Verbal Posted 12 December, 2009 Share Posted 12 December, 2009 The ever-reliable Ben Goldacre has a very perceptive deconstruction of the psychological profile of a climate denier in today's Guardian. Goldacre - the author of 'Bad Science' - is no friend of flabby, poorly constructed scientific claims. So if anyone was going to provide a popular account of how the climate change orthodoxy is wrong, it would be him. Far from it. I'd advise St George not to read. It'll put a serious dent in his day. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/12/bad-science-goldacre-climate-change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 Boo-hoo. Poor old Carol Vorderman is unhappy that a new high voltage electricity line may run across her scenery from her rarely used mansion in Somerset. The line is question will be to link the proposed new nuke at Hinckley Point with the main grid near Bristol. It will be about 37 miles of overhead wire via pylons. If built, the new nuke at Hinckley Point will supply power to millions of people at a time when loads of other power stations are due for closure. Boo-hoo. Poor Carol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 Boo-hoo. Poor old Carol Vorderman is unhappy that a new high voltage electricity line may run across her scenery from her rarely used mansion in Somerset. The line is question will be to link the proposed new nuke at Hinckley Point with the main grid near Bristol. It will be about 37 miles of overhead wire via pylons. If built, the new nuke at Hinckley Point will supply power to millions of people at a time when loads of other power stations are due for closure. Boo-hoo. Poor Carol. It's ironic how traditional lefties now support nuclear power. A few years ago you'd have been camped out up a tree. It's so typical of Socialists to be late cottoning on. Give it a few years and the lefties will be saying they were never fooled by the man made global warming lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 The ever-reliable Ben Goldacre has a very perceptive deconstruction of the psychological profile of a climate denier in today's Guardian. Goldacre - the author of 'Bad Science' - is no friend of flabby, poorly constructed scientific claims. So if anyone was going to provide a popular account of how the climate change orthodoxy is wrong, it would be him. Far from it. I'd advise St George not to read. It'll put a serious dent in his day. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/12/bad-science-goldacre-climate-change Indeed, Ben Goldacre makes his living from pointing out widely accepted claims that have their roots in bad science. He spends his time exposing selective data reading, fudging of results and misrepresentration of science in general. Yet here he is constantly pointing out to the deniers why they are wrong and need to stop being selective with what they accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 (edited) It's ironic how traditional lefties now support nuclear power. A few years ago you'd have been camped out up a tree. It's so typical of Socialists to be late cottoning on. Give it a few years and the lefties will be saying they were never fooled by the man made global warming lie. Nobody now fully supports nuclear power; it is merely an undesirable short-term neccessity. The only reason we are reluctantly behind it is that reducing c02 emission is a far more important issue for us than what to do with nuclear waste. Can't blame the 'traditional left' for wanting us to move to alternative energy - shame people on the right have fought progress at every step. If we can solve c02, we'll leave our grandchildren with a nuclear waste problem - if we can't then i fear their problems will be far more fundamental (food, warmth, & shelter). It's so typical of the selfish right-wing protectionists to be late cottoning on. Edited 17 December, 2009 by Joensuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 I certainly don't support nuclear power. Along with fossil fueled power stations, they should be shut down and the workers placed in new government funded renewable energy power stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 It's ironic how traditional lefties now support nuclear power. A few years ago you'd have been camped out up a tree. It's so typical of Socialists to be late cottoning on. Give it a few years and the lefties will be saying they were never fooled by the man made global warming lie. Why or when have I ever been a leftie or Socialist? And what does that have to do with energy security or climate change? In recollection, I think I'm correct in recalling that Dune has stated he supports the BNP... so on that stance I could well be a leftie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 it is true about lefties and nuclear power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 I certainly don't support nuclear power. Along with fossil fueled power stations, they should be shut down and the workers placed in new government funded renewable energy power stations. Unfortunately we would be on candles until enough renewable power is brought on line. Maybe 2030. At the moment CCGTs provide about 50% of all the power and coal about 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 nuclear power is the way forward.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 it is true about lefties and nuclear power... They would have invested billions in the coal industry in the 80's, thereby giving it a long life span, only to start closing the power stations that are fired by coal some 30 years later.