Wind farm approval has ‘little bearing’ over outcome of Navitus Bay scheme

Wind farm approval has ‘little bearing’ over outcome of Navitus Bay scheme

BLUSTERY DAYS: Wind farm approval on the coast has been met with with mixed reviews

WELCOME: Angela Pooley

First published in News by , Chief Reporter

THE approval of plans for the first wind farm off the south coast of the UK should have little bearing on the development planned for the Dorset coastline, say objectors.

Supporters, meanwhile, say the Rampion wind farm, which is being planned by energy giant E.ON, should be seen as a good example.

It will have 175 turbines and will be eight miles off the Sussex coast at its closest point after the Government gave the go-ahead. Each turbine will be between 180 and 210 metres tall.

The numbers are strikingly similar to the Navitus Bay plans – which are backed by E.ON’s rivals EDF and Dutch firm Eneco.

The proposals, which have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, would see up to 194 turbines as tall as 200 metres.

They would be 12 miles from Christchurch, 13 from Bournemouth and Poole, and nine from Swanage.

But opposition group Challenge Navitus says that comparing schemes can be misleading.

Spokesman David Lloyd said: “The approval of the Rampion proposal has little bearing on the potential outcome of the Navitus Bay planning application. Each offshore wind farm is different, with its own specific issues and challenges. Comparing one area with another can be both irrelevant and misleading.

“The New Forest National Park, the Purbeck and Tennyson Heritage coasts and adjoining Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are unique and include England’s only Natural World Heritage Site. These designations were granted specifically to protect against the kind of industrialisation that the Navitus Bay wind farm would bring and to preserve these special places for future generations.

“There would also be many other environmental and social impacts specific to Navitus Bay.

“The degree of concern over the Navitus Bay application is clear from the record number of people who formally registered to oppose the scheme.”

Angela Pooley,  of East Dorset Friends of the Earth and BH Green Group, said they welcomed the decision to grant permission.

She said the group urged councils to see the Navitus plans as positive initiative, as in Sussex.

Angela added: “Climate Change will have a greater negative impact on the Dorset Coast than offshore wind, so rather than worrying about the anecdotal effect on tourism, they should turn it around and market Dorset as an area committed to green and sustainable development.”

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:27am Sun 20 Jul 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country!
If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country! fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 51

8:50am Sun 20 Jul 14

twynham says...

Wind Power currently producing 0.70% of demand.
http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/
Wind Power currently producing 0.70% of demand. http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ twynham
  • Score: 0

8:51am Sun 20 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country!
Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country![/p][/quote]Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say. tbpoole
  • Score: -25

9:02am Sun 20 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

Perhaps our three channel ferries could mow them all down if they go up...
Perhaps our three channel ferries could mow them all down if they go up... FerryFan
  • Score: 23

9:07am Sun 20 Jul 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

tbpoole wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country!
Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say.
An inconvenient truth for the scheme organisers but the figures are all out there. And I dispute your comment about my track record!
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country![/p][/quote]Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say.[/p][/quote]An inconvenient truth for the scheme organisers but the figures are all out there. And I dispute your comment about my track record! fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 22

9:19am Sun 20 Jul 14

Townee says...

At least ours will be further out to sea.

Yet again the negative perspective put forward by the echo. (I wonder which way the editor would vote, ummmmm).

What we need is a balanced view point not just the negative, it's like anything that the NIMBY's don't like they come out of the woodwork spouting rubbish and hope people will back them. Problem is most people can think for themselves and Ignor the rubbish spouted by the NIMBY's and make up their own minds.
At least ours will be further out to sea. Yet again the negative perspective put forward by the echo. (I wonder which way the editor would vote, ummmmm). What we need is a balanced view point not just the negative, it's like anything that the NIMBY's don't like they come out of the woodwork spouting rubbish and hope people will back them. Problem is most people can think for themselves and Ignor the rubbish spouted by the NIMBY's and make up their own minds. Townee
  • Score: -30

9:23am Sun 20 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

Just say no to this green scam, say no to the subsidies via you tax and then see these things disappear like the snow the greens told us we would not see again. A total disaster on a scale we haven't seen in our lifetime. A dishonest propaganda exercise by the greens and their religion. If it was a good generator of power i would support it but it is all smoke and lies.
Just say no to this green scam, say no to the subsidies via you tax and then see these things disappear like the snow the greens told us we would not see again. A total disaster on a scale we haven't seen in our lifetime. A dishonest propaganda exercise by the greens and their religion. If it was a good generator of power i would support it but it is all smoke and lies. Ophilum
  • Score: 41

9:27am Sun 20 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

Townee wrote:
At least ours will be further out to sea.

Yet again the negative perspective put forward by the echo. (I wonder which way the editor would vote, ummmmm).

What we need is a balanced view point not just the negative, it's like anything that the NIMBY's don't like they come out of the woodwork spouting rubbish and hope people will back them. Problem is most people can think for themselves and Ignor the rubbish spouted by the NIMBY's and make up their own minds.
You keep to your religion and we will keep our own council on this scam thanks, say no to subsidies for the rich power cronies of the greens via your bills forget the green religion.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: At least ours will be further out to sea. Yet again the negative perspective put forward by the echo. (I wonder which way the editor would vote, ummmmm). What we need is a balanced view point not just the negative, it's like anything that the NIMBY's don't like they come out of the woodwork spouting rubbish and hope people will back them. Problem is most people can think for themselves and Ignor the rubbish spouted by the NIMBY's and make up their own minds.[/p][/quote]You keep to your religion and we will keep our own council on this scam thanks, say no to subsidies for the rich power cronies of the greens via your bills forget the green religion. Ophilum
  • Score: 29

9:33am Sun 20 Jul 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

Townee wrote:
At least ours will be further out to sea.

Yet again the negative perspective put forward by the echo. (I wonder which way the editor would vote, ummmmm).

What we need is a balanced view point not just the negative, it's like anything that the NIMBY's don't like they come out of the woodwork spouting rubbish and hope people will back them. Problem is most people can think for themselves and Ignor the rubbish spouted by the NIMBY's and make up their own minds.
Yes we need a balanced view, but based on full facts of how much energy these windmills will actually produce and how much this tails off over time. This should not be a problem, but politicians and groups with vested interests will try to stop this happening.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: At least ours will be further out to sea. Yet again the negative perspective put forward by the echo. (I wonder which way the editor would vote, ummmmm). What we need is a balanced view point not just the negative, it's like anything that the NIMBY's don't like they come out of the woodwork spouting rubbish and hope people will back them. Problem is most people can think for themselves and Ignor the rubbish spouted by the NIMBY's and make up their own minds.[/p][/quote]Yes we need a balanced view, but based on full facts of how much energy these windmills will actually produce and how much this tails off over time. This should not be a problem, but politicians and groups with vested interests will try to stop this happening. fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 24

9:59am Sun 20 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country!
Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say.
An inconvenient truth for the scheme organisers but the figures are all out there. And I dispute your comment about my track record!
The figures may well be 'out there' but if you only pick ones that suit your cause it doesn't make them facts.

Oh and as most every comment of yours is anti-authority (just look at you username!) you can dispute all you like but it isn't going to change my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country![/p][/quote]Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say.[/p][/quote]An inconvenient truth for the scheme organisers but the figures are all out there. And I dispute your comment about my track record![/p][/quote]The figures may well be 'out there' but if you only pick ones that suit your cause it doesn't make them facts. Oh and as most every comment of yours is anti-authority (just look at you username!) you can dispute all you like but it isn't going to change my opinion. tbpoole
  • Score: -7

10:44am Sun 20 Jul 14

Bob Bournemouth says...

