scottish Elections
    who want to see the Carbon Hoaxes and Frauds brought to an end have a clear choice
    for an eloquent voice to speak on their behalf on the Public Stage at long last.
    Vote UKIP to get Lord Monckton elected and the Carbon Crooks Exposed.

    See the website linked to my name. Click the name Axel above to see loads of Lord Monckton Videos and other materials. Hundreds of arcane videos at that website.

  9. Nige Cook says:19th April 2011 at 12:26 pmAxel: I think the CO2 AGW killer is figure 4 in Roy Spencer, et al., “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations,” published in the Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, s

    It proves that increasing cloud cover from extra ocean evaporation due to CO2 warming reduces the thermal radiation getting through: negative feedback. All IPCC models ignore this and assume water has a positive feedback effect. That’s why the greenhouse effect is a myth: no greenhouse is 71% ocean with 62% cloud cover, like earth. It’s not rocket science. If you look at the asymptotic limit for a boiling ocean, the rising, condensing steam droplets would give us 100% cloud cover. Any temperature rise of the warm ocean surface layer will increase cloud cover, producing negative feedback. The scandal is that all the predicted temperature rise of CO2 AGW is supposed to be due to positive feedback, which doesn’t exist.

  10. Velocity says:19th April 2011 at 6:32 pmAxel – great news, i truly hope Lord M gets elected but i fear the Scotts are a lost cause (sooner England peels away from them the better). Here’s your average Scottish voters choice;

    Labour Party (Marxists)
    Liberal Party (closet Marxists)
    SNP (Marxists)
    Conservatives (Socialists)

    Let’s hear it for ‘democracy’ (pass the sickbag)… Scotland is well and truly f**ked and they deserve it quite frankly!

Comments are closed.

Wind Farms Kill Whales: Blubber on the Green Movement’s Hands

Ungreen energy

The price of wind?

The price of wind?

So wind farms don’t just despoil countryside, frighten horses, chop up birds, spontaneously combust, drive down property prices, madden those who live nearby with their subsonic humming, drive up electricity prices, promote rentseeking, make rich landowners richer (and everyone else poorer), ruin views, buy more electric sports cars for that dreadful Dale Vince character, require rare earth minerals which cause enormous environmental damage, destroy 3.7 real jobs for every fake “green” job they “create”, blight neighbourhoods, kill off tourism and ruin lives, but they also


According to researchers at the University of St Andrews, the sound of offshore wind farms is likely to mess with the whales’ sensitive sonar systems and drive them ashore, where they get stuck on beaches and die.

Has anyone else noticed the gentle irony here? Well, let me explain with the help of my magic sledgehammer: save possibly the polar bear and the mighty snail darter there is no creature on the planet more totemic of green values than the whale. Saving whales is what greens do. Or rather what they used to do in the days when greens were actually interested in caring for the environment instead of, say, trying to destroy the capitalist system. But now, here they are actively promoting a form of renewable energy which in the process of producing next to no energy very expensively also does the most stupendous damage to the environment and the eco-system.

I wonder how long it will be before the University of St Andrews team which came up with this research is accused of being in the pay of big oil.

And I wonder what Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore – who in the mid-70s risked his life on many whale-saving expeditions – makes of it.

Actually I know what he makes of it because I’m reading his brilliant book: Confessions of A Greenpeace Dropout – The Making of A Sensible Environmentalist (Beatty Street).

I can’t recommend it highly enough. Moore is the real deal: a PhD ecologist who got into the environmental movement because he loved nature rather than because he hated mankind. He wanted to make the world a better place and he did: in those early days, Greenpeace did valuable work opposing nuclear testing, drift net fishing, industrial pollution and large scale whaling. But then, as he recounts in the book, the environmental movement lost its way:

Since I left Greenpeace, its members, and the majority of the movement have adopted policy after policy that reflects their antihuman bias, illustrates their rejection of science and technology and actually increases the risk of harm to people and the environment. They oppose forestry even though it provides our most abundant renewable resource. They have zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition. They continue to oppose nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They campaign against hydroelectric projects despite the fact that hydro is by far the most abundant renewable source of electricity. And they support the vicious and misguided campaign against salmon farming, an industry that produces more than a million tons of heart-friendly food every year.”

