My generation unrepresented

MEETING: The audience at the BIC on Saturday

MEETING: The audience at the BIC on Saturday

First published in Letters to the Editor

ON Saturday I went to a consultation with local residents in Bournemouth to discuss with Navitus Bay Developers building a wind farm offshore.

I realised I was one of about five people under the age of 30 and the other 500 or so people were over the age of 50.

Most looked to me to be in their 60s. The room completely failed to represent my generation, which was a huge disappointment.

Ninety per cent of the room was, to my horror, opposed to investing in renewable energy in the form of this wind farm.

Reasons seemed mainly based around the view. The wind turbine would appear approximately 4mm on the horizon.

Other reasons included destroying marine life.

However, the opposition’s suggestions to move it further out (of sight and out of mind), means digging up more of the sea bed for piping thus causing more disruption (to the sea life, not the residents).

Bournemouth was also held in higher regard by the residents and local MPs than other towns that have seen an improvement in their tourism from wind farms.

According to them, the main reason for a huge amount of tourism is our view of the sea and coastline.

Yes, this is a reason but not the sole reason. Tourists come here because it has friendly people, a clean town, lots to do and, most importantly, a seven mile long sandy beach.

If we do not accept renewable energy but continue this disruptive fossil fuel lifestyle our beach (not just our beach huts) will be swept away and that is what will stop tourism.

Every one of my friends has no problem in supporting wind farms so it was very disappointing not to hear this view reflected in the audience or by the MPs who should be concerned for all generations.

I was also frustrated that Navitus themselves did not provide more factual information to the concerns that were raised by the residents as this may have reassured many.

ZOE CHAPMAN, aged 28, Parkwood Road, Southbourne, Bournemouth

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:25am Wed 14 May 14

ips090 says...

How refreshing to hear such positive views - a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). I, too attended the meeting which was really more of a rally for the vociferous nay-sayers. These people do not represent the majority in Bournemouth. We cannot say that we recognise there is a looming crisis but are too pretty to help - this would, indeed damage the town's reputation.
Of course, those who think there is no looming crisis are consistent: but scientifically ignorant. Either way it doesn't sound like the kind of place one would wish to spend much time in!
How refreshing to hear such positive views - a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). I, too attended the meeting which was really more of a rally for the vociferous nay-sayers. These people do not represent the majority in Bournemouth. We cannot say that we recognise there is a looming crisis but are too pretty to help - this would, indeed damage the town's reputation. Of course, those who think there is no looming crisis are consistent: but scientifically ignorant. Either way it doesn't sound like the kind of place one would wish to spend much time in! ips090
  • Score: 7

10:34am Wed 14 May 14

PUZZLED ONE says...

Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?
Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective? PUZZLED ONE
  • Score: -11

10:37am Wed 14 May 14

BoscVegas says...

I fall into the 'unrepresented generation' and did not attend the meeting. My reasons for this are primarily that I do not feel strongly either for or against the proposal. however, if pushed I would say that I lean towards it approval.

Typically, planning meetings are usually attended by those whom feel strongly against and as the topic has also been widely covered by this publication, I'm pretty clear on the reservations held by these individuals.
I fall into the 'unrepresented generation' and did not attend the meeting. My reasons for this are primarily that I do not feel strongly either for or against the proposal. however, if pushed I would say that I lean towards it approval. Typically, planning meetings are usually attended by those whom feel strongly against and as the topic has also been widely covered by this publication, I'm pretty clear on the reservations held by these individuals. BoscVegas
  • Score: -3

10:38am Wed 14 May 14

BoscVegas says...

PUZZLED ONE wrote:
Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?
Nuclear power stations
[quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?[/p][/quote]Nuclear power stations BoscVegas
  • Score: 11

10:57am Wed 14 May 14

Bluestew says...

The Navitus consultation indeed was under represented by younger generations, the very people who are going to have to live with decisions implemented now that will affect the future generations. Many of the speakers used the 'World Heritage' status assigned to the geology of the Jurassic Coast but the same urgency and importance seems to have been overlooked when the actual geology is given permission and planning to exploratory drill in the beginning stages of the fracking agenda just behind Durlston Country Park. Fracking is coming to Purbeck and Dorset and will devastate tourism, property value, geology and our water and roads and air. That seems to be the legacy the older generations seem complacent to when opposing clean energy plans offshore.
The Navitus consultation indeed was under represented by younger generations, the very people who are going to have to live with decisions implemented now that will affect the future generations. Many of the speakers used the 'World Heritage' status assigned to the geology of the Jurassic Coast but the same urgency and importance seems to have been overlooked when the actual geology is given permission and planning to exploratory drill in the beginning stages of the fracking agenda just behind Durlston Country Park. Fracking is coming to Purbeck and Dorset and will devastate tourism, property value, geology and our water and roads and air. That seems to be the legacy the older generations seem complacent to when opposing clean energy plans offshore. Bluestew
  • Score: 1

10:59am Wed 14 May 14

Mike R-B says...

ips090 wrote:
How refreshing to hear such positive views - a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). I, too attended the meeting which was really more of a rally for the vociferous nay-sayers. These people do not represent the majority in Bournemouth. We cannot say that we recognise there is a looming crisis but are too pretty to help - this would, indeed damage the town's reputation.
Of course, those who think there is no looming crisis are consistent: but scientifically ignorant. Either way it doesn't sound like the kind of place one would wish to spend much time in!
I'm afraid "these people" do represent the Bournemouth opinion and are "experienced" enough to spot the hot air and waffle dealt out by those with a vast financial interest, hence as the original letter notes "Navitus themselves did not provide more factual information" THEY AIN'T GOT NONE.
[quote][p][bold]ips090[/bold] wrote: How refreshing to hear such positive views - a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). I, too attended the meeting which was really more of a rally for the vociferous nay-sayers. These people do not represent the majority in Bournemouth. We cannot say that we recognise there is a looming crisis but are too pretty to help - this would, indeed damage the town's reputation. Of course, those who think there is no looming crisis are consistent: but scientifically ignorant. Either way it doesn't sound like the kind of place one would wish to spend much time in![/p][/quote]I'm afraid "these people" do represent the Bournemouth opinion and are "experienced" enough to spot the hot air and waffle dealt out by those with a vast financial interest, hence as the original letter notes "Navitus themselves did not provide more factual information" THEY AIN'T GOT NONE. Mike R-B
  • Score: 0

11:22am Wed 14 May 14

woby_tide says...

PUZZLED ONE wrote:
Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?
I presume you mean ineffective.

But yes, perhaps your generation could tell us what we should use instead seeing as you are so keen to avoid any alternatives and have no sustainable plans. As per the original letter, it's brilliant that a generation who will be first to depart are so keen to protect their own last few years whilst not giving a thought to any of the future generations who will be left to pick up the pieces.
[quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?[/p][/quote]I presume you mean ineffective. But yes, perhaps your generation could tell us what we should use instead seeing as you are so keen to avoid any alternatives and have no sustainable plans. As per the original letter, it's brilliant that a generation who will be first to depart are so keen to protect their own last few years whilst not giving a thought to any of the future generations who will be left to pick up the pieces. woby_tide
  • Score: 9

11:43am Wed 14 May 14

nosuchluck54 says...

PUZZLED ONE wrote:
Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?
You refer to "his generation " so you are assuming ZOE the letter writer is male,is that correct?
[quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?[/p][/quote]You refer to "his generation " so you are assuming ZOE the letter writer is male,is that correct? nosuchluck54
  • Score: 5

12:42pm Wed 14 May 14

we-shall-see says...

Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up".

After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet.........

Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o//
Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up". After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet......... Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o// we-shall-see
  • Score: -7

12:53pm Wed 14 May 14

BoscVegas says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up".

After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet.........

Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o//
were there free tea and biscuits at the meeting?
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up". After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet......... Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o//[/p][/quote]were there free tea and biscuits at the meeting? BoscVegas
  • Score: 4

1:10pm Wed 14 May 14

woby_tide says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up".

After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet.........

Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o//
Yet the letter suggests that 90% of those attending were against the proposal so they weren't interested in helping our environment either.

Maybe we can put it on the shelf alongside the file for defined benefit pensions as "things for the next generation to sort out as we're all ok for now thanks"
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up". After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet......... Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o//[/p][/quote]Yet the letter suggests that 90% of those attending were against the proposal so they weren't interested in helping our environment either. Maybe we can put it on the shelf alongside the file for defined benefit pensions as "things for the next generation to sort out as we're all ok for now thanks" woby_tide
  • Score: 1

1:22pm Wed 14 May 14

K5054 says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up".

After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet.........

Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o//
yep...ban the bomb marches....if the bomb wasn`t stopped we wouldn`t have a human race left to worry about Polar Bears or to be accused of causing Global warming.

I notice they worry about my cars tiny CO2 emissions, and bang on about how much CO2 Navitus will save, but still find time to hold annually around 34 Very Dirty, Carbon emission is not an issue, wars, at any one time.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Zoe, perhaps "your" generation couldn't care less about the environment? They are all far too busy having fun and doing the things young people do and wouldn't want to spend time on anything remotely "grown up". After all, the event was held on a Saturday, so most would neither be at work or school/college etc, so no genuine reason not to attend if they really did care about the future of this planet......... Let us not forget, that many of today's older generation were at the forefront of environment issues in the 60's & 70's and continue to have an interest in such matters, unlike many young people today who couldn't put down their iPhone long enough to attend an important meeting and lose what? Maybe an hour of their life in helping our environment both locally or globally :o//[/p][/quote]yep...ban the bomb marches....if the bomb wasn`t stopped we wouldn`t have a human race left to worry about Polar Bears or to be accused of causing Global warming. I notice they worry about my cars tiny CO2 emissions, and bang on about how much CO2 Navitus will save, but still find time to hold annually around 34 Very Dirty, Carbon emission is not an issue, wars, at any one time. K5054
  • Score: 2

2:01pm Wed 14 May 14

muscliffman says...

"If we do not accept renewable energy but continue this disruptive fossil fuel lifestyle our beach (not just our beach huts) will be swept away" - Says who - those who want to line their pockets with huge publicly funded 'green' subsidies for things like wind farms, politicians looking for your 'green' vote or just those who have brainwashed many youngsters in the UK education system to believe in man made 'global warming' as a fact?

Because for the record our local beach had been all but completely washed away by the 1950/60's (just look at old photos) but not because of the (allegedly disruptive) use of fossil fuels but as a result of our artificial sea wall preventing beach renewal from natural sea/sand erosion of the cliff face. This loss of beach has been rectified by sand dredging which will have to continue indefinitely, unless we remove the prom and accept the recommencement of a perfectly normal cliff and land erosion process - currently by a notably un-rising sea.

As an aside thousands of years ago Poole Bay used to be a part of the Frome Valley and dry land, so what caused the sea to rise and flood it back then, mankind's 'disruptive use of fossil fuels' or simply one of mother nature's natural climate change cycles?
"If we do not accept renewable energy but continue this disruptive fossil fuel lifestyle our beach (not just our beach huts) will be swept away" - Says who - those who want to line their pockets with huge publicly funded 'green' subsidies for things like wind farms, politicians looking for your 'green' vote or just those who have brainwashed many youngsters in the UK education system to believe in man made 'global warming' as a fact? Because for the record our local beach had been all but completely washed away by the 1950/60's (just look at old photos) but not because of the (allegedly disruptive) use of fossil fuels but as a result of our artificial sea wall preventing beach renewal from natural sea/sand erosion of the cliff face. This loss of beach has been rectified by sand dredging which will have to continue indefinitely, unless we remove the prom and accept the recommencement of a perfectly normal cliff and land erosion process - currently by a notably un-rising sea. As an aside thousands of years ago Poole Bay used to be a part of the Frome Valley and dry land, so what caused the sea to rise and flood it back then, mankind's 'disruptive use of fossil fuels' or simply one of mother nature's natural climate change cycles? muscliffman
  • Score: 5

2:14pm Wed 14 May 14

BarrHumbug says...

90% of those there couldn't give a monkeys about the environment, they just care about what they'll be able to see from their back garden!
90% of those there couldn't give a monkeys about the environment, they just care about what they'll be able to see from their back garden! BarrHumbug
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Wed 14 May 14

K5054 says...

muscliffman wrote:
"If we do not accept renewable energy but continue this disruptive fossil fuel lifestyle our beach (not just our beach huts) will be swept away" - Says who - those who want to line their pockets with huge publicly funded 'green' subsidies for things like wind farms, politicians looking for your 'green' vote or just those who have brainwashed many youngsters in the UK education system to believe in man made 'global warming' as a fact?

Because for the record our local beach had been all but completely washed away by the 1950/60's (just look at old photos) but not because of the (allegedly disruptive) use of fossil fuels but as a result of our artificial sea wall preventing beach renewal from natural sea/sand erosion of the cliff face. This loss of beach has been rectified by sand dredging which will have to continue indefinitely, unless we remove the prom and accept the recommencement of a perfectly normal cliff and land erosion process - currently by a notably un-rising sea.

As an aside thousands of years ago Poole Bay used to be a part of the Frome Valley and dry land, so what caused the sea to rise and flood it back then, mankind's 'disruptive use of fossil fuels' or simply one of mother nature's natural climate change cycles?
The USA and UK scientists backed by political tax payers money supported a MAD theory in my early days to the tune of tens of £billions, and it seems they support yet onother one now.

Since money is the key, there is nothing that can`t be supported by scientists when paid for. Even if it is MAD
.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: "If we do not accept renewable energy but continue this disruptive fossil fuel lifestyle our beach (not just our beach huts) will be swept away" - Says who - those who want to line their pockets with huge publicly funded 'green' subsidies for things like wind farms, politicians looking for your 'green' vote or just those who have brainwashed many youngsters in the UK education system to believe in man made 'global warming' as a fact? Because for the record our local beach had been all but completely washed away by the 1950/60's (just look at old photos) but not because of the (allegedly disruptive) use of fossil fuels but as a result of our artificial sea wall preventing beach renewal from natural sea/sand erosion of the cliff face. This loss of beach has been rectified by sand dredging which will have to continue indefinitely, unless we remove the prom and accept the recommencement of a perfectly normal cliff and land erosion process - currently by a notably un-rising sea. As an aside thousands of years ago Poole Bay used to be a part of the Frome Valley and dry land, so what caused the sea to rise and flood it back then, mankind's 'disruptive use of fossil fuels' or simply one of mother nature's natural climate change cycles?[/p][/quote]The USA and UK scientists backed by political tax payers money supported a MAD theory in my early days to the tune of tens of £billions, and it seems they support yet onother one now. Since money is the key, there is nothing that can`t be supported by scientists when paid for. Even if it is MAD . K5054
  • Score: 3

3:37pm Wed 14 May 14

ips090 says...