Let's face it, if it goes ahead this will be just like the IMAX and Surf Reef - a lot of money spent and little return not to mention the blot on the landscape. The only people to gain from this windfarm are the energy companies, it won't give us cheaper electricity. In fact, if I am correct, we are going to be paying over the odds for our electricity to subsidise the windfarm!
Let's face it, if it goes ahead this will be just like the IMAX and Surf Reef - a lot of money spent and little return not to mention the blot on the landscape. The only people to gain from this windfarm are the energy companies, it won't give us cheaper electricity. In fact, if I am correct, we are going to be paying over the odds for our electricity to subsidise the windfarm! Bob Bournemouth
  • Score: 25

10:58am Sun 20 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I find it sad that we seem to allow offshore organisations to finance what I consider to be an essential part for the future of not only Europe but maybe that for other regions too.
We should allow these wind turbines to be built 'on our doorstep' so that we can contribute - wind turbines will probably not be able to supply all but the percentage in conjunction with solar, tidal & other forms should be adequate to meet energy demand using natural resource.
Do not forget, business propositions expect a healthy return on capital invested by those who put their necks on the chopping block - that includes investment from the government or EU sources.
So, let us all be positive & welcome Navitus Bay because it will add to local employment & to the economy of the area.
Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I find it sad that we seem to allow offshore organisations to finance what I consider to be an essential part for the future of not only Europe but maybe that for other regions too. We should allow these wind turbines to be built 'on our doorstep' so that we can contribute - wind turbines will probably not be able to supply all but the percentage in conjunction with solar, tidal & other forms should be adequate to meet energy demand using natural resource. Do not forget, business propositions expect a healthy return on capital invested by those who put their necks on the chopping block - that includes investment from the government or EU sources. So, let us all be positive & welcome Navitus Bay because it will add to local employment & to the economy of the area. yet_another_one
  • Score: -11

11:11am Sun 20 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

yet_another_one wrote:
Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I find it sad that we seem to allow offshore organisations to finance what I consider to be an essential part for the future of not only Europe but maybe that for other regions too.
We should allow these wind turbines to be built 'on our doorstep' so that we can contribute - wind turbines will probably not be able to supply all but the percentage in conjunction with solar, tidal & other forms should be adequate to meet energy demand using natural resource.
Do not forget, business propositions expect a healthy return on capital invested by those who put their necks on the chopping block - that includes investment from the government or EU sources.
So, let us all be positive & welcome Navitus Bay because it will add to local employment & to the economy of the area.
Utter green wash......this by the ex environment and energy minister in the paper today.......Every prime minister has the right to choose his team to take Britain into the general election and I am confident that my able successor at Defra, Liz Truss, will do an excellent job. It has been a privilege to take on the challenges of the rural economy and environment. However, I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob.
By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely. And this from a man who knows.
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I find it sad that we seem to allow offshore organisations to finance what I consider to be an essential part for the future of not only Europe but maybe that for other regions too. We should allow these wind turbines to be built 'on our doorstep' so that we can contribute - wind turbines will probably not be able to supply all but the percentage in conjunction with solar, tidal & other forms should be adequate to meet energy demand using natural resource. Do not forget, business propositions expect a healthy return on capital invested by those who put their necks on the chopping block - that includes investment from the government or EU sources. So, let us all be positive & welcome Navitus Bay because it will add to local employment & to the economy of the area.[/p][/quote]Utter green wash......this by the ex environment and energy minister in the paper today.......Every prime minister has the right to choose his team to take Britain into the general election and I am confident that my able successor at Defra, Liz Truss, will do an excellent job. It has been a privilege to take on the challenges of the rural economy and environment. However, I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob. By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely. And this from a man who knows. Ophilum
  • Score: 24

12:06pm Sun 20 Jul 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

tbpoole wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country!
Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say.
An inconvenient truth for the scheme organisers but the figures are all out there. And I dispute your comment about my track record!
The figures may well be 'out there' but if you only pick ones that suit your cause it doesn't make them facts.

Oh and as most every comment of yours is anti-authority (just look at you username!) you can dispute all you like but it isn't going to change my opinion.
My facts are not selective, check out the industries own figures. Typically Wind Farms produce about 30% of their full capacity, so a "1GW" wind farm will probably produce 300MW. The 25 year life of these windmills is also under question as their efficiency further drops as components age. Also the subsidies paid to Wind farms mean they a guaranteed 3 times the current wholesale price of electricity .... these are facts. So I'm not selectively picking facts to suit my cause. I would be all for Wind Farms if they were economical.
And I'm not anti authority, if I was my username would be "fedupwithauthority"
. Thankfully most in authority are not Jobsworths!
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: If these windmills did what they say on the tin perhaps they might be worth considering but they don't. Electricity they generate is only about 30% of the headline figure and this drops to about 15% after 10 years. These farms should be seen for what they really are ,,,, moneymaking scams for big (and usually foreign) companies. The price they are guaranteed for this electricity is 3 times the current wholesale price .... so much for fuel poverty concerns! Far better for our government to invest these £billions fitting solar panels to every roof in the country![/p][/quote]Your quoted figures could be correct but given your track record I doubt it. I expect the scheme promoters would dispute everything you say.[/p][/quote]An inconvenient truth for the scheme organisers but the figures are all out there. And I dispute your comment about my track record![/p][/quote]The figures may well be 'out there' but if you only pick ones that suit your cause it doesn't make them facts. Oh and as most every comment of yours is anti-authority (just look at you username!) you can dispute all you like but it isn't going to change my opinion.[/p][/quote]My facts are not selective, check out the industries own figures. Typically Wind Farms produce about 30% of their full capacity, so a "1GW" wind farm will probably produce 300MW. The 25 year life of these windmills is also under question as their efficiency further drops as components age. Also the subsidies paid to Wind farms mean they a guaranteed 3 times the current wholesale price of electricity .... these are facts. So I'm not selectively picking facts to suit my cause. I would be all for Wind Farms if they were economical. And I'm not anti authority, if I was my username would be "fedupwithauthority" . Thankfully most in authority are not Jobsworths! fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: -10

12:19pm Sun 20 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple.

Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation.

I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up!
I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple. Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation. I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up! muscliffman
  • Score: 30

12:21pm Sun 20 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

Firstly, figures, 2700 voted against this project. In Bournemouth alone there is some 200,000, therefore about 10% were aganst. Less than an election vote. With the go ahead given for the Sussex, it gives a good lead on the same happening for the Navitus project. Back to figures. 19km off shore. Standing on the beach, height (average) 1.8m. Work it out, it is highly unlikely the windfarm will be seen. Even from top of cliffs, one would have difficulty. As for ruining the coastline and seabeds, what a load of rubbish. More damage is done by the natural environment over the years.
Firstly, figures, 2700 voted against this project. In Bournemouth alone there is some 200,000, therefore about 10% were aganst. Less than an election vote. With the go ahead given for the Sussex, it gives a good lead on the same happening for the Navitus project. Back to figures. 19km off shore. Standing on the beach, height (average) 1.8m. Work it out, it is highly unlikely the windfarm will be seen. Even from top of cliffs, one would have difficulty. As for ruining the coastline and seabeds, what a load of rubbish. More damage is done by the natural environment over the years. TheDistrict
  • Score: -20

12:59pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 5

1:39pm Sun 20 Jul 14

rubberbandman5 says...

I suspect many will be wondering what all this fuss is about and who to believe.
By 2020 £140 billion will go into providing wind turbines in in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Not a single penny will come from the European energy companies who build them, yet these companies earn huge profits and its not unreasonable to expect them to contribute. We also pay huge subsidies to keep conventional power plants on standby for when the wind drops or stops. They will not reduce a single conventional power plant. They do not save on CO2 levels and do absolutely nothing over the alleged climate change theories.
You may also like to know that most of the supporters of wind turbines are paid up members of so called green groups, many from other counties. One more small consideration - the green groups are paid for supporting wind turbines.
I suspect many will be wondering what all this fuss is about and who to believe. By 2020 £140 billion will go into providing wind turbines in in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Not a single penny will come from the European energy companies who build them, yet these companies earn huge profits and its not unreasonable to expect them to contribute. We also pay huge subsidies to keep conventional power plants on standby for when the wind drops or stops. They will not reduce a single conventional power plant. They do not save on CO2 levels and do absolutely nothing over the alleged climate change theories. You may also like to know that most of the supporters of wind turbines are paid up members of so called green groups, many from other counties. One more small consideration - the green groups are paid for supporting wind turbines. rubberbandman5
  • Score: 5

3:58pm Sun 20 Jul 14

The Liberal says...

Personally I'd rather it not be built here as it'll probably be an eyesore. On the other hand, there's a lot of nonsense talked about the efficiency of wind power, because people conflate efficiency with the load/capacity factor – by this measure, the 'efficiency' of a typical UK coal plant is 36-39%, slightly less than the lifetime average for Danish offshore wind farms.
Personally I'd rather it not be built here as it'll probably be an eyesore. On the other hand, there's a lot of nonsense talked about the efficiency of wind power, because people conflate efficiency with the load/capacity factor – by this measure, the 'efficiency' of a typical UK coal plant is 36-39%, slightly less than the lifetime average for Danish offshore wind farms. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Their unreliable, they don't work, their to expensive, put the money into nuclear and not the pockets of the green lobby.
Their unreliable, they don't work, their to expensive, put the money into nuclear and not the pockets of the green lobby. Hessenford
  • Score: 5

4:32pm Sun 20 Jul 14

LC Tanner says...

These anti wind farm people obviously don't read the news headlines concerning events around Russia etc.

We need to be reducing our dependence on energy from afar or the lights will very likely be going out.

