The lights went out in Broken Hill. A storm blew over seven transmission towers connecting it to the national grid on October 17th. About 19,000 people live there, and with a 200MW wind plant, a 53MW solar array and a big battery, plus diesel generators it was assumed they’d be OK for a while without the connection to the big baseload plants, but instead it’s been a debacle. They’ve had nearly a week of blackouts with intermittent bursts of power, barely long enough to charge the phone.
The fridges in the pharmacies failed, so medications had to be destroyed. School has been closed. Freezers of meat are long gone… Emergency trucks are bringing in food finally and hopefully the schools will reopen today. But the full reconnection will not happen until November 6th.
By Joanna Panagopououlos and Alexi Demetriadi
Mayor Tom Kennedy said state and federal governments “needed to learn” from the experience, and how wind and solar energy are “almost useless” in a crisis without baseload power.
“(Wind and solar) are worse than useless (in a crisis like this), because it’s detrimental to having a consistent power supply,” he said. “I’d hate to see what happens in the capital cities in a similar crisis.”
The bad news is that when there is no reliable 50Hz baseload supplier of electricity, the solar panel inverters just don’t mesh well with the diesel generators. The frequency of the diesel generators varies slightly as the load changes, and these fluctuations cause issues with solar inverters, which need a stable frequency to synchronize properly.
Hence, in a blackout, the solar panels were not just useless, they were a threat to the system, so people were asked to switch them off:
Essential Energy on Friday was urging customers in Broken Hill to switch off their solar supply main switch to protect the 40-year-old backup gas-turbine generator providing power to the town and surrounds.
From within Broken Hill, a forlorn Jack Marx is dotting out his story in the Australian via his phone:
Broken Hill: Powerless and left to live like mushrooms
The power comes on from time to time, but goes out just as quickly. It gives us just enough time to power our phones and read emails from energy providers sent the day before, alerting us to the fact the power was about to go out. They also warn we don’t have much time, and to avoid using unnecessary electrical devices – air conditioners, fridges or fans that need a power point.
The unreliable generators survived the storm but were still useless. Giles Parkinson suspects (fervently hopes) that this is just a bureaucratic issue, rather than a technical one:
Broken Hill has a wind farm, a solar farm and a big battery. So, why are the lights out?
Giles Parkinson, RenewEconomy
The fact that the wind farm and the solar farm aren’t operating with the transmission line is understandable. But the big battery is supposed to be – and that could in turn have allowed the wind and solar to produce. No one is saying what’s gone wrong, but many suspect it’s a matter of oversight rather than technology.
“You need to talk to Transgrid,” said one. “You should talk to Essential,” says another. “Ah, that’s AGL’s asset, you better talk to them.” And then. “No, Tilt Renewables own those. Give them a ring.” And finally, “we don’t have an official statement now, but we are trying to sort it.”
It certainly was mismanaged. But that’s just it, isn’t it? A decentralized grid has a million moving parts, and thousand agencies that can all screw up together. The complexity is the problem.
The Silverton Wind Farm and Broken Hill Solar plant were supposed to produce enough electricity to power 117,000 homes. They’re supported by AGL’s 50MWh battery facility at Pinnacles Place, one of the largest in Australia. Yet Broken Hill, population 19,000, has been in a semi-permanent state of blackout since a storm brought down the transmission line connecting the town to the east coast grid.
Some $650m worth of renewable energy investment within a 25km radius of Broken Hill has proved to be dysfunctional. The technical challenges of operating a grid on renewable energy alone appear insurmountable using the current technology.
Instead of spending $650 million dollars on solar and wind and a battery, we could have bought two brand new useful diesel generators for every remote town in Australia, and then when transmission towers fall down, they won’t be left in the dark.
These self-appointed climate saviors insist that their projections should be accepted without question, and when they aren’t, they moan about how harsh and unfair the world has been to them. This isn’t science under attack—it’s fragile egos crying foul when the rest of us refuse to buy into their doomsday narrative.
The researchers said they had been subject to ridicule by some scientists after taking part in a large Guardian survey of experts in May, during which they and many others expressed their feelings of extreme fear about future temperature rises and the world’s failure to take sufficient action. They said they had been told they were not qualified to take part in this broad discussion of the climate crisis, were spreading doom and were not impartial.
However, the researchers said that embracing their emotions was necessary to do good science and was a spur to working towards better ways of tackling the climate crisis and the rapidly increasing damage being done to the world. They also said that those dismissing their fears as doom-laden and alarmist were speaking frequently from a position of privilege in western countries, with little direct experience of the effects of the climate crisis.