And, no, he doesn’t think much of wind farms either:

“How can windmills be green when they require five times as much steel and concrete per unit of power produced compared to nuclear plants and when they occupy vast areas of land?”


It has been drawn to my attention that the man who led the St Andrews research team has violently, passionately and emphatically dissociated himself from the original Telegraph news item suggesting that his research showed wind farms to be deleterious to the health of whales. I am delighted to put this straight.

What this means is that, though at this stage we know for absolute certain that wind farms despoil countryside, frighten horses, chop up birds, spontaneously combust, drive down property prices, madden those who live nearby with their subsonic humming, drive up electricity prices, promote rentseeking, make rich landowners richer (and everyone else poorer), ruin views, buy more electric sports cars for that dreadful Dale Vince character, require rare earth minerals which cause enormous environmental damage, destroy 3.7 real jobs for every fake “green” job they “create”, blight neighbourhoods, kill off tourism and ruin lives, the possibility that they also lure whales to their doom remains at this stage an unproven hypothesis. (Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, then.)

Related posts:

  1. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…
  2. Official: wind farms are totally useless
  3. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  4. Sorry, but wind farms are useless even against vampires

14 thoughts on “Wind farms kill whales: blubber on the green movement’s hands”

  1. John D says:19th March 2011 at 11:32 amSo do sonars and ships, are we going to ban those too? Glass windows kill far more birds than wind farms, is the denial movement going to ban windows as well? Energy prices are already going up due to higher fuel prices…. and killing off 3.7 jobs, where do you get your dodgy statistics from?
  2. James Delingpole says:19th March 2011 at 2:57 pmOh dear, John. Do you know what a straw man argument is?
  3. John D says:20th March 2011 at 8:33 amNo James, but a strawlemming is a denialist who hasn’t time to read science but has plenty of time to bash science. Remember your interview with Paul Nurse?

    Watch this get censored…

  4. Nige Cook says:20th March 2011 at 5:57 pm“So do sonars and ships, are we going to ban those too? Glass windows kill far more birds than wind farms, is the denial movement going to ban windows as well?” – John D

    James makes this point in his book How to be right in the context of oil spill pollution at sea. It turns out that the number of sea birds covered in oil is trivial compared to the number killed by windows and windfarms.

    The point is, the green movement isn’t moral, right, just, honest, decent, and correct just because it has a left wing political agenda. It’s efforts to do away with safe, clean nuclear by lying about radiation will have serious environmental consequences, that make radiation look attractive and natural by comparison. The left lies in pretending background radiation is insignificant compared to radioactive pollution (it’s the other way around), and by pretending the fruit fly linear-response curve is still valid (it’s not, DNA repair enzymes have been proved to produce hormesis even at radiation levels well above natural radiation background, which is far above nuclear pollution levels).

    Unfortunately, if anyone in a position of authority in the health physics legislation quangos speaks up for the facts on radiation, they’ll be fired by Cameron and friends for the crime of political incorrectness.

  5. Nige Cook says:20th March 2011 at 6:34 pmWhat is curious is that the green movement fascists don’t even get the message here. The message is that windfarms, solar cells, etc., have environmental consequences, so they aren’t automatically safe just because they have green propaganda behind them. On the contrary, the politically correct power sources are provably the real danger, unlike nuclear power. I’ve experienced this before.

    You prove to the anti-nuclear propaganda politicians that “the radiation from nuclear power is trivial compared to natural background radiation”, and they honestly don’t get the message. They say “well we can’t stop background radiation but we can stop nuclear pollution, even if it’s trivial by comparison”. Then you explain, as Feynman did in the 1960s, that if they’re really worried about radiation, they should first ban people flying in aircraft, climing mountains, and living at high altitudes or in other places where the natural radioactive background is several times higher than in London. They then quieten down a bit but soon forget the facts and start again. They’re just too biased, which gives them protective stupidity, just as forecast by Orwell in his 1984:

    “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” ( )

    First, alternatives produce very little energy, so you need an awful lot of them. Britain doesn’t get enough sunshine to make solar cells a substantial contributor even if every roof in the country is covered. So you need windfarms, and lots of them. You also need them in different places, to try to compensate for wind variations over the country. They shut down in both calm and gales, so you don’t generate any power in very hot weather (where there is a high pressure ridge over the country, with no breeze), or in very stormy weather. Both are times you get power surges for cooling (fans, aircon, etc.) or heating.