Are you suggesting that all the scientists in all the major scientific establishments in the world are somehow on the payroll of wind farm engineers? In China? In India? In Russia etc., etc? Or is it a kind of conspiracy organised by the Litterati? Do you adopt this hyper-scepticism in the face of all scientific theories, or just the theory of anthropogenic global warming?
I see that the inventive possibilities are endless - your own world, in fact, rather than the one the rest of us inhabit.
Are you suggesting that all the scientists in all the major scientific establishments in the world are somehow on the payroll of wind farm engineers? In China? In India? In Russia etc., etc? Or is it a kind of conspiracy organised by the Litterati? Do you adopt this hyper-scepticism in the face of all scientific theories, or just the theory of anthropogenic global warming? I see that the inventive possibilities are endless - your own world, in fact, rather than the one the rest of us inhabit. ips090
  • Score: 2

4:37pm Wed 14 May 14

breamoreboy says...

BoscVegas wrote:
PUZZLED ONE wrote:
Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?
Nuclear power stations
I'm happy with that, provided the highly radioactive byproducts are buried under your back garden and not mine.
[quote][p][bold]BoscVegas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?[/p][/quote]Nuclear power stations[/p][/quote]I'm happy with that, provided the highly radioactive byproducts are buried under your back garden and not mine. breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

4:41pm Wed 14 May 14

s-pb2 says...

Im afraid a view of the sea is the be all and end all alongside noddy trains for the residents of Bournemouth.

Its considered to be far more important that energy sources as well as other insignifcant things such as adult social care and childrens social care. After all look at the article yesterday about an appeal for foster carers, which received NO comments. Perhaps they should have mentioned noddy trains as well and they would have been deluged with applicants.

Thats why £8m of taxpayers money was spent on knocking down a building that was spoiling a 5 second view of the sea.

The town and the majority of its residents are stuck in the past, thats why we have ended up with so many messes in this town. A complete lack of forward thinking by people with self-interests with some wishing to return to the 1950s. I suggest these people get into the Tardis in Boscombe and get themselves back to the 1950s and leave the 21st century to the rest of us
Im afraid a view of the sea is the be all and end all alongside noddy trains for the residents of Bournemouth. Its considered to be far more important that energy sources as well as other insignifcant things such as adult social care and childrens social care. After all look at the article yesterday about an appeal for foster carers, which received NO comments. Perhaps they should have mentioned noddy trains as well and they would have been deluged with applicants. Thats why £8m of taxpayers money was spent on knocking down a building that was spoiling a 5 second view of the sea. The town and the majority of its residents are stuck in the past, thats why we have ended up with so many messes in this town. A complete lack of forward thinking by people with self-interests with some wishing to return to the 1950s. I suggest these people get into the Tardis in Boscombe and get themselves back to the 1950s and leave the 21st century to the rest of us s-pb2
  • Score: -3

4:48pm Wed 14 May 14

muscliffman says...

ips090 wrote:
Are you suggesting that all the scientists in all the major scientific establishments in the world are somehow on the payroll of wind farm engineers? In China? In India? In Russia etc., etc? Or is it a kind of conspiracy organised by the Litterati? Do you adopt this hyper-scepticism in the face of all scientific theories, or just the theory of anthropogenic global warming?
I see that the inventive possibilities are endless - your own world, in fact, rather than the one the rest of us inhabit.
The western world's politically funded scientist's first dramatic man made 'global warming' predictions dating back over twenty years ago have all been proven by time to have been hopelessly wrong - although of course they enabled a lot of 'green' taxes to be charged in the intervening period.

Now of course the same sort of 'experts' repeat these gloomy predictions virtually word perfect but rebranded as 'climate change', explaining that they have not yet occurred as first indicated because of a 'climate pause' - a pause which oddly they all completely failed to predict!

There are certainly plenty of independent international scientists of substantial repute (including some significant ex-supporters of man made climate change) who will argue that there is indeed little or NO evidence of any man made influence upon global climate change. In fact the historic evidence available to us all clearly demonstrates to the contrary, and confirms that the planet's climate has changed very dramatically countless times - but without any influence whatsoever from mankind.

No conspiracy theories, just an open and perhaps slightly cynical mind.

('Litterati' - something to do with rubbish? - or did you mean 'Illuminati'......)
[quote][p][bold]ips090[/bold] wrote: Are you suggesting that all the scientists in all the major scientific establishments in the world are somehow on the payroll of wind farm engineers? In China? In India? In Russia etc., etc? Or is it a kind of conspiracy organised by the Litterati? Do you adopt this hyper-scepticism in the face of all scientific theories, or just the theory of anthropogenic global warming? I see that the inventive possibilities are endless - your own world, in fact, rather than the one the rest of us inhabit.[/p][/quote]The western world's politically funded scientist's first dramatic man made 'global warming' predictions dating back over twenty years ago have all been proven by time to have been hopelessly wrong - although of course they enabled a lot of 'green' taxes to be charged in the intervening period. Now of course the same sort of 'experts' repeat these gloomy predictions virtually word perfect but rebranded as 'climate change', explaining that they have not yet occurred as first indicated because of a 'climate pause' - a pause which oddly they all completely failed to predict! There are certainly plenty of independent international scientists of substantial repute (including some significant ex-supporters of man made climate change) who will argue that there is indeed little or NO evidence of any man made influence upon global climate change. In fact the historic evidence available to us all clearly demonstrates to the contrary, and confirms that the planet's climate has changed very dramatically countless times - but without any influence whatsoever from mankind. No conspiracy theories, just an open and perhaps slightly cynical mind. ('Litterati' - something to do with rubbish? - or did you mean 'Illuminati'......) muscliffman
  • Score: 5

5:02pm Wed 14 May 14

K5054 says...

ips090 wrote:
Are you suggesting that all the scientists in all the major scientific establishments in the world are somehow on the payroll of wind farm engineers? In China? In India? In Russia etc., etc? Or is it a kind of conspiracy organised by the Litterati? Do you adopt this hyper-scepticism in the face of all scientific theories, or just the theory of anthropogenic global warming?
I see that the inventive possibilities are endless - your own world, in fact, rather than the one the rest of us inhabit.
your the one who repeats , Parrot fashion, man made CO2 heats the sea...not me....
[quote][p][bold]ips090[/bold] wrote: Are you suggesting that all the scientists in all the major scientific establishments in the world are somehow on the payroll of wind farm engineers? In China? In India? In Russia etc., etc? Or is it a kind of conspiracy organised by the Litterati? Do you adopt this hyper-scepticism in the face of all scientific theories, or just the theory of anthropogenic global warming? I see that the inventive possibilities are endless - your own world, in fact, rather than the one the rest of us inhabit.[/p][/quote]your the one who repeats , Parrot fashion, man made CO2 heats the sea...not me.... K5054
  • Score: 1

5:17pm Wed 14 May 14

ips090 says...

I concede. My powers of refutation pale before your inexaustible powers of invention
I concede. My powers of refutation pale before your inexaustible powers of invention ips090
  • Score: -5

6:47pm Wed 14 May 14

K5054 says...

ips090 wrote:
I concede. My powers of refutation pale before your inexaustible powers of invention
Not so ! ..you make a very good worker..
[quote][p][bold]ips090[/bold] wrote: I concede. My powers of refutation pale before your inexaustible powers of invention[/p][/quote]Not so ! ..you make a very good worker.. K5054
  • Score: 1

9:19pm Wed 14 May 14

MattCheetham says...

