Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

The backup plant which will be built along with the windfarm will only be used if the cable is broken. So it will be effectively mothballed, only being run up for a few hours each month or so to ensure it is ready to go should it be needed.

 

so you are advocating the building of a power plant with all the associated CO2, the paying of wages to folk that are only going to be employed for a few hours each month and playing cards the rest of the time.

 

I can just see the advert in the times

 

Wanted 2 dozen power station workers must be able to play gin rummy.

 

would it not be better to extend the power station at sullom, less CO2 durring construction, less co2 in tranporting the fuel, less pollution when in use, less cost in workforce as they are already employed.

So you're saying "do up the SVT station and use that for backup instead of building a new one?" Yeah, I could go with that. The only problem I can think of is that the Total plant will increase the power needs of the terminal in general, so you would need to actually extend the SVT station, and that would be roughly the same cost as building new. But, in general, I agree.

 

but then again VE are not for it so it must be wrong.

could it be that SSE dont want this option as it will mean they can't charge us extra for our electric.

And if they are against this option when it is so obviously the best solution both financially and environmently we have to wonder what the real motives behind their scheme really are.

And here's the conspiracy theory again. "VE are just in this to rip us off and steal all our oil money". Have you ever considered that they may be honest? In fact, shouldn't this be your default starting position? Until you actually find evidence of some kind of conspiracy, shouldn't you do them the courtesy of not accusing them of being crooks?

 

I don't know all of the engineering details behind why they are pushing the proposal they are, so there may be very good reasons why they are doing it this way. As a commercial venture, they will be going with the cheapest long term option. And as for the "charging us more for our electric" meme, we pay the same as anywhere else in the UK, despite the fact that our electricity is among the most expensive in the country. I see no reason why this should change. We have been subsidised by down South for decades. As far as I know, there are no plans to change this.

 

as for the peat extraction for the Total plant, they are taking it all from one place not hacking out holes all over the central mainland.

Irrelevant. 350,000 cubic metres is 350,000 cubic metres, regardless of whether it comes out of one hole or many.

now lets look at the siting of the wind farm why not put the turbines on one island instead of spreading it out over certain farmers land and paying out millions to them no matter if it is profitable or not.

 

Papa Stour has very little top soil and would be ideal site for a wind farm and most of the folk there seem to be at each others throats the whole time anyway, compulsory purchase the whole island and those that want to stay can and those that don't can take the money and run. no need to pay millions from our coffers to anyone then.

 

but then seeing as certain land owners are the driving force in VE then this option won't get much time in discusion by them.

There you go with the crooks conspiracy again. Please stop repeating this unless you have evidence.

 

And as for Papa Stour, it's not big enough.

You seem to me to be very passionate about the environment but this tends to make you very susceptible to bulturde schemes to save the planet, that on closer inspection have very little to do with saving the planet and a lot more to do with lining certain folks pockets.

The VE proposal is the one on the table. If the guys proposing it become millionaires, then good for them. If you have a better proposal, then lets hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

what is the actual footprint of the windfarm without the associated roads AT, give me that figure and then lets look at all the isles around Shetland, pretty bloody surte we can find one to stick it on Foula perhaps, there are a lot of supporters out there how much support would this idea recieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global cooling independently debunked:

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html

 

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is the actual footprint of the windfarm without the associated roads AT, give me that figure and then lets look at all the isles around Shetland, pretty bloody surte we can find one to stick it on Foula perhaps, there are a lot of supporters out there how much support would this idea recieve.

How do you propose building the thing without building access roads? :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

build it closer together then you don't need so many roads, the fact is 90%+ of the borrow pits and peat disturbance is for access roads. Taking this informnation into consideration then if the environment was of any concern to the proposers then they would look at ways to bring the whole thing into one place not spreading it out to cover as many of the conspiritors land as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Past some point you're lowering the overall efficiency of the turbines by having them closer together, with airflow disturbed by one turbine blowing over the next one downwind instead of "clean" wind.

I'd assumed that the proposed VE layout was based round optimising that spacing. Anything to support that not being the case?