    Next, they cost lives to put up and maintain, because they’re high up and need maintenance, and people have to climb up there. Accidents happen.

    Then they pollute the skyline. Tidal power suffers from the maintenance problems, plus shipping hazards. The more clutter there is around the coasts, the more boating accidents will be caused. Also, extracting enough tidal energy to really make a difference is going to take that energy out of the tides around the coast. Energy is conserved. So there will be marine ecosystem effects, and the trials to date which extract negligible energy don’t indicate the environmental effects from enormous tidal energy systems that can provide useful power. More likely, however, the massive systems will simply break down (at great repair cost) during severe storms at sea. You’re not going to hear genuine negative criticisms from the scientists working on these projects, who have a vested interest in getting continued funding.

    The danger is that politically correct fashion will divert vast sums of money into not just down the drain, but into dangerous projects covering vast areas with environmentally threatening, high-maintenance technology that will break down just when most needed. All to appease the ignorant anti-nuclear propaganda lobby.

    The idea of using biofuels is just an inefficient version of electric solar power: biofuels are grown using solar energy (sunlight), then they have to be harvested, processed and more biofuel plants grown to take their place. Just as with solar power, biofuels require vast areas to be used if you want to replace existing power sources like oil.

  6. Chris P says:22nd March 2011 at 4:37 amIn the US cats kill over 500 million birds each year. Wind turbines less than 1 million.

    James is so bad at facts it’s not funny.

  7. James Stevens says:24th March 2011 at 9:29 pmJames, either you are deliberately misrepresenting what you read, or you simply do not know how to read scientific papers. Either way you are being highly irresponsible writing about scientific issues. The research you mention simply does not show what you claim it does above. See the link below for details.

  8. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 11:09 amJames Stevens, I take my hat off to you. That is a wonderfully succinct comment; the like of which Nige Cook and I can but aspire to emulate.
  9. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 3:09 pmMartin,

    If you want the scientific journal references, please see my draft paper on global climate change lies:

    Please see specifically the NOAA data in figure 1 which shows how H2O vapour fall (caused by a shift of global H2O from vapour to condensed cloud cover water, hence global dimming which stopped tree-ring data temp proxy working after 1960) has cancelled out CO2. Also, the recent evidence in figure 5 for strong negative feedback and its implications in fig 6 for predicted global temperatures in 2100 (all IPCC models rely on the false positive H2O feedback; with negative feedback there is zero temperature rise, and with zero feedback there is just 1C rise for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere).

  10. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 3:38 pm(Correction: “it’s” in the first sentence of my abstract should be “its”. I’ll correct that before submitting to a journal. The point remains: the published NOAA data for a drop in humidity cancelling out CO2 effects is justified by the published data of Spencer, Braswell, Christy, & Hnilo’s paper “Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated with Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations”, Geophysical Research Letters, which shows that cloud cover has a strong negative feedback on temperature. CO2 simply pushes the down the ratio of H2O vapour/H2O cloud drops, while the overall amount of H2O is pretty much constant. The change in the ratio cancels out the CO2 effect on climate. You might have an increase in mean cloud cover from 61-62%, but you won’t get a temperature change due to CO2 in the real world, which simply isn’t a greenhouse because of cloud cover.)
  11. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 3:52 pmTypo corrected:
  12. John D says:27th March 2011 at 4:46 amIf James says the green movement is killing whales and birds, does that James and his denialist movement is screaming for a ban on windows, planes, sonars, ships and all manner of modern technology because they kill birds and whales too?
  13. Nige Cook says:27th March 2011 at 10:46 amJohn D: James’ is putting the issue in perspective by pointing out the relative risks from other technologies. It’s just pathetic that the only response green fascists can make in reply, is to claim that James is “screaming for a ban on windows, planes, sonars, ship…”

