Re: I would like to add...
> Climate science is ridiculously well funded, and yet not only can it not produce a workable model, but it cannot be used to improve our lives ...
More importantly, in some areas, "greenwash" may actually be making things worse. While it's not the same thing, the push for renewables is largely down to the warmageddon mongers warnings - so the rise in renewables subsidies* is really down to the political atmosphere driven by the climate scientists.
As far as I can tell, the subsidies paid out (year on year) for unreliable renewables amount to the cost of building a new nuclear power station every 2-3 years. Given that only a couple of new nuclear plants could replace the typical annual output of the windmills, but be able to provide power when it's needed, not just when "the right sort of wind" is blowing, suggests that syphoning all that money off into windmills (which cannot in any way contribute to any requirement to keep the lights on) may not have been a sensible decision.
* Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck - so therefore it must be a cat. That seems to be the argument by many that the renewables subsidies aren't actually subsidies.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
