On Dec 13, 12:24*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall

wrote:
We suspect that all this particular installation is about is subsidy and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with a
'super-green' turbine in the background.

Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and still
get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own plot? Just
them, I'd suppose.

Maybe it's to do with renting the ground that the turbines occupy.
I wonder if the other energy suppliers pay rent/council tax for teh
area their plant
covers or is the land owned by the energy companies.

On 13/12/2011 12:24, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

We suspect that all this particular installation is about is subsidy and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with a
'super-green' turbine in the background.

Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and still
get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own plot? Just
them, I'd suppose.

The man put in an application for a windmill on top of a local hill a
few years back, and was turned down. Maybe this is his idea of 'revenge'
? - Who knows ??

The 'stuff' from his consultants was full of cr@p about 'the factory
becoming self-sufficient in energy' - and the Council Planners (bless
'em) believed it. Hopeless!

Adrian

On 13/12/2011 12:15, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:49:09 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

Local factory owner wants to prove his 'green-ness' by putting a
40m-tall turbine up. Trouble is , it's within 150m of the nearest house
- and there's lots more of us within 300-500m.

Turbine manufacturer recommends an exclusion zone 'fall-over' distance
of 1.5 x tip height - this area can't be obtained due to the small size
of the factory plot. The factory offices and production areas fall
within the 'fall-over' zone.

We're fighting it... - www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com

"Given the overwhelming technical arguments against the planning
application - it's hard not to conclude that this application has been
granted for political reasons, rather than for planning reasons."


Hah. Welcome to Ireland, still the land of the brown envelope.

g One of my better sentences!
Went 'whoosh' over the Planners' heads, though...

Adrian

On 13/12/2011 13:36, whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall

wrote:
We suspect that all this particular installation is about is subsidy and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with a
'super-green' turbine in the background.

Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and still
get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own plot? Just
them, I'd suppose.

Maybe it's to do with renting the ground that the turbines occupy.
I wonder if the other energy suppliers pay rent/council tax for teh
area their plant
covers or is the land owned by the energy companies.

The man owns a bit of land on the top of a local hill - but was turned
down for permission to erect a windmill up there.
It's all greenwash anyway - noting to do with saving the planet -
everything to do with pr & subsidies.

Adrian

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:36, whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall

wrote:
We suspect that all this particular installation is about is subsidy
and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with a
'super-green' turbine in the background.

Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and still
get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own plot? Just
them, I'd suppose.

Maybe it's to do with renting the ground that the turbines occupy.
I wonder if the other energy suppliers pay rent/council tax for teh
area their plant
covers or is the land owned by the energy companies.

The man owns a bit of land on the top of a local hill - but was turned
down for permission to erect a windmill up there.
It's all greenwash anyway - noting to do with saving the planet -
everything to do with pr & subsidies.

Adrian
here you are

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

On 13/12/2011 19:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:36, whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall

wrote:
We suspect that all this particular installation is about is
subsidy and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with a
'super-green' turbine in the background.

Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and still
get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own plot? Just
them, I'd suppose.

Maybe it's to do with renting the ground that the turbines occupy.
I wonder if the other energy suppliers pay rent/council tax for teh
area their plant
covers or is the land owned by the energy companies.

The man owns a bit of land on the top of a local hill - but was turned
down for permission to erect a windmill up there.
It's all greenwash anyway - noting to do with saving the planet -
everything to do with pr & subsidies.

Adrian
here you are

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Waaaay too sophisticated! - double-whoosh!
Nice pic of the turbines on fire though!

Thanks
Adrian

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:36, whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall

wrote:
We suspect that all this particular installation is about is
subsidy and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with
a 'super-green' turbine in the background.

Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and
still get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own
plot? Just them, I'd suppose.

Maybe it's to do with renting the ground that the turbines occupy. I
wonder if the other energy suppliers pay rent/council tax for teh
area their plant
covers or is the land owned by the energy companies.

The man owns a bit of land on the top of a local hill - but was
turned down for permission to erect a windmill up there. It's all
greenwash anyway - noting to do with saving the planet - everything
to do with pr & subsidies.

Adrian
here you are

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:36, whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall

wrote:
We suspect that all this particular installation is about is
subsidy and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with
a 'super-green' turbine in the background.
Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and
still get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own
plot? Just them, I'd suppose.
Maybe it's to do with renting the ground that the turbines occupy. I
wonder if the other energy suppliers pay rent/council tax for teh
area their plant
covers or is the land owned by the energy companies.
The man owns a bit of land on the top of a local hill - but was
turned down for permission to erect a windmill up there. It's all
greenwash anyway - noting to do with saving the planet - everything
to do with pr & subsidies.

Adrian
here you are

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39
Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.