'Green advocates are paid for their views?' What evidence have you for that?
However, just who are these behind the challenge navitus campaign? Try to find out. It's all well hidden. That must tell you something.
Ophilium seems to be the ringleader whipping up the thumbs up/down votes. Who is paying you?
First it was the view, then the bird strikes, then the onshore cabling. All of very little merit. What are they going to dream up next.

As for the record number of objectors, we all know that for each person stirred to object there will be many more who don't object but don't voice their opinion.

Get on and build it.
These anti wind farm people obviously don't read the news headlines concerning events around Russia etc. We need to be reducing our dependence on energy from afar or the lights will very likely be going out. 'Green advocates are paid for their views?' What evidence have you for that? However, just who are these behind the challenge navitus campaign? Try to find out. It's all well hidden. That must tell you something. Ophilium seems to be the ringleader whipping up the thumbs up/down votes. Who is paying you? First it was the view, then the bird strikes, then the onshore cabling. All of very little merit. What are they going to dream up next. As for the record number of objectors, we all know that for each person stirred to object there will be many more who don't object but don't voice their opinion. Get on and build it. LC Tanner
  • Score: -3

4:41pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Ivy says...

rubberbandman5 wrote:
I suspect many will be wondering what all this fuss is about and who to believe.
By 2020 £140 billion will go into providing wind turbines in in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Not a single penny will come from the European energy companies who build them, yet these companies earn huge profits and its not unreasonable to expect them to contribute. We also pay huge subsidies to keep conventional power plants on standby for when the wind drops or stops. They will not reduce a single conventional power plant. They do not save on CO2 levels and do absolutely nothing over the alleged climate change theories.
You may also like to know that most of the supporters of wind turbines are paid up members of so called green groups, many from other counties. One more small consideration - the green groups are paid for supporting wind turbines.
Where's your evidence of Green Groups being paid for supporting wind turbines? There are a considerable number of local people that passionately believe that we have a duty to future generations to protect and enhance the natural environment, implying they are being paid for supporting this is extremely insulting.
[quote][p][bold]rubberbandman5[/bold] wrote: I suspect many will be wondering what all this fuss is about and who to believe. By 2020 £140 billion will go into providing wind turbines in in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Not a single penny will come from the European energy companies who build them, yet these companies earn huge profits and its not unreasonable to expect them to contribute. We also pay huge subsidies to keep conventional power plants on standby for when the wind drops or stops. They will not reduce a single conventional power plant. They do not save on CO2 levels and do absolutely nothing over the alleged climate change theories. You may also like to know that most of the supporters of wind turbines are paid up members of so called green groups, many from other counties. One more small consideration - the green groups are paid for supporting wind turbines.[/p][/quote]Where's your evidence of Green Groups being paid for supporting wind turbines? There are a considerable number of local people that passionately believe that we have a duty to future generations to protect and enhance the natural environment, implying they are being paid for supporting this is extremely insulting. Ivy
  • Score: -4

5:03pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Bob Bournemouth says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Firstly, figures, 2700 voted against this project. In Bournemouth alone there is some 200,000, therefore about 10% were aganst. Less than an election vote. With the go ahead given for the Sussex, it gives a good lead on the same happening for the Navitus project. Back to figures. 19km off shore. Standing on the beach, height (average) 1.8m. Work it out, it is highly unlikely the windfarm will be seen. Even from top of cliffs, one would have difficulty. As for ruining the coastline and seabeds, what a load of rubbish. More damage is done by the natural environment over the years.
When did we vote on this - I don't remember being asked to vote? Therefore, it's not surprising that such a small percentage voted against it.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Firstly, figures, 2700 voted against this project. In Bournemouth alone there is some 200,000, therefore about 10% were aganst. Less than an election vote. With the go ahead given for the Sussex, it gives a good lead on the same happening for the Navitus project. Back to figures. 19km off shore. Standing on the beach, height (average) 1.8m. Work it out, it is highly unlikely the windfarm will be seen. Even from top of cliffs, one would have difficulty. As for ruining the coastline and seabeds, what a load of rubbish. More damage is done by the natural environment over the years.[/p][/quote]When did we vote on this - I don't remember being asked to vote? Therefore, it's not surprising that such a small percentage voted against it. Bob Bournemouth
  • Score: -19

5:38pm Sun 20 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

LC Tanner wrote:
These anti wind farm people obviously don't read the news headlines concerning events around Russia etc.

We need to be reducing our dependence on energy from afar or the lights will very likely be going out.

'Green advocates are paid for their views?' What evidence have you for that?
However, just who are these behind the challenge navitus campaign? Try to find out. It's all well hidden. That must tell you something.
Ophilium seems to be the ringleader whipping up the thumbs up/down votes. Who is paying you?
First it was the view, then the bird strikes, then the onshore cabling. All of very little merit. What are they going to dream up next.

As for the record number of objectors, we all know that for each person stirred to object there will be many more who don't object but don't voice their opinion.

Get on and build it.
I think you will actually find most people who are against this Navitus wind farm are very well versed in the need to produce our own independent UK energy and cease dependence on overseas energy interests.

That is why they continually refer to the need to immediately exploit the hundreds of years worth of efficient energy producing coal, gas and oil lately confirmed as being under our own land and most certainly want to stop wasting time and money pursuing a pretty useless and expensive wind 'solution' to a very probably non-existent environmental 'problem'.

And your last point about silent majorities works equally well for both sides of any debate!
[quote][p][bold]LC Tanner[/bold] wrote: These anti wind farm people obviously don't read the news headlines concerning events around Russia etc. We need to be reducing our dependence on energy from afar or the lights will very likely be going out. 'Green advocates are paid for their views?' What evidence have you for that? However, just who are these behind the challenge navitus campaign? Try to find out. It's all well hidden. That must tell you something. Ophilium seems to be the ringleader whipping up the thumbs up/down votes. Who is paying you? First it was the view, then the bird strikes, then the onshore cabling. All of very little merit. What are they going to dream up next. As for the record number of objectors, we all know that for each person stirred to object there will be many more who don't object but don't voice their opinion. Get on and build it.[/p][/quote]I think you will actually find most people who are against this Navitus wind farm are very well versed in the need to produce our own independent UK energy and cease dependence on overseas energy interests. That is why they continually refer to the need to immediately exploit the hundreds of years worth of efficient energy producing coal, gas and oil lately confirmed as being under our own land and most certainly want to stop wasting time and money pursuing a pretty useless and expensive wind 'solution' to a very probably non-existent environmental 'problem'. And your last point about silent majorities works equally well for both sides of any debate! muscliffman
  • Score: 8

6:45pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves.
I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives.
The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world.
They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment.
If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately.
These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay.
If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves. I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives. The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world. They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment. If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately. These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay. If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again. Hessenford
  • Score: 4

7:00pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Plenty of Greens out in force giving everyone the thumbs down I see, but for me the funniest comments come from those that think this Navitus Bay wind farm will not be visible. To give you some idea the turbines planned for this wind farm, are about 40 m higher than the Blackpool Tower and there will be 194 of them situated less than half the distance of Bournemouth to the Isle of Wight. Its a lunatic project which will cost us billions and have no economic benefit whatsoever except to the foreign companies reaping in the subsidies of course. Utter madness for anyone to think this is a worthwhile idea.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Plenty of Greens out in force giving everyone the thumbs down I see, but for me the funniest comments come from those that think this Navitus Bay wind farm will not be visible. To give you some idea the turbines planned for this wind farm, are about 40 m higher than the Blackpool Tower and there will be 194 of them situated less than half the distance of Bournemouth to the Isle of Wight. Its a lunatic project which will cost us billions and have no economic benefit whatsoever except to the foreign companies reaping in the subsidies of course. Utter madness for anyone to think this is a worthwhile idea. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 8

7:21pm Sun 20 Jul 14

rubberbandman5 says...

Marty, I agree with you on those who claim the Navitas project will not be visible. A good opportunity for spec savers to do a roaring trade! or we could say that because these very expensive wind turbines costing £140 billion by 2020 have sucked the financial resources out of the NHS there is little money left to treat the partially sighted?
Marty, I agree with you on those who claim the Navitas project will not be visible. A good opportunity for spec savers to do a roaring trade! or we could say that because these very expensive wind turbines costing £140 billion by 2020 have sucked the financial resources out of the NHS there is little money left to treat the partially sighted? rubberbandman5
  • Score: 6

7:27pm Sun 20 Jul 14

N Smith says...

Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.
Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show. N Smith
  • Score: -5

7:32pm Sun 20 Jul 14

N Smith says...

If we want to talk about eyesores how about getting rid of all the no wind turbine here signs.
If we want to talk about eyesores how about getting rid of all the no wind turbine here signs. N Smith
  • Score: -10

7:40pm Sun 20 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Hessenford wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves.
I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives.
The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world.
They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment.
If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately.
These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay.
If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.
Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out.

