Gransnet forums


Chuckle McChuckle McChoo (or, I once invested money in wind)

(15 Posts)
Bags Sat 01-Sep-12 09:22:19

Go on, deny it, and then accuse the fact finders of being deniers (or is it denialists now?). Might be useful tomactually read the article and the comments first though.

Special note for Greatnan should she pass this way: gutsiness rev rating has just bust the motor! wink

annodomini Sat 01-Sep-12 10:09:49

I don't think scepticism about the efficacy of wind power constitutes climate change denial. The fact is that, as population grows and as fossil fuel resources decline, other sources of power will be needed. Possibly wind power will turn out to be a spectacular failure, thereby adding fuel (sorry about the metaphor) to the argument in favour of nuclear power. And that's another matter altogether.

vampirequeen Sat 01-Sep-12 11:15:36

Well said annodomini.

I'm vey confused by the message for Greatnan but then as it's not for me maybe I'm not supposed to understand it smile

Bags Sat 01-Sep-12 12:03:01

The latest news is that there is no shortage of fossil fuels which, if true (and check out shale gas, for instance) stymies the argument about not having outher sources of power. There is still the issue of whether emissions from burning fossil fuels is actually a problem, but even allowing that it is, for the sake of argument, current wind farms do nothing (repeat, nothing) to help reduce those emissions and they cost a ridiculous amount of money that could be better spent on my immediate problems.

Bags Sat 01-Sep-12 12:03:51

sorry! more immediate problems!!! not mine!

Anagram Sat 01-Sep-12 12:07:53


Greatnan Sat 01-Sep-12 13:49:40

Yes, I understand and concur smile
I haven't taken part so far in the climate change debate simply because I am still researching the facts, such as they are. It is too important for me to treat it lightly. I just don't know if mankind is causing climate change.

My mantra is 'follow the money' so I need to find out who stands to benefit from various schemes.

I was very ambivalent about the closure of most UK coal mines. On one hand, tens of thousands of jobs were lost and the UK has to import coal from Poland. On the other hand, I always thought that working underground for up to 12 hours a day (including travel to the coal face) is a very unhealthy and unnatural way of living. I remember miners in the 1950's saying ' No lad of mine is going down the pit' but then fighting tooth and nail (sometimes literally) to keep the mines open. My opinion in the end was that I was glad to see the mines shut, but I thought much more should have been done to retrain and compensate the miners who lost their jobs.

nanaej Sun 02-Sep-12 11:47:32

I think that the sustainability of technologies is often under debated. We always need to balance the positives against the negatives and to be aware that many technologies are promoted for financial gain not an altruistic drive to save the world. Also sometimes, people with a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing, are not always right.

However I do think that it is common sense to work to reduce the use of non-replaceable natural resources and to reduce the destruction of natural habitats for plant and animal species. The trick is to sort the facts from the various interest groups' arguments..which may contain some truth but maybe not the whole truth!

There was a powerful Greenpeace advert at the cinema last night about the impact of the ice cap melt on polar bears.

The whole climate change debate is very confusing. confused

Bags Sun 02-Sep-12 11:59:02

What Greenpeace says about polar bears is lies. Polar bears are doing just fine. They are not under threat from melting ice. They have lived through much warmer periods than what we're in now. Thinking back to what made me become sceptical of global warming scare stories, I think it was the hype about polar bears that made me look further.

Bags Sun 02-Sep-12 11:59:56

PS I used to be a member of Greenpeace. The organisation disgusts me now.

nanaej Sun 02-Sep-12 20:46:41

bags can you guide me to contra-info re Polar bears /ice cap . i can googlr it but if you have a trusted source i would appreciate it. I am genuinely confused by the range of opinions that abound & am savvy enough to know that adverts are not always based on truth..Daz never washed as white for me as it did on the ads!

Bags Sun 02-Sep-12 20:59:39

Shall do, ej. Will find some links. Back soon....

Bags Sun 02-Sep-12 21:14:47

Polar bear info. Here are a few links to be going on with.

NfkDumpling Sun 02-Sep-12 21:18:39

Went to a really interesting talk a little while ago by Dr Tovey from the University of East Anglia, Environmental Sciences.
He was in favour of wind farms, correctly situated on the grounds that the wind is always blowing somewhere whilst nuclear apparently is off 'off line' more than we're told. However, wind farms badly placed are an eyesore and those at sea much more expensive and difficult to maintain. In his opinion we should be using a variety of methods of energy production. All fairly small scale and spaced as considerable energy is lost in transit. Not just wind farms but solar and hydro which is very under utilised. He was very interesting and illuminating. He refused to be drawn on global warming - I got the impression the jury is still out.

Also. Bags is right about polar bears. They're survivors.

nanaej Mon 03-Sep-12 20:06:43

Thank you bags smile