    You’re deliberately misconstruing James’ very clear and funny sarcasm. It really has to be spelled out to you, doesn’t it, that James is being sarcastic. You’re so thick and prejudiced that you can’t see that “green” technologies are a far bigger danger than say nuclear scare mongering. The response of former New Scientist editor Jeremy Webb (an Exeter uni electronics graduate, who was a sound engineer at the BBC before joining New Scientist) in 2001 at the “New Scientist Global Environment Roadshow” to Dr Helene Guldberg (reported in her article “Eco-evangelism” on the website Spiked Science) was “Why take the risk?” She had asked Jeremy why nobody was being scientific and evaluating objections to scare-mongering.

    This proves that you need to understand relative risks or you have no perspective at all. Everything is risky. Unless you compare risks, you have no objectivity.

    People who smoke 20 cigarettes/day for 50 years have a 25-fold increase in the natural risk of lung cancer (Fig 1.1 at ). I.e., smoking 365,000 cigarettes gives a 2500% lung cancer risk increase, so if the dose-effect relationship were linear, you get a 1% increase in lung cancer risk for every 146 cigarettes smoked. However, if you look at the actual graph, it’s not linear but goes up by a curve whose gradient increases almost exponentially with increasing dose, so 20 per day for 20 years only doubles the natural risk, implying a 1% increase in risk for every 1,460 cigarettes smoked. So people who smoke at the same rate for 20 years have a risk per cigarette that is 10 times smaller than those who smoke at the same rate for 50 years.

    A more severe example, where the cause changes the effects in a qualitative way, not just quantitatively, is vitamin A. You first go blind and then your immune system packs in and you have increased cancer risks and genetic risks that make Hiroshima look like a picnic, if you don’t get sufficient vitamin A. Too much vitamin A, and you’re poisoned and die like many arctic explorers who ate the livers of polar bears or other polar mammals. So here the dose-mortality curve is not just non-linear, but has two peaks: 100% lethality at zero dose and at high doses.

    The same applies to things like proteins and sunshine, causing terrific problems for government advice. Government’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has finally been trying to “balance” the conflict that sunshine exposure permits vitamin D production, but also increases skin cancer risks. There is an endless controversy on this, caused by health experts advising on sunshine exposure to ensure people get enough vitamin D, and cancer researchers warning that sunshine ultraviolet radiation verges the soft X-ray spectrum, and is therefore ionizing and destructive to DNA with a cancer risk, like being exposed to large doses of nuclear radiation.

    In the real world, there are always counter-risks to any action. You can’t eliminate risk. People who quit smoking completely may end up drinking or eating to excess instead. You have to face all the facts, and take account of the consequences of other risks that emerge when you try to reduce one risk. Otherwise, you’re hyping deluded propaganda.

  14. John D says:28th March 2011 at 10:16 amTalk about pot calling kettle…

    Doesn’t James frequently goes off tangent accusing anyone not of the rightwing libertarian agenda of killing 3rd world people, whales, fascism etc etc. Then to add to that, uses 3 words in an email to destroy the reputation of one scientist without looking into the details of the 3 words?

    But when asked a question about whether to drink orange juice to cure a serious condition or follow the advice of the majority of experts in the field, blubbermouth Delingpole falls apart and accuses the BBC of a stitch up without answering the question!

Comments are closed.

I’d Rather My Wife Made Land Mines Than Worked in the Wind Farm Industry

If there’s an industry in the world that deserves to be stigmatised more than any other, it’s the despicable, reprehensible, money-grubbing, mendacious, taxpayer-fleecing, bird-mangling, landscape-ruining, economy-blighting wind farm business. At least you could argue that blood diamonds make nice jewellery and that land mine manufacturers are making a valuable contribution to infantry defence. But wind farms are not merely worthless but actively evil – and anyone involved in them deserves to be as pilloried and despised as estate agents were in the Eighties or bankers are now.

For chapter and verse on why they are such an abomination, I must refer you to Dr John Etherington’s definitive The Wind Farm Scam, which explains in comprehensive and unarguable detail precisely why wind farms are one of the most inefficient forms of power generation since the human treadmill and why they can only ever possibly be economically viable with the help of massive (and entirely unjustified) taxpayer subsidy.

