School Wind Turbines to be switched back on.

[Even Chance]

Im absolutely delighted to hear lately that these poor wee turbines will at last be switched back on despite some eejits trying to get them stopped altogether.
Theres been no proven problem with their location or installation. Nice one!:D

See here:-
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?190270-Caithness-school-turbines-back-in-action

[pmcd]

A good lesson for the children.
"What are those turbines for?"
"They are here because a few rich men can afford to buy them and pieces of land, build them, and then charge all the poor people extra on their power bills to give the nice rich men even more money with the government's rules and their approval."
"So the rich people take money from the poor people?"
"That's how capitalism and politics work."
"But that's unfair!"
"NOW you have learned the REAL lesson of those spinning moneyboxes! Right, playtime over! Back up the chimneys with you!"

[mi16]

A good lesson for the children.
"What are those turbines for?"
"They are here because a few rich men can afford to buy them and pieces of land, build them, and then charge all the poor people extra on their power bills to give the nice rich men even more money with the government's rules and their approval."
"So the rich people take money from the poor people?"
"That's how capitalism and politics work."
"But that's unfair!"
"NOW you have learned the REAL lesson of those spinning moneyboxes! Right, playtime over! Back up the chimneys with you!"

what complete and utter tripe.
I dont agree with them in playgrounds though

[pmcd]

So I thought - is he right? Can I really be the only one talking utter tripe? That onshore wind energy is a wonderful green asset, compared to other renewables, nuclear and the rest, on balance. Then I caught this in to days paper (yes, Daily Mail,too!)


Tory MP Chris Heaton Harris, who has led calls for a rethink on wind power, said of Mr Hayes’s remarks: ‘This is a huge step forward. These awful turbines do nothing for the environment – they barely reduce CO2 – they force up energy bills and put more people into fuel poverty.
‘It’s about time the Government listened in this way. Communities will be delighted that they may now be spared the torment they have seen others go through when turbines go up.’
Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson, an arch-sceptic on climate change, said: ‘I would welcome the minister’s statements. I would hope they would translate into a moratorium. An additional problem is that wind power is one of the most expensive forms of generating electricity there is.
‘At a time when there is so much concern both from households and industry about the cost of energy, that too should be a decisive argument against going this way.’

I know I am wasting my sweetness on the desert air, as the above quote comes from a Lord Snooty (none of whom know anything )Tory (none of whom knows anything) who is English (none of whom know anything) writing in the Daily Mail (none of which knows anything).

I'll just have to go back to reading the five-times daily SNP Diktats from their Centrale on how brilliantly these turbines are reclaiming prosperity for the new Jerusalem which is a Caledonia powered exclusively by wind and unicorns. thanks to Citizen Salmond and his enlightened Kommisariat.

[Alrock]

A good lesson for the children.
"What are those turbines for?"
"They are here because a few rich men can afford to buy them and pieces of land, build them, and then charge all the poor people extra on their power bills to give the nice rich men even more money with the government's rules and their approval."
"So the rich people take money from the poor people?"
"That's how capitalism and politics work."
"But that's unfair!"
"NOW you have learned the REAL lesson of those spinning moneyboxes! Right, playtime over! Back up the chimneys with you!"

There might be an element of truth in that statement but that doesn't make wind turbines themselves bad just the system of subsidies paid to the landowners. All subsidies to landowners should be stopped & the land compulsory purchased.

[ducati]

There might be an element of truth in that statement but that doesn't make wind turbines themselves bad just the system of subsidies paid to the landowners. All subsidies to landowners should be stopped & the land compulsory purchased.

At which point the very last wind turbine's construction will be halted and abandoned forever.