I was surprised when I saw the articles go up about the meetings. I would have loved to come along and have my say but I hadn't heard anything about it until it had already happened. Is there somewhere I should be signed up for info on these kinds of meetings or am I just supposed to be told by word of mouth?

I'm 22 years old and I very much agree that we should go ahead with the wind farm!
I was surprised when I saw the articles go up about the meetings. I would have loved to come along and have my say but I hadn't heard anything about it until it had already happened. Is there somewhere I should be signed up for info on these kinds of meetings or am I just supposed to be told by word of mouth? I'm 22 years old and I very much agree that we should go ahead with the wind farm! MattCheetham
  • Score: 2

10:49pm Wed 14 May 14

K5054 says...

While the UK talks of adding 20 Giga Watts of intermittent Wind Power, that is we are told, by the warmists, so necessary to save the planet, another European country, Turkey is in the process of adding 22 Giga Watts of coal fired stations to keep down costs.

Who is telling porky pies about planet earth being saved by the UK fitting the largest wind farm fleet the world has ever seen when it won`t even offset Turkey`s new cheap coal fired build. ?.




iwind pow
While the UK talks of adding 20 Giga Watts of intermittent Wind Power, that is we are told, by the warmists, so necessary to save the planet, another European country, Turkey is in the process of adding 22 Giga Watts of coal fired stations to keep down costs. Who is telling porky pies about planet earth being saved by the UK fitting the largest wind farm fleet the world has ever seen when it won`t even offset Turkey`s new cheap coal fired build. ?. iwind pow K5054
  • Score: 5

12:48am Thu 15 May 14

a.g.o.g. says...

Just wait until the combination of Windfarm proliferation and ``Smart Metering`` start delivering this Alarmists/Renewables Tribe ``Prime-Time User`` electricity charges they don`t have the means to avoid and they will be making more of a din than Navitus likely will!
Just wait until the combination of Windfarm proliferation and ``Smart Metering`` start delivering this Alarmists/Renewables Tribe ``Prime-Time User`` electricity charges they don`t have the means to avoid and they will be making more of a din than Navitus likely will! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 1

1:10am Thu 15 May 14

breamoreboy says...

What does "unrepresented" in the headline actually mean?
What does "unrepresented" in the headline actually mean? breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

6:44am Thu 15 May 14

Jeff in Parkstone says...

Well said Zoe - your generaton the one's who will in the coming decades inherit the consequences of older genertion decisions most of whom will by then be gone ...

What we are dealing with is largely the politics of self-interest with little long term inter-generational interest .

Wind farms are not ideal but it has to be one way forward to find out if we can do better ...

Jeff Williams
Well said Zoe - your generaton the one's who will in the coming decades inherit the consequences of older genertion decisions most of whom will by then be gone ... What we are dealing with is largely the politics of self-interest with little long term inter-generational interest . Wind farms are not ideal but it has to be one way forward to find out if we can do better ... Jeff Williams Jeff in Parkstone
  • Score: 3

9:10am Thu 15 May 14

woby_tide says...

If only there was a way to harness the force from all the tutting, harrumphing and "it wasn't like this in my day" of a NIMBY all our fuel problems could be solved
If only there was a way to harness the force from all the tutting, harrumphing and "it wasn't like this in my day" of a NIMBY all our fuel problems could be solved woby_tide
  • Score: -1

9:16am Thu 15 May 14

BoscVegas says...

breamoreboy wrote:
BoscVegas wrote:
PUZZLED ONE wrote:
Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?
Nuclear power stations
I'm happy with that, provided the highly radioactive byproducts are buried under your back garden and not mine.
in the words of Sebastian: Under the sea, Darling it's better, Down where it's wetter, Take it from me.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BoscVegas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: Perhaps the writer and his generation can tell us all where electricity is to come from when the wind strength is too high or too low thus rendering the windmills uneffective?[/p][/quote]Nuclear power stations[/p][/quote]I'm happy with that, provided the highly radioactive byproducts are buried under your back garden and not mine.[/p][/quote]in the words of Sebastian: Under the sea, Darling it's better, Down where it's wetter, Take it from me. BoscVegas
  • Score: -3

10:59am Thu 15 May 14

TheDistrict says...

Well said Zoe. I am in over 60 bracket, but I advocate your thoughts and ideals on this matter, and support the Navitus Windfarm Project. I have seen other windfarms around our coasts, as well as abroad, and I have yet to find any value in what those who oppose the project have found.

Noise. Most of the town is covered by a flight path into and out of Hurn. We have main highway arteries such as the A338, Ringwood Road, Castle Lane and many more, which all cause high levels of noise whether you live close by, or indeed at some distance. Therefore the alleged noise from a windfarm will be unnoticeable.

Location. If there had been an option of on land (god forbid) or on the seabed, then the latter would be my option, and the option of many, including those opposed to the windfarm now. As for the seeing the turbines, I am afraid if one sits on a beach or a cliff top, and stares out to sea at the near invisible turbines, they need to get a better life. As Zoe pointed out, locals and visitors come to the beach for the fun, what available, the town and much more. NOT to stare at windfarm turbines.

To top it all, we have an MP who feels it is good to air on the side of the oppostion of the windfarm project. This representative has not taken in one positive aspect of a windfarm, nor has he listened to those who are for the project. As usual this MP is a waste of time.
Well said Zoe. I am in over 60 bracket, but I advocate your thoughts and ideals on this matter, and support the Navitus Windfarm Project. I have seen other windfarms around our coasts, as well as abroad, and I have yet to find any value in what those who oppose the project have found. Noise. Most of the town is covered by a flight path into and out of Hurn. We have main highway arteries such as the A338, Ringwood Road, Castle Lane and many more, which all cause high levels of noise whether you live close by, or indeed at some distance. Therefore the alleged noise from a windfarm will be unnoticeable. Location. If there had been an option of on land (god forbid) or on the seabed, then the latter would be my option, and the option of many, including those opposed to the windfarm now. As for the seeing the turbines, I am afraid if one sits on a beach or a cliff top, and stares out to sea at the near invisible turbines, they need to get a better life. As Zoe pointed out, locals and visitors come to the beach for the fun, what available, the town and much more. NOT to stare at windfarm turbines. To top it all, we have an MP who feels it is good to air on the side of the oppostion of the windfarm project. This representative has not taken in one positive aspect of a windfarm, nor has he listened to those who are for the project. As usual this MP is a waste of time. TheDistrict
  • Score: 1

12:28pm Thu 15 May 14

K5054 says...

we are being lied to over and over again by the warmists who do not understand the politics nor the finance. of budding European countries sitting on large untapped coal or oil reserves when the only political way forward is to exploit those reserves as fast as the country is able to play catch up to the other well healed nations in Europe.

Turkey.
Population 74 million in rapid expansion all wanting the Germanys life style. Sitting on a tiny lignite deposit of around 11 billion tonnes but enough to boost the country by building 22 Giga Watts of coal fired station by 2023 into the modern world while by comparison at current rates of consumption this tiny reserve alone would last the UK over 300 years.

Solution .Build wind farms because they provide cheap levelized cost effective electricity? No so!

Commence in 2012 by building and operating 22 Giga Watts of coal fired stations burning home dug coal and low grade lignite to fund its economical expansion and expand and commercially overtake the UK by 2023..

next

The Ukraine.
Population 54 million in decline. Sitting on coal and gas reserves exceeding 34 billion tonnes who`s only way forward is to copy Turkey. Enough coal to last the UK 971 years at current rates.Soon to start building coal fired stations unless Russia takes over again and stops them...