The Guardian piece is full of climate scientists’ complaints about being criticized, a situation that apparently causes them great distress. They whimper about public skepticism as though it were some kind of assault on their personal well-being. In one particularly melodramatic section, a scientist whines about being called a “liar” on social media. Well, welcome to the world of public debate, where people will scrutinize, question, and yes, sometimes rudely dismiss claims that seem dubious. But the Guardian seems determined to present these professionals not as robust researchers capable of handling criticism, but as delicate flowers wilting under the harsh glare of public doubt.
Instead of addressing substantive criticisms—like the failed climate models, inconsistent predictions, or the fact that climate policies often do more harm than good—these scientists turn to emotional appeals. They argue that the public’s harsh words are as much of a threat as climate change itself. They even suggest that “climate anxiety” is exacerbated by “online abuse” from skeptics. So, let’s get this straight: the models can handle the complex calculations of global warming trends, but the scientists can’t handle mean tweets?
The “Toxicity” of Skepticism
One theme that dominates The Guardian article is the scientists’ characterization of public scrutiny as “toxic”. It’s a clever rhetorical strategy, designed to make criticism seem not only misguided but morally wrong. By framing dissenters as aggressors who “harm” scientists, the article tries to flip the script: suddenly, it’s not about whether the climate models hold up under scrutiny; it’s about whether the critics are hurting the scientists’ feelings.
If anything, this rhetoric exposes the scientists’ shaky confidence in their own predictions. People who are confident in their data don’t crumble under questioning. They engage, clarify, and persuade. But here, instead of rolling out hard evidence to silence their critics, climate scientists want sympathy. It’s a deeply unserious approach to a field that supposedly determines the fate of our planet.
Ben Pile’s critique in the Daily Sceptic nailed it when he observed that the current trend among climate scientists is to brand skeptics as not just wrong, but dangerous. By shifting the focus to the alleged “toxicity” of criticism, the scientists evade the actual issues—like why their models frequently overshoot reality, or why predictions of imminent catastrophe keep getting delayed like a badly managed train schedule.
I believe that is the implication of Carrington’s series of Guardian articles and his survey. It shows that people with no scientific expertise to speak of are nonetheless routinely presented as ‘scientists’ and experts. It shows that even those with scientific expertise will happily and radically depart from both the consensus position and the objective data on both meteorological events and their societal impacts. And it shows they have no reluctance to use their own emotional distress as leverage to coerce others. Carrington thinks that showing us scientists’ emotional troubles will convince us to share their anxiety. But all it shows is that it would be deeply foolish to defer to the authority of climate science. It’s an unstable mess. Science must be cool, calm, rational, detached and disinterested, or it is just a silly soap opera.
A whole tantrum (see murder of crows, pod of whales), of climate whiners scurried off to their ideological shelter, Nature Climate Change, to cry for help. You see, when public skepticism became too much for their fragile nerves to handle, this tantrum ran straight to “daddy,” hoping for a pat on the back and a warm bottle of validation. And what better place than Nature, a publication that will bend over backwards to prop up their emotional narratives? These scientists clearly needed a safe space where their feelings could be stroked, rather than questioned. Forget rigorous defense of their models and theories—no, no, this time it was about defending their delicate psyches from the big, bad skeptics on Twitter.
The Nature article isn’t just a plea for public sympathy; it’s a full-on temper tantrum disguised as scholarly commentary. The authors aren’t interested in hard science or debate—they want therapy. With a straight face, they argue that public criticism is akin to abuse, reducing scientific discourse to a matter of emotional resilience. So rather than refining their models, this tantrum of whiners wants the rest of us to accept that hurt feelings are a legitimate basis for climate policy.
The Nature article doubles down on this victimhood narrative, describing scientists as burdened not only by the existential threat of climate change but by the hostility of the public. The authors make a point of equating climate research with front-line war reporting, as if posting dire projections on X were the same as dodging bullets. This is a transparent attempt to invoke sympathy and sidestep criticism. If the scientists can present themselves as victims of a cruel public, then their arguments become untouchable.
The Guardian piece further amplifies this theme, portraying scientists as misunderstood martyrs who bear the emotional weight of foreseeing a bleak future. It’s as if being skeptical of poorly substantiated projections makes one a tormentor of noble truth-seekers. The narrative is clear: “Don’t question us, or you’re part of the problem.” But when scientific discourse devolves into moral posturing, it loses its credibility and begins to resemble a political campaign—one driven by emotional manipulation rather than evidence.
Social Media Tears
Of course, no article about scientists’ suffering would be complete without a good dose of social media victimhood. The Guardian article features complaints about online “abuse,” as scientists recount harrowing experiences of being criticized on platforms like X. According to these supposedly hard-nosed researchers, the online world is a mean place where people say unkind things about their predictions.
This is almost comical. After all, social media is a battleground for ideas, not a safe space for pampered experts. If scientists can’t handle criticism on X, how can they expect to withstand the scrutiny of peer review or public debate? Ben Pile rightly points out that climate scientists’ complaints about social media “abuse” often serve as an excuse to shut down dissent altogether. Rather than engaging with criticism, these scientists prefer to play the victim, using their emotional wounds as a shield against legitimate questions.