I assume its a different Hansen.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:17:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:36, whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall

wrote:
We suspect that all this particular installation is about is
subsidy and
a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates,
with a 'super-green' turbine in the background.
Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and
still get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own
plot? Just them, I'd suppose.
Maybe it's to do with renting the ground that the turbines occupy.
I wonder if the other energy suppliers pay rent/council tax for teh
area their plant
covers or is the land owned by the energy companies.
The man owns a bit of land on the top of a local hill - but was
turned down for permission to erect a windmill up there. It's all
greenwash anyway - noting to do with saving the planet - everything
to do with pr & subsidies.

Adrian
here you are

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39
Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.



I assume its a different Hansen.

I assumed it wasn't. Same firts and last name, same outlook.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 14/12/2011 00:26, Bob Eager wrote:

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Did TFP write that skit himself or is that website which he has cited
before perhaps his primary source of information on AGW.

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.

I assume its a different Hansen.

I assumed it wasn't. Same firts and last name, same outlook.

Just for the record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple
cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure plucked
out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-6276207.html

--
Roger Chapman

On 14 Dec 2011 00:10:13 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.

So where did he go?

Surely not the IPCC ?
--

On 14/12/2011 11:09, The Other Mike wrote:
On 14 Dec 2011 00:10:13 GMT, Bob wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In ,
The Natural wrote:

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.

So where did he go?

Surely not the IPCC ?

Why not have a look.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/2011 00:26, Bob Eager wrote:

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Did TFP write that skit himself or is that website which he has cited
before perhaps his primary source of information on AGW.

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y,
Mr
Hansen.

I assume its a different Hansen.

I assumed it wasn't. Same firts and last name, same outlook.

Just for the record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple cure
for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure plucked out of
thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.
Its trapped on the sea floor, mainly by pressure and it isn't leaking
anymore than normal ATM.
Maybe we should mine it and burn it as the CO2 is less harmful.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/2011 00:26, Bob Eager wrote:

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Did TFP write that skit himself or is that website which he has
cited before perhaps his primary source of information on AGW.

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of
uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.

I assume its a different Hansen.

I assumed it wasn't. Same firts and last name, same outlook.

Just for the record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple
cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure
plucked out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non
essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown
up:


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...article-arctic

-methane-a-risk-it-would-be-unwise-to-ignore-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.

I thought there was methane in the tundra.

there's methane anywhere that vegetation is rotting.

It has a fairly short life in the atmosphere IIRC 10 years sez wiki.

ends up as water and CO2..

On 14/12/2011 14:22, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Did TFP write that skit himself or is that website which he has cited
before perhaps his primary source of information on AGW.

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of
uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.

I assume its a different Hansen.

I assumed it wasn't. Same firts and last name, same outlook.

Just for the record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple
cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure
plucked out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non
essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

There is plenty more detail if you want to look for it.

The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.
Its trapped on the sea floor, mainly by pressure and it isn't leaking
anymore than normal ATM.

It says trapped under, not in, and it is leaking more than normal.

Maybe we should mine it and burn it as the CO2 is less harmful.

That would make sense if only there was some easy way to capture it.

There was more even in that issue of the Independent which is, perhaps,
why the leading article was so short.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...internalSearch

And plenty more comment elsewhere for the deniers to avoid reading in
case they get infected with doubt.

--
Roger Chapman

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple
cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure
plucked out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non
essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown up:


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ding-article-a
rctic-methane-a-risk-it-would-be-unwise-to-ignore-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

No its not


The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.

There is a lot of methane generated by rotting vegetation in the arctic
tundra. As the ice melts, it is being released. Methane is, what, 74
times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2?

Stupid boy

Its trapped on the sea floor, mainly by pressure and it isn't leaking
anymore than normal ATM.
Maybe we should mine it and burn it as the CO2 is less harmful.

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message om,
"dennis@home" writes

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple
cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure
plucked out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non
essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ding-article-a
rctic-methane-a-risk-it-would-be-unwise-to-ignore-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

No its not


The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.

There is a lot of methane generated by rotting vegetation in the arctic
tundra. As the ice melts, it is being released. Methane is, what, 74 times
as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2?

Stupid boy

The concern is methyl hydrate you idiot!

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:47:30 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:



"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message om,
"dennis@home" writes

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple
cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure
plucked out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non
essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown
up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ding-article-a
rctic-methane-a-risk-it-would-be-unwise-to-ignore-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

No its not


The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.

There is a lot of methane generated by rotting vegetation in the arctic
tundra. As the ice melts, it is being released. Methane is, what, 74
times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2?

Stupid boy

The concern is methyl hydrate you idiot!


Certainly what I was listening to the other day was about permafrost not
being so very permanent. And therefore allowing greater generation and
release of METHANE.