Can't see getting more than about 10 turbines on Papa Stour though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global cooling independently debunked:

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html

 

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

And here's a nice little graph which illustrates my point:

 

http://www.edf.org/content_images/graph-no-cooling-in-sight.jpg

 

From here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

97% of all climate scientists are convinced that humans have caused global warming and that the time left to try to mitigate its effects on our planet is running out. The science of greenhouse gases has been around for a couple of hundred years. It's not tricky to understand. And yet the number of people in US and probably UK who don't wish to believe it is rising. They would rather put their money, literally, on the likes of Piers Corbyn and his magical weather predictions. It's clearly not a question of science, so what is it? I would understand if it was fear because the future does seem hopelessly terrifying. But only if we do nothing and pretend it's not going to happen. Reducing carbon emissions by 80% is perfectly possible and the change of mind set and the change in our life-style that would have to go with that could be very exciting. Could be the best thing that's happened to the human race- ever. After all, if we had known then what we know now would we have embraced the fossil fuel dependency culture so completely? Even apart from the whole global warming thing, it's hardly brought an era of peace and stability to the world. Even apart from pollution, M25 gridlock and oil spills it hasn't brought contentment and lasting emotional fulfilment to the communities around the world who've found themselves economically enslaved to it because they happen to live by a coal mine, or an oil terminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

falkner, 1 post on the windfarm and 2 here.

:? hmm, me thinks you have not just happened to nip in with an opinion as your average Shetlinker but have been recruited just for the cause.

C'mon, fess up AT; have you been at Al Gore.com begging for back up for your struggle. :lol:

 

Man the harpoons prepare for a heavy duty, loaded science attack. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KOY, unless I'm very much mistaken about the identity of Falkner then I can vouch for them being a real person, a long term Shetland resident, and certainly more than capable of having their own opinions. You can't devalue someone's posts by accusing them of being a 'recruit', as though they've arrived under false pretences. People are entitled to post on whatever topics interest them, whether they agree with you or not. Indeed, it's great to read posts in which the views are based on scientific research rather than just taken wholesale from far rightwing and conspiracy theory websites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank God for that I thought I had killed both threads stone dead with my fanatical outpourings.

Seriously though I don't get why the default position seems to be anti-windfarm and pro-climate change denial and every other opinion is deemed to be part of a massive conspiracy led by VE and Al Gore et al driven by their evil desire for world domination.

(Hi Malachy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why the default position seems to be anti-windfarm and pro-climate change denial and every other opinion is deemed to be part of a massive conspiracy led by VE and Al Gore

 

Well, I think it would be a serious mistake to lump these two things - anti-windfarm and climate-change denial - together. A great many people who acknowledge the climate change science, and who believe that we need to make serious changes to our lifestyle, do not support Viking Energy. I'm one of those (for reasons I've outlined on the VE thread, in Shetland Life etc), and there are numerous others on this forum. Equally (and perhaps more interestingly), as the recent Shetland Times poll showed, there are a significant number of people who support Viking Energy even though they believe it is bad for the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I of course apologies to our falkner; I sometimes forget that all you faithfuls, all hang from the same 'in government we trust' line; hook and sinker included.

 

it's great to read posts in which the views are based on scientific research rather than just taken wholesale from far rightwing and conspiracy theory websites.

 

Oh Malachy, don't get all butthurt just cause your knowledge is on a par with your nonexistent musical talents. :wink:

Would you enlighten me as to what far rightwing and conspiracy theory websites I'm meant to glean my "climate-change denial" ideas from, or were you just making things up, to convince people you know best.

 

I prefer to go to the source and see what comes out the horses mouth:

 

Remember the ex Canadian environment Minister; Christine Stewart.

I am very worried about global warming. No matter if the science is all phony, 'there are collateral environmental benefits.'

 

Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

 

Bells should be ringing

But some folk will only hear what suits them.

 

We have a policy at Greenpeace that we no longer debate people who don't accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change.

 

we should have war crimes trials for these b*stards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.

 

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

 

Never mind peer reviewed crap. Science just becomes a perversion of itself, when bureaucrats dedicated to imposing whatever new economic order they wish, hold all the cards and any naysayer is excluded from their Proffesion if they dare to question AGW results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Keep this clean. All parties.

 

Huge difference in Malachy posting on Shetlink is he's chosen to use his own name. Perhaps your comment is tongue-in-cheek, but it is well below the belt to throw that type of mud when one party can hide behind anonymity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...