And then there’s the recent Spanish experience. From Steve Goreham’s superb book Climatism – about the many disasters that have been caused by the global warming religion – we learn that Spain’s concerted government-funded drive towards wind and solar power has been an utter catastrophe. Electricity costs have risen by 60 per cent while the 50,000 “green jobs” it created cost 571,000 Euros per job via government subsidy, effectively losing 2.2 jobs in the real economy for every one created in the green one.

Now, we learn today, the wife of Britain’s deputy prime minister Nick Clegg is to take a lucrative job in this vibrant, go-ahead industry. Miriam Gonzalez Durantez – as she chooses to call herself, presumably because it sounds a lot classier than Mrs Clegg – will be acting as an independent adviser to Acciona, the world’s largest wind farm supplier.

Apparently, to avoid any “conflict of interest”, she will not be advising it on any of its British projects. Oh, right. And presumably she’ll also be knocking off her salary that portion of Acciona’s profits – courtesy of UK taxpayer subsidy – made from building the four wind farms our economy and landscape need about as much as we need an outbreak of nuclear war or John Prescott or Ebola.

PS Some of you seem to be under the impression that I don’t love you or that I have not been fighting your corner over the great (Telegraph) comment redesign. You should be ashamed of yourselves for making such unfounded accusations. Who do you think it was, for example, who insisted on having Gulfvictim’s comment restored the other day? I am doing what I can and have been assured that my blog especially will be kept moderation-light. Obviously, I shall be monitoring this with as much interest as you will. But FFS, some of you, give me the benefit of the doubt and get off my case.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts
  2. We need to talk about wind farms…
  3. Wind Farm Fanatics Are Bankrupting Us With Their Hot Air
  4. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report

14 thoughts on “I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry”

  1. crownarmourer says:10th June 2010 at 3:42 amSorry for the nonsense today had to test the limits of the filter you have on the blogs over on the DT, you are fighting an uphill battle to get them to stop censoring the words muslim and gay and race etc. Swearing is out but that is a minor inconvenience as I managed to get away with merkins. The format is hard to navigate but not I’m sure everyone will get used to it. A smirking duckham lording it over all is galling and I’m missing captainsherlocks Quebecois Lesbian assassins or as we now have to call them Quebecois Saphist assassins.
    Some of the old crowd are now just lurking now and would rather post here then on the DT and on our new bunker over at ozboys. Theepilogue admitted over there to be being mister mutltiple personality and it was a deliberate plan of his to scupper your blog. Feel free to pop over occasionally and chat people are angry right now but that will pass.
  2. crownarmourer says:10th June 2010 at 3:43 amDo they make landmines in different colours for the fashion conscious army.
  3. crownarmourer says:10th June 2010 at 3:46 amI will stay and post on your regular blog as I refuse to surrender and what is it with Damien T’s avatar he looks like a demented ferret wearing a mop you may wish to tell him.
  4. Tom Forrester-Paton says:10th June 2010 at 6:07 amI have to smile at all this wrangling over moderation, as I have tried umpteen times to register at the DT and have yet to be rewarded with the promised email confirming my registration. I sent an email asking for assistance and, mirabile dictu, received a reply from one Alan Edwards of “Telegraph Direct”, who came across as being a couple of coupons short of a toaster, but promised to look into it. He eventually replied saying I should wait a couple of days and try again.

    Same result.

    Sent him another email.

    Silence has ensued.

    Still, at least I can come here and help turn the spit on which M-B-P roasts, slowly…

  5. EyeSee says:10th June 2010 at 7:39 amHmmm. I know what you mean, but even so maybe land mines was a bit wide of the mark. Strange isn’t it, how ideas get rooted. In Victorian times, civic duty, manners and philanthropy were the ‘big things’, now we have quasi-religions of environmentalism and AGW, which unfortunately are entirely negative. The Victorians had a noble history of effort and industry, capability and care. We are likely to be remembered for stupidity.
  6. theunbrainwashed says:10th June 2010 at 9:10 amTom Forrester-Paton says:
    June 10, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Shocking Schtuff!!!