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 it is true about lefties and nuclear power... At what point does anyone think such a sweeping generalisation is in any way helpful?! I could list a whole host of subjects related to the environment, energy production, AGW etc, and whilst a few of us may have exactly the same opinion about every subject, most of us will differ in some way and on some point... so why the need to clump everyone together? If people can't discuss these issues without resorting to colloquial political stereotypes, then what possible benefit is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 They would have invested billions in the coal industry in the 80's, thereby giving it a long life span, only to start closing the power stations that are fired by coal some 30 years later.......... miners strike..? ironic that the set of people championing the miners are the same people that would close them down and (basically) put them out of a job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 nuclear power is the way forward.... It's not the best option but we have few choices because of government vacillation on energy policy for years (back to the 1980s TDD) and a planning regime that stalls virtually every proposed power plant/wind farm etc in its tracks. All the proposed new nukes are on the sites of former nuke stations so easier to do with local communities but a nuke still takes 10 years to build. You can whack a CCGT or biomass plant up in 3 years if you can get the planning consent. And Spain managed 53% of its energy from wind recently. Over here, local farts on planning committees continue to obstruct a free resource. Whilst we quietly run out of energy. 25% of the current power generation will be offline by 2015 - most of the older coal and magnox stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 nuclear power is the way forward.... Maybe on your sub We are between a rock and a hard place. Nuclear is 'clean' as regards carbon emissions, but produces waste that is toxic for 500,000 years and the plants will only run for about 30-40 years; Gas and coal both produce greenhouse gasses. As for me, I am in the fall-out zone of 1 nuclear station, and downwind of another :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 (edited) They would have invested billions in the coal industry in the 80's, thereby giving it a long life span, only to start closing the power stations that are fired by coal some 30 years later.......... It depends on how things may have turned out. For example, Australia is slow on climate change and refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty under their right-wing govt for example. The Labor government there has ratified the treaty despite lobbying from the very powerful coal industry. In the UK it would have been the case anyway that coalfields such as Selby would have become too non-productive to supply Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge (which were built on the Selby coalfield deliberately). But nobody knew how deep and wide the coal went in its seams at the time. Edited 17 December, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 miners strike..? ironic that the set of people championing the miners are the same people that would close them down and (basically) put them out of a job What are you waffling on about? This island has more coal then we'd ever need and if used correctly would give us energy security we may well need in the future. Carbon capture technology could solve the greenhouse issues. I remember vividly being told the reason for the mines shutting was North Sea gas, and how we had enough to last us years and years and it would be cheap as chips. Hence the "dash for gas" power stations. What happened? The North Sea gas starts to run out 20 years later, and we have to import gas from Russia or via ship from Nigeria and our coal comes from Poland and prices keep going up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 What are you waffling on about? This island has more coal then we'd ever need and if used correctly would give us energy security we may well need in the future. Carbon capture technology could solve the greenhouse issues. I remember vividly being told the reason for the mines shutting was North Sea gas, and how we had enough to last us years and years and it would be cheap as chips. Hence the "dash for gas" power stations. What happened? The North Sea gas starts to run out 20 years later, and we have to import gas from Russia or via ship from Nigeria and our coal comes from Poland and prices keep going up. Coal is cheap as chips if you buy from Aus or Poland. Can't do that any more here at a competitive cost here because of the geology. The recent boon in opencast mining is of course scraping the surface. It scars the landscape anyway but only produces a tiny amount of coal required for the remaining coal power stations. Drax usually generates 7% of all the UK's electricity - to do that each day it consumes 30,000 tonnes of coal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 . Drax usually generates 7% of all the UK's electricity - to do that each day it consumes 30,000 tonnes of coal. Good god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 Coal is cheap as chips if you buy from Aus or Poland. Can't do that any more here at a competitive cost here because of the geology. The recent boon in opencast mining is of course scraping the surface. It scars the landscape anyway but only produces a tiny amount of coal required for the remaining coal power stations. Drax usually generates 7% of all the UK's electricity - to do that each day it consumes 30,000 tonnes of coal. Agreed. Coal is no easy solution. And carbon capture is still a way from being economically (or technically) viable on the sorts of scales we're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 