[ashaw1]

I for one totally agree with you!
Im absolutely delighted to hear lately that these poor wee turbines will at last be switched back on despite some eejits trying to get them stopped altogether. Theres been no proven problem with their location or installation. Nice one!:DSee here:-http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?190270-Caithness-school-turbines-back-in-action

[weezer 316]

So I thought - is he right? Can I really be the only one talking utter tripe? That onshore wind energy is a wonderful green asset, compared to other renewables, nuclear and the rest, on balance. Then I caught this in to days paper (yes, Daily Mail,too!)


Tory MP Chris Heaton Harris, who has led calls for a rethink on wind power, said of Mr Hayes’s remarks: ‘This is a huge step forward. These awful turbines do nothing for the environment – they barely reduce CO2 – they force up energy bills and put more people into fuel poverty.
‘It’s about time the Government listened in this way. Communities will be delighted that they may now be spared the torment they have seen others go through when turbines go up.’
Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson, an arch-sceptic on climate change, said: ‘I would welcome the minister’s statements. I would hope they would translate into a moratorium. An additional problem is that wind power is one of the most expensive forms of generating electricity there is.
‘At a time when there is so much concern both from households and industry about the cost of energy, that too should be a decisive argument against going this way.’

I know I am wasting my sweetness on the desert air, as the above quote comes from a Lord Snooty (none of whom know anything )Tory (none of whom knows anything) who is English (none of whom know anything) writing in the Daily Mail (none of which knows anything).

I'll just have to go back to reading the five-times daily SNP Diktats from their Centrale on how brilliantly these turbines are reclaiming prosperity for the new Jerusalem which is a Caledonia powered exclusively by wind and unicorns. thanks to Citizen Salmond and his enlightened Kommisariat.






Lmao! Lord lawson - "Arch-sceptic on climate change!"


Hahahahaha! Utterly hilarious! Anyone that denies climate change is quite simply an idiot.....like this idiot who has a degree in economics. You can bundle them in with the people who tell you evolution aint real and the big bang never happened, and whose that are convinced Elvis lives in a caravan in Reiss.

[Even Chance]

I for one totally agree with you!

Cheers for that! Thought it was just me for a while there!

[pmcd]

I for one DO accept climate change (as opposed to global warming) - it changes quite a lot over cycles of time, most of which we have not scientifically measured, but even narrative anecdotal and contemporaneous accounts of various weather eccentricities over the centuries lead one to believe that we have

a) currently taken a snapshot of recordings over a relatively short period of time

b) extrapolated findings to give a plausible narrative. (Which narrative is one of many, and is skewed both by desire - University of East Anglia - and ignorance - of the whole period of time prior to the scientific readings.)

c) used the "bruising mother earth" argument to make the case for renewables more attractive and somehow morally apposite.

d) then used this occasionally emotive lever to put into operation land-based wind farms, rather than tidal, solar, or sea-based turbines AS OUR FIRST CHOICE.

So this has little to do with climate change denial, nor idiocy. It is just another fashion, like creating artificial forests in the flow country. Cutting through the miasma, I'm glad to see Hitachi are building new nuclear reactors. I just hope they are commissioned in time to prevent the "power gap" which a lot of this tree-hugging dithering has caused.

I have a funny picture in my mind's eye of Weezer trying to warm his outstretched hands in front of a huge non-operational windmill caught in a howling wintry gale.........Such is my Christian (ouch - anathema!) attitude that I would invite him in for a warm in front of my fire, and, once his teeth had stopped chattering, give him a large dram on condition he read from the Big Card I have prepared for him "People I disagree with aren't idiots". What japes!

[Pastychomper]

Interesting. Wind turbines "do nothing for the environment – they barely reduce CO2 – they force up energy bills" and represent "one of the most expensive forms of generating electricity there is." They only exist in large numbers due to government subsidies, and can be dangerous when they go wrong. Local communities may or may not be bribed to put up with them, but there's no guarantee that they'll produced the promised power output, or that any electricity they do produce will be used locally.

