TheTeapot Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 4 minutes ago, Roger Ram said: I would say the exact opposite. I am shocked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: I am shocked. Why. I agree with you on some stuff and not on others. You seem to agree or disagree with what people post based on who posts it rather than what they say. Which rather proves my point. I bet there are certain posters here where you have never given a positive reaction to anything they have said. Most people are capable of strongly disagreeing with someone on one subject, and yet agreeing with what they say on another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 There are people who put themselves in the public eye and speak authoritatively on topics who should immediately set alarm bells off in your mind. That they don't shows their skill. Many of those thoroughly opposed to the seemingly clear scientific consensus of man made climate change exhibit the exact same techniques as professional anti vaccine fraudsters. Then you look a bit deeper and discover that they just happen to hold deeply unpleasant views on a bunch of other subjects, every time. This Burgess fella, first time I heard him, I knew. I am completely baffled as to how it isn't obvious to everyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 17 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: There are people who put themselves in the public eye and speak authoritatively on topics who should immediately set alarm bells off in your mind. That they don't shows their skill. Many of those thoroughly opposed to the seemingly clear scientific consensus of man made climate change exhibit the exact same techniques as professional anti vaccine fraudsters. Then you look a bit deeper and discover that they just happen to hold deeply unpleasant views on a bunch of other subjects, every time. This Burgess fella, first time I heard him, I knew. I am completely baffled as to how it isn't obvious to everyone. So, do the figures put forward as justification for these proposals, specifically much higher yields than are currently achieved anywhere in or on our near neighbours stack up to you? Can you actually confirm he is wrong (and that DEFA were wrong 14 years ago) or are you just ruling it out because of his other views on completely unrelated matters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Amazing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 34 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Amazing. That a no then 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 3 hours ago, Shake me up Judy said: With respect to Chinahand's posts on this (He's a very knowledgeable and thoughtful poster), the climate science has virtually nothing to do with it. It's the economics and politics of the whole idea. What's the most efficient and best VFM for the Island, then making sure the right decisions are made and followed through on. That's all that matters. Agree. But wind is good value for money. Renewables are never going to make up a large percentage of our generation because they're inconsistent, but having them as a method of bringing down our total cost makes total sense. Having a diverse mix of wind and solar makes even more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 2 hours ago, Roger Ram said: So, do the figures put forward as justification for these proposals, specifically much higher yields than are currently achieved anywhere in or on our near neighbours stack up to you? Can you actually confirm he is wrong (and that DEFA were wrong 14 years ago) or are you just ruling it out because of his other views on completely unrelated matters? So the claim is that all IOM government figures are wrong except some really old ones.. do you see the flaw in your logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 2 minutes ago, HiVibes said: So the claim is that all IOM government figures are wrong except some really old ones.. do you see the flaw in your logic. No. Explain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 2 minutes ago, Roger Ram said: No. Explain It would appear the government is always wrong except when you decide the figures match the rhetoric. Its twisted. 14 year old figures are worthless 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 2 hours ago, Roger Ram said: So, do the figures put forward as justification for these proposals, specifically much higher yields than are currently achieved anywhere in or on our near neighbours stack up to you? Can you actually confirm he is wrong (and that DEFA were wrong 14 years ago) or are you just ruling it out because of his other views on completely unrelated matters? Well, his arguments are in response to an email from "Lizzie" (presumably Lizzie Riley) that so far as I know is not in the public domain, which was forwarded to him by a bloke called "Julian" (which explains the second caller on the MR bit, named Julian, who rang in to pitch him his own debate points as a softball), where he is calculating implied load factors based on Lizzie's claims around the GWh per year output of the Earystane site. His calculations of 57% and 74% load factors are his, and not provided by any IOM document. This makes them pretty difficult to fact check. The comparisons he makes with other jurisdictions also don't select stats based on windfarm design or the turbines in use, but are instead national averages for onshore wind, which makes them pretty meaningless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 minute ago, HiVibes said: 14 year old figures are worthless How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Amusingly while watching Mr Burgess' video on the IOM calculations I got an advert for a magic energy generating device that "pulls energy from the ground". Given the ads are targeted at watchers of his content... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 15 minutes ago, Roger Ram said: How? What decisions do you or any business make based on 14 year old data? It's ancient. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 23 minutes ago, HiVibes said: What decisions do you or any business make based on 14 year old data? It's ancient. It would depend if the inputs to the data had changed or not. What inputs to that data have changed in the last 50 years, never mind 14? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.