Is climate change a fraud?

[Cambon]

16 hours ago, HiVibes said:

Simple changes you say, like a blanket ban on over 65's driving cars, that would bring down oil use and make our roads much safer.

Back to your original idea, the reduction of younger drivers has already started. Far fewer young people learning to drive due to lack of driving instructors. Government has made it much more difficult and expensive to be a driving instructor. Those costs get passed on. 

[Venus]

14 hours ago, slinkydevil said:

Anyone know who Julian is on MR mannin line? He doesn't know what 'Onomatopeia' means but he seems like a likeable chap, but has an immense amount of airtime. I'm just interested to know if he's a local fruitcake.

Likeable! ha. Obsessed with wind turbines.

Barton. started a petition against them on change and has a fb profile

 https://www.facebook.com/julian.barton.52

 

 

 

 

Edited June 21 by Venus
broken link

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Cambon said:

Where have I ever said I am against wind? I am against Earystane, or any other nature reserve being used for this £100 million + waste of tax payers money. It is the wrong turbines in the wrong place at the wrong time. Put them at the industrial brown field site at Jurby, which has better wind direction range. Put them at Andreas Airfield along with the proposed solar farm. But don’t ruin the ruin what remaining countryside we have left. 

Is Earystane a nature reserve. I know there is a nature reserve but thought it was just a tiny area where there used to be a tip. Is the windfarm actually within the boundary of the nature reserve?

 

[WTF]

3 hours ago, b4mbi said:

Clearly following the Crogga proposal closely then. They've guaranteed to cap the price to IOM at 80p per therm. if the price goes lower then Island gets that lower price. All perfectly achievable as the IOM consumption is only 5-10% of the estimated recoverable gas field - the rest would be sold at market price on international markets.

Anyone thinking that gas isn't going to be part of the energy mix in 2050 should wake up.

the british government guaranteed to pay women their pension at 60 .  a verbal guarantee said to achieve a result means nothing come the second years shareholders meeting.

[TheTeapot]

42 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Is Earystane a nature reserve. I know there is a nature reserve but thought it was just a tiny area where there used to be a tip. Is the windfarm actually within the boundary of the nature reserve?

 

The Earystane nature reserve is very small, but also really cool. Starts with a tree lined path, opens to a small meadow then to a hide, and then drops down onto a boardwalk through a curragh. 

Its a fair bit down the hill from where the turbines are proposed.

[Mikimoto]

57 minutes ago, WTF said:

the british government guaranteed to pay women their pension at 60 .  

Then they remembered that that was sexist.

[Happier diner]

21 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

The Earystane nature reserve is very small, but also really cool. Starts with a tree lined path, opens to a small meadow then to a hide, and then drops down onto a boardwalk through a curragh. 

Its a fair bit down the hill from where the turbines are proposed.

so more misinformation from the anti windfarm lobby

[Trueblood]

2 hours ago, Venus said:

Likeable! ha. Obsessed with wind turbines.

Barton. started a petition against them on change and has a fb profile

 https://www.facebook.com/julian.barton.52

 

 

 

 

I don't think Julian works, I think his father owned the Palace Hotel at one time.

[TheTeapot]

32 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

so more misinformation from the anti windfarm lobby

Well, nature happens outside of a defined reserve too. There are lots of small mammals, insects, lizards and all kinds of birdlife up there. Putting turbines up there would obviously have a huge negative impact on all of those things, only a moron or a crook would argue otherwise.

Edited June 21 by TheTeapot

[Happier diner]

6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Well, nature happens outside of a defined reserve too. There are lots of small mammals, insects, lizards and all kinds of birdlife up there. Putting turbines up there would obviously have a huge negative impact on all of those things, only a moron or a crook would argue otherwise.

Perhaps to some extent. But then farming is destructive on a massive scale. Much greater than 4 turbines

My point though was about the spread of misinformation. Why can't everyone just be honest. Its not a nature reservice. Maybe it should be, but it isn't so why is Cambon saying it is?

[b4mbi]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

the british government guaranteed to pay women their pension at 60 .  a verbal guarantee said to achieve a result means nothing come the second years shareholders meeting.

The company is offering it, and will commit to it contractually over the lifetime of the project if the prospect is viable. Governments can do what they want, bit more difficult for companies that make written contractual commitments.

[Idleweiss]

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

My point though was about the spread of misinformation. Why can't everyone just be honest. 

The only mis information I saw really was Paul Craine trying to nit pick at information freely imparted and displayed with its source clearly documented. It is very clear that Government and the Climate Team especially is hellbent on delivering this with an almost religious zeal. If the numbers don’t stack up just like the Liverpool Terminal they’ll all just plough on regardless so that the project can be delivered at any cost to the taxpayer even if that’s 3, 4 or 5 times the original budget. Because the decree has been made. We must be good green citizens and comply with our global commitments. Even if it bankrupts us and ruins our basic infrastructure. 

[b4mbi]

10 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

The only mis information I saw really was Paul Craine trying to nit pick at information freely imparted and displayed with its source clearly documented. It is very clear that Government and the Climate Team especially is hellbent on delivering this with an almost religious zeal. If the numbers don’t stack up just like the Liverpool Terminal they’ll all just plough on regardless so that the project can be delivered at any cost to the taxpayer even if that’s 3, 4 or 5 times the original budget. Because the decree has been made. We must be good green citizens and comply with our global commitments. Even if it bankrupts us and ruins our basic infrastructure. 

This is the bit that concerns me the most, that proposing this the zealots are overlooking that Government's primary number one duty is to the residents of the Island, to look after it's citizens. Nebulous global commitments that we can't afford (and will be ignored by the biggest polluters/economies), should come way down their list of priorities.

It will be financially crippling for future generations as proposed in that Arup report. 

Climate team think it'll all be funded from the magic money tree. Show me a fully costed viable proposal that meets our energy requirements and provides us with a stable, cheap supply. Our carbon emissions are so miniscule, it doesn't matter how it's done, as long as it's cost effective and affordable.

[Happier diner]

5 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

This is the bit that concerns me the most, that proposing this the zealots are overlooking that Government's primary number one duty is to the residents of the Island, to look after it's citizens. Nebulous global commitments that we can't afford (and will be ignored by the biggest polluters/economies), should come way down their list of priorities.

It will be financially crippling for future generations as proposed in that Arup report. 

Climate team think it'll all be funded from the magic money tree. Show me a fully costed viable proposal that meets our energy requirements and provides us with a stable, cheap supply. Our carbon emissions are so miniscule, it doesn't matter how it's done, as long as it's cost effective and affordable.

Is there an option that is effective and affordable. What is it then?

[WTF]

48 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

The company is offering it, and will commit to it contractually over the lifetime of the project if the prospect is viable. Governments can do what they want, bit more difficult for companies that make written contractual commitments.

and in 20 years time that 80p will be worth what i  todays money??  , if they said 80% of current market value that would be different.    and don't forget that company 'A' will be sold after not very long to a new company 'B' that just happens to have the same primary shareholders as the old one but through the BVI or caymen islands and any contracts company 'A' had are no longer enforceable.