You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age.

We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question.

I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves. I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives. The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world. They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment. If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately. These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay. If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.[/p][/quote]Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out. You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age. We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question. I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder! muscliffman
  • Score: 6

8:09pm Sun 20 Jul 14

N Smith says...

muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves.
I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives.
The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world.
They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment.
If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately.
These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay.
If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.
Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out.

You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age.

We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question.

I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder!
Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves. I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives. The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world. They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment. If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately. These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay. If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.[/p][/quote]Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out. You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age. We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question. I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder![/p][/quote]Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them. N Smith
  • Score: -7

8:12pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

N Smith wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves.
I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives.
The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world.
They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment.
If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately.
These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay.
If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.
Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out.

You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age.

We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question.

I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder!
Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.
The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves. I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives. The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world. They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment. If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately. These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay. If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.[/p][/quote]Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out. You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age. We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question. I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder![/p][/quote]Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.[/p][/quote]The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets. Hessenford
  • Score: 4

8:26pm Sun 20 Jul 14

N Smith says...

Hessenford wrote:
N Smith wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves.
I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives.
The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world.
They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment.
If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately.
These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay.
If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.
Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out.

You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age.

We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question.

I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder!
Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.
The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets.
Very arrogant views, but then when your losing the argument in the wider world that's to be expected.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves. I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives. The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world. They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment. If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately. These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay. If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.[/p][/quote]Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out. You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age. We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question. I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder![/p][/quote]Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.[/p][/quote]The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets.[/p][/quote]Very arrogant views, but then when your losing the argument in the wider world that's to be expected. N Smith
  • Score: -2

8:28pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Ivy wrote:
rubberbandman5 wrote:
I suspect many will be wondering what all this fuss is about and who to believe.
By 2020 £140 billion will go into providing wind turbines in in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Not a single penny will come from the European energy companies who build them, yet these companies earn huge profits and its not unreasonable to expect them to contribute. We also pay huge subsidies to keep conventional power plants on standby for when the wind drops or stops. They will not reduce a single conventional power plant. They do not save on CO2 levels and do absolutely nothing over the alleged climate change theories.
You may also like to know that most of the supporters of wind turbines are paid up members of so called green groups, many from other counties. One more small consideration - the green groups are paid for supporting wind turbines.
Where's your evidence of Green Groups being paid for supporting wind turbines? There are a considerable number of local people that passionately believe that we have a duty to future generations to protect and enhance the natural environment, implying they are being paid for supporting this is extremely insulting.
But those people will hopefully be declared insane as quick as possible.
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rubberbandman5[/bold] wrote: I suspect many will be wondering what all this fuss is about and who to believe. By 2020 £140 billion will go into providing wind turbines in in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Not a single penny will come from the European energy companies who build them, yet these companies earn huge profits and its not unreasonable to expect them to contribute. We also pay huge subsidies to keep conventional power plants on standby for when the wind drops or stops. They will not reduce a single conventional power plant. They do not save on CO2 levels and do absolutely nothing over the alleged climate change theories. You may also like to know that most of the supporters of wind turbines are paid up members of so called green groups, many from other counties. One more small consideration - the green groups are paid for supporting wind turbines.[/p][/quote]Where's your evidence of Green Groups being paid for supporting wind turbines? There are a considerable number of local people that passionately believe that we have a duty to future generations to protect and enhance the natural environment, implying they are being paid for supporting this is extremely insulting.[/p][/quote]But those people will hopefully be declared insane as quick as possible. Hessenford
  • Score: -6

8:47pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

N Smith wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
N Smith wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves.
I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives.
The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world.
They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment.
If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately.
These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay.
If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.
Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out.

You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age.

We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question.

I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder!
Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.
The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets.
Very arrogant views, but then when your losing the argument in the wider world that's to be expected.
I don't believe for one minute I am losing any argument, things are changing, people are seeing climate change for the scam it has been all along, its always the same old nutters on tv and in the press campaigning against using oil or campaigning against fracking, its for this reason this utter rubbish is kept alive, perhaps if more of us got press and tv coverage when campaigning against the myth of global warming/climate change the tables would turn.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves. I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives. The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world. They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment. If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately. These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay. If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.[/p][/quote]Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out. You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age. We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question. I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder![/p][/quote]Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.[/p][/quote]The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets.[/p][/quote]Very arrogant views, but then when your losing the argument in the wider world that's to be expected.[/p][/quote]I don't believe for one minute I am losing any argument, things are changing, people are seeing climate change for the scam it has been all along, its always the same old nutters on tv and in the press campaigning against using oil or campaigning against fracking, its for this reason this utter rubbish is kept alive, perhaps if more of us got press and tv coverage when campaigning against the myth of global warming/climate change the tables would turn. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

10:19pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

N Smith wrote:
Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.
Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.[/p][/quote]Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 4

10:52pm Sun 20 Jul 14

N Smith says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
N Smith wrote:
Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.
Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs.
And I voted UKIP after that remark maybe I was wrong .
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.[/p][/quote]Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs.[/p][/quote]And I voted UKIP after that remark maybe I was wrong . N Smith
  • Score: -5

10:54pm Sun 20 Jul 14

N Smith says...

Hessenford wrote:
N Smith wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
N Smith wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.
Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves.
I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives.
The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world.
They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment.
If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately.
These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay.
If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.
Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out.

You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age.

We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question.

I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder!
Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.
The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets.
Very arrogant views, but then when your losing the argument in the wider world that's to be expected.
I don't believe for one minute I am losing any argument, things are changing, people are seeing climate change for the scam it has been all along, its always the same old nutters on tv and in the press campaigning against using oil or campaigning against fracking, its for this reason this utter rubbish is kept alive, perhaps if more of us got press and tv coverage when campaigning against the myth of global warming/climate change the tables would turn.
Remind me how many people have signed the petition , then look at the population . You are losing the argument big time.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Great, Angela Pooley thinks Navitus Bay is a wonderful idea because she is daft enough to believe the lies about climate change that were originally put about so companies could flog these useless wind farms, they are simply not fit for purpose. Just take a look at Hawaii, this will show everyone what the future of our Jurassic coast will look like once the wind farm companies have their subsidies stopped.[/p][/quote]Well said, I suspect that the majority of people who disagree with you have been so brainwashed by the climate change monkeys that they find it hard to think for themselves. I think we are all well aware that our sources of energy are slowly running out and we need to find alternatives. The green anoraks who keep pushing for these wind farms must be extremely deluded if they think that giant windmills plastered all over the earth will generate enough power to keep the lights on, especially when these same deluded groups are advocating the use of more and more electric cars, where will the power come from to keep these things on charge all over the world. They refuse to accept that fracking could give us a little respite plus produce mounds of much needed gas, they refuse to go with nuclear which is the only short term solution at the moment. If we listen to these tree hugging dipsticks for much longer they will have us back in the dark ages, literately. These wind farms will push up our energy bills by thousands per year and produce only a fraction of our energy needs, while at the same time line the pockets of the builders of these monstrosities through subsidies from the taxation we all pay. If the green do gooders want to live like hippies and hermits then I suggest they go and live on an uninhabited island somewhere untouched by modern man and leave the rest of the world to recapture its sanity by debunking climate change, get fracking and build nuclear, plus of course save us all a fortune in green taxes which seems to disappear into some obscure pot, never to be seen again.[/p][/quote]Broadly I would agree, although we have recently discovered that in addition to nuclear we have enough traditional fuel (coal, gas and oil) under the UK to keep us going at present energy demand levels for probably a thousand years. However given our technical progress in only the past one hundred years I think it's safe to presume that we will have moved on in energy production and requirement terms long before that huge heap of currently useful, efficient and dependable UK fuel runs out. You are of course right about the totally bewildered 'greens' around us, I have said before that many recent UK generations were (and probably still are) wrongly taught in school that man made climate change is a fact. So opportunists apart (like wind farm promoters), I don't doubt these 'green' people's good intentions, but they do have great difficulty embracing the idea that they were brainwashed by a politically driven agenda at the perfect age. We slightly(!) older folk can remember the unfulfilled 'green' tax raising 'global warming' predictions endlessly repeating since the 1980's and we can also recall the cold winter of 1962, the hurricane of 1987 and the hot summer of 1976, but for these younger 'greens' the doom laden predictions and just a bit of snow, wind or a warm spell is all new - so it's taken as proof of the 'man made climate change' scam which some seem understandably unable to question. I am sure common sense will eventually prevail, in the meantime the number of 'green' fanatics does seem to be falling dramatically whilst the noise the remaining few make just get's a bit louder![/p][/quote]Funny how the protesters are so out of touch with the general public. Most people support wind turbines it's the minority who against them.[/p][/quote]The only people who agree with wind farms are those who cannot make decisions for themselves and tend to be brainwashed and led by the green muppets.[/p][/quote]Very arrogant views, but then when your losing the argument in the wider world that's to be expected.[/p][/quote]I don't believe for one minute I am losing any argument, things are changing, people are seeing climate change for the scam it has been all along, its always the same old nutters on tv and in the press campaigning against using oil or campaigning against fracking, its for this reason this utter rubbish is kept alive, perhaps if more of us got press and tv coverage when campaigning against the myth of global warming/climate change the tables would turn.[/p][/quote]Remind me how many people have signed the petition , then look at the population . You are losing the argument big time. N Smith
  • Score: 1

11:30pm Sun 20 Jul 14

wadjit says...

