Now let me get this straight JD.

You criticise me for not having links or timeframes and then admit you haven't provided any links but some timeframes. Double standard, meet hypocrisy.

But yes you do (sometimes) have timeframes. Each one carefully selected for each country to try to achieve the answer you want. Whereas I've consistently worked by only comparing 2020 to 2025.

Oh and as to links, I've been referring throughout to the Lomborg data that I linked to and explained to you in an earlier thread. Do I need to show it to you each time I mention it?

But fear not JD. I've done your work for you and found data which compares data for every European country from 2020 and 2025. And behold I found you two countries where electricity prices have actually fallen over the past five years, due, I'm sure you'll rush to assert, to renewables or something.

The countries? Montenegro and Malta. Leading the world to a green paradise!! :)

No, mhaze.

//You criticise me for not having links or timeframes and then admit you haven't provided any links but some timeframes.//

I criticised you for lobbing vague numbers with no sources, while simultaneously accusing others of fabrication. That's not a "double standard," that's me expecting you to meet the standard you're demanding of others.

I've cited Eurostat, RepuTex, and AEMO across this and previous threads. I've quoted figures, used specific year-on-year timeframes (like 2022 to 2023), and explained why a 2020-2025 bracket often obscures crisis spikes and recoveries.

That's called context.

It's not "cherry-picking" to look at how we got from A to B, especially when you're trying to blame renewables for a fossil-fuel-driven price spike.

//Do I need to show it to you each time I mention it?//

When you accuse others of not linking sources? Yes. You can't claim the moral high ground while outsourcing your footnotes to some unspecified earlier thread.

//Behold I found you two countries where electricity prices have actually fallen…//

Except that's not what I claimed.

I said some European countries saw dramatic price drops from the 2022 crisis peak, not that prices are universally below 2020 levels. That's a straw man.

Spain's prices, per Eurostat, dropped over 40% from 2022 to 2023. Germany saw a drop of approximately 20%. Sweden and Portugal also dropped. That's not "Malta and Montenegro," that's the EU's 4th, 1st, 8th, and 14th largest economies.

So again, if you want to talk about net 5-year change, go ahead. But if you're blaming renewables for price volatility and hardship, then you need to address what actually drove the 2022 spike and why prices dropped once fossil-gas dependence eased.

Until then, your arguments remain what they've been from the start: Big on tone, short on facts, allergic to nuance.

It all goes on and on with all those here arguing about the wrong
problem. We have two different solutions to a none existant problem.
The cause of global warming has been known for some time and it is not CO2.
Well not totally as co2 may just crank temperatures up a bit.
The basic problem is we are in the "Modern Warming Period".
This period started in 1800ad at what was known as the"Little Ice Age".
That time was the end of the "Medieval Warm Period" which started
about 450ad.
Around 900 ad the Vikings decided Greenland was good for settling.
They lived on Greenland for about 500 years when it got too cold
for farming in Greenland. Their Global warming had ended and they
had to leave.
So roughly the "Medieval Warm Period" was about 900 yrs long.
Unfortunately there were no good thermometers in those times.
The previous cycle the "Roman Warm Period" started some time around
300bc which led to a boost to agriculture in Europe and Rome becoming
a major trader in the Mediterranean.
One event of note in that time was the Roman settlements in Scotland
having large wineries to suit their taste for the drop.
What about before the Romans, well there is an "Egyption Warm Period"
and a "Minoan Warm Period" mentioned but I have not found much about them.
So perhaps geologists with better access than me can dig them out.
Now you can have a three way argument.

What a heap of abbreviated trollop. Weather systems are getting bigger and more destructive than ever. We are not in an ice age or an exorbitated hot weather system.
A proven fact is CO2 causes a greenhouse effect. Since 1950 temps are in a rise, same time as industrial pollution is increasing world wide.
We are talking on a world scale. Not stone age manufactures.
The starting point was in the 1950,s, when the scale of CO2 got bigger by year by year.
Now we are concentrated on bringing CO2 down on a world wide scale.
But all the yoyha over 40 years has delayed any reduction of Co2 for any effect to take place until the year 2050 Caused by all the climate deniers.
In the days of ancient romans or Greenland pastoralists did not have the science we have today if only deniers can believe.

No Doog, I did not say we were in an ice age.
What I said was that this warming started at the time that has
been called "The Little Ice Age" in 1800ad.
Incidentally 1800 was also known as the Maunder Minimum.
Because he had been counting sun spots and 1800 was the lowest count,
Co-incidence ? Perhaps, except low sunspots means lest strong and
disturbed earth magnetic field and so more cosmic rays can enter
the earth atmosphere and cause more clouds and more shading and
reflection of heat back into space, so less warming.
In that period there used to be Ice Carnivals on the frozen
River Thames. The warming started then and the last Ice Carnival
on the Thames was held in 1814 because the Thames no longer froze.
It still doesn't.
The earth is getting warmer and will do so for a few more 100s
of years.
Now you are right CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will make the earth
even warmer than it would have been.

There are a few very solid facts;
There have been warm periods in the past, perhaps 8 of them.
The 1800 Little Ice Age coincided with a big increase in coal burning.
The Maunder Sun Spot Minimum was centered around 1800.
Less sunspots more clouds. More sunspots less clouds.

I would suggest that these functions are far more powerful than CO2.

"Malta John" has a nice ring to it. Kudos mhaze.