unclebuck

LMAO good for them. Just as Blair is about to do his final U turn on 'renewable' green energy and annonunce the start of a new programme of Nuclear powered generators he is pre vented doing so by Greenpeace protesters who have infiltrated the conference and prevented his speech taking place.

Well done them for putting a weed up Blair's **** and making his security a laughing stock.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...471508,00.html

OllyK

Look a couple of threads below

ozzy

Bl00dy tree hugging hippies

Of course their solution to the energy crisis is to cover our beautiful land with feckin wind turbines.

Suresh

So Greenpeace would rather have us burning fossil fuels to generate energy or maybe unsightly and noisy wind turbines? Or should be all generate our own clean energy by tapping the power of pet hamsters? Naiive, Green idiots. It's obvious that nuclear is the way to go.

Let's not touch upon their attempt to interfere with the democratic process!

Tony should have had them shot down from the roof. That'd give the SN ninnys something to protest about

Suresh

SJ_Skyline

Greenpeace would rather you didn't use engery full stop. These retards would rather take us all back to the stone age, living in caves and planting seeds in the dirt with your bare hands.

They need to wake up, smell the coffee and above all, wash with soap!

unclebuck

Greenpeace would indeed like everyone to adopt an Agrarian lifestyle - willingly or otherwise. That's not the point though - they have disrupted his holiness's routine and made his security bullyboys look stupid, and for that alone they deserve a big

It would be 90 days in the hole for them for sure - if only they were allowed to do so.

hedgehog

Actually Greenpeace are the laughing stock of the UK at present. They were sold the man made global warming lie and they went all out for drama and media effect by declaring CO2 more dangerous than global terrorism. The government even convinced them not to complain when it started planning to build new power lines into Scotland, the greens were told these were for renewable energy.

Within the last few months Gord Brown's brother has taken a top job in the French company expected to get the job to build UK nuclear power stations, Lord Sainsbury, the energy minister, has declared that nuclear power is "renewable," and Brian Wilson (not a member of a pop combo but ex Labour energy bod) who brought plans for huge windfarms to the north of Scotland has just been made Chair of Amex Nuclear.

To top this all Tony Blair comes out and starts saying nice things about nuclear and the idiots in Greenpeace realise that they have been used. They have created a climate which allows the government to sell nuclear as renewable and there is very little Greenpeace can do about it.

Actually, Greenpeace are a laughing stock for various reasons this year including for their attempt to row across the Arctic Ocean which, they informed us, was clear of ice due to global warming. In truth when they got there it was frozen solid after an "unusually cold" winter in the arctic and the brave Greenpeace members had to be rescued after a month, in that time they had walked 23 miles across the ice from where they set out. They also send a diver down to demonstrate the impact of global warming on an Australian coral reef which was of great scientific importance. To their annoyance when they got there it was found to be in excellent health. To the annoynace of the Australian government, who are now imposing fines upon them, as they tried to leave they drove their boat into the reef and destroyed it. If Clarkson had done it they would be calling for executions, as it is they are very, very quiet about it for some reason.

So, my advice is for everyone to enjoy Greenpeace while they can, they are almost certainly the best comedy act on the global warming stage at the minute.

hedgehog

I thought some might be interested in this article detailing what the green nuts have in store for us. It is interesting to note that the person who wrote it admits to cycling everywhere and he is the BBC Environment Correspondent. Clearly he has no conflicts of interest then. From the green nut perspective it has been difficult to gain control of our access to air travel and one of the key aims of this card will be to do that. Remeber these people want us all sitting in mud huts living in fear of big brother.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4479226.stm

pslewis

Bloody pansies!!

Lets go Nuclear!!!!! It's a MAN thing!!

Pete

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

When I was at school, I remember reading in a geography text book that tidal barrages acrossd the Humber, Thames, Severn, Tyne, Clyde and Forth etuaries would solve all our electricity supply problems virtually for ever, and, at the same time, provide transport links and prevent tidal surges and, therefore, flooding.

And how many have been built?

Alcazar

Diablo

LOL

I wonder if those local to, say, Douneray or Sellafield will share your views.

The wind turbine solution is simple - stick them offshore.

For the Scots posting on this thread - guess where they want to build some of those new nuclear power plants?

