Those that think it doesn't affect them or their life need to remember that on average every working person is paying about £500 in renewable subsidies per year and this is only going to keep on growing.
A bit one sided wouldn't you say?
We also pay money to fossil power stations to not produce energy. And plough vast sums of public money into cleaning up nuclear installations after the private companies that made good money off the nuclear electric have cried foul at footing the bill.
Except these aren't subsidies are they? Oh no, apparently we are only allowed to use
the S word when it relates to renewables. When it comes to other forms of energy production, the costs we as tax payers bear on behalf of energy companies
must be something else
.
There seems to be a huge leap in your post from "our current climate change models don't fit with what we see happening in the last few decades" to having a pop at renewables. A pet peeve of yours.
Moving to the article, some reading around seems to indicate that the consensus view is that the maths is sound but it leaps to some conclusions which the numbers cannot Support. As someone who bowed out of maths at A-level, much of the article is somewhat beyond me. However, citing a single article whose narrative runs contra to a wealth of peer reviewed scientific study smacks of cherry picking your sources.
Unless you're going to tell me it's all a global conspiracy. In which case we need to adjourn for a moment while I don my tin foil hat and squirrel fur gilet.