There aren't any positive reasons for these to be built. Please focus on tidal and nuclear. These wind turbines are a colossal waste of time and, ironically, energy.
There aren't any positive reasons for these to be built. Please focus on tidal and nuclear. These wind turbines are a colossal waste of time and, ironically, energy. wadjit
  • Score: 0

12:10am Mon 21 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

N Smith wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
N Smith wrote:
Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.
Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs.
And I voted UKIP after that remark maybe I was wrong .
I guess that really depends on the reason why you voted UKIP, I am merely pointing out that you were wrong to say the canary islands when it is only the smallest one. The island is called El Hierro and has a population of 10k, as we have a population of close to 65 million it is hardly a good comparison is it. Hopefully you voted UKIP because they do talk sense.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.[/p][/quote]Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs.[/p][/quote]And I voted UKIP after that remark maybe I was wrong .[/p][/quote]I guess that really depends on the reason why you voted UKIP, I am merely pointing out that you were wrong to say the canary islands when it is only the smallest one. The island is called El Hierro and has a population of 10k, as we have a population of close to 65 million it is hardly a good comparison is it. Hopefully you voted UKIP because they do talk sense. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 4

12:39am Mon 21 Jul 14

Yankee1 says...

muscliffman wrote:
I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple.

Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation.

I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up!
Brilliant!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple. Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation. I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up![/p][/quote]Brilliant! Yankee1
  • Score: 6

7:01am Mon 21 Jul 14

N Smith says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
N Smith wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
N Smith wrote:
Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.
Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs.
And I voted UKIP after that remark maybe I was wrong .
I guess that really depends on the reason why you voted UKIP, I am merely pointing out that you were wrong to say the canary islands when it is only the smallest one. The island is called El Hierro and has a population of 10k, as we have a population of close to 65 million it is hardly a good comparison is it. Hopefully you voted UKIP because they do talk sense.
Wrong , you obviously have not been to Gran Canaria .
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: Amazing that so so many think these windmills are so ineffective yet the Canary Islands have had them for many years, I guess they are just there for show.[/p][/quote]Too funny, surely you mean one tiny island of the canary islands, in fact the smallest island of them all. What you are trying to say there is that when I was a kid my bicycle had a dynamo so why don't we all just use dynamos to supply all our energy needs.[/p][/quote]And I voted UKIP after that remark maybe I was wrong .[/p][/quote]I guess that really depends on the reason why you voted UKIP, I am merely pointing out that you were wrong to say the canary islands when it is only the smallest one. The island is called El Hierro and has a population of 10k, as we have a population of close to 65 million it is hardly a good comparison is it. Hopefully you voted UKIP because they do talk sense.[/p][/quote]Wrong , you obviously have not been to Gran Canaria . N Smith
  • Score: -5

8:31am Mon 21 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

Spot the difference:

Speaking after German-owner RWE npower announced it was no longer pressing ahead with its 240-turbine Atlantic Array project, Challenge Navitus spokesman David Lloyd said: “This news gives encouragement to everyone campaigning against Navitus Bay because it raises serious questions about the economic viability of offshore wind." (Echo, 27 Nov).

But opposition group Challenge Navitus says that comparing schemes can be misleading. Spokesman David Lloyd said: “The approval of the Rampion proposal has little bearing on the potential outcome of the Navitus Bay planning application. Each offshore wind farm is different, with its own specific issues and challenges. Comparing one area with another can be both irrelevant and misleading." (Echo, 20 Jul).
Spot the difference: Speaking after German-owner RWE npower announced it was no longer pressing ahead with its 240-turbine Atlantic Array project, Challenge Navitus spokesman David Lloyd said: “This news gives encouragement to everyone campaigning against Navitus Bay because it raises serious questions about the economic viability of offshore wind." (Echo, 27 Nov). But opposition group Challenge Navitus says that comparing schemes can be misleading. Spokesman David Lloyd said: “The approval of the Rampion proposal has little bearing on the potential outcome of the Navitus Bay planning application. Each offshore wind farm is different, with its own specific issues and challenges. Comparing one area with another can be both irrelevant and misleading." (Echo, 20 Jul). mooninpisces
  • Score: -2

10:05am Mon 21 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

LC Tanner wrote:
These anti wind farm people obviously don't read the news headlines concerning events around Russia etc.

We need to be reducing our dependence on energy from afar or the lights will very likely be going out.

'Green advocates are paid for their views?' What evidence have you for that?
However, just who are these behind the challenge navitus campaign? Try to find out. It's all well hidden. That must tell you something.
Ophilium seems to be the ringleader whipping up the thumbs up/down votes. Who is paying you?
First it was the view, then the bird strikes, then the onshore cabling. All of very little merit. What are they going to dream up next.

As for the record number of objectors, we all know that for each person stirred to object there will be many more who don't object but don't voice their opinion.

Get on and build it.
This is what the environment minister said just after the greens and their chums in the westminster bubble said he was not green enough for them on the red green agenda. And call me dave was crass enough to replace him.

But according to Paterson, his stint as Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was much more perilous.
I soon realised that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way. I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve.
Paterson claimed that his address was circulated amongst Green groups with an "incitement to trash it". He also claimed to have been "burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight". Actions that would have led to arrests had he still been Northern Ireland Secretary.
The former Environment Secretary's central claim was that Green lobby had attacked him for supporting growth in the rural economy. He said that groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace existed merely "to enhance their own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying".
[quote][p][bold]LC Tanner[/bold] wrote: These anti wind farm people obviously don't read the news headlines concerning events around Russia etc. We need to be reducing our dependence on energy from afar or the lights will very likely be going out. 'Green advocates are paid for their views?' What evidence have you for that? However, just who are these behind the challenge navitus campaign? Try to find out. It's all well hidden. That must tell you something. Ophilium seems to be the ringleader whipping up the thumbs up/down votes. Who is paying you? First it was the view, then the bird strikes, then the onshore cabling. All of very little merit. What are they going to dream up next. As for the record number of objectors, we all know that for each person stirred to object there will be many more who don't object but don't voice their opinion. Get on and build it.[/p][/quote]This is what the environment minister said just after the greens and their chums in the westminster bubble said he was not green enough for them on the red green agenda. And call me dave was crass enough to replace him. But according to Paterson, his stint as Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was much more perilous. I soon realised that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way. I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve. Paterson claimed that his address was circulated amongst Green groups with an "incitement to trash it". He also claimed to have been "burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight". Actions that would have led to arrests had he still been Northern Ireland Secretary. The former Environment Secretary's central claim was that Green lobby had attacked him for supporting growth in the rural economy. He said that groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace existed merely "to enhance their own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying". Ophilum
  • Score: 6

10:18am Mon 21 Jul 14

nobodyexpectedthat says...

muscliffman wrote:
I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple.

Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation.

I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up!
Oh dear Muscliffman you are at it again with your erroneous arguments about subsidies. If we were to add the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal / storage onto the cost of nuclear power then no-one would ever have built a nuclear power station. If we added the cost of cleanup and environmental damage operations to the cost of oil powered electricity production then perhaps the same again. The reality is that wind turbines ARE being built all over the world with a predominance in Europe. Why is this? well perhap its because those countries that realise they have to source energy locally, sustainably and from reliable sources.... get it. All I hear from the anti Navitus bay lot are dont build it - but you never come up with any vaible, sustainaable, affordable and secure options.