Good god. Frightening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 Agreed. Coal is no easy solution. And carbon capture is still a way from being economically (or technically) viable on the sorts of scales we're talking about. As with anything, make it profitable and some corporation will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 If you want to get overawed by more fire, steam and power than you have ever seen, book a visit at Drax - they do them once a month or so. Seriously eye-opening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 It's easy to forget how energy hungry we've become since the miners strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 It's easy to forget how energy hungry we've become since the miners strike. Yes. In 1984 average UK energy consumption was at about 35GW at any time in the middle of a week day. Now it is about 46GW. Loads goes on peripheries like moving advertising boards etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 As with anything, make it profitable and some corporation will do it. CCS will never work without a state incentive - which is vaguely occurring. Arguably, the UK should have been the leader of wind energy but never did it (mainly because we had coal reserves and countries like Spain don't). We might manage it with CCS but there has to be more commitment. Like wind, CCS should be a winner with the storage available to the UK under the North Sea in exhausted gas fields and natural aquifers. It will probably be done by foreign companies though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 I certainly don't support nuclear power. Along with fossil fueled power stations, they should be shut down and the workers placed in new government funded renewable energy power stations. There is no such thing. Renewables cannot come close to providing even our minimum needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 There is no such thing. Renewables cannot come close to providing even our minimum needs. Not entirely true. There is an infinite (well, as near as) amount of clean, renewable energy in the earth beneath our feet. The only problem is the astronomical initial cost of tapping into it which makes it non-viable from a commercial aspect. But I guess that is what has put us in the position in which we now find ourselves: profit being placed above everything else - even the future of civilisation as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 There is no such thing. Renewables cannot come close to providing even our minimum needs. That is because the government does not put enough money into researching them properly or use them efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2009 There is no such thing. Renewables cannot come close to providing even our minimum needs. A biomass power station is a renewable energy power station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 It'll sort itself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 There is no such thing. Renewables cannot come close to providing even our minimum needs. Absolutely wrong. Wind power alone could exceed the current energy requirements of the British Isles. Factor in waves and we could sell surplus to the continent. Our only limitation is the political will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 17 December, 2009 Share Posted 17 December, 2009 Absolutely wrong. Wind power alone could exceed the current energy requirements of the British Isles. Factor in waves and we could sell surplus to the continent. Our only limitation is the political will. Except for when it's not windy.... Tidal power, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 Hiding the decline 101 A conversation secretly recorded between top prof's meeting in a dark and dingy room at the back of the CRU. OK chaps!....We have a little problem.....The Earth is just not warming up like we predicted all those years ago.......This is starting to make us look a bit stupid and 'some' peeps are starting to ask a few awkward questions......Not to mention the fact we have some serious $$$ at stake here in funding and we could be in some big trouble with reprisals from all those green investors that have spent fortunes based on our rather dodgy predictions we presented as FACT! So erm, how the hell are we going to make it look like the Earth is still warming?...any ideas? hmmmm I got it!..... How about we just lose a few of the colder temperature records?.....Hey, where's a 'big' cold place we could drop from the global temperature record database to make the average temps look warmer?...somewhere big enough we could gain say ...0.6c? Hey, how bout RUSSIA?.....yeah they have Siberia and places like that....The dim and gullible will never notice if we just drop Siberia from the temp records...Hell, the lefty media will never report it so we're golden!... OK +0.6 it is...lose 40% of the coldest temperature records in Russia.....Good one How much are we getting in funds for our research this year again ?...Well the results from this will definitely seal the deal. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/ ........................ Meanwhile in other news Chairman 'O' Take's to the cold and snow covered ski slopes all the way to Copenhagen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 Hiding the decline 101 A conversation secretly recorded between top prof's meeting in a dark and dingy room at the back of the CRU. OK chaps!....We have a little problem.....The Earth is just not warming up like we predicted all those years ago.......This is starting to make us look a bit stupid and 'some' peeps are starting to ask a few awkward questions......Not to mention the fact we have some serious $$$ at stake here in funding and we could be in some big trouble with reprisals from all those green investors that have spent fortunes based on our rather dodgy predictions we presented as FACT! So erm, how the hell are we going to make it look like the Earth is still warming?...any ideas? hmmmm I got it!..... How about we just lose a few of the colder temperature records?.....Hey, where's a 'big' cold place we could drop from the global temperature record database to make the average temps look warmer?...somewhere big enough we could gain say ...0.6c? Hey, how bout RUSSIA?.....yeah they have Siberia and places like that....The dim and gullible will never notice if we just drop Siberia from the temp records...Hell, the lefty media will never report it so we're golden!... OK +0.6 it is...lose 40% of the coldest temperature records in Russia.....Good one How much are we getting in funds for our research this year again ?...Well the results from this will definitely seal the deal. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/ ........................ Meanwhile in other news Chairman 'O' Take's to the cold and snow covered ski slopes all the way to Copenhagen The organisation making this accusation is headed by this chap, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov, who is an avowed 'sceptic', and has links to the CATO Institute; so take this to heart with caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 I trust St George totally ever since he proved the the President of the USofA was a commie who couldn't take the job due to not being born in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 The organisation making this accusation is headed by this chap, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov, who is an avowed 'sceptic', and has links to the CATO Institute; so take this to heart with caution. Ah ...he musta picked up a few bob from Big Oil then......Excuse after excuse for the Climate frauds, followed by empty acusations against anyone who dare question them..... Always the same answers...Ah he's in Big Oils pocket, or he's a sceptic, he cant be trusted.....heh even Minty'll be questioning your lack of objectivity soon Amazing, considering how much we've seen over the last couple of months of what's been going on behind the scenes....The fact that not one single one of you alarmist's have uttered a single word questioning the reliability of the data says everything......You're no better than the failures at the CRU and Pen State etc who allowed their ideals and preconceptions blind them from the reality...No matter how hard y'all shut your eyes and scream "Man is cooking the World" it 'aint gunna make it happen. And View from the top.....Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is a recognised form of madness.....'aint science great.....tells us all sorts...keep it up bruh have a nice day ya'll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 And View from the top.....Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is a recognised form of madness.....'aint science great.....tells us all sorts...keep it up bruh have a nice day ya'll I'm glad you recognise your symptoms. The 1st step to recovery is the hardest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 Ah ...he musta picked up a few bob from Big Oil then......Excuse after excuse for the Climate frauds, followed by empty acusations against anyone who dare question them..... Always the same answers...Ah he's in Big Oils pocket, or he's a sceptic, he cant be trusted.....heh even Minty'll be questioning your lack of objectivity soon 1) Actually, he's more concerned with Russia's gas industry. 2) As for empty accusations, you seem to keep making them - where is your EVIDENCE ? All you ever do is post up the results of your latest google trawl, or are you on an RSS feed from some of the right-wing denialist blogs ? 3) You still haven't answered my questions. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 3) You still haven't answered my questions. :cool: He can't. I'm just thankful SG and his mates stopped Obama becoming the American President, what with them proving he was a commie born outside of the USofA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 Except for when it's not windy.... Tidal power, however. When was the last time the entire country had no wind? Turbines work quite well in low breezes. It's gale force winds that cause a bigger problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 The fact that not one single one of you alarmist's have uttered a single word questioning the reliability of the data says everything......You're no better than the failures at the CRU and Pen State etc who allowed their ideals and preconceptions blind them from the reality...No matter how hard y'all shut your eyes and scream "Man is cooking the World" it 'aint gunna make it happen. And View from the top.....Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is a recognised form of madness.....'aint science great.....tells us all sorts...keep it up bruh have a nice day ya'll LOL! Your hypocrisy is really quite astounding. George, let me say this real slow: I have continually made the point that NONE of us, can ever know for certain what will happen, and that NONE of us can say 100% that the data is accurate or otherwise. Hence my continuing stance, that I feel a precautionary principle is the msot sensible approach. So I ask you again: Given that NONE of us can know for certain, how can you be so arrogantly assured that climate change is NOT caused or influenced by Man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 A reminder just for St G http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/History of the Met Office Hadley Centre The Met Office Hadley Centre was opened in 1990, by the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when the Met Office was at its previous headquarters in Bracknell. Prior to the opening of the dedicated centre different areas of the Met Office had been undertaking climatology research. By the late 1980s the Synoptic Climatology Branch was working closely with the Climatic Research Unit to produce an integrated global land surface air and sea surface temperature data set. This was the primary data set used to assess observed global warming by the IPCC in 1990. Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians: A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada. A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change. The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options. In December 1988 the UK Government ( edit : the Tory Government ) announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 A reminder just for St G http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/History of the Met Office Hadley Centre The Met Office Hadley Centre was opened in 1990, by the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when the Met Office was at its previous headquarters in Bracknell. Prior to the opening of the dedicated centre different areas of the Met Office had been undertaking climatology research. By the late 1980s the Synoptic Climatology Branch was working closely with the Climatic Research Unit to produce an integrated global land surface air and sea surface temperature data set. This was the primary data set used to assess observed global warming by the IPCC in 1990. Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians: A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada. A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change. The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options. In December 1988 the UK Government ( edit : the Tory Government ) announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Ah, yes. That well known 'commie' Maggie Thatcher. I remember the dark shroud of rampant socialism that enveloped the UK during her 12 years in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 When was the last time the entire country had no wind? Turbines work quite well in low breezes. It's gale force winds that cause a bigger problem... I seem to remember reading somewhere that wind turbines work at 20% efficiency in the British Isles. At that rate the return on investment is questionable at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 [*]A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change. I saw an interview with Lord Lawson on the TV (although i can't find it on youtube) where he stated that Margaret Thatcher was only banging this drum because at the time the loonie lefties were opposed to Nuclear Power plants. This was her ploy to neutralise these arseholes. In effect she was pushing the MMGW lie because it helped in the argument for clean Nuclear Power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 I seem to remember reading somewhere that wind turbines work at 20% efficiency in the British Isles. At that rate the return on investment is questionable at best. CB, are you referencing James May perchance? http://www.windenergyplanning.com/wind-turbine-efficiency/ Well quite frankly he's wrong: "The UK has the best and most geographically diverse wind resources in Europe, more than enough to meet current renewable energy targets" http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/wind-power-in-the-uk.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 I saw an interview with Lord Lawson on the TV (although i can't find it on youtube) where he stated that Margaret Thatcher was only banging this drum because at the time the loonie lefties were opposed to Nuclear Power plants. This was her ploy to neutralise these arseholes. In effect she was pushing the MMGW lie because it helped in the argument for clean Nuclear Power. In which case I refer you to the title of my post :cool: Hey St G, it turns out that it isn't a 'commie' conspiracy, it's a fascist one ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 In which case I refer you to the title of my post :cool: Hey St G, it turns out that it isn't a 'commie' conspiracy, it's a fascist one ! Don't confuse the resident neo-fascists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 I saw an interview with Lord Lawson on the TV (although i can't find it on youtube) where he stated that Margaret Thatcher was only banging this drum because at the time the loonie lefties were opposed to Nuclear Power plants. This was her ploy to neutralise these arseholes. In effect she was pushing the MMGW lie because it helped in the argument for clean Nuclear Power. All credit to the Iron Granny. I could never understand her gameplan, but now it's all clear. She was obviously playing a complex strategy of double bluff. Either that of Lawson is an embarrassing buffoon... hmmm, nope that can't be right, he's such a moderate upstanding individual just like a Vanessa Feltz, but with a title (and slightly more wobble). Of course I think it was all a triple bluff, Thather wanted more than anything to rebuild the British Empire, so she actually wanted to bang the ACC drum, not with Nuclear energy in mind, but to force the British to become reliant on Nuclear power... thereby forcing us into re-invading Canada and Australia for their uranium. Arrr, Dune, I think you've worked it all out. If you weren't a pro-pollution campaigner and social nazi I'd want to shake your hand. Or alternatively, might Thatcher have understood the science which Lawson blatantly doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now