And the UK.
The UK is continually told by the warmists that our fossil fuel reserves are fast running out. This is one of the main lie in the warmists propaganda. UK`s estimated reserves of 105 billion tonnes. Enough to last the UK at current rates over 2,500 years and that is the real rabbit in the hat for the UK. It can and will play the coal card at some future time when it is seen to be politically or economically desirable if nuclear fusion fails to materialise as a clean alternative.

Meanwhile the UK plays the waiting game and can it seems, afford to do so, even if in the process it dumps one or two generations into stagnation and debt. - On the noble art of propoganda, lies and the politics behind the green energy lie.
we are being lied to over and over again by the warmists who do not understand the politics nor the finance. of budding European countries sitting on large untapped coal or oil reserves when the only political way forward is to exploit those reserves as fast as the country is able to play catch up to the other well healed nations in Europe. Turkey. Population 74 million in rapid expansion all wanting the Germanys life style. Sitting on a tiny lignite deposit of around 11 billion tonnes but enough to boost the country by building 22 Giga Watts of coal fired station by 2023 into the modern world while by comparison at current rates of consumption this tiny reserve alone would last the UK over 300 years. Solution .Build wind farms because they provide cheap levelized cost effective electricity? No so! Commence in 2012 by building and operating 22 Giga Watts of coal fired stations burning home dug coal and low grade lignite to fund its economical expansion and expand and commercially overtake the UK by 2023.. next The Ukraine. Population 54 million in decline. Sitting on coal and gas reserves exceeding 34 billion tonnes who`s only way forward is to copy Turkey. Enough coal to last the UK 971 years at current rates.Soon to start building coal fired stations unless Russia takes over again and stops them... And the UK. The UK is continually told by the warmists that our fossil fuel reserves are fast running out. This is one of the main lie in the warmists propaganda. UK`s estimated reserves of 105 billion tonnes. Enough to last the UK at current rates over 2,500 years and that is the real rabbit in the hat for the UK. It can and will play the coal card at some future time when it is seen to be politically or economically desirable if nuclear fusion fails to materialise as a clean alternative. Meanwhile the UK plays the waiting game and can it seems, afford to do so, even if in the process it dumps one or two generations into stagnation and debt. - On the noble art of propoganda, lies and the politics behind the green energy lie. K5054
  • Score: -1

8:32pm Thu 15 May 14

A N Archist says...

I was at that meeting and this letter is bang on. The younger generation definately were not represented and, I suspect, with good cause. Whilst young people may not fully know what they do want they definately know what they don't want and that's the same old recipe of wars, pollution, social injustice and endles ego-centric posturing by snout in the trough expense junkies at both local and national level. Is there an answer? Yup sure is. Organize yourselves, make your own rules without rulers and then get out there and fight back. Muck stuff up if you have to.
I was at that meeting and this letter is bang on. The younger generation definately were not represented and, I suspect, with good cause. Whilst young people may not fully know what they do want they definately know what they don't want and that's the same old recipe of wars, pollution, social injustice and endles ego-centric posturing by snout in the trough expense junkies at both local and national level. Is there an answer? Yup sure is. Organize yourselves, make your own rules without rulers and then get out there and fight back. Muck stuff up if you have to. A N Archist
  • Score: -1

10:04am Fri 16 May 14

K5054 says...

The greatest of all green lies is the part our level of a tiny increase in CO2 actually plays in climate change. The warmists have for some time now even called it the thermo -stat, as though tinkering around with tiny levels of CO2 will like a switch be able to turn world temperatures either up or down, and this they want to do. turn at enormous cost the level of + 400PPM CO2 down to 350ppm as though 50 parts in million of a naturally occurring biogenic gas per million will effect a change.

But to discuss the heresy of CO2 and climate change at academic level world get one banned from every lecture hall, lecture circuit, university in the land as well as all teaching posts, and is best left alone by family men and mortgage payers until it is empirically seen by world reality that all world computer versions forecasts of temperatures do not agree with reality..

Since errors in AGW climate forecasts will take decades before they will show as errors which will not be accepted as such, even when it starts to become apparent, then until the current generation of dedicated believers are dead and buried nothing in counties where the belief is deeply entrenched will change and having now dodged the bullet in 2006 by altering the words Global Warming to Climate Change will obfuscate the detection of the fundamental error in effect of the theory on world reality.

The UK and others are now stuck wilh a flawed theory and great cost but since events like this have all happend down the ages before what does it matter if a few generatiions suffer an inconvenient and unecessary set back in life style.

As for the young, what they don`t know they won`t worry about, and what they have never had they will not miss.
The greatest of all green lies is the part our level of a tiny increase in CO2 actually plays in climate change. The warmists have for some time now even called it the thermo -stat, as though tinkering around with tiny levels of CO2 will like a switch be able to turn world temperatures either up or down, and this they want to do. turn at enormous cost the level of + 400PPM CO2 down to 350ppm as though 50 parts in million of a naturally occurring biogenic gas per million will effect a change. But to discuss the heresy of CO2 and climate change at academic level world get one banned from every lecture hall, lecture circuit, university in the land as well as all teaching posts, and is best left alone by family men and mortgage payers until it is empirically seen by world reality that all world computer versions forecasts of temperatures do not agree with reality.. Since errors in AGW climate forecasts will take decades before they will show as errors which will not be accepted as such, even when it starts to become apparent, then until the current generation of dedicated believers are dead and buried nothing in counties where the belief is deeply entrenched will change and having now dodged the bullet in 2006 by altering the words Global Warming to Climate Change will obfuscate the detection of the fundamental error in effect of the theory on world reality. The UK and others are now stuck wilh a flawed theory and great cost but since events like this have all happend down the ages before what does it matter if a few generatiions suffer an inconvenient and unecessary set back in life style. As for the young, what they don`t know they won`t worry about, and what they have never had they will not miss. K5054
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Fri 16 May 14

xchresident says...

Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand.

Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here.

I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned.

We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming.
Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand. Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here. I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned. We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming. xchresident
  • Score: -3

10:36pm Fri 16 May 14

a.g.o.g. says...

K5054 wrote:
The greatest of all green lies is the part our level of a tiny increase in CO2 actually plays in climate change. The warmists have for some time now even called it the thermo -stat, as though tinkering around with tiny levels of CO2 will like a switch be able to turn world temperatures either up or down, and this they want to do. turn at enormous cost the level of + 400PPM CO2 down to 350ppm as though 50 parts in million of a naturally occurring biogenic gas per million will effect a change.

But to discuss the heresy of CO2 and climate change at academic level world get one banned from every lecture hall, lecture circuit, university in the land as well as all teaching posts, and is best left alone by family men and mortgage payers until it is empirically seen by world reality that all world computer versions forecasts of temperatures do not agree with reality..

Since errors in AGW climate forecasts will take decades before they will show as errors which will not be accepted as such, even when it starts to become apparent, then until the current generation of dedicated believers are dead and buried nothing in counties where the belief is deeply entrenched will change and having now dodged the bullet in 2006 by altering the words Global Warming to Climate Change will obfuscate the detection of the fundamental error in effect of the theory on world reality.

The UK and others are now stuck wilh a flawed theory and great cost but since events like this have all happend down the ages before what does it matter if a few generatiions suffer an inconvenient and unecessary set back in life style.