Despite the headline attempts by the Echo, the approval for Rampion is great news and probably sounds the deathnell for the NIMBYS and uninformed. Rampion is about the same size and is even closer to shore so this is greatt news for Navitus.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple. Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation. I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up![/p][/quote]Oh dear Muscliffman you are at it again with your erroneous arguments about subsidies. If we were to add the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal / storage onto the cost of nuclear power then no-one would ever have built a nuclear power station. If we added the cost of cleanup and environmental damage operations to the cost of oil powered electricity production then perhaps the same again. The reality is that wind turbines ARE being built all over the world with a predominance in Europe. Why is this? well perhap its because those countries that realise they have to source energy locally, sustainably and from reliable sources.... get it. All I hear from the anti Navitus bay lot are dont build it - but you never come up with any vaible, sustainaable, affordable and secure options. Despite the headline attempts by the Echo, the approval for Rampion is great news and probably sounds the deathnell for the NIMBYS and uninformed. Rampion is about the same size and is even closer to shore so this is greatt news for Navitus. nobodyexpectedthat
  • Score: 3

10:23am Mon 21 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

Just say no to our taxes being given away in this manner to the chums of the green/red lobbying groups, they do not speak for most of the thinking voters in this country, no to subsidies for the wind turbine con.
Just say no to our taxes being given away in this manner to the chums of the green/red lobbying groups, they do not speak for most of the thinking voters in this country, no to subsidies for the wind turbine con. Ophilum
  • Score: 8

10:59am Mon 21 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

nobodyexpectedthat wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple.

Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation.

I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up!
Oh dear Muscliffman you are at it again with your erroneous arguments about subsidies. If we were to add the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal / storage onto the cost of nuclear power then no-one would ever have built a nuclear power station. If we added the cost of cleanup and environmental damage operations to the cost of oil powered electricity production then perhaps the same again. The reality is that wind turbines ARE being built all over the world with a predominance in Europe. Why is this? well perhap its because those countries that realise they have to source energy locally, sustainably and from reliable sources.... get it. All I hear from the anti Navitus bay lot are dont build it - but you never come up with any vaible, sustainaable, affordable and secure options.

Despite the headline attempts by the Echo, the approval for Rampion is great news and probably sounds the deathnell for the NIMBYS and uninformed. Rampion is about the same size and is even closer to shore so this is greatt news for Navitus.
You are right on one point, it is great news for Navitus, it is not great news for anyone else. Try googling abandoned wind farms and see those wonderful turbines you refer to that have been left to rust away because they simply were not fit for purpose. We have to become self sufficient in our energy needs and that can be done through fracking and nuclear! Before the 'Uninformed' tree huggers start screaming fracking is not safe, Wytch Farm has been doing it for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever.

I want future generations to have reliable, cost effective energy solutions, not have them burdened with massive debts and rusty eyesores because the environmentalists simply believed what they were being told without questioning it.
[quote][p][bold]nobodyexpectedthat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: I am not particularly concerned about the view but it's quite simple. Let's resolve this matter by providing the offshore interests promoting Navitus all the consents they require to proceed with their Navitus wind farm, BUT withdraw all our huge UK taxpayer subsidies from it and spend them far more wisely on efficient methods of UK electricity generation. I can virtually guarantee not a single wind turbine would then go up![/p][/quote]Oh dear Muscliffman you are at it again with your erroneous arguments about subsidies. If we were to add the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal / storage onto the cost of nuclear power then no-one would ever have built a nuclear power station. If we added the cost of cleanup and environmental damage operations to the cost of oil powered electricity production then perhaps the same again. The reality is that wind turbines ARE being built all over the world with a predominance in Europe. Why is this? well perhap its because those countries that realise they have to source energy locally, sustainably and from reliable sources.... get it. All I hear from the anti Navitus bay lot are dont build it - but you never come up with any vaible, sustainaable, affordable and secure options. Despite the headline attempts by the Echo, the approval for Rampion is great news and probably sounds the deathnell for the NIMBYS and uninformed. Rampion is about the same size and is even closer to shore so this is greatt news for Navitus.[/p][/quote]You are right on one point, it is great news for Navitus, it is not great news for anyone else. Try googling abandoned wind farms and see those wonderful turbines you refer to that have been left to rust away because they simply were not fit for purpose. We have to become self sufficient in our energy needs and that can be done through fracking and nuclear! Before the 'Uninformed' tree huggers start screaming fracking is not safe, Wytch Farm has been doing it for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever. I want future generations to have reliable, cost effective energy solutions, not have them burdened with massive debts and rusty eyesores because the environmentalists simply believed what they were being told without questioning it. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 6

11:49am Mon 21 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore. Ophilum
  • Score: 4

10:30pm Mon 21 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

Ophilum wrote:
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
You haven't got a clue - I'm trying to be polite but you talk an absolute load of rubbish.
You & all other NIMBY's should look further than the end of your noses.
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.[/p][/quote]You haven't got a clue - I'm trying to be polite but you talk an absolute load of rubbish. You & all other NIMBY's should look further than the end of your noses. yet_another_one
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Mon 21 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

Ophilum wrote:
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!!
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.[/p][/quote]You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!! yet_another_one
  • Score: -3

11:04pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

yet_another_one wrote:
Ophilum wrote:
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!!
Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :)

Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.[/p][/quote]You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!![/p][/quote]Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :) Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -2

11:17pm Mon 21 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
Ophilum wrote:
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!!
Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :)

Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?
Try reading the IPCC reports dummy.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.[/p][/quote]You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!![/p][/quote]Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :) Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?[/p][/quote]Try reading the IPCC reports dummy. yet_another_one
  • Score: 0

10:10am Tue 22 Jul 14

nobodyexpectedthat says...

Oh dear this debate seems to have degenerated into mud slinging and uninformed opinion.

The reality is that wind farms work, they are being developed and built by all leading western economies, particualrly those that understand they need to be the masters of their own energy destiny's.

Any mass energy technology is subsidised in the early development years and indeed Nuclear is still being subsidised way beyond the limits that wind energy ever will be. Crying " we dont want expensive, subsidised electricity" is simply putting your head in the sand. Its going to get more expensive as traditional suplies of gas, oil and coal start to run out. We HAVE to find alternatives, We HAVE to secure our future by developing sustainable, locally produced energy that we control.

Even if you dont believe the climate change arguments, we HAVE to move away from fossil fuel burning becuase its running out. Is there anyone on this planet that really believes transporting, mining and burning coal, gas or oil is good for the environment? No of cousre not.

Wind power is not THE solution , it is however part of the THE solution and in a country surrounded by sea with a maritime climate it would be nonsensical NOT to have some wind power capability.

Grow up you uninformed, opinionated, NIMBYS. The reality of the future is that power generation WILL be in your back yard. But it will be more secure and will power the lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Ignore this growing need and gaping hole in a future power capabilities and the UK iwill face power rationing sooner than later.
Oh dear this debate seems to have degenerated into mud slinging and uninformed opinion. The reality is that wind farms work, they are being developed and built by all leading western economies, particualrly those that understand they need to be the masters of their own energy destiny's. Any mass energy technology is subsidised in the early development years and indeed Nuclear is still being subsidised way beyond the limits that wind energy ever will be. Crying " we dont want expensive, subsidised electricity" is simply putting your head in the sand. Its going to get more expensive as traditional suplies of gas, oil and coal start to run out. We HAVE to find alternatives, We HAVE to secure our future by developing sustainable, locally produced energy that we control. Even if you dont believe the climate change arguments, we HAVE to move away from fossil fuel burning becuase its running out. Is there anyone on this planet that really believes transporting, mining and burning coal, gas or oil is good for the environment? No of cousre not. Wind power is not THE solution , it is however part of the THE solution and in a country surrounded by sea with a maritime climate it would be nonsensical NOT to have some wind power capability. Grow up you uninformed, opinionated, NIMBYS. The reality of the future is that power generation WILL be in your back yard. But it will be more secure and will power the lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Ignore this growing need and gaping hole in a future power capabilities and the UK iwill face power rationing sooner than later. nobodyexpectedthat
  • Score: 0

8:24am Thu 24 Jul 14

Molecatcher says...

“The New Forest National Park, the Purbeck and Tennyson Heritage coasts and adjoining Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are unique and include England’s only Natural World Heritage Site. These designations were granted specifically to protect against the kind of industrialisation that the Navitus Bay wind farm would bring and to preserve these special places for future generations."

All fine and dandy, but when it comes down to it those are just words. There will be fat cats involved in this and as we all know, it's money that talks.
“The New Forest National Park, the Purbeck and Tennyson Heritage coasts and adjoining Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are unique and include England’s only Natural World Heritage Site. These designations were granted specifically to protect against the kind of industrialisation that the Navitus Bay wind farm would bring and to preserve these special places for future generations." All fine and dandy, but when it comes down to it those are just words. There will be fat cats involved in this and as we all know, it's money that talks. Molecatcher
  • Score: 2

11:26am Thu 24 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

nobodyexpectedthat wrote:
Oh dear this debate seems to have degenerated into mud slinging and uninformed opinion.