“Science” as a Moral Crusade
The Guardian article’s melodramatic tone is matched by its moralistic language. It tries to turn science into a crusade, with climate scientists cast as righteous warriors battling the forces of ignorance and denial. This framing isn’t just patronizing; it’s manipulative. By presenting climate scientists as virtuous crusaders, the article implies that their opponents are not just mistaken, but immoral.
The scientists even manage to make their emotions seem like a badge of honor, arguing that their despair over climate change somehow legitimizes their work. But in reality, emotional outbursts and moral grandstanding are signs of weakness, not strength. Scientists are supposed to be objective and dispassionate—traits that make their conclusions reliable, not subject to personal bias or emotional manipulation.
The irony here is palpable: the same scientists who claim to be guided by evidence resort to emotional appeals when that evidence fails to convince. It’s a strategy designed to stifle debate rather than foster it. By making criticism a form of aggression, these scientists are effectively saying, “Agree with us, or you’re contributing to our emotional suffering.” This isn’t science; it’s emotional blackmail.
Public Scrutiny is a Good Thing
Contrary to the complaints in The Guardian, public scrutiny is not an attack on science; it’s a vital part of it. The scientific method thrives on skepticism, criticism, and revision. When climate models fail to predict reality accurately, the appropriate response is not to coddle the scientists’ feelings but to demand better models. If the scientists featured in The Guardian can’t handle that, they’re in the wrong field.
This thin-skinned response to criticism is particularly troubling given the sweeping policy changes that are based on climate projections. The rush to Net Zero, for example, has profound implications for energy costs, employment, and global inequality. Public skepticism is not only justified; it’s essential. If climate scientists expect to be taken seriously, they should welcome hard questions, not recoil from them.
Conclusion: Buck Up or Bow Out
The Guardian article offers a window into the current state of climate science—a field increasingly driven by emotional manipulation rather than empirical rigor. The scientists’ complaints about being criticized reveal more about their own insecurities than they do about the validity of their claims. If these researchers want to be seen as credible, they need to toughen up. Real science doesn’t hide behind emotions; it faces scrutiny head-on and welcomes challenges as a means to improve its findings.
So, to the climate scientists who complain about “abuse” on X: toughen up. If you can’t defend your models and predictions against public criticism, maybe you’re not as confident in your conclusions as you claim to be. And to The Guardian, which seems intent on shielding these delicate “warriors” from criticism: stop trying to turn skepticism into a sin. The future of the planet deserves better than a bunch of whining scientists seeking sympathy rather than solutions.
Professor Ian Plim schools a politico climate change “authority” in the above interview aired by Sky News Australia. For those preferring to read, a transcript is below lightly edited from the closed captions.
Climate Change authority Matt Kean, former Liberal treasurer of New South Wales, has lashed out at nuclear energy advocates, accusing them of being delay mongers trying to prevent renewables from succeeding. He labeled the push for nuclear and more gas as quote:
An illiberal drive to intervene in the market-led energy transition.”
Also he went on to say that the delay mongers have latched onto nuclear power despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive and can only take too long to build this. In a cost of living crisis it seems to me that people calling for gas to be included in the capacity investment scheme are trying to stop renewables. Ian, I’m very very interested in your response to Matt K’s claims there.
Well this is just sheer stupidity. Mr Kean should know that when Finland put in its reactors, their latest reactors, the cost of electricity went down. And both the retailer and the wholesaler also had lower costs. So we have evidence very recently. The Page Research Center recently did a study on the cost of energy. This was done by Gerard Holland and he looked at solar and wind, he looked at nuclear, looked at gas and at coal.
By far the most expensive energy in Australia is solar and wind. This is considering the total costs, the land use changes, putting in the new power lines and so forth. Nuclear is quite cheap compared with that, gas is also cheap, as is coal. Coal’s the cheapest and that’s because we already have the infrastructure for coal.
Now what Mr. Kean doesn’t say is that solar and wind are not reliable, whereas nuclear, gas and coal are reliable. He also doesn’t say that solar and wind have a very short life less than 20 years. Whereas nuclear is at least 60 years for a nuclear power plant; more than 40 years for gas; more than 50 years for coal.
Moreover, he doesn’t say that our future demands for energy are going to increase enormously. We’re already using 10% of energy for data centers and with AI it’s going to be a lot higher. His real concern is that the practical economics of the nuclear lobby groups are starting to frighten renewables promoters; the practical economics of the gas groups are starting to frighten the wind and solar people.