As for the young, what they don`t know they won`t worry about, and what they have never had they will not miss.
like lambs to the $laughter...........
.............
[quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: The greatest of all green lies is the part our level of a tiny increase in CO2 actually plays in climate change. The warmists have for some time now even called it the thermo -stat, as though tinkering around with tiny levels of CO2 will like a switch be able to turn world temperatures either up or down, and this they want to do. turn at enormous cost the level of + 400PPM CO2 down to 350ppm as though 50 parts in million of a naturally occurring biogenic gas per million will effect a change. But to discuss the heresy of CO2 and climate change at academic level world get one banned from every lecture hall, lecture circuit, university in the land as well as all teaching posts, and is best left alone by family men and mortgage payers until it is empirically seen by world reality that all world computer versions forecasts of temperatures do not agree with reality.. Since errors in AGW climate forecasts will take decades before they will show as errors which will not be accepted as such, even when it starts to become apparent, then until the current generation of dedicated believers are dead and buried nothing in counties where the belief is deeply entrenched will change and having now dodged the bullet in 2006 by altering the words Global Warming to Climate Change will obfuscate the detection of the fundamental error in effect of the theory on world reality. The UK and others are now stuck wilh a flawed theory and great cost but since events like this have all happend down the ages before what does it matter if a few generatiions suffer an inconvenient and unecessary set back in life style. As for the young, what they don`t know they won`t worry about, and what they have never had they will not miss.[/p][/quote]like lambs to the $laughter........... ............. a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 1

8:03am Sat 17 May 14

K5054 says...

xchresident wrote:
Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand.

Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here.

I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned.

We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming.
You don`t need to be a major in science or mathematics to solve riddles. In fact one might get lost in a confusion of conflicting details if one were.

Ask yourself what is the empirical evidence of climate change via CO2 when tidal gauges are at conflict with one another and of consequence so are land temperatures.

CO2 is a coolant gas that allows a simple transfer of energy from a sun heated surface of the earth during the day but is overwhelmed by the other coolant gas water vapour which is why dry deserts get so hot during daytime and so cold at night. If CO2 was dense enough this would not be the case so CO2 at the levels we see around us may not after all be the driving force for temperatures it is made out to be.

If CO2 was a thermostat we know from measurements the thermostat is set for rising temperatures according to theory.

If theoretical model temperatures are so easy to calculate, as they all make out, ask yourself why was the measured lunar surface temperature different by 20C in daytime from the theoretical calculations and 60C at night when the first lunar landing was made? How did the error arise?

Ask yourself which is the heat pad on our planet, the land or the sea, is it the land that heats the sea or the sea that heats the land.

As yourself why then the land temperature failed to deliver the expected rise did NASA finally admit in 2011 that the energy/temperature had fallen into the oceans? As though that was a surprise the same way the lunar error was also a surprise.

The only surprise happens because one has ones theory wrong.

So to go back to basics. What is the empirical evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere the way we are told it is?

Well that one is simple. Warm air expands, and having an open top earth to space system will expand upwards, if it didn't the pressure would rise, but it doesn't for the top of the earth’s atmosphere is open and therefore allows for a rise.

Now ask NASA who’s very existence of low orbit sat elites depends upon the drag of the upper atmosphere which way the upper atmosphere is moving and you will have the answer to whether or not Global warming is happening or not.

It doesn`t matter where the heat has vanished to. Whether the oceans or the land since more heat means higher temperatures, means expanding atmospheres.

Which way is the upper earth atmosphere moving .Is it stationary, or is it up or down?

This will give the empirical evidence of whether we have Global warming or not since it is the empirical evidence that is the proof of theory. Not the results from 45 very expensive and very complicated computer models that are still subjct to the error, garbage in garbage out.

It may in the end turn out that in effect CO2 is a far better collant than they thought!

.
[quote][p][bold]xchresident[/bold] wrote: Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand. Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here. I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned. We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming.[/p][/quote]You don`t need to be a major in science or mathematics to solve riddles. In fact one might get lost in a confusion of conflicting details if one were. Ask yourself what is the empirical evidence of climate change via CO2 when tidal gauges are at conflict with one another and of consequence so are land temperatures. CO2 is a coolant gas that allows a simple transfer of energy from a sun heated surface of the earth during the day but is overwhelmed by the other coolant gas water vapour which is why dry deserts get so hot during daytime and so cold at night. If CO2 was dense enough this would not be the case so CO2 at the levels we see around us may not after all be the driving force for temperatures it is made out to be. If CO2 was a thermostat we know from measurements the thermostat is set for rising temperatures according to theory. If theoretical model temperatures are so easy to calculate, as they all make out, ask yourself why was the measured lunar surface temperature different by 20C in daytime from the theoretical calculations and 60C at night when the first lunar landing was made? How did the error arise? Ask yourself which is the heat pad on our planet, the land or the sea, is it the land that heats the sea or the sea that heats the land. As yourself why then the land temperature failed to deliver the expected rise did NASA finally admit in 2011 that the energy/temperature had fallen into the oceans? As though that was a surprise the same way the lunar error was also a surprise. The only surprise happens because one has ones theory wrong. So to go back to basics. What is the empirical evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere the way we are told it is? Well that one is simple. Warm air expands, and having an open top earth to space system will expand upwards, if it didn't the pressure would rise, but it doesn't for the top of the earth’s atmosphere is open and therefore allows for a rise. Now ask NASA who’s very existence of low orbit sat elites depends upon the drag of the upper atmosphere which way the upper atmosphere is moving and you will have the answer to whether or not Global warming is happening or not. It doesn`t matter where the heat has vanished to. Whether the oceans or the land since more heat means higher temperatures, means expanding atmospheres. Which way is the upper earth atmosphere moving .Is it stationary, or is it up or down? This will give the empirical evidence of whether we have Global warming or not since it is the empirical evidence that is the proof of theory. Not the results from 45 very expensive and very complicated computer models that are still subjct to the error, garbage in garbage out. It may in the end turn out that in effect CO2 is a far better collant than they thought! . K5054
  • Score: -1

7:10am Mon 19 May 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

xchresident wrote:
Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand.

Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here.

I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned.

We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming.
Well lets just ignore the fact that this particular wind farm is going to cost billions and not actually provide sufficient energy for our needs, the French/Dutch company will reap the rewards from government grants and once they stop they will simply abandon the turbines, so that the taxpayer will be burdened with the cost of their removal or they will simply be left to rust away like they have in other parts of the world. I am sure that will do wonders for the marine life.
[quote][p][bold]xchresident[/bold] wrote: Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand. Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here. I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned. We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming.[/p][/quote]Well lets just ignore the fact that this particular wind farm is going to cost billions and not actually provide sufficient energy for our needs, the French/Dutch company will reap the rewards from government grants and once they stop they will simply abandon the turbines, so that the taxpayer will be burdened with the cost of their removal or they will simply be left to rust away like they have in other parts of the world. I am sure that will do wonders for the marine life. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

8:38am Mon 19 May 14

K5054 says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
xchresident wrote:
Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand.

Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here.

I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned.