    You’re a good soldier
    Choosing your battles
    Pick yourself up
    And dust yourself off
    And back in the saddle

  7. theunbrainwashed says:10th June 2010 at 9:10 am:-)
  8. aurelian says:10th June 2010 at 9:26 am@Tom Forrester-Paton on June 10, 2010 at 6:07 am
    I had the same problem. Telegraph activation emails never arrived at my account.

    The solution is to create yourself a proxy email account (at for example and quote that email address when registering with the Telegraph. You’ll then receive the activation email at your proxy account.

    Curiously, having set my proxy account to forward all traffic to my NTLworld account, I found that the forwarded Telegraph emails came through fine. Perhaps the Telegraph just doesn’t support certain ISPs’ email operations.

  9. i_was_ferret says:10th June 2010 at 6:09 pmcrownarmourer says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Who are you calling demented !-)


  10. Peter Crawford says:10th June 2010 at 8:39 pmThere have never been any moderation issues on this blog. If you dozy cuntybollox had ever bothered to look before some Guardian reader successfully put a bat up your nightdresses.
    Here on Anglesey the farmers get paid £1500 a year to have wind turbines erected on their fields. That is £1500 per turbine per year. Nice work if you can get it.
    But don’t worry. It is all paid for by “The Government”.


  11. Phillip says:10th June 2010 at 9:00 pmPeter Crawford: The Anglesey farmers must be a bit backward. The going rate is £k10 to £15k per turbine per year. It’s still only a tiny % of the money the owners make from us electricity consumers.
  12. crownarmourer says:11th June 2010 at 1:34 amSo what your saying they really are such things as winfarms and windfarmers, ooh ahh got me a purdy gud crop of lectric this summer.
  13. Edward Longshanks says:11th June 2010 at 6:06 amTom Forrester-Paton says:
    June 10, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Hi Tom,

    Yeah I know what you mean, had the exact same problem.
    Got myself another Email address, try gmx or hotmail etc and try it at DT, you’ll get in no problem.

    regards, Ed.

  14. Peter Sterling says:19th June 2010 at 12:43 pmThere is enough wind offshore from the UK to power the entire country and the cars 4 times over.

    The solution to the very high cost of today’s old technology wind turbines is to replace them with sterling accelerated wind turbines. These jet-speed turbines will operate for twice the annual hours and make 3-4 times the power. Thus making wind electricity cheaper than any other power plant….. and they can’t kill birds.

    Intermittent wind energy can easily and cheaply be stored in conventional pumped-hydro schemes in Scotland’s hills and valleys. These can be made to improve the natural environment and make wildlife flourish.


    If you actually took the time to study it you would see that accelerated wind is the world’s answer to cheap, clean, forever energy independence.

    Wind farm developers merely have to move from the propeller age to the jet age to save England from the tyranny of fossil fuel blackmail.


Comments are closed.

The Disgusting Toffs Who Are Destroying Britain

Whenever I am defending toffs one of the main points I like to make is what great conservators they are. Because they have owned vast swathes of Britain, often for many generations, they understand the importance of their role as trustees of the landscape. Certainly, this coincides with their hobbies – hedges and stone walls rather than barbed wire because you don’t want your mount’s belly ripped open while you’re hunting; copses for covert while shooting, and so on – but nonetheless I do think our landowning classes have generally had a deep understanding of what makes the British country the most beautiful on earth, and by and large have done a great deal to keep it that way.

Until wind farms came along, that is.

In the Sunday Times, Jonathan Leake – one of the few journalists in the MSM and very probably the only one who is an environmental correspondent to have ventured any serious criticism of the great AGW scam – has named some of the wealthy landowners who are on the verge of becoming even more disgustingly rich by allowing their land to be carpeted with wind farms.

Among the biggest potential beneficiaries is the Duke of Roxburghe, whose planned 48-turbine scheme on his Scottish estate would generate an estimated £30m a year, shared with developers. About £17m of this would come from subsidies from consumers.

Others seeking to capitalise on the new wind rush include the Duke of Beaufort, Sir Reginald Sheffield, father of Samantha Cameron, and Michael Ancram, the Tory grandee.