These are the cheapest and most reliable and best forms of energy we can have in a country like Australia. And yet we’ve got all these foreign corporations who are running the solar and running the wind projects who are lining up for for their subsidies. And the subsidies make the renewable energy viable and profitable. The subsidies must keep getting renewed and he’s getting worried that that the whistle is going to be blown on this.
Worldwide, nuclear yields slightly more electricity than renewables.
We see around the world that we can have cheap reliable energy for very long periods of time from Nuclear. So I recommend that viewers look at Gerard Holland’s report from the Page Research Center. He aired these findings at the AIC conference on Tuesday, They show that we are going down the wrong path. We’ve got far too many vested interests whispering in Mr Kean’s ear. He doesn’t understand the fundamentals of energy generation and he doesn’t understand the fundamental weaknesses of solo and wind.
And I do love his comment about the illiberal drive to intervene in the market-led energy transition. When there has been so much market manipulation like the subsidies. It’s just wishful thinking to pretend that renewables are being led by the market, as though it were purely organic.
I’ve got an early Lefty losing it for you. It’s from the New Zealand greens: Coal, don’t dig it, leave it on the ground, get with it.
What do you say to the New Zealand greens Professor Plim. I think they’ve been taking some of Kamala Harris scripts and talking from them. I have no idea what they’re talking about. But we do know that the New Zealand coals on the west coast of South Island are exceptionally clean with very high calorific value, and very low Ash, They are prized coals.
New Zealand does have energy from other sources; from oil in and gas in the Taranaki Basin and some geothermal energy. But the New Zealand coals are some of the best in the world I have no idea what they’re trying to say except that perhaps they they want New Zealand to become even more backward.
The Biden-Harris administration released data on Oct. 17 suggesting its push to electrify everything will ratchet up costs for American households, contradicting one of the White House’s favorite selling points for its green agenda, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Biden-Harris administration has made a crackdown on residential fossil fuel consumption a key aspect of its environmental strategy, justifying the push in part on the grounds electrification will lower energy costs. Now, Oct. 17 residential energy price data from the Department of Energy (DOE) shows electricity was roughly four times as expensive as natural gas in 2024, with experts telling the DCNF the White House’s electrification push is an example of extremist climate policy hurting everyday Americans. (RELATED: Forget Stoves! The Biden Admin Is Working Overtime To Phase Out All Your Gas Appliances)
“The Department of Energy has consistently shown that natural gas is a much cheaper energy source for households than electricity,” Daren Bakst, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told the DCNF. “Government policies trying to block the use of natural gas in favor of electricity will significantly drive up prices, making home heating and appliance use needlessly expensive. The poor will get hurt the most because, compared to higher income households, they spend a greater share of their household income on meeting basic needs such as staying warm in the winter.”
AOC Attacks Republicans Over Gas Stoves
OCASIO-CORTEZ: “I do think it’s funny, the…absolute…Republican meltdown…’You can’t take my gas stove…How dare you…You have a gas stove.’ “First of all, I rent.” pic.twitter.com/F32HhSzEga
The Biden-Harris DOE has issued a slew of rules restricting the use of gas appliances, including issuing revised standards on furnaces in September 2023 that could prohibit 40-60% of gas furnaces in homes, and increased efficiency requirements for water heaters that the agency claimed would save U.S. consumers $11.4 billion on their energy and water bills every year.
The Oct. 17 data showed electricity was significantly more expensive than fossil fuels, with a price of $47.36 per million British Thermal Units (BTU) compared to $13.38 and $33.59 per million BTU for natural gas and propane respectively. Thus, according to the Biden-Harris administration’s own data, switching from gas-powered appliances to electric appliances could increase utility costs by over 3.5 times, in addition to heightened installation costs.
“One of the most offensive bait-and-switch moves being played by officials in Washington D.C. and coastal enclaves is the push to force electric appliances on everyone, everywhere, even when natural gas can often be dramatically cheaper,” O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers and the former solicitor general of Arizona, told the DCNF. “The officials push the idea that bans on gas stoves, or gas furnaces, or other gas appliances will save on energy costs, but at the same time they have evidence that natural gas is cheaper…It’s time that officials in D.C. stopped trying to micromanage people’s lives and make everyone hew to a one size fits all approach to their homes.”
Energy sector expert Robert Bryce accused the Biden-Harris administration of purposely delaying the release of the price data on Oct. 3, citing the fact that, at least since 2011, the DOE has never published the information later than August. At the time — two weeks before the data was published — he predicted the agency was stonewalling because the cost figures would reflect the high costs of electricity relative to fossil fuels, which has proven to be accurate.
“This electrification push is a typical example of climate extremism,” Bakst told the DCNF. “There’s little to no consideration of how these policies will hurt Americans and the poor.”
An “electrification summit” held by the White House in December 2022 included non-governmental organization Rewiring America, which has previously stated its goal is to “electrify everything.”
The DOE did not respond to a request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