We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming.
Well lets just ignore the fact that this particular wind farm is going to cost billions and not actually provide sufficient energy for our needs, the French/Dutch company will reap the rewards from government grants and once they stop they will simply abandon the turbines, so that the taxpayer will be burdened with the cost of their removal or they will simply be left to rust away like they have in other parts of the world. I am sure that will do wonders for the marine life.
you quite right about the grants stopping. There is no guaranteed strike price once the current term has run out...Companies, even EdF et al , can then either sell the farms on or even no matter how big, that particular company name goes into liquidation,( just like a number of local company trading names that have appeared and then vanish leaving dozens of our small local traders out of pocket) which is the most usual route used. For wind farms, all seem to try to find an excuse why they are unable to carry out the de-commissioning or even maintenance as promised, in which case the tax payer usually has to pick up the bill if they want the eyesore mess cleared up

.In the case of the UK that would be the largest offshore fleet the world has ever seen. All the more reason for each wind farm array which is itself a separate company, to eventually go into liquidation
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xchresident[/bold] wrote: Good letter, and well done having the courage to express your views. Younger people have the most to lose if we carry on with our heads in the sand. Wind renewables are the best option for the UK, especially here. I went to the Phase Four Navitas Consultaion exhibition and questions and answers, and was satisfied with all I learned. We need to use a lot less energy and utilise more renewables not fossil fuels. In my opinion 'the view' is a red herring-- climate change, coastal storms and rising sea levels will soon put this into perspective, but as long as we continue to argue, we lose precious time for any chance to mitigate the effects which are coming.[/p][/quote]Well lets just ignore the fact that this particular wind farm is going to cost billions and not actually provide sufficient energy for our needs, the French/Dutch company will reap the rewards from government grants and once they stop they will simply abandon the turbines, so that the taxpayer will be burdened with the cost of their removal or they will simply be left to rust away like they have in other parts of the world. I am sure that will do wonders for the marine life.[/p][/quote]you quite right about the grants stopping. There is no guaranteed strike price once the current term has run out...Companies, even EdF et al , can then either sell the farms on or even no matter how big, that particular company name goes into liquidation,( just like a number of local company trading names that have appeared and then vanish leaving dozens of our small local traders out of pocket) which is the most usual route used. For wind farms, all seem to try to find an excuse why they are unable to carry out the de-commissioning or even maintenance as promised, in which case the tax payer usually has to pick up the bill if they want the eyesore mess cleared up .In the case of the UK that would be the largest offshore fleet the world has ever seen. All the more reason for each wind farm array which is itself a separate company, to eventually go into liquidation K5054
  • Score: 0

8:52am Mon 19 May 14

mooninpisces says...

Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true.

There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers.
Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true. There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers. mooninpisces
  • Score: 0

11:58am Mon 19 May 14

a.g.o.g. says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true.

There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers.
15 YEARS - likely END OF TURBINE LIFE - liquid operation??
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true. There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers.[/p][/quote]15 YEARS - likely END OF TURBINE LIFE - liquid operation?? a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 2

2:04pm Mon 19 May 14

K5054 says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true.

There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers.
I don`t know what economic world reality mooninpices lives in but government agents , come and go and go and so do agreements. If as agog rightly points out the sea turbines after a mere 15 years and maybe even less, are uneconomical due to wear and tear, then the fund will have to be revised and so in the end the turbines will stand where they rot.

Nuclear as we know can last 50 years or more with careful placement.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true. There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers.[/p][/quote]I don`t know what economic world reality mooninpices lives in but government agents , come and go and go and so do agreements. If as agog rightly points out the sea turbines after a mere 15 years and maybe even less, are uneconomical due to wear and tear, then the fund will have to be revised and so in the end the turbines will stand where they rot. Nuclear as we know can last 50 years or more with careful placement. K5054
  • Score: 1

2:22pm Mon 19 May 14

mooninpisces says...

If we were to follow K5054's logic, we would totally dismiss the Electricity Market Reform proposal for nuclear generators, rather than taxpayers, to meet the cost of nuclear decommissioning in future, as this would be 50 years away.

In the real world, though, we have learnt some lessons from the decommissioning of North Sea oil and gas.
If we were to follow K5054's logic, we would totally dismiss the Electricity Market Reform proposal for nuclear generators, rather than taxpayers, to meet the cost of nuclear decommissioning in future, as this would be 50 years away. In the real world, though, we have learnt some lessons from the decommissioning of North Sea oil and gas. mooninpisces
  • Score: -1

4:18pm Mon 19 May 14

K5054 says...

offshore wind farms, decommissioning and money in a pot..
--------
in the unlikely event that (insert name) fails to decommission the
wind farm at the end of its life, that there will be sufficient funds available to cover the costs of the decommissioning.
----------
that is the intended undertaking..no more , no less..

agog. you are a person of life and experience, What do you make of that undertaking?
offshore wind farms, decommissioning and money in a pot.. -------- in the unlikely event that (insert name) fails to decommission the wind farm at the end of its life, that there will be sufficient funds available to cover the costs of the decommissioning. ---------- that is the intended undertaking..no more , no less.. agog. you are a person of life and experience, What do you make of that undertaking? K5054
  • Score: 1

5:59pm Mon 19 May 14

Phixer says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true.

There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers.
If the operating costs are so low then why am I being mugged to fill the brown corruption envelopes for the wind farm to be built?

Will our electricity bills come down with the supply of wind generated electricity? Answers on the back of a nicely filled brown envelope.

Will the wind farm operators subsidise my power bills when the wind don't blow?

Will the wind farm operator still be extant when it comes to de-commissioning or will it conveniently declare bankruptcy?

Who was mugged for green taxes when the sea levels rose and cut off my stroll across to France? Did those nasty little natives have any cash to pay their green taxes for burning all that wood to cook and heat their caves?

Cynical? Moi? You bet! I've been around the block too many times to be fooled by snake oil salemen.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Both MC UKIP and K5054 seem to feel that if they repeat false information enough times people will believe it to be true. There is no reason why the Navitus developers should abandon the turbines after 15 years, when the guaranteed price comes to an end. The operating costs of wind energy are low, so it will be profitable for them to continue producing until the end of the turbines' life. And, under the 2004 Energy Act, the developer has to agree with the Secretary of State a funded decommissioning programme before construction can commence - it is the developer, not the taxpayer who has to bear the cost. Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers.[/p][/quote]If the operating costs are so low then why am I being mugged to fill the brown corruption envelopes for the wind farm to be built? Will our electricity bills come down with the supply of wind generated electricity? Answers on the back of a nicely filled brown envelope. Will the wind farm operators subsidise my power bills when the wind don't blow? Will the wind farm operator still be extant when it comes to de-commissioning or will it conveniently declare bankruptcy? Who was mugged for green taxes when the sea levels rose and cut off my stroll across to France? Did those nasty little natives have any cash to pay their green taxes for burning all that wood to cook and heat their caves? Cynical? Moi? You bet! I've been around the block too many times to be fooled by snake oil salemen. Phixer
  • Score: 2

6:02pm Mon 19 May 14

a.g.o.g. says...

K5054 wrote:
offshore wind farms, decommissioning and money in a pot..
--------
in the unlikely event that (insert name) fails to decommission the
wind farm at the end of its life, that there will be sufficient funds available to cover the costs of the decommissioning.
----------
that is the intended undertaking..no more , no less..

agog. you are a person of life and experience, What do you make of that undertaking?
(fortunately?) mine is likely to precede it..................
...
[quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: offshore wind farms, decommissioning and money in a pot.. -------- in the unlikely event that (insert name) fails to decommission the wind farm at the end of its life, that there will be sufficient funds available to cover the costs of the decommissioning. ---------- that is the intended undertaking..no more , no less.. agog. you are a person of life and experience, What do you make of that undertaking?[/p][/quote](fortunately?) mine is likely to precede it.................. ... a.g.o.g.
  • Score: -2

6:03pm Mon 19 May 14

Phixer says...

ips090 wrote:
How refreshing to hear such positive views - a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). I, too attended the meeting which was really more of a rally for the vociferous nay-sayers. These people do not represent the majority in Bournemouth. We cannot say that we recognise there is a looming crisis but are too pretty to help - this would, indeed damage the town's reputation.
Of course, those who think there is no looming crisis are consistent: but scientifically ignorant. Either way it doesn't sound like the kind of place one would wish to spend much time in!
That's a very arrogant comment to suggest that you know what the majority of Bournemouth wants. When did you solicite my or my neighbours opinions?