Perhaps there was a time, in the early days of wind farms, when these men could have pleaded ignorance of just how evil and useless wind farms are. Not any more. So much strong evidence has now emerged of the damage wind farms do to bird life and to the natural beauty of the landscape, in return for no real benefit to anyone except heavily-subsidised wind-farm-owners, that the only way anyone could possibly ignore it is to stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and go: “Nyah nyah nyah. Don’t care. My estate manager tells me it’s going to make me pots and pots of lovely dosh, so bugger the peasants who have their views ruined and the little people who have to pay for my lovely holidays in Mustique with their increased eco-taxes and inflated electricity bills.”

Sam Cam’s dad too, eh? I’m not normally the class war type. But stories like this make me so sick I begin to wonder whether we shouldn’t start sharpening our guillotines.

Related posts:

  1. Cameron’s coalition of liars, trimmers and charlatans are destroying Britain’s landscape
  2. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  3. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  4. Official: wind farms are totally useless


Why I’m Cancelling My Kids’ Subscription to The Beano

Why I’m cancelling my kids’ subscription to The Beano

Earlier this week Bryony Gordon reported on how Dennis the Menace had been given a PC makeover.

But kids aren’t stupid. They get it. Witness eight-year-old Jacob Rush, from Ipswich, who noticed that Dennis the Menace now looks more like that sweet little swimmer Tom Daley. He’s slimmed down, his hair has softened, he’s smiling. He doesn’t bully Walter the Softy, who now has a girlfriend, as opposed to that pink poodle Foo Foo. Dennis no longer fires his catapult or his pea-shooter. Gnasher hasn’t tasted human flesh for some time now. Naturally, little Jacob was quite upset by this, and sent off an email to the Beano making his feelings clear. The publishers replied, blaming the new BBC cartoon in which Dennis has been given a PC makeover in order to comply with editorial and content guidelines.

When I read it I believed this excuse by publishers DC Thompson. Having seen the latest issue, though, I’m not so sure. In the third frame of Billy Whizz we have a teacher saying:

“Now it’s safe to have our lesson about saving energy!”

The neighbouring strip – a fairly new one called Super School (including a character evidently ripped off from Viz’s Johnny Fartpants called Stinkbomb!) – ends with a baddy shown huffing and puffing at a wind turbine.

We are told:

“He has to work at a wind-farm for a month to give the country free energy.”

All right, fair enough, you might think. Wind farms do exist (more’s the pity) so there’s no reason necessarily to exclude them from Britain’s oldest and best-loved comic.

But then you look below the cartoon and a little educational screed has been added:


Well I’m sorry but that little “Hey we’re all crazy and just having fun here kids” disclaimer at the end in no way mitigates the fact that what is going on here is gratuitous eco-propaganda which has absolutely no place in a children’s comic.

And if we’re really going to “educate” kids about the Danish wind farm experience, mightn’t it also be a good idea to mention how it has been a complete disaster for the Danes – driving their utility bills to ruinously high levels and forcing them to rely for most of their electricity needs (wind power being very erratic) on conventional power imported from their neighbours? Or is that the kind of unpalatable truth that ought to be kept from our dear ones?

Related posts:

  1. We need to talk about wind farms…
  2. Techno deprivation
  3. 10:10’s ‘No Pressure’ exploding kids campaign: why it was such a success
  4. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry


I Don’t Need My Ice Cream to ‘Educate’ Me about the Glories of Gay Marriage or Wind Farms

Some of my best friends are gay. Suspiciously large numbers, it has sometimes been suggested to me. But that’s OK, I’m cool with that. What my friends get up to in the privacy of their own homes – or, indeed, the scary back room of their local boite – is very much their own affair. And if they want to get married (Hell-ooo! Why sacrifice the single greatest benefit of being gay?), well I’m probably OK with that too. I don’t believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice so I guess it’s only fair that gay men and women too should enjoy their inalienable right to be shackled to the same person, on pain of massive alimony payments, till the day they die. (Hat tip: William C Fisher; The Corner)

But here’s where I draw the line. I do NOT want my freaking ice cream tub to tell me gay marriage is a great and wonderful thing. Which is more or less what Ben & Jerry’s has done with one of its flavours. Or flavors, if you will. (See pic)


As you see, to celebrate the legalization of gay marriage in its achingly worthy, nauseatingly PC home state Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s has temporarily changed the name of its Chubby Hubby brand to Hubby Hubby.