The reality is that wind farms work, they are being developed and built by all leading western economies, particualrly those that understand they need to be the masters of their own energy destiny's.

Any mass energy technology is subsidised in the early development years and indeed Nuclear is still being subsidised way beyond the limits that wind energy ever will be. Crying " we dont want expensive, subsidised electricity" is simply putting your head in the sand. Its going to get more expensive as traditional suplies of gas, oil and coal start to run out. We HAVE to find alternatives, We HAVE to secure our future by developing sustainable, locally produced energy that we control.

Even if you dont believe the climate change arguments, we HAVE to move away from fossil fuel burning becuase its running out. Is there anyone on this planet that really believes transporting, mining and burning coal, gas or oil is good for the environment? No of cousre not.

Wind power is not THE solution , it is however part of the THE solution and in a country surrounded by sea with a maritime climate it would be nonsensical NOT to have some wind power capability.

Grow up you uninformed, opinionated, NIMBYS. The reality of the future is that power generation WILL be in your back yard. But it will be more secure and will power the lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Ignore this growing need and gaping hole in a future power capabilities and the UK iwill face power rationing sooner than later.
Let just ignore the fact that there are already thousands of these wind turbines rusting away around the world simply because they were not fit for purpose. Lets build a load more of the coast of Dorset, at least I suppose that when they do get abandoned they will rust away a bit quicker.

Shale gas alone can sustain us for at least another 500 years by which time I hope that we would have found a new energy source or at least be mining other planets. And the really funny thing is, if we did mine other planets and there was nothing done on Earth that could affect the climate, it would still change because it happens to be a natural occurrence, one that also happens on other planets where there is no life whatsoever. So explain why that is then genius.

It is not Nimbyism to state that if something is unfit for purpose it is pretty stupid to spend billions on it, that is called simple common sense.
[quote][p][bold]nobodyexpectedthat[/bold] wrote: Oh dear this debate seems to have degenerated into mud slinging and uninformed opinion. The reality is that wind farms work, they are being developed and built by all leading western economies, particualrly those that understand they need to be the masters of their own energy destiny's. Any mass energy technology is subsidised in the early development years and indeed Nuclear is still being subsidised way beyond the limits that wind energy ever will be. Crying " we dont want expensive, subsidised electricity" is simply putting your head in the sand. Its going to get more expensive as traditional suplies of gas, oil and coal start to run out. We HAVE to find alternatives, We HAVE to secure our future by developing sustainable, locally produced energy that we control. Even if you dont believe the climate change arguments, we HAVE to move away from fossil fuel burning becuase its running out. Is there anyone on this planet that really believes transporting, mining and burning coal, gas or oil is good for the environment? No of cousre not. Wind power is not THE solution , it is however part of the THE solution and in a country surrounded by sea with a maritime climate it would be nonsensical NOT to have some wind power capability. Grow up you uninformed, opinionated, NIMBYS. The reality of the future is that power generation WILL be in your back yard. But it will be more secure and will power the lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Ignore this growing need and gaping hole in a future power capabilities and the UK iwill face power rationing sooner than later.[/p][/quote]Let just ignore the fact that there are already thousands of these wind turbines rusting away around the world simply because they were not fit for purpose. Lets build a load more of the coast of Dorset, at least I suppose that when they do get abandoned they will rust away a bit quicker. Shale gas alone can sustain us for at least another 500 years by which time I hope that we would have found a new energy source or at least be mining other planets. And the really funny thing is, if we did mine other planets and there was nothing done on Earth that could affect the climate, it would still change because it happens to be a natural occurrence, one that also happens on other planets where there is no life whatsoever. So explain why that is then genius. It is not Nimbyism to state that if something is unfit for purpose it is pretty stupid to spend billions on it, that is called simple common sense. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

11:41am Thu 24 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

yet_another_one wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
Ophilum wrote:
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!!
Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :)

Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?
Try reading the IPCC reports dummy.
Would that be the IPCC that is run from Geneva that only has 12 members of full time staff? Well lets all listen to them instead of listening to the many others like Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute Who clearly stated “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So 12 say its a real danger, 31,000 say it is not and you call me the dummy?
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.[/p][/quote]You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!![/p][/quote]Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :) Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?[/p][/quote]Try reading the IPCC reports dummy.[/p][/quote]Would that be the IPCC that is run from Geneva that only has 12 members of full time staff? Well lets all listen to them instead of listening to the many others like Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute Who clearly stated “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists. So 12 say its a real danger, 31,000 say it is not and you call me the dummy? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

1:54pm Thu 24 Jul 14

MTPoole says...

You know it is such a shame that people on here seem largely incapable of having an intellectual debate without all the political mud slinging that is going on here. In a way this whole discussion is undermined when people cannot offer others the courtesy of allowing them to put forward (should-be) well informed and evidence based arguments without reacting by name-calling and political slurs. If arguments were made without the personal political views, and focused primarily on (non cherry picked) facts and evidence , then perhaps such arguments would be listened to more clearly...
You know it is such a shame that people on here seem largely incapable of having an intellectual debate without all the political mud slinging that is going on here. In a way this whole discussion is undermined when people cannot offer others the courtesy of allowing them to put forward (should-be) well informed and evidence based arguments without reacting by name-calling and political slurs. If arguments were made without the personal political views, and focused primarily on (non cherry picked) facts and evidence , then perhaps such arguments would be listened to more clearly... MTPoole
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Molecatcher says...

nobodyexpectedthat wrote:
"The reality is that wind farms work, they are being developed and built by all leading western economies, particualrly those that understand they need to be the masters of their own energy destiny's. "

Could I respectfully ask that you provide some evidence for this statement of "reality" please?
nobodyexpectedthat wrote: "The reality is that wind farms work, they are being developed and built by all leading western economies, particualrly those that understand they need to be the masters of their own energy destiny's. " Could I respectfully ask that you provide some evidence for this statement of "reality" please? Molecatcher
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Thu 24 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
Ophilum wrote:
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!!
Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :)

Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?
Try reading the IPCC reports dummy.
Would that be the IPCC that is run from Geneva that only has 12 members of full time staff? Well lets all listen to them instead of listening to the many others like Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute Who clearly stated “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So 12 say its a real danger, 31,000 say it is not and you call me the dummy?
MC UKIP is spreading more misinformation (so what's new).

He obviously has not looked at an IPCC report. If he had, he would realise that the 12 full-time employees are the secretariat, who look after administration. The reports are written and edited by experts in different aspects of climate science (many thousands of them), who review the entire range of peer-reviewed literature and attempt to reach agreement on the current state of knowledge, and assess the confidence which can be attached to their conclusions.

Joseph Bast is not any sort of scientist. He studied Economics at Chicago University (the main source of the free market ideology which has wreaked such havoc on the world economy in recent years), but never completed his degree. His Heartland Institute is funded by American billionaires, and by various fossil fuel and tobacco interests. Surprise, surprise, the research they sponsor concludes there is no need to curb carbon emissions or to curb tobacco smoking. ExxonMobil (the most gung-ho of the oil majors) were so embarrassed by the crudity of Heartland publications that they withdrew support several years ago.

The Oregon Petition that he quotes pretended that it was endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences. It wasn't. The signatures were trawled by bulkmailing an article, which (falsely) claimed to be peer-reviewed, to every person on their database of scientists (of any discipline) and engineers in the USA, and inviting signatures. Of those who signed, most were engineers - details of expertise are sparse, but it seems that 200 at most of the 31,000 signatories were involved in climate research. I could go on. To rely on this travesty of a petition as if it was representative of climate science, and ignore what the scientists actively studying the climate are actually saying, is the sort of thing we have come to expect of someone who believes that research consists of searching on google to find anything, however unreliable, that confirms his prejudices.

Oh, and the IPCC reports do not suggest that climate catastrophe is inevitable. It is a possible consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions. It is not too late to avoid catastrophe, but that does rather depend on treating the findings of climate science with a bit more respect, and acting accordingly.