It is also very arrogant to suggest that some of us don't recognise a scientifically ignorant snake oil salesman, paid to provide the report that his client wants written.
[quote][p][bold]ips090[/bold] wrote: How refreshing to hear such positive views - a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). I, too attended the meeting which was really more of a rally for the vociferous nay-sayers. These people do not represent the majority in Bournemouth. We cannot say that we recognise there is a looming crisis but are too pretty to help - this would, indeed damage the town's reputation. Of course, those who think there is no looming crisis are consistent: but scientifically ignorant. Either way it doesn't sound like the kind of place one would wish to spend much time in![/p][/quote]That's a very arrogant comment to suggest that you know what the majority of Bournemouth wants. When did you solicite my or my neighbours opinions? It is also very arrogant to suggest that some of us don't recognise a scientifically ignorant snake oil salesman, paid to provide the report that his client wants written. Phixer
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Mon 19 May 14

ips090 says...

What you purport to see as arrogance is intended as a compliment to my fellow Bouremouthians - I cannot believe they are taken in by the nay-sayers.
What could be more arrogant than to say that, with no expertise, we should accept your views rather than those of all the major scientific establishments on the planet? This is a ludicrous (and utimately futile) stance.
Wyhen you use phrases such as 'warmist poison', etc., in place of reasoned points' you have clearly lost the argument and have resorted to abuse. I don't think most people in this town go for that sort of thing
What you purport to see as arrogance is intended as a compliment to my fellow Bouremouthians - I cannot believe they are taken in by the nay-sayers. What could be more arrogant than to say that, with no expertise, we should accept your views rather than those of all the major scientific establishments on the planet? This is a ludicrous (and utimately futile) stance. Wyhen you use phrases such as 'warmist poison', etc., in place of reasoned points' you have clearly lost the argument and have resorted to abuse. I don't think most people in this town go for that sort of thing ips090
  • Score: -1

6:54pm Mon 19 May 14

K5054 says...

a.g.o.g. wrote:
K5054 wrote:
offshore wind farms, decommissioning and money in a pot..
--------
in the unlikely event that (insert name) fails to decommission the
wind farm at the end of its life, that there will be sufficient funds available to cover the costs of the decommissioning.
----------
that is the intended undertaking..no more , no less..

agog. you are a person of life and experience, What do you make of that undertaking?
(fortunately?) mine is likely to precede it..................

...
we are agreed then that the Navitus guarantee et all are as worthless as the pieces of paper the bank of england print and give out to other banks to balance the sheets. In 15 years time the pile of notes will be worth less than half and less than half a fund will fund less than half a decommission.
.
[quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: offshore wind farms, decommissioning and money in a pot.. -------- in the unlikely event that (insert name) fails to decommission the wind farm at the end of its life, that there will be sufficient funds available to cover the costs of the decommissioning. ---------- that is the intended undertaking..no more , no less.. agog. you are a person of life and experience, What do you make of that undertaking?[/p][/quote](fortunately?) mine is likely to precede it.................. ...[/p][/quote]we are agreed then that the Navitus guarantee et all are as worthless as the pieces of paper the bank of england print and give out to other banks to balance the sheets. In 15 years time the pile of notes will be worth less than half and less than half a fund will fund less than half a decommission. . K5054
  • Score: 2

9:24pm Mon 19 May 14

K5054 says...

mooninpices writes the killer comment which promptly fails apart on historical accuracy by saying: .

Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers. end.

this either gives mooninpices age away through ignorance or makes the comment something ever worse.

Nuclear is for the taxpayer to decommission..? and so they should. It was ordered by the taxpayer, built by the taxpayer, paid for by the taxpayer, to achieve an objective. It was an insurance policy that kept the taxpayer and family alive for 30 years under a program called M.A.D.

and since mooinpices is here to prove the theory that MAD worked, moonipices won`t mind, I am sure, paying the fees necessary to now take it all apart.

.






t
mooninpices writes the killer comment which promptly fails apart on historical accuracy by saying: . Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers. end. this either gives mooninpices age away through ignorance or makes the comment something ever worse. Nuclear is for the taxpayer to decommission..? and so they should. It was ordered by the taxpayer, built by the taxpayer, paid for by the taxpayer, to achieve an objective. It was an insurance policy that kept the taxpayer and family alive for 30 years under a program called M.A.D. and since mooinpices is here to prove the theory that MAD worked, moonipices won`t mind, I am sure, paying the fees necessary to now take it all apart. . t K5054
  • Score: 2

9:55pm Mon 19 May 14

a.g.o.g. says...

K5054 wrote:
mooninpices writes the killer comment which promptly fails apart on historical accuracy by saying: .

Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers. end.

this either gives mooninpices age away through ignorance or makes the comment something ever worse.

Nuclear is for the taxpayer to decommission..? and so they should. It was ordered by the taxpayer, built by the taxpayer, paid for by the taxpayer, to achieve an objective. It was an insurance policy that kept the taxpayer and family alive for 30 years under a program called M.A.D.

and since mooinpices is here to prove the theory that MAD worked, moonipices won`t mind, I am sure, paying the fees necessary to now take it all apart.

.






t
you might be Spit but I`m not......BUT, WHAT ABOUT ALL THAT CAR INSURANCE I HAVE PAID OUT AND NOT MADE A CLAIM FOR YONKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
[quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: mooninpices writes the killer comment which promptly fails apart on historical accuracy by saying: . Perhaps MC UKIP and K5054 are confusing offshore wind with nuclear energy, where under current rules (but not for the next generation of plant) a large part of the financial burden of decommissioning is born by us taxpayers. end. this either gives mooninpices age away through ignorance or makes the comment something ever worse. Nuclear is for the taxpayer to decommission..? and so they should. It was ordered by the taxpayer, built by the taxpayer, paid for by the taxpayer, to achieve an objective. It was an insurance policy that kept the taxpayer and family alive for 30 years under a program called M.A.D. and since mooinpices is here to prove the theory that MAD worked, moonipices won`t mind, I am sure, paying the fees necessary to now take it all apart. . t[/p][/quote]you might be Spit but I`m not......BUT, WHAT ABOUT ALL THAT CAR INSURANCE I HAVE PAID OUT AND NOT MADE A CLAIM FOR YONKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: -1

10:10pm Mon 19 May 14

K5054 says...

do you know the term Global warming would be 39 years old this year if it was still in use.
do you know the term Global warming would be 39 years old this year if it was still in use. K5054
  • Score: 2

10:16pm Mon 19 May 14

K5054 says...

K5054 wrote:
do you know the term Global warming would be 39 years old this year if it was still in use.
but due to technical problems you will be unable to read the original science article.
[quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: do you know the term Global warming would be 39 years old this year if it was still in use.[/p][/quote]but due to technical problems you will be unable to read the original science article. K5054
  • Score: 2

10:16am Tue 20 May 14

ips090 says...

What 'original science article'? It would be something for you to quote an actual source. The term 'global warming' is still used, by tghe way. You are just not paying attention
What 'original science article'? It would be something for you to quote an actual source. The term 'global warming' is still used, by tghe way. You are just not paying attention ips090
  • Score: -1

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