And then guess where they want to dump all the nuclear waste?

Hedgehog, your hypocracy astounds me. Always so vocal about the (oh, how ironic) violation of our civil liberties, and rights not to get caught for what comes down to "breaking the law". And yet on this occasion, you are criticising the one organisation that actually stands up against not just our government but many others....

They may be misguided, they may not always be correct, but at least they are willing to do something more than be a keyboard warrior

Lets all think about this seriously. I would prefer to live beside, for example, a field of wind turbines rather than a nuclear power station, or worse, a nuclear waste dump. I suspect many of you would too.

hedgehog

From what I know most of the objections to such tidal barrages are on the sound environmental grounds that they can have a significant impact upon the patterns of erosion and silting. I don't know all the factors involved but suspect that the problems are greater than the advantages and, in fact, build up of silt and so on can actually render the barrages useless in quite short order.

Perhaps, however, this information is based upon my O level geography books and so is probably totally incorrect.

mart360

wind farms are wonderfull to see...

but you try living near one on full tilt..

those blades move a lot of air, and it has to have some effect...


NOISE!!!!!!!!!!! they make on hell of a din when there running..


just wait for the compo claims to start


Mart

Leslie

Greenpeace havenot endeared themselves to the rest of us very well recently and I think they went over the top in this particular case. They really are contradicting themselves with weak arguments which I believe to be based on dogma rather than good sense. Fine to protest but stupid to start throwing things!

We have to reduce the carbon pollution if as the scientists say it is causing greenhouse conditions with all the consequent disastrous happenings in the not very distant future. Renewable energy such as wind farms, which are most objectionable, and wave energy etc. will not be able to fill the energy gap. Hydro electric power would be good if we had that possibility.

I have to say that I think Billy is right to push for Nuclear power and we should have enough time if they really put their minds to it to find a way of dealing with the nuclear waste and constructing adequately safe power stations.

As long as I don't have to put up with watching him talking about it!

Les

StickyMicky

i was told that nissan motors in sunderland have had planning permission to build there own windfarm, so they can pay for there own electricity

i was also told that it can produce more then they need at sum times, in which case they will get cash from the local electric company for produceing it

i only know 2 people still in there working now and i have forgot to ask them about it.

i always thought that nuclear waste could be used for sumthing else?
why dont we just fire it off into space pmsl

OllyK

So 2 years ago at the last review when NL decided that renewable energy could cover it all and we don't need nuclear power....oh never mind, I know the answer.

hedgehog

First of all i do stand strongly against those breaking the law, especially when it is the government who are breaking the law in order to criminalise the general population or to exert their control over the citizens. I also stand for freedom of thought, movement and speech. Greenpeace, on the other hand, are supporters of the increased control over the citizens. Greenpeace want to tell us what we can drive (no 4X4s for example) and where we can drive (no new roads) and that private transport is socially divisive (Oh, their far left cedentials showing through there then) and what we can do in our houses and what we can buy in our shops (see my posting on the carbon card for citizens).

Greenpeace are a political organisation sitting at the extreme far left of the spectrum, they are water mellons: green on the outside but when you cut them they are the same control freak red inside as the most extreme Stalinists. The people Greenpeace stand up against are the normal citizens who want to go about their business without having some Stalinist control freak determine every move they are allowed to make and for this reason extremeist groups such as Greenpeace have no place in modern society. Everyone who fights to ensure that government obey the laws of the land also fights against the random control measures that organisations such as Greenpeace wish to enforce. This fight is critical to maintaining a free democratic society.

In truth Greenpeace may well have destroyed themselves by falling for the CO2 lie, the world is laughing at them. Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, said the following about the "modern" Greenpeace organisation:

"There were always extreme, irrational and mystical elements within our movement, but they tended to be kept in their place during the early years. Then in the mid-Eighties the ultraleftists and extremists took over. After Greenham Common closed and the Berlin Wall came down these extremists were searching for a new cause and found it in environmentalism. The old agendas of class struggle and anti-corporatism are still there but now they are dressed up in environmental terminology."

As you say: they are misguided and incorrect but all the things they are willing to do only lead us to more control and, ultimately, a stone age society. Interestingly I have heard it argued that those who adapt well to modern living are likely to be well designed for evolution and they are, therefore, equally as likely to adapt to living in the stone age conditions Greenpeace would like to force upon us. Perhaps under such conditions those who currently support Greenpeace in their efforts to turn back the clock of civilization would be the first to die out.