--
Rod

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message om,
"dennis@home" writes

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a
simple cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99%
(figure plucked out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air
travel is non essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ding-article-a
rctic-methane-a-risk-it-would-be-unwise-to-ignore-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

No its not


The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.

There is a lot of methane generated by rotting vegetation in the
arctic tundra. As the ice melts, it is being released. Methane is,
what, 74 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2?

Stupid boy

The concern is methyl hydrate you idiot!


If I may quote

"Methyl Hydrates come from millions of years of bacteria in the sea. It
is pressured and becomes Methane Gas"


Well I never ...

Who'd 'ave thought eh ?

Wankstain


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message om,
"dennis@home" writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message om,
"dennis@home" writes

If only the air travel theory was true. Then there would be a simple
cure for global warming - just stop flying. At least 99% (figure
plucked out of thin air as TFP is wont to do) of air travel is non
essential.

Incidentally one of the predictions of global warming has just shown
up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ding-article-a
rctic-methane-a-risk-it-would-be-unwise-to-ignore-6276207.html

Rubbish as usual.

No its not


The methane isn't trapped in the arctic ice.

There is a lot of methane generated by rotting vegetation in the arctic
tundra. As the ice melts, it is being released. Methane is, what, 74
times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2?

Stupid boy

The concern is methyl hydrate you idiot!


If I may quote

"Methyl Hydrates come from millions of years of bacteria in the sea. It
is pressured and becomes Methane Gas"

If I may quote you

"There is a lot of methane generated by rotting vegetation in the arctic
tundra."

Maybe my speel chucker is correct and you really are Goof.


Well I never ...

Who'd 'ave thought eh ?

I always think you are wrong.

-- Wankstain

I like your sig.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:41:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

It's all greenwash anyway - noting to do with saving the planet -
everything to do with pr & subsidies.

Ah, yes.
Noonan wrote an article in the Irish Examiner at the weekend,
mentioning exactly that. The way it was worded fitted in nicely with
your observation about the factory owner buying a s/h German turbine
and getting a wodge from the gov't.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:53:38 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

There was more even in that issue of the Independent which is, perhaps,
why the leading article was so short.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...internalSearch

""The concentration of atmospheric methane increased unto three times
in the past two centuries from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7ppm, and in
the Arctic to 1.9ppm. That's a huge increase, between two and three
times, and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she
added."

That reads like cock.

wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:53:38 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

There was more even in that issue of the Independent which is, perhaps,
why the leading article was so short.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...internalSearch

""The concentration of atmospheric methane increased unto three times
in the past two centuries from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7ppm, and in
the Arctic to 1.9ppm. That's a huge increase, between two and three
times, and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she
added."

That reads like cock.

well its impossible to refute really..who KNOWS what the methane level
was when dinosaur fart was the prime pollutant.

You can track methane in ice cores up to a point, but that doesn't go
back all that far..the rest is down to constructing a rather shaky
edifice based on rather too many assumptions to be sure of anything.

But then AGW itself is just such a shaky edifice.

It may be correct. But I rather doubt its the whole picture, or anything
like it.

Something is happening here
but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr Gore...

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:22:33 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 14/12/2011 11:09, The Other Mike wrote:
On 14 Dec 2011 00:10:13 GMT, Bob wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In ,
The Natural wrote:

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.

So where did he go?

Surely not the IPCC ?

Why not have a look.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

Can't see anythig there


Is this him?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/david_hansen



--

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:22:31 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

OK I'll say it, its the wrong kind of wind obviously. Simple really.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/csxzjs7

;-)

T i m

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:22:31 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

OK I'll say it, its the wrong kind of wind obviously. Simple really.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/csxzjs7

;-)

T i m
Superb!

I think that is probably worth a bookmark. I love the Daily Mash.

On 15/12/2011 23:09, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:22:33 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 14/12/2011 11:09, The Other Mike wrote:
On 14 Dec 2011 00:10:13 GMT, Bob wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In ,
The Natural wrote:

send this to the planners

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

Like it, like it!

I see it mentions the not-lamented erstwhile denizen of uk.d-i-y, Mr
Hansen.

So where did he go?

Surely not the IPCC ?

Why not have a look.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

Can't see anythig there


Is this him?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/david_hansen

Probably. Right name anyway. There can't be very many David Hansens out
there with such an extreme attitude.

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:09:43 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

Is this him?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/david_hansen

The tone's about right.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:10:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:22:31 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

OK I'll say it, its the wrong kind of wind obviously. Simple really.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/csxzjs7

;-)

T i m
Superb!

Tis isn't it. ;-)

I think that is probably worth a bookmark.

Especially for you.

I love the Daily Mash.

My daughter sent me that one. It's nice to see a 21yr old with that
sense of humour (and Monty Python etc).

We also like 'The Onion' and there may be another statement or two in
this one you might like:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the...y-crisis,7719/

Cheers, T i m