Sounds just like the civil nuclear power industry in the 50s and 60s. Does that mean that, in thirty or forty years, wind turbines will be providing a quarter of the UK's electricity and a vast slice of Caithness' employment? Sounds like a fair use of the county's biggest resource to me. :D

[mi16]

You really do have issues with landowners don't you Alrock?

[argyle kid]

Hi all,
I also am pleased common sence has prevaled. The turbines do not do very much but at least they do somthing. They were paid for with our money and to see them standing idle irked me no end.
That stupid women who caused this mess whoes name I have thankfully forgoten should wrap herself and her children in cotton wool and never leave the house and give us all a break.
Regards AK.

[Rheghead]

The risk assessments are on the Highland council website if anyone is interested. RAs can be a bit tortuous to get around and you do need a little training to fully understand them. It is right that an RA has been done. Without a proper RA, any kind of improbable event which causes severe injury would have the same weighting as a general mishap that has no consequence. They are boring to read but they do prevent scaremongering which is what a certain person has been doing for their own ideological agenda.

[neilsermk1]

Well said pmcd.
I for one DO accept climate change (as opposed to global warming)

[Rheghead]

Well said pmcd.
I for one DO accept climate change (as opposed to global warming)

So what is the difference exactly?

[neilsermk1]

One is seen as a posibble mechanism, and the other a symptom is my take on it

[pmcd]

One group of scientists used the expression "global worming" until another bunch of scientists came along with the jolly notion that, over a longer period of time, the temperature generally had NOT gone up. Denied their chance to panic the population in one way, the first group of scientists then altered their mantra to "climate change", which is harder to prove/disprove as a negative concept.

[Rheghead]

One group of scientists used the expression "global worming" until another bunch of scientists came along with the jolly notion that, over a longer period of time, the temperature generally had NOT gone up. Denied their chance to panic the population in one way, the first group of scientists then altered their mantra to "climate change", which is harder to prove/disprove as a negative concept.

I think the two terms are basically interchangeable, no difference between them to anyone who understands the problem, a scientist who advocated the Gaia theory even coined the phrase Global Heating. However, the people who do not like to allot blame to human involvement seem to like Climate change for some strange reason but I think it is because they are keen to suggest that all climate change is down to non-human factors and that it has been happening since the Earth began.

The reality is that climate change or global warming is the same thing, global warming just sounds a bit more alarmist which I think it needs to be due to its possible impacts on the planet.

[ducati]

I think the two terms are basically interchangeable, no difference between them to anyone who understands the problem, a scientist who advocated the Gaia theory even coined the phrase Global Heating. However, the people who do not like to allot blame to human involvement seem to like Climate change for some strange reason but I think it is because they are keen to suggest that all climate change is down to non-human factors and that it has been happening since the Earth began.

The reality is that climate change or global warming is the same thing, global warming just sounds a bit more alarmist which I think it needs to be due to its possible impacts on the planet.

Lets start calling it Global Melting, that will put the wind up!

[JoeSoap]

However, the people who do not like to allot blame to human involvement seem to like Climate change for some strange reason but I think it is because they are keen to suggest that all climate change is down to non-human factors and that it has been happening since the Earth began.
Exactly so. "Global Warming" suggests a pattern of change which is going in a clear direction and it's difficult to argue that's entirely natural. Whereas calling it "Climate Change" makes no statement to the amount, direction or duration of the change.

Agreeing to something so ambiguous allows them to put themselves across as the 'reasonable' ones whilst painting the rest of us as fundamentalists unwilling to see the other side of the argument... "Well, I'm willing to meet you half way by agreeing that the climate is changing, I just don't agree it's because of human activity. You're the one who can't talk rationally about this."

The data is all out there, none of this is a secret. Whether it's because they have some vested interest in the status quo, are burying their heads in the sand or are just too lazy to look things up for themselves and would rather listen to the rich man with the shiny suits than the lab-coated scientist scraping by on a research grant doesn't make much of a difference - in the end it all just comes down to wilful ignorance.