OllyK

A point not often aired is that water vapour is actually a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, in terms of effect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feature...ervapour.shtml

SJ_Skyline

We're all doomed!!

hedgehog

First of all I would argue that the scientists say no such thing, though the media and spin doctors might. In the run up to the Rio Summit Greenpeace carried out a survey of 400 climate scientists asking if they believed in man made global warming. Of the 400 only 15 said that they believed in man made global warming.

The idea that there is "scientific concensus" on global warming is flawed. In a recent climate review UK science journal Nature estimated that about 1 in 10 climate scientists believed in man made global warming.

However, it would be easy to conclude that there is a scientific connection between CO2 and warming and that, perhaps, most climate scientists are just missing the point. I have listened to the recent media discussion that CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 650,000 years. All the discussion has been based around the fact that this must be a bad thing, must be man made and must be causing the earth to heat up. The catch is that when Stonehenge, Callanish and Newgrange were being built the levels of CO2 were lower. Archaeologists called this time the "climate optimum" as societies emerged in many countries and in the UK things moved along at quite a speed. In this climate optimum, when sea levels were lower by the way, the average temperature was about 3 degrees warmer than it is today and prehistoric man was loving it. So, if CO2 causes greenhouse warming how come it was warmer when there was less CO2? Tricky, unless you involke some external infulence.

The conditions that we are experiencing today are far from unusual. One very entertaining paper in Nature recently took the records of the French grape harvest (which date back to 1300 and something) and used this as a proxy for climate. They found that the conditions today are no different from the normal variations in climate that have been seen through out the centuries of this study.

With this in mind I think it important to understand that conditions today are normal and that external forcings such as solar cycles have such a large impact upon climate (where did the last ice age come from? Not man made CO2 that is for sure, and it melted in 50 years!) that even if we were increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the effect would be so small as to be totally burried in the noise of other climate forcing factors. We are not at some magical tipping point, we are not all doomed and things today are no different from how they have ever been. The climate will change, it will keep changing and we will continue to have no control at all over it.

mart360

A company i worked for, had a wind turbine, a big b*gger too , they wernt allowed to link to the grid, so all the leccy produced went to waste

nothing like wanting to sustain the environment

DaveD

iTrader: (2)

Companies who produce their own electricity can sell excess power back to the grid at peek times.
These are usually small-ish gas turbine generators which can start and provide power within minutes, and especially help boost the grid during winter months.
This avoids having to stoke up the larger (eg; coal) powered stations, as these can take hours to provide a significant change to their power output.

JCScooby

I wish these Greenpeace loonies would have wash

Why dont they get a proper JOB like the rest of us?

Leslie

Hedgehog,

I sincerely hope you are right and that there is no climate change due to so called greenhouse gases. I am not an expert and have so far gone along with what is said by so many eminent people about it. Did not know that one about water vapour too OllyK. In that case aircraft are even more culpable!

Les

CharlesW

Have a read of this. This guy talks a lot of sense. There is no use in crying over what has happened. There is no way we can stop what is already happening. To do that we would have had to be able to see into the future 50 years ago.

What we should be concentrating on is 'global cooling'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...30/ixconn.html

Suuba

Stick all the wind turbines way out in middle of sea.. thats where its the windy'est


Nuclear is a joke, if one ruptures they'll be a disaster, if theres a f*ckup with a wind turbine it wont be so bad.



Where we gona stick all the nuclear waste btw?

Suresh

I read somewhere (was it this thread?) that if you took all the concentrated nuclear waste ever produced it wouldn't even fill a house.

Plenty of houses in Scotland. Sorted then!


Suresh

SJ_Skyline

Sunderland

vindaloo

I don't think you'd want to do that. Nuclear things have a habit of becoming more active when there's more mass to react with. That's how bombs work.

OTOH... the new, flatter Scotland

J.

boomer

Er, you mean from END OF THE WORLD ON CH 4 NOW.?

You would need a big house to store 3286 tonnes of high level radioactive waste!!!!! And that's from the UK alone (and 2001 figures)

mb