What is my objection to this innocent bit of fun? Simple. I believe confectionary should be politics-free. Just because a pair of hippie ice cream makers happen to think gay marriage is an OK thing doesn’t mean that all their customers should have a message they may well find deeply unpalatable rammed down their throats. I felt much the same way about their President-Obama-endorsing “Yes Pecan” flavour earlier this year. “Shut up! Shut up! SHUT UP already!” I wanted to scream at them. “Your job is to placate women, distract movie audiences, and bribe children. It is NOT your job to change the world.”

But I can tell you now there’s something worse out there than Ben & Jerry’s. Much, much worse. So bad in fact that I vow never ever again to buy it for my kids even though it tastes quite nice and offers reasonable value. I refer to the horror that is Mackies ice cream, which now uses its website to disseminate propaganda for the wind industry and which decorates its tubs with scenes of nature dotted with wind turbines – as if to suggest that these monstrosities have become an integral, nay even a desirable part of the British landscape.

“You can feel extra good about enjoying Mackies ice cream because it is made with renewable energy” claims their website. “Mackies business is powered by 3 wind turbines. We’d like to contribute towards protection of the environment for future generations of ice cream consumers!”

Oh really? And what about all those future generations of ice cream consumers who might have preferred the beautiful corner of Aberdeenshire where the Mackies have farmed “for four generations” not to have their horizon despoiled by swirling great wind turbines?

Related posts:

  1. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  2. The best article on wind farms you will ever read
  3. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…
  4. Sorry, but wind farms are useless even against vampires


Build Wind Farms in National Parks? Now We’ve REALLY Lost the Plot

Did you ever read a madder headline in your life?

Sure, Natural England isn’t nearly as nature-loving as it sounds. It’s just another of those pointless Quangos which David Cameron may yet attempt to justify his existence by banning. Even so,  building 300 foot high turbines in what’s left of Britain’s unspoilt landscape  does rather go against Natural England’s supposed mission objective, viz (or so it says on its website):

“Natural England is here to conserve and enhance the natural environment, for its intrinsic value, the wellbeing and enjoyment of people and the economic prosperity that it brings.”

So the best way of conserving natural England, a body calling itself Natural England has decided, is to destroy it. Can anyone come up with a more ludicrous example of the warped, supposedly “progressive” but in fact utterly poisonous, wrong and self-defeating thinking so prevalent in these dark times?

I can’t.

No hang on, wait, I can. Front page. Daily Telegraph.

“We will not rush to drop 50p tax rate, Tories tell the City.”

3 Responses to “Build Wind Farms in National Parks? Now we’ve REALLY lost the plot”

  1. Tim says:July 27, 2009 at 3:14 pmClarification here, posted a day before your article above: as bad as you think.
  2. General Sherman says:August 2, 2009 at 8:30 pmHad the mispleasure to deal with Natural England over a plan by shitbox house builders Wimpey to build on a local site that was untouched since the middle ages – with the exception of grazing from a local farm. They are total toss pot paper tigers who just roll over for the developers/government.For the record, the local people won and Wimpey have to find another spot of this green and once pleasant land to concrete over for more ’social housing within the mix of private development blah blah. God help any fool that thinks ‘Natural’ England will help them when the developers alight on their town.
  3. Tom says:November 12, 2009 at 9:30 amI work for Natural England in the government team and I assess wind turbine applications and environmental impact assessments and I can assure you we have very heated conversations with developers every day who try and submit turbines in ecologically sensitive areas as well as AONBs, SPAs, SACs and Ramsars. We work directly with local authorities ensuring that landscape and biodiversity is considered in every decision. We are all ecologists and base our advice on evidence, peer reviewed papers and experience, not the whims of local or central politicians.We don’t, however, protect land where it has no landscape, access or ecological/geological merit. It is, for instance, up to local authority to protect green belt. The green belt is an administrative designation not an ecological or landscape one.