So how does this relate to the latest spin from Challenge Navitus, as reproduced by the Echo article we are supposedly commenting on.? Their latest statement talks about "the need to preserve these special places for future generations". Yet the only threat they recognise is a wind farm that will be seen on the horizon for a few decades at most, and only on a clear day. The much more real threat for future generations of the rising sea levels, more intense storms and increased coastal erosion that will be the inevitable consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions is, yet again, ignored.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.[/p][/quote]You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!![/p][/quote]Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :) Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?[/p][/quote]Try reading the IPCC reports dummy.[/p][/quote]Would that be the IPCC that is run from Geneva that only has 12 members of full time staff? Well lets all listen to them instead of listening to the many others like Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute Who clearly stated “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists. So 12 say its a real danger, 31,000 say it is not and you call me the dummy?[/p][/quote]MC UKIP is spreading more misinformation (so what's new). He obviously has not looked at an IPCC report. If he had, he would realise that the 12 full-time employees are the secretariat, who look after administration. The reports are written and edited by experts in different aspects of climate science (many thousands of them), who review the entire range of peer-reviewed literature and attempt to reach agreement on the current state of knowledge, and assess the confidence which can be attached to their conclusions. Joseph Bast is not any sort of scientist. He studied Economics at Chicago University (the main source of the free market ideology which has wreaked such havoc on the world economy in recent years), but never completed his degree. His Heartland Institute is funded by American billionaires, and by various fossil fuel and tobacco interests. Surprise, surprise, the research they sponsor concludes there is no need to curb carbon emissions or to curb tobacco smoking. ExxonMobil (the most gung-ho of the oil majors) were so embarrassed by the crudity of Heartland publications that they withdrew support several years ago. The Oregon Petition that he quotes pretended that it was endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences. It wasn't. The signatures were trawled by bulkmailing an article, which (falsely) claimed to be peer-reviewed, to every person on their database of scientists (of any discipline) and engineers in the USA, and inviting signatures. Of those who signed, most were engineers - details of expertise are sparse, but it seems that 200 at most of the 31,000 signatories were involved in climate research. I could go on. To rely on this travesty of a petition as if it was representative of climate science, and ignore what the scientists actively studying the climate are actually saying, is the sort of thing we have come to expect of someone who believes that research consists of searching on google to find anything, however unreliable, that confirms his prejudices. Oh, and the IPCC reports do not suggest that climate catastrophe is inevitable. It is a possible consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions. It is not too late to avoid catastrophe, but that does rather depend on treating the findings of climate science with a bit more respect, and acting accordingly. So how does this relate to the latest spin from Challenge Navitus, as reproduced by the Echo article we are supposedly commenting on.? Their latest statement talks about "the need to preserve these special places for future generations". Yet the only threat they recognise is a wind farm that will be seen on the horizon for a few decades at most, and only on a clear day. The much more real threat for future generations of the rising sea levels, more intense storms and increased coastal erosion that will be the inevitable consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions is, yet again, ignored. mooninpisces
  • Score: 1

11:11pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Long_shanks says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
Ophilum wrote:
Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.
You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!!
Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :)

Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?
Try reading the IPCC reports dummy.
Would that be the IPCC that is run from Geneva that only has 12 members of full time staff? Well lets all listen to them instead of listening to the many others like Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute Who clearly stated “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So 12 say its a real danger, 31,000 say it is not and you call me the dummy?
MC UKIP is spreading more misinformation (so what's new).

He obviously has not looked at an IPCC report. If he had, he would realise that the 12 full-time employees are the secretariat, who look after administration. The reports are written and edited by experts in different aspects of climate science (many thousands of them), who review the entire range of peer-reviewed literature and attempt to reach agreement on the current state of knowledge, and assess the confidence which can be attached to their conclusions.

Joseph Bast is not any sort of scientist. He studied Economics at Chicago University (the main source of the free market ideology which has wreaked such havoc on the world economy in recent years), but never completed his degree. His Heartland Institute is funded by American billionaires, and by various fossil fuel and tobacco interests. Surprise, surprise, the research they sponsor concludes there is no need to curb carbon emissions or to curb tobacco smoking. ExxonMobil (the most gung-ho of the oil majors) were so embarrassed by the crudity of Heartland publications that they withdrew support several years ago.

The Oregon Petition that he quotes pretended that it was endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences. It wasn't. The signatures were trawled by bulkmailing an article, which (falsely) claimed to be peer-reviewed, to every person on their database of scientists (of any discipline) and engineers in the USA, and inviting signatures. Of those who signed, most were engineers - details of expertise are sparse, but it seems that 200 at most of the 31,000 signatories were involved in climate research. I could go on. To rely on this travesty of a petition as if it was representative of climate science, and ignore what the scientists actively studying the climate are actually saying, is the sort of thing we have come to expect of someone who believes that research consists of searching on google to find anything, however unreliable, that confirms his prejudices.

Oh, and the IPCC reports do not suggest that climate catastrophe is inevitable. It is a possible consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions. It is not too late to avoid catastrophe, but that does rather depend on treating the findings of climate science with a bit more respect, and acting accordingly.

So how does this relate to the latest spin from Challenge Navitus, as reproduced by the Echo article we are supposedly commenting on.? Their latest statement talks about "the need to preserve these special places for future generations". Yet the only threat they recognise is a wind farm that will be seen on the horizon for a few decades at most, and only on a clear day. The much more real threat for future generations of the rising sea levels, more intense storms and increased coastal erosion that will be the inevitable consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions is, yet again, ignored.
@Marty Caine UKIP

Please first research, then respond to the points above regarding:

1. The reliability of Joseph Bast and the Heartland institute as sources of information on climate change.

2. The provenance of the public petition you mention.

Do you realise that Web search engines personalise search results, so that the results they show to you may be skewed toward your personal attitudes and preferences?

Just a little more thorough research might help reveal the questionable nature of the sources to which you refer.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Think about it , the greens and there friends in high places have been crying wolf for far to long, and getting away with it as they thought that we were all not listening but we have been and now at last even with the BBC and there biased views people have cottoned on to the green lies. You only have to see the views here to see that they are not getting away with the balderdash and piffle so easily anymore.[/p][/quote]You can't even write the Queen's English - try THEIR you f***ing idiot !!![/p][/quote]Oh look a tree hugger throwing his toys out of the pram because no one is listening to him any more.... :) Do you have some proof that climate change is a direct result of mankind, I would love to see that because the leading climatologists in the world have actually admitted there is no clear evidence of that at this time and the models that have been used in the past were in fact wrong. Maybe you know better than they do huh ?[/p][/quote]Try reading the IPCC reports dummy.[/p][/quote]Would that be the IPCC that is run from Geneva that only has 12 members of full time staff? Well lets all listen to them instead of listening to the many others like Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute Who clearly stated “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists. So 12 say its a real danger, 31,000 say it is not and you call me the dummy?[/p][/quote]MC UKIP is spreading more misinformation (so what's new). He obviously has not looked at an IPCC report. If he had, he would realise that the 12 full-time employees are the secretariat, who look after administration. The reports are written and edited by experts in different aspects of climate science (many thousands of them), who review the entire range of peer-reviewed literature and attempt to reach agreement on the current state of knowledge, and assess the confidence which can be attached to their conclusions. Joseph Bast is not any sort of scientist. He studied Economics at Chicago University (the main source of the free market ideology which has wreaked such havoc on the world economy in recent years), but never completed his degree. His Heartland Institute is funded by American billionaires, and by various fossil fuel and tobacco interests. Surprise, surprise, the research they sponsor concludes there is no need to curb carbon emissions or to curb tobacco smoking. ExxonMobil (the most gung-ho of the oil majors) were so embarrassed by the crudity of Heartland publications that they withdrew support several years ago. The Oregon Petition that he quotes pretended that it was endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences. It wasn't. The signatures were trawled by bulkmailing an article, which (falsely) claimed to be peer-reviewed, to every person on their database of scientists (of any discipline) and engineers in the USA, and inviting signatures. Of those who signed, most were engineers - details of expertise are sparse, but it seems that 200 at most of the 31,000 signatories were involved in climate research. I could go on. To rely on this travesty of a petition as if it was representative of climate science, and ignore what the scientists actively studying the climate are actually saying, is the sort of thing we have come to expect of someone who believes that research consists of searching on google to find anything, however unreliable, that confirms his prejudices. Oh, and the IPCC reports do not suggest that climate catastrophe is inevitable. It is a possible consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions. It is not too late to avoid catastrophe, but that does rather depend on treating the findings of climate science with a bit more respect, and acting accordingly. So how does this relate to the latest spin from Challenge Navitus, as reproduced by the Echo article we are supposedly commenting on.? Their latest statement talks about "the need to preserve these special places for future generations". Yet the only threat they recognise is a wind farm that will be seen on the horizon for a few decades at most, and only on a clear day. The much more real threat for future generations of the rising sea levels, more intense storms and increased coastal erosion that will be the inevitable consequence of failing to curb carbon emissions is, yet again, ignored.[/p][/quote]@Marty Caine UKIP Please first research, then respond to the points above regarding: 1. The reliability of Joseph Bast and the Heartland institute as sources of information on climate change. 2. The provenance of the public petition you mention. Do you realise that Web search engines personalise search results, so that the results they show to you may be skewed toward your personal attitudes and preferences? Just a little more thorough research might help reveal the questionable nature of the sources to which you refer. Long_shanks
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree