UPDATED: Amber weather warning for parts of Essex

Braintree and Witham Times: Amber weather warning for parts of Essex Amber weather warning for parts of Essex

A severe weather is in place for Essex.

The Met Office has issued an amber warning for wind across some parts of the county, particularly along the coast, from 6pm tonight. 

A yellow warning for wind and rain remains in place for the whole of Essex. 

Essex County Council has announced street lights will remain on across the county to aid any emergency response needed to the storms.

A Met Office forecast said: "A further period of very strong winds is expected across southern and southeastern counties of England from Friday afternoon, overnight into Saturday morning.

"Gusts of 60 to 70 mph are likely in the Amber warning area with isolated 80 mph gusts possible along the most exposed parts of the south coast.

"Winds will ease from the west during Saturday morning.

"The public should be aware of the potential for disruption to travel as well as trees being uprooted and perhaps damage to buildings.

"The very strong winds will be accompanied by large waves along the south coast and the public should also be aware of these potentially dangerous conditions and also the possibility of coastal flooding.

"This warning accompanies a larger yellow warning. 

"The amber area has been extended to cover other parts of the south east and East Anglia.

"This includes the London area, where gusts of 60 mph or more are likely overnight."

Motorists heading into Suffolk face delays as the Highways Agency plans to close the Orwell Bridge from 10pm.

The bridge, which carries the A14 (A12) over the River Orwell, will remain closed until the winds subside - expected to be at around 6am tomorrow.

Essex Weather Centre tweeted: "Impacts locally could rival 'St Jude's Storm' with travel disruption and uprooted trees. Some structural damage possible."

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:10pm Fri 14 Feb 14

You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat says...

All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming.
Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate.. You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat

12:21pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Ian P says...

You'dfeelbetterforkn
owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Do write science fiction stories for a living, or just publish occasionally on the Echo Website?
[quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Do write science fiction stories for a living, or just publish occasionally on the Echo Website? Ian P

12:34pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Steve H says...

You'dfeelbetterforkn
owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming.
Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Wow, behold the bringer of doom!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Wow, behold the bringer of doom!!!!! Steve H

12:40pm Fri 14 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

I hope the railway line at Leigh will survive.
I hope the railway line at Leigh will survive. DogsMessInLeigh

12:45pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Happy Chickie says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
I hope the railway line at Leigh will survive.
Oh goodness, me too - LOL
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: I hope the railway line at Leigh will survive.[/p][/quote]Oh goodness, me too - LOL Happy Chickie

12:50pm Fri 14 Feb 14

southendcivilservant says...

I think Leigh and Chalkwell could be likely candidates for flooding to be honest. Imagine what sort of chaos would ensue if this happened - we'd have rail replacement buses galore - so it'd be just like a typical Sunday.
I think Leigh and Chalkwell could be likely candidates for flooding to be honest. Imagine what sort of chaos would ensue if this happened - we'd have rail replacement buses galore - so it'd be just like a typical Sunday. southendcivilservant

1:31pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Howard Cháse says...

Don't eat the yellow snow
Don't eat the yellow snow Howard Cháse

1:55pm Fri 14 Feb 14

keith_l says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
Don't eat the yellow snow
No snow this year
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: Don't eat the yellow snow[/p][/quote]No snow this year keith_l

1:56pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Big Job 1984 says...

I quite like the idea of the Leigh line flooding... with the amount of stabbings/muggings/a
ttacks happening in chalkwell, westcliff and southend. I say cut the lot of them off and push them out to sea and make it a safer Essex for us all! While were at it give canvey a shove too!
I quite like the idea of the Leigh line flooding... with the amount of stabbings/muggings/a ttacks happening in chalkwell, westcliff and southend. I say cut the lot of them off and push them out to sea and make it a safer Essex for us all! While were at it give canvey a shove too! Big Job 1984

2:03pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Howard Cháse says...

keith_l wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
Don't eat the yellow snow
No snow this year
Yet!
[quote][p][bold]keith_l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: Don't eat the yellow snow[/p][/quote]No snow this year[/p][/quote]Yet! Howard Cháse

2:22pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Reginald47 says...

You'dfeelbetterforkn
owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
[quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change. Reginald47

2:43pm Fri 14 Feb 14

sandgronun64 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn

owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself!
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.[/p][/quote]The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself! sandgronun64

2:58pm Fri 14 Feb 14

You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat says...

Reginald47 wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn

owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
Well those official announcements are Government vetted, they wouldn't want to tell the nation the horrid truth would they, after all do you really think, the Government would host COBRA meetings, for a rain shower.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.[/p][/quote]Well those official announcements are Government vetted, they wouldn't want to tell the nation the horrid truth would they, after all do you really think, the Government would host COBRA meetings, for a rain shower. You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat

4:24pm Fri 14 Feb 14

sKorch says...

Its laughable,
about 10 years ago (August 2003) we had the highest ever recorded temperature in Britain (over 100F) and the "experts" warned us of "Global Warming".
The ozone layer was being depleted and the warm air would work its way North, turning the grass brown, stopping animals grazing, and we would all burn.
Now, we have the "experts" telling us its "Climate Change".
The ozone layer was being depleted and the cold air would work its way South, raisingb the sea levels and we will all drown.


PLEEEASE, get a life.

Britain has always had extremes of weather, floods in 2007, coldest in 1895 and 1982 and 1995, hottest in 1875 and 1990 and 2003.

When will these "experts" ever learn???
Its laughable, about 10 years ago (August 2003) we had the highest ever recorded temperature in Britain (over 100F) and the "experts" warned us of "Global Warming". The ozone layer was being depleted and the warm air would work its way North, turning the grass brown, stopping animals grazing, and we would all burn. Now, we have the "experts" telling us its "Climate Change". The ozone layer was being depleted and the cold air would work its way South, raisingb the sea levels and we will all drown. PLEEEASE, get a life. Britain has always had extremes of weather, floods in 2007, coldest in 1895 and 1982 and 1995, hottest in 1875 and 1990 and 2003. When will these "experts" ever learn??? sKorch

4:44pm Fri 14 Feb 14

/@|_|@\ says...

I have to admit I am a little confused and have questioned anthropogenic influences in the climate. However, I was talking to a bloke to whom I'd been introduced. His name was Harry. (I simply knew him a being a physicist and cosmologist.) I had the temerity to question the whole scientific premise of human impact on climate change. He psent some time laying out the science but his final retort was simple: "If there's any doubt -- and there has to be -- then wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution?"

To my later embarrassment, I went to a lecture where he was introduced on stage: "Professor Nobel Laureate Sir Harry Kroto". He discovered "bucky balls" leading to his sharing the Nobel Prize in chemistry. I defer to his insight and perspective.
I have to admit I am a little confused and have questioned anthropogenic influences in the climate. However, I was talking to a bloke to whom I'd been introduced. His name was Harry. (I simply knew him a being a physicist and cosmologist.) I had the temerity to question the whole scientific premise of human impact on climate change. He psent some time laying out the science but his final retort was simple: "If there's any doubt -- and there has to be -- then wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution?" To my later embarrassment, I went to a lecture where he was introduced on stage: "Professor Nobel Laureate Sir Harry Kroto". He discovered "bucky balls" leading to his sharing the Nobel Prize in chemistry. I defer to his insight and perspective. /@|_|@\

5:18pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

Who cares? YAWN!
Who cares? YAWN! Living the La Vida Legra

5:56pm Fri 14 Feb 14

emcee says...

sKorch wrote:
Its laughable,
about 10 years ago (August 2003) we had the highest ever recorded temperature in Britain (over 100F) and the "experts" warned us of "Global Warming".
The ozone layer was being depleted and the warm air would work its way North, turning the grass brown, stopping animals grazing, and we would all burn.
Now, we have the "experts" telling us its "Climate Change".
The ozone layer was being depleted and the cold air would work its way South, raisingb the sea levels and we will all drown.


PLEEEASE, get a life.

Britain has always had extremes of weather, floods in 2007, coldest in 1895 and 1982 and 1995, hottest in 1875 and 1990 and 2003.

When will these "experts" ever learn???
What makes me laugh is the fact that they quote extreme changes in "normal" weather patterns over a tiny period (namely "modern" history) as a detrimental change in climate. It takes thousand of years to form and change climate and it has done so many times in the life of our planet. Most of these periods humans were not even around. Besides, a few periods of weather extremes does not a climate change make.

Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate. If nature wants to do its thing there is nothing we are going to do to stop it once it has started. If, indeed, the climate has started to change then it could have started long before we started spewing out chemicals from mass manufacturing and fuel production/consumpti
on. Nobody in science can tell us it didn't. Still, if this is the case, hold onto your hats because we only have hundreds, if not thousands, of years to adapt, and adapt we will because nature is funny like that.
[quote][p][bold]sKorch[/bold] wrote: Its laughable, about 10 years ago (August 2003) we had the highest ever recorded temperature in Britain (over 100F) and the "experts" warned us of "Global Warming". The ozone layer was being depleted and the warm air would work its way North, turning the grass brown, stopping animals grazing, and we would all burn. Now, we have the "experts" telling us its "Climate Change". The ozone layer was being depleted and the cold air would work its way South, raisingb the sea levels and we will all drown. PLEEEASE, get a life. Britain has always had extremes of weather, floods in 2007, coldest in 1895 and 1982 and 1995, hottest in 1875 and 1990 and 2003. When will these "experts" ever learn???[/p][/quote]What makes me laugh is the fact that they quote extreme changes in "normal" weather patterns over a tiny period (namely "modern" history) as a detrimental change in climate. It takes thousand of years to form and change climate and it has done so many times in the life of our planet. Most of these periods humans were not even around. Besides, a few periods of weather extremes does not a climate change make. Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate. If nature wants to do its thing there is nothing we are going to do to stop it once it has started. If, indeed, the climate has started to change then it could have started long before we started spewing out chemicals from mass manufacturing and fuel production/consumpti on. Nobody in science can tell us it didn't. Still, if this is the case, hold onto your hats because we only have hundreds, if not thousands, of years to adapt, and adapt we will because nature is funny like that. emcee

9:21pm Fri 14 Feb 14

/@|_|@\ says...

Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
Who cares? YAWN!
To you and emcee -- Those of you who insist on sticking your head in the sand are condemning my children and in turn, their progeny to a hellish problem and I care and they are who matters! Not your uninformed selves. You could suffer for all I care (and I don't) but your stupidity condemns others to the consequences.

The arrogance of someone who says "Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate." is someone who refuses to read and understand the science that proves human influence to our climate and overall environmental systems. That shows either reprehensible ignorance or willful stupidity. In your cases, maybe both?
[quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: Who cares? YAWN![/p][/quote]To you and emcee -- Those of you who insist on sticking your head in the sand are condemning my children and in turn, their progeny to a hellish problem and I care and they are who matters! Not your uninformed selves. You could suffer for all I care (and I don't) but your stupidity condemns others to the consequences. The arrogance of someone who says "Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate." is someone who refuses to read and understand the science that proves human influence to our climate and overall environmental systems. That shows either reprehensible ignorance or willful stupidity. In your cases, maybe both? /@|_|@\

9:21pm Fri 14 Feb 14

pierre-pierre says...

Going back along while

I was at the Brussels World Fair in August 1958, it was steaming hot, BUT the railway line in Leigh got washed away
Going back along while I was at the Brussels World Fair in August 1958, it was steaming hot, BUT the railway line in Leigh got washed away pierre-pierre

9:42pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Almeda11 says...

/@|_|@\ wrote:
I have to admit I am a little confused and have questioned anthropogenic influences in the climate. However, I was talking to a bloke to whom I'd been introduced. His name was Harry. (I simply knew him a being a physicist and cosmologist.) I had the temerity to question the whole scientific premise of human impact on climate change. He psent some time laying out the science but his final retort was simple: "If there's any doubt -- and there has to be -- then wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution?" To my later embarrassment, I went to a lecture where he was introduced on stage: "Professor Nobel Laureate Sir Harry Kroto". He discovered "bucky balls" leading to his sharing the Nobel Prize in chemistry. I defer to his insight and perspective.
l completely agree with your comments. l have been doing my own research too and many scientists seem to be of the view that global warming, the ozone layer,greenhouse gases, ect are mainly to blame for climate change,and l would certainly be inclined to believe the views of highly qualified people any day over a bunch of unqualified know it alls,, who`s answer is what exactly?
[quote][p][bold]/@|_|@\[/bold] wrote: I have to admit I am a little confused and have questioned anthropogenic influences in the climate. However, I was talking to a bloke to whom I'd been introduced. His name was Harry. (I simply knew him a being a physicist and cosmologist.) I had the temerity to question the whole scientific premise of human impact on climate change. He psent some time laying out the science but his final retort was simple: "If there's any doubt -- and there has to be -- then wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution?" To my later embarrassment, I went to a lecture where he was introduced on stage: "Professor Nobel Laureate Sir Harry Kroto". He discovered "bucky balls" leading to his sharing the Nobel Prize in chemistry. I defer to his insight and perspective.[/p][/quote]l completely agree with your comments. l have been doing my own research too and many scientists seem to be of the view that global warming, the ozone layer,greenhouse gases, ect are mainly to blame for climate change,and l would certainly be inclined to believe the views of highly qualified people any day over a bunch of unqualified know it alls,, who`s answer is what exactly? Almeda11

10:10pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Almeda11 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
" Even one" says that, wow! but there are many more scientists where the consensus is that at least 3/4 of climate change is man made, even in the respected journal " Nature" they concede that.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.[/p][/quote]" Even one" says that, wow! but there are many more scientists where the consensus is that at least 3/4 of climate change is man made, even in the respected journal " Nature" they concede that. Almeda11

10:45pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

Ian P wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn

owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Do write science fiction stories for a living, or just publish occasionally on the Echo Website?
never heard so much twaddle in my life.

You obviously read all this cr@p and fully believe it.

Try doing some research. Like reading The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Then perhaps you will realise what a prize turnip you really are. As Ian says, this is all sci fi and you've fallen for it.

As usual.

Gullible isn't the word.
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Do write science fiction stories for a living, or just publish occasionally on the Echo Website?[/p][/quote]never heard so much twaddle in my life. You obviously read all this cr@p and fully believe it. Try doing some research. Like reading The Great Global Warming Swindle. Then perhaps you will realise what a prize turnip you really are. As Ian says, this is all sci fi and you've fallen for it. As usual. Gullible isn't the word. Kim Gandy

10:46pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

sKorch wrote:
Its laughable,
about 10 years ago (August 2003) we had the highest ever recorded temperature in Britain (over 100F) and the "experts" warned us of "Global Warming".
The ozone layer was being depleted and the warm air would work its way North, turning the grass brown, stopping animals grazing, and we would all burn.
Now, we have the "experts" telling us its "Climate Change".
The ozone layer was being depleted and the cold air would work its way South, raisingb the sea levels and we will all drown.


PLEEEASE, get a life.

Britain has always had extremes of weather, floods in 2007, coldest in 1895 and 1982 and 1995, hottest in 1875 and 1990 and 2003.

When will these "experts" ever learn???
Somebody with common sense at last.
[quote][p][bold]sKorch[/bold] wrote: Its laughable, about 10 years ago (August 2003) we had the highest ever recorded temperature in Britain (over 100F) and the "experts" warned us of "Global Warming". The ozone layer was being depleted and the warm air would work its way North, turning the grass brown, stopping animals grazing, and we would all burn. Now, we have the "experts" telling us its "Climate Change". The ozone layer was being depleted and the cold air would work its way South, raisingb the sea levels and we will all drown. PLEEEASE, get a life. Britain has always had extremes of weather, floods in 2007, coldest in 1895 and 1982 and 1995, hottest in 1875 and 1990 and 2003. When will these "experts" ever learn???[/p][/quote]Somebody with common sense at last. Kim Gandy

10:47pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

sandgronun64 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn


owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself!
He's right.

It is absolute rubbish. Utter twaddle.

Do you believe the moon is made of cheese too?
[quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.[/p][/quote]The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself![/p][/quote]He's right. It is absolute rubbish. Utter twaddle. Do you believe the moon is made of cheese too? Kim Gandy

11:03pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Reginald47 says...

Almeda11 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
" Even one" says that, wow! but there are many more scientists where the consensus is that at least 3/4 of climate change is man made, even in the respected journal " Nature" they concede that.
The man on the radio was the leading climate change scientist in the country representing his colleagues.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.[/p][/quote]" Even one" says that, wow! but there are many more scientists where the consensus is that at least 3/4 of climate change is man made, even in the respected journal " Nature" they concede that.[/p][/quote]The man on the radio was the leading climate change scientist in the country representing his colleagues. Reginald47

11:05pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

/@|_|@\ wrote:
Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
Who cares? YAWN!
To you and emcee -- Those of you who insist on sticking your head in the sand are condemning my children and in turn, their progeny to a hellish problem and I care and they are who matters! Not your uninformed selves. You could suffer for all I care (and I don't) but your stupidity condemns others to the consequences.

The arrogance of someone who says "Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate." is someone who refuses to read and understand the science that proves human influence to our climate and overall environmental systems. That shows either reprehensible ignorance or willful stupidity. In your cases, maybe both?
oh dear, put your doh-doh back in. You lefties take yourselves far too seriously and see yourselves as moral guardians of the planet as well as everybody else.

Do some research instead of seeing things all one sided.

I too yawn, every time I hear one of you planet saving do gooders start blithering on about climate change.

It has happened for millennia and will continue so to do. It is NOTHING to do with what man does.

Years ago, barmy scientists were trying to blame it on cow f@rts and McDonalds wrappers. Then they said there was a hole in the ozone layer.

All utter garbage.

Try reading The Great Global Warming Swindle instead of listening to all the hand wringing scaremongering soap dodgers.
[quote][p][bold]/@|_|@\[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: Who cares? YAWN![/p][/quote]To you and emcee -- Those of you who insist on sticking your head in the sand are condemning my children and in turn, their progeny to a hellish problem and I care and they are who matters! Not your uninformed selves. You could suffer for all I care (and I don't) but your stupidity condemns others to the consequences. The arrogance of someone who says "Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate." is someone who refuses to read and understand the science that proves human influence to our climate and overall environmental systems. That shows either reprehensible ignorance or willful stupidity. In your cases, maybe both?[/p][/quote]oh dear, put your doh-doh back in. You lefties take yourselves far too seriously and see yourselves as moral guardians of the planet as well as everybody else. Do some research instead of seeing things all one sided. I too yawn, every time I hear one of you planet saving do gooders start blithering on about climate change. It has happened for millennia and will continue so to do. It is NOTHING to do with what man does. Years ago, barmy scientists were trying to blame it on cow f@rts and McDonalds wrappers. Then they said there was a hole in the ozone layer. All utter garbage. Try reading The Great Global Warming Swindle instead of listening to all the hand wringing scaremongering soap dodgers. Kim Gandy

11:34pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Chris Flunk says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
/@|_|@\ wrote:
Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
Who cares? YAWN!
To you and emcee -- Those of you who insist on sticking your head in the sand are condemning my children and in turn, their progeny to a hellish problem and I care and they are who matters! Not your uninformed selves. You could suffer for all I care (and I don't) but your stupidity condemns others to the consequences.

The arrogance of someone who says "Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate." is someone who refuses to read and understand the science that proves human influence to our climate and overall environmental systems. That shows either reprehensible ignorance or willful stupidity. In your cases, maybe both?
oh dear, put your doh-doh back in. You lefties take yourselves far too seriously and see yourselves as moral guardians of the planet as well as everybody else.

Do some research instead of seeing things all one sided.

I too yawn, every time I hear one of you planet saving do gooders start blithering on about climate change.

It has happened for millennia and will continue so to do. It is NOTHING to do with what man does.

Years ago, barmy scientists were trying to blame it on cow f@rts and McDonalds wrappers. Then they said there was a hole in the ozone layer.

All utter garbage.

Try reading The Great Global Warming Swindle instead of listening to all the hand wringing scaremongering soap dodgers.
Kim, I asked you this on another thread and you declined to respond. Here's another chance:

I don't think the term 'Global Warming' is really credible any more, although not in the way you think. Climate change is a much more appropriate term and it is happening whether you like it or not.

You keep making reference to Booker's sceptic's bible but I've never seen you propose any credible argument against climate change as a result of mankind's activity. Have you even read it? You seem to be disclaiming a hypothesis that is accepted by the scientific majority without providing evidence to the contrary.

What do you propose to be the source of the rapidly elevating levels of CO2 in our atmosphere? I would also love to hear your argument against ozone depletion. I could do with a laugh.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]/@|_|@\[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: Who cares? YAWN![/p][/quote]To you and emcee -- Those of you who insist on sticking your head in the sand are condemning my children and in turn, their progeny to a hellish problem and I care and they are who matters! Not your uninformed selves. You could suffer for all I care (and I don't) but your stupidity condemns others to the consequences. The arrogance of someone who says "Why does the human race think we are that it is so important and powerful to be able to change climate." is someone who refuses to read and understand the science that proves human influence to our climate and overall environmental systems. That shows either reprehensible ignorance or willful stupidity. In your cases, maybe both?[/p][/quote]oh dear, put your doh-doh back in. You lefties take yourselves far too seriously and see yourselves as moral guardians of the planet as well as everybody else. Do some research instead of seeing things all one sided. I too yawn, every time I hear one of you planet saving do gooders start blithering on about climate change. It has happened for millennia and will continue so to do. It is NOTHING to do with what man does. Years ago, barmy scientists were trying to blame it on cow f@rts and McDonalds wrappers. Then they said there was a hole in the ozone layer. All utter garbage. Try reading The Great Global Warming Swindle instead of listening to all the hand wringing scaremongering soap dodgers.[/p][/quote]Kim, I asked you this on another thread and you declined to respond. Here's another chance: I don't think the term 'Global Warming' is really credible any more, although not in the way you think. Climate change is a much more appropriate term and it is happening whether you like it or not. You keep making reference to Booker's sceptic's bible but I've never seen you propose any credible argument against climate change as a result of mankind's activity. Have you even read it? You seem to be disclaiming a hypothesis that is accepted by the scientific majority without providing evidence to the contrary. What do you propose to be the source of the rapidly elevating levels of CO2 in our atmosphere? I would also love to hear your argument against ozone depletion. I could do with a laugh. Chris Flunk

11:58pm Fri 14 Feb 14

sandgronun64 says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
sandgronun64 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself!
He's right. It is absolute rubbish. Utter twaddle. Do you believe the moon is made of cheese too?
No. But, your typically vacuous arguement; cheesy and lacking any factual basis is really refreshing. By the way, are you a creationist? You sound like someone that hopes for a favourable outcome rather than one that prefers evidence! LOL.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.[/p][/quote]The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself![/p][/quote]He's right. It is absolute rubbish. Utter twaddle. Do you believe the moon is made of cheese too?[/p][/quote]No. But, your typically vacuous arguement; cheesy and lacking any factual basis is really refreshing. By the way, are you a creationist? You sound like someone that hopes for a favourable outcome rather than one that prefers evidence! LOL. sandgronun64

11:19am Sat 15 Feb 14

bloke down the pub says...

Hold on the sun just come out. Essex water has just announced a hosepipe ban.
Hold on the sun just come out. Essex water has just announced a hosepipe ban. bloke down the pub

12:48pm Sat 15 Feb 14

maddriver says...

Big Job 1984 wrote:
I quite like the idea of the Leigh line flooding... with the amount of stabbings/muggings/a
ttacks happening in chalkwell, westcliff and southend. I say cut the lot of them off and push them out to sea and make it a safer Essex for us all! While were at it give canvey a shove too!
I am sure those people would enjoy getting away from a troll like you.
[quote][p][bold]Big Job 1984[/bold] wrote: I quite like the idea of the Leigh line flooding... with the amount of stabbings/muggings/a ttacks happening in chalkwell, westcliff and southend. I say cut the lot of them off and push them out to sea and make it a safer Essex for us all! While were at it give canvey a shove too![/p][/quote]I am sure those people would enjoy getting away from a troll like you. maddriver

2:29pm Sat 15 Feb 14

You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
sandgronun64 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
You'dfeelbetterforkn



owingthat
wrote:
All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..
Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.
The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself!
He's right.

It is absolute rubbish. Utter twaddle.

Do you believe the moon is made of cheese too?
When the flood waters are still there in June and July, will most of you lot be ready to eat your black berets ? as over time I will as often, be proved correct.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: All part of the non reversible damage caused by pollution, think it's bad now? just wait and see, the flooded areas have only had their starters, the main meal is coming. Man has ruined this planet, now we will all realise the costs of green house gases, ozone depletion and the inevitable weather changes. Already we are seeing a shift in the simpler Gulf stream routes, delivering these latest storms, the rain water will in turn affect the salt levels, in our oceans, allows for vast changes in sea temperatures, which in tun will affect the climate..[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish. Even one of the country's leading climate change experts on the radio yesterday was only willing to go as far as 'it is possible that climate change has made the weather slightly worse than it would have been'. And that from a man who believes in man-made climate change.[/p][/quote]The fact that he is an expert does not confer such a status on you though. How can you say then that it is "absolute rubbish?". Physician heal thyself![/p][/quote]He's right. It is absolute rubbish. Utter twaddle. Do you believe the moon is made of cheese too?[/p][/quote]When the flood waters are still there in June and July, will most of you lot be ready to eat your black berets ? as over time I will as often, be proved correct. You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat

12:11am Sun 16 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

maddriver wrote:
Big Job 1984 wrote:
I quite like the idea of the Leigh line flooding... with the amount of stabbings/muggings/a

ttacks happening in chalkwell, westcliff and southend. I say cut the lot of them off and push them out to sea and make it a safer Essex for us all! While were at it give canvey a shove too!
I am sure those people would enjoy getting away from a troll like you.
Oh dear, I did not think it would be long before before some beardy nerd came out with the troll card, it happens all the time, change the record, p l e a s e
[quote][p][bold]maddriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Job 1984[/bold] wrote: I quite like the idea of the Leigh line flooding... with the amount of stabbings/muggings/a ttacks happening in chalkwell, westcliff and southend. I say cut the lot of them off and push them out to sea and make it a safer Essex for us all! While were at it give canvey a shove too![/p][/quote]I am sure those people would enjoy getting away from a troll like you.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, I did not think it would be long before before some beardy nerd came out with the troll card, it happens all the time, change the record, p l e a s e Assimilation

12:48am Sun 16 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago



So folks, here we have it. Climate change or Global warming, by whatever name you wish to use, is coursed by your " Digestion Wind" The answer ? Issue every human being with a butt plug. Simples.



Now all you boffins out there, who seem to know it all, answer this one.



We are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.



If this is right how could man made pollution over the last 150 years have done so much damage to climate, when we are still in an ice age that started 2.6 million years ago?

An ice age that has lasted 2.6 million years, but man has destroyed the planet in 150 years. Not bad going!
A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago So folks, here we have it. Climate change or Global warming, by whatever name you wish to use, is coursed by your " Digestion Wind" The answer ? Issue every human being with a butt plug. Simples. Now all you boffins out there, who seem to know it all, answer this one. We are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. If this is right how could man made pollution over the last 150 years have done so much damage to climate, when we are still in an ice age that started 2.6 million years ago? An ice age that has lasted 2.6 million years, but man has destroyed the planet in 150 years. Not bad going! Assimilation

10:06am Sun 16 Feb 14

Chris Flunk says...

Assimilation wrote:
A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago



So folks, here we have it. Climate change or Global warming, by whatever name you wish to use, is coursed by your " Digestion Wind" The answer ? Issue every human being with a butt plug. Simples.



Now all you boffins out there, who seem to know it all, answer this one.



We are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.



If this is right how could man made pollution over the last 150 years have done so much damage to climate, when we are still in an ice age that started 2.6 million years ago?

An ice age that has lasted 2.6 million years, but man has destroyed the planet in 150 years. Not bad going!
I don't really see what your point is. Yes, we are technically in an inter-glacial period of an ice age. That doesn't change the fact that releasing 35,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year could result in the climate changing faster than anything previously observed short of the most major catastrophic events.

The link between atmospheric CO2 and climate is well documented. The rise in CO2 levels since the start of the industrial revolution is well documented. The warming of our climate is also well documented. 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in this century.

The ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere shows us that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Do you think that releasing that much previously stored CO2 into the atmosphere and completely overwhelming the natural carbon cycle will come without any consequences?
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago So folks, here we have it. Climate change or Global warming, by whatever name you wish to use, is coursed by your " Digestion Wind" The answer ? Issue every human being with a butt plug. Simples. Now all you boffins out there, who seem to know it all, answer this one. We are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. If this is right how could man made pollution over the last 150 years have done so much damage to climate, when we are still in an ice age that started 2.6 million years ago? An ice age that has lasted 2.6 million years, but man has destroyed the planet in 150 years. Not bad going![/p][/quote]I don't really see what your point is. Yes, we are technically in an inter-glacial period of an ice age. That doesn't change the fact that releasing 35,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year could result in the climate changing faster than anything previously observed short of the most major catastrophic events. The link between atmospheric CO2 and climate is well documented. The rise in CO2 levels since the start of the industrial revolution is well documented. The warming of our climate is also well documented. 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in this century. The ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere shows us that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Do you think that releasing that much previously stored CO2 into the atmosphere and completely overwhelming the natural carbon cycle will come without any consequences? Chris Flunk

2:57pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

What a load of clap-trap you talk. What you are saying is, what man has put into the atmosphere in the last, say, two hundred years, is more than what has happened since the earth began up until then? Fires have been raging on this planet from the beginning, whether it be from natural happenings like lightning, volcanoes or heat from the sun. But you people are saying it is all our doing from the last two hundred years??

Do you now want us to now go back to year zero, and stop burning fossil fuels? Tell that to the bearded, anorak greenies that want us to rip out all our gas and oil fired central heating and install wood burners (That going to help, NOT) If so, then the only way forward is nuclear energy, clean, safe (In the right hands) and it would provide all the worlds power for ever.
What a load of clap-trap you talk. What you are saying is, what man has put into the atmosphere in the last, say, two hundred years, is more than what has happened since the earth began up until then? Fires have been raging on this planet from the beginning, whether it be from natural happenings like lightning, volcanoes or heat from the sun. But you people are saying it is all our doing from the last two hundred years?? Do you now want us to now go back to year zero, and stop burning fossil fuels? Tell that to the bearded, anorak greenies that want us to rip out all our gas and oil fired central heating and install wood burners (That going to help, NOT) If so, then the only way forward is nuclear energy, clean, safe (In the right hands) and it would provide all the worlds power for ever. Assimilation

3:47pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire. Assimilation

5:06pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Chris Flunk says...

Assimilation wrote:
What a load of clap-trap you talk. What you are saying is, what man has put into the atmosphere in the last, say, two hundred years, is more than what has happened since the earth began up until then? Fires have been raging on this planet from the beginning, whether it be from natural happenings like lightning, volcanoes or heat from the sun. But you people are saying it is all our doing from the last two hundred years??

Do you now want us to now go back to year zero, and stop burning fossil fuels? Tell that to the bearded, anorak greenies that want us to rip out all our gas and oil fired central heating and install wood burners (That going to help, NOT) If so, then the only way forward is nuclear energy, clean, safe (In the right hands) and it would provide all the worlds power for ever.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What you need to grasp is that there is a natural carbon cycle. To break it down for you; Carbon is stored in one of 5 major reservoirs. The atmosphere, the biosphere, the oceans, the sediments and the Earth's interior. Carbon is exchanged between these various reservoirs by natural processes like photosynthesis in plants and plankton, respiration, dissolution into rain or oceans, absorption by rocks through weathering, decay, sedimentation, geological activity like subduction and volcanism etc. These are all natural processes which have remained largely balanced over millennia.

Because humans extract carbon from the natural storage of fossil fuels and peat bogs and release it directly into the atmosphere through combustion we have altered the balance of these carbon reservoirs. We are releasing carbon directly into the atmosphere from geological reservoirs at a faster rate than can be absorbed from the atmosphere by these natural processes.

No one is proposing we go directly back to "year zero" but more that we should consider action to redress the balance. This could done in all sorts of ways. As an example, more responsible and efficient energy consumption, use of renewable resources, nuclear power (hopefully one day soon we can harness the power of fusion) or various methods of carbon capture.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: What a load of clap-trap you talk. What you are saying is, what man has put into the atmosphere in the last, say, two hundred years, is more than what has happened since the earth began up until then? Fires have been raging on this planet from the beginning, whether it be from natural happenings like lightning, volcanoes or heat from the sun. But you people are saying it is all our doing from the last two hundred years?? Do you now want us to now go back to year zero, and stop burning fossil fuels? Tell that to the bearded, anorak greenies that want us to rip out all our gas and oil fired central heating and install wood burners (That going to help, NOT) If so, then the only way forward is nuclear energy, clean, safe (In the right hands) and it would provide all the worlds power for ever.[/p][/quote]No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What you need to grasp is that there is a natural carbon cycle. To break it down for you; Carbon is stored in one of 5 major reservoirs. The atmosphere, the biosphere, the oceans, the sediments and the Earth's interior. Carbon is exchanged between these various reservoirs by natural processes like photosynthesis in plants and plankton, respiration, dissolution into rain or oceans, absorption by rocks through weathering, decay, sedimentation, geological activity like subduction and volcanism etc. These are all natural processes which have remained largely balanced over millennia. Because humans extract carbon from the natural storage of fossil fuels and peat bogs and release it directly into the atmosphere through combustion we have altered the balance of these carbon reservoirs. We are releasing carbon directly into the atmosphere from geological reservoirs at a faster rate than can be absorbed from the atmosphere by these natural processes. No one is proposing we go directly back to "year zero" but more that we should consider action to redress the balance. This could done in all sorts of ways. As an example, more responsible and efficient energy consumption, use of renewable resources, nuclear power (hopefully one day soon we can harness the power of fusion) or various methods of carbon capture. Chris Flunk

5:09pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Chris Flunk says...

Assimilation wrote:
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light"

Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.[/p][/quote]"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light" Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic. Chris Flunk

1:07am Mon 17 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light"

Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.
Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ?

And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring.

Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ?

Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic

Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.
[quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.[/p][/quote]"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light" Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.[/p][/quote]Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ? And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring. Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ? Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine. Assimilation

9:54am Mon 17 Feb 14

Chris Flunk says...

Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light"

Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.
Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ?

And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring.

Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ?

Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic

Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.
No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy.

What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon.

One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.[/p][/quote]"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light" Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.[/p][/quote]Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ? And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring. Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ? Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.[/p][/quote]No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy. What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon. One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue. Chris Flunk

5:31pm Mon 17 Feb 14

/@|_|@\ says...

Thank you Chris Funk for your measured and informed comments. Sadly, as in those that would propound creationism (I'm being polite for its rarely put forward as something to consider), no amount of rational argument will persuade them that their belief is a fallacy based on exactly that: faith. Whereas one needn't have faith to belief in anthropogenic climate change as the facts bear out the "theory".

(Yup, I am baiting the science luddites out there!)
Thank you Chris Funk for your measured and informed comments. Sadly, as in those that would propound creationism (I'm being polite for its rarely put forward as something to consider), no amount of rational argument will persuade them that their belief is a fallacy based on exactly that: faith. Whereas one needn't have faith to belief in anthropogenic climate change as the facts bear out the "theory". (Yup, I am baiting the science luddites out there!) /@|_|@\

10:08pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light"

Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.
Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ?

And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring.

Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ?

Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic

Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.
No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy.

What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon.

One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.
There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source.

Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free.

If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it.

And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change.

Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along.
[quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.[/p][/quote]"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light" Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.[/p][/quote]Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ? And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring. Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ? Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.[/p][/quote]No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy. What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon. One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.[/p][/quote]There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source. Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free. If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it. And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change. Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along. Assimilation

9:29am Tue 18 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light"

Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.
Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ?

And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring.

Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ?

Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic

Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.
No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy.

What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon.

One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.
There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source.

Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free.

If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it.

And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change.

Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along.
Please where do I sign up for an 'eclectic' powered car? They must be so environmentally friendly... as for Nuclear, can we use your back garden to bury the high level radioactive waste for the next 20,000 years? Because I sure as heck don't want it in mine!
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.[/p][/quote]"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light" Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.[/p][/quote]Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ? And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring. Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ? Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.[/p][/quote]No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy. What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon. One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.[/p][/quote]There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source. Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free. If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it. And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change. Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along.[/p][/quote]Please where do I sign up for an 'eclectic' powered car? They must be so environmentally friendly... as for Nuclear, can we use your back garden to bury the high level radioactive waste for the next 20,000 years? Because I sure as heck don't want it in mine! Catchedicam

12:24pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Chris Flunk says...

Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light"

Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.
Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ?

And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring.

Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ?

Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic

Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.
No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy.

What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon.

One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.
There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source.

Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free.

If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it.

And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change.

Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along.
I don't like to copy and paste chunks of material but I don't know how else to explain this to you. The International Energy Agency definition is:

Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources.

End of debate. That is what it is. That right there /\ /\ /\.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.[/p][/quote]"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light" Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.[/p][/quote]Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ? And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring. Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ? Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.[/p][/quote]No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy. What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon. One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.[/p][/quote]There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source. Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free. If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it. And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change. Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along.[/p][/quote]I don't like to copy and paste chunks of material but I don't know how else to explain this to you. The International Energy Agency definition is: Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources. End of debate. That is what it is. That right there /\ /\ /\. Chris Flunk

2:04pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Chris Flunk wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.
"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light"

Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.
Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ?

And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring.

Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ?

Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic

Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.
No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy.

What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon.

One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.
There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source.

Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free.

If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it.

And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change.

Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along.
I don't like to copy and paste chunks of material but I don't know how else to explain this to you. The International Energy Agency definition is:

Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources.

End of debate. That is what it is. That right there /\ /\ /\.
OK what ever, have it your way. But it still does not alter the fact that all those recourse are free to all, but will it be any cheaper for the consumer ? You bet it wont. It will be like the Dartford bridge saga..."You will have to pay till we have recouped the cost of building it, then it will be free" Like monkeys it is and it will be the same with the power that they are going to generate, the only difference is it will keep getting dearer creating more fuel poverty while they are getting richer. And if you combine all the "RENEWABLE" power sources I doubt it would still not be enough to cater for demand, because like I have said they will only work efficiently part of the time.

Enough of this, its like banging ones head against a brick wall. Hang on a minute, that would in theory generate enough heat to boil a kettle. Time for a cup of tea.
[quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Flunk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: And while we are on the subject of fuels. I don't want to hear about so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light. Wind farms and solar farms are just a money making con.Turbine's wont work if there is no, or too much wind, solar panels will not work without sun light. And all we hear is how many homes they will power, we dont want to hear that, we want to know how much cheaper it will be, after all, wind and sun light is FREE. What will we expect on future weather news bulletin's, sorry folks, you will have no power today, it`s cloudy and there is no wind, but never mind, throw another log on the fire.[/p][/quote]"so called renewable fuels, there are no such thing, you cant renew wind or sun light" Are you honestly saying that if we have too many wind turbines, we'll run out of wind? Or if we have too many solar farms we'll run out of sunlight? Classic.[/p][/quote]Did I actually say that, I do not believe I did reading back, I am stating what has already been said by the powers that be. That if there is no wind then the turbines will not turn, not rocket science that bit, but if the wind is a little bit to strong they have to be stopped. Also solar panels will only be efficient in direct sun light, which means that on cloudy days instead of powering 100% of homes, they will only be able to power maybe 25%. Still classic ? And I stand by my last post,There is no such thing as renewable energy. What they mean is they are harnessing spent energy like what has been done for years. Mill and factory water wheels, corn grinding windmills and the suns heat for green houses. They are just renewing their ideas to make us think they are actually doing something to make them look caring. Things cannot be that bad, take the Thames. Back in the 60/70s it was nothing more that a sewage filled ditch, discoloured, stinking and froth covered and the cities were thick with smog. The river is now teeming with life and smog is non existent. Still classic ? Green taxes are also a con, do they actually use this tax to help combat "Climate change" ?. Not so classic Anyway, enough of this, you have your way of thinking, I have mine.[/p][/quote]No one has ever suggested that we utilise a single form of renewable energy. Our energy needs must be met by a combination of traditional and renewable sources as they are today. There are also more reliable forms of renewable energy like tidal power. The proposed tidal power plant at Swansea will generate enough clean energy to power 120,000 homes. Add to this the fact that energy can be stored and provided to the grid on demand and you might start to get a picture of how we can keep the lights on when it's not windy. What I really don't understand is why you can't accept that these are renewable forms of energy. We will eventually run out of viable sources of coal, oil and gas. There's a finite amount that can be extracted but the tides are not going to stop, the sun isn't going to give out any time soon. One last point, while it's great that we've cleaned up our rivers and have reduced smoke and sulphur emissions (that cause smog) that's only a step in the right direction. You can't see methane or CO2, it's not as obvious as poisoned rivers and smog, that doesn't make it any less of an issue.[/p][/quote]There you go again,renewable energy, the wind, sun and tides are not renewable. When the wind has blown, it`s gone and you have to wait for the next gust. When the sun shines, it`s gone and replaced on a continuous basis. When the semi-diurnal tides happen you have to wait for the next semi-diurnal tides, you can not renew any of the above. Even a rechargeable battery is not renewable, you just replace the power from another source. Like I said, people are not interested in how many homes these things will power, but how much cheaper. After all the sun, wind and sea are all free. If everybody went out and bought an eclectic powered vehicle tomorrow it would not help one little bit, because it would mean the the power suppliers would have to work twice as hard, if not more, to keep up with demand and in turn would be burning more fossil fuel to supply it. And, why does this Country think that so called leading the way, is in anyway going to change other Countries thinking into following or changing? The far east does not give a monkeys about climate change. Nuclear power is the way, and the future, until something better comes along.[/p][/quote]I don't like to copy and paste chunks of material but I don't know how else to explain this to you. The International Energy Agency definition is: Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources. End of debate. That is what it is. That right there /\ /\ /\.[/p][/quote]OK what ever, have it your way. But it still does not alter the fact that all those recourse are free to all, but will it be any cheaper for the consumer ? You bet it wont. It will be like the Dartford bridge saga..."You will have to pay till we have recouped the cost of building it, then it will be free" Like monkeys it is and it will be the same with the power that they are going to generate, the only difference is it will keep getting dearer creating more fuel poverty while they are getting richer. And if you combine all the "RENEWABLE" power sources I doubt it would still not be enough to cater for demand, because like I have said they will only work efficiently part of the time. Enough of this, its like banging ones head against a brick wall. Hang on a minute, that would in theory generate enough heat to boil a kettle. Time for a cup of tea. Assimilation

4:09pm Tue 18 Feb 14

/@|_|@\ says...

^^^ It would also remove from the argument (it's hardly a debate) one more "denier" and that's one up for the rest of the world! Yaaaay!
^^^ It would also remove from the argument (it's hardly a debate) one more "denier" and that's one up for the rest of the world! Yaaaay! /@|_|@\

8:47pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

/@|_|@\ wrote:
^^^ It would also remove from the argument (it's hardly a debate) one more "denier" and that's one up for the rest of the world! Yaaaay!
At least I am not in self-denial. Wind, sun and sea, bring it all on that's what I say, we could even kit out cows with big rubber bags on their backs with tubes inserted into their rears. (like the taxi's had in the last world war, but in reverse). And we could then use their renewable energy. You self righteous greens will be eating your words in the future. Even the government has come to their senses and admitted that the giant windmills are a waist of time and money and will not be of any use. And in America the solar farms are frying any bird that fly over them from the increased heat from the reflection, but they have quoted that what little power they generate is worth the destruction of nature.

Oh happy days
[quote][p][bold]/@|_|@\[/bold] wrote: ^^^ It would also remove from the argument (it's hardly a debate) one more "denier" and that's one up for the rest of the world! Yaaaay![/p][/quote]At least I am not in self-denial. Wind, sun and sea, bring it all on that's what I say, we could even kit out cows with big rubber bags on their backs with tubes inserted into their rears. (like the taxi's had in the last world war, but in reverse). And we could then use their renewable energy. You self righteous greens will be eating your words in the future. Even the government has come to their senses and admitted that the giant windmills are a waist of time and money and will not be of any use. And in America the solar farms are frying any bird that fly over them from the increased heat from the reflection, but they have quoted that what little power they generate is worth the destruction of nature. Oh happy days Assimilation

8:51pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

Assimilation wrote:
/@|_|@\ wrote:
^^^ It would also remove from the argument (it's hardly a debate) one more "denier" and that's one up for the rest of the world! Yaaaay!
At least I am not in self-denial. Wind, sun and sea, bring it all on that's what I say, we could even kit out cows with big rubber bags on their backs with tubes inserted into their rears. (like the taxi's had in the last world war, but in reverse). And we could then use their renewable energy. You self righteous greens will be eating your words in the future. Even the government has come to their senses and admitted that the giant windmills are a waist of time and money and will not be of any use. And in America the solar farms are frying any bird that fly over them from the increased heat from the reflection, but they have quoted that what little power they generate is worth the destruction of nature.

Oh happy days
Yet another uneducated individual pontificating on a subject that they clearly do not understand, are you really Owen Patterson trolling on here? If not there is clearly a place for you in the conservative party. Thankfully ignorant people like you are in a minority.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]/@|_|@\[/bold] wrote: ^^^ It would also remove from the argument (it's hardly a debate) one more "denier" and that's one up for the rest of the world! Yaaaay![/p][/quote]At least I am not in self-denial. Wind, sun and sea, bring it all on that's what I say, we could even kit out cows with big rubber bags on their backs with tubes inserted into their rears. (like the taxi's had in the last world war, but in reverse). And we could then use their renewable energy. You self righteous greens will be eating your words in the future. Even the government has come to their senses and admitted that the giant windmills are a waist of time and money and will not be of any use. And in America the solar farms are frying any bird that fly over them from the increased heat from the reflection, but they have quoted that what little power they generate is worth the destruction of nature. Oh happy days[/p][/quote]Yet another uneducated individual pontificating on a subject that they clearly do not understand, are you really Owen Patterson trolling on here? If not there is clearly a place for you in the conservative party. Thankfully ignorant people like you are in a minority. Catchedicam

11:05pm Tue 18 Feb 14

sandgronun64 says...

Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL.

Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates.

If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...
Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL. Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates. If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ... sandgronun64

11:48pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

sandgronun64 wrote:
Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL.

Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates.

If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...
Catchedicam......Wha
t on this earth do you think you are ? Do not judge everyone by your very low standards or mentality,and clearly people like me, as you state "are in the minority" well and truly gets your back up! Good you need waking up as there are others out there who believe what they believe, like you believe what you do. Do not drag others down to your level.

sandgronun64......Yo
u be very careful there or you are going to end up with a very bad case of verbal diarrhoea. I think you have the symptoms already.

But, all you so called intellectuals on here who keep tell others they don't know what their talking about still have not answered the big question. How much more are people going to have to pay for all this abundant power? And you my learned non friend, can not put a post on here without using one of the three easy way out words, just because you are not getting your own way. That goes to show what your mentality and intellect is really like. I will repeat one of my other requests and ask yet again, are you calling me a dwarf or a giant ? Look it up like you have with your other big words. But be careful with your answer or it could be deemed as offencive.
[quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL. Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates. If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...[/p][/quote]Catchedicam......Wha t on this earth do you think you are ? Do not judge everyone by your very low standards or mentality,and clearly people like me, as you state "are in the minority" well and truly gets your back up! Good you need waking up as there are others out there who believe what they believe, like you believe what you do. Do not drag others down to your level. sandgronun64......Yo u be very careful there or you are going to end up with a very bad case of verbal diarrhoea. I think you have the symptoms already. But, all you so called intellectuals on here who keep tell others they don't know what their talking about still have not answered the big question. How much more are people going to have to pay for all this abundant power? And you my learned non friend, can not put a post on here without using one of the three easy way out words, just because you are not getting your own way. That goes to show what your mentality and intellect is really like. I will repeat one of my other requests and ask yet again, are you calling me a dwarf or a giant ? Look it up like you have with your other big words. But be careful with your answer or it could be deemed as offencive. Assimilation

11:59pm Tue 18 Feb 14

sandgronun64 says...

See what I mean?
See what I mean? sandgronun64

9:40am Wed 19 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

Assimilation wrote:
sandgronun64 wrote:
Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL.

Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates.

If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...
Catchedicam......Wha

t on this earth do you think you are ? Do not judge everyone by your very low standards or mentality,and clearly people like me, as you state "are in the minority" well and truly gets your back up! Good you need waking up as there are others out there who believe what they believe, like you believe what you do. Do not drag others down to your level.

sandgronun64......Yo

u be very careful there or you are going to end up with a very bad case of verbal diarrhoea. I think you have the symptoms already.

But, all you so called intellectuals on here who keep tell others they don't know what their talking about still have not answered the big question. How much more are people going to have to pay for all this abundant power? And you my learned non friend, can not put a post on here without using one of the three easy way out words, just because you are not getting your own way. That goes to show what your mentality and intellect is really like. I will repeat one of my other requests and ask yet again, are you calling me a dwarf or a giant ? Look it up like you have with your other big words. But be careful with your answer or it could be deemed as offencive.
Easy question for you then, as you clearly think you are so clever, and have the answers to the worlds energy problems. How much are you going to pay for your energy when the oil and gas has run out? Also, in the interim how much are you going to pay for your energy as demand from India, China and Brazil grows? Simple economics demonstrates that as demand grows, with limited supply the price will go up. Fortunately people who understand energy markets such as Stern(2006) have identified this issue and those with intelligence are working on potential solutions, best let them get on with it, without interjecting with puerile claptrap.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL. Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates. If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...[/p][/quote]Catchedicam......Wha t on this earth do you think you are ? Do not judge everyone by your very low standards or mentality,and clearly people like me, as you state "are in the minority" well and truly gets your back up! Good you need waking up as there are others out there who believe what they believe, like you believe what you do. Do not drag others down to your level. sandgronun64......Yo u be very careful there or you are going to end up with a very bad case of verbal diarrhoea. I think you have the symptoms already. But, all you so called intellectuals on here who keep tell others they don't know what their talking about still have not answered the big question. How much more are people going to have to pay for all this abundant power? And you my learned non friend, can not put a post on here without using one of the three easy way out words, just because you are not getting your own way. That goes to show what your mentality and intellect is really like. I will repeat one of my other requests and ask yet again, are you calling me a dwarf or a giant ? Look it up like you have with your other big words. But be careful with your answer or it could be deemed as offencive.[/p][/quote]Easy question for you then, as you clearly think you are so clever, and have the answers to the worlds energy problems. How much are you going to pay for your energy when the oil and gas has run out? Also, in the interim how much are you going to pay for your energy as demand from India, China and Brazil grows? Simple economics demonstrates that as demand grows, with limited supply the price will go up. Fortunately people who understand energy markets such as Stern(2006) have identified this issue and those with intelligence are working on potential solutions, best let them get on with it, without interjecting with puerile claptrap. Catchedicam

9:43am Wed 19 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

sandgronun64 wrote:
Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL.

Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates.

If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...
As you say, harvesting the hot air could indeed solve part of our energy problems, and it would appear to be a limitless supply. But it's always fun playing with the intellectually retarded trolls :-)
[quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL. Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates. If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...[/p][/quote]As you say, harvesting the hot air could indeed solve part of our energy problems, and it would appear to be a limitless supply. But it's always fun playing with the intellectually retarded trolls :-) Catchedicam

2:27pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

Catchedicam wrote:
sandgronun64 wrote:
Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL.

Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates.

If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...
As you say, harvesting the hot air could indeed solve part of our energy problems, and it would appear to be a limitless supply. But it's always fun playing with the intellectually retarded trolls :-)
So, you play with yourself or sandgronun64 ? You say...."as demand from India, China and Brazil grows?" ....How much pollution are they going to pump out with world demand ? Or does that not matter to you ? Because it does not matter to them. Why should they worry when there are people like you, who think they can change the world.

Behold, Catchedicam, the next Messiah......All be it he is a discriminating troll himself.
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL. Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates. If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...[/p][/quote]As you say, harvesting the hot air could indeed solve part of our energy problems, and it would appear to be a limitless supply. But it's always fun playing with the intellectually retarded trolls :-)[/p][/quote]So, you play with yourself or sandgronun64 ? You say...."as demand from India, China and Brazil grows?" ....How much pollution are they going to pump out with world demand ? Or does that not matter to you ? Because it does not matter to them. Why should they worry when there are people like you, who think they can change the world. Behold, Catchedicam, the next Messiah......All be it he is a discriminating troll himself. Assimilation

3:26pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

Assimilation wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
sandgronun64 wrote:
Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL.

Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates.

If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...
As you say, harvesting the hot air could indeed solve part of our energy problems, and it would appear to be a limitless supply. But it's always fun playing with the intellectually retarded trolls :-)
So, you play with yourself or sandgronun64 ? You say...."as demand from India, China and Brazil grows?" ....How much pollution are they going to pump out with world demand ? Or does that not matter to you ? Because it does not matter to them. Why should they worry when there are people like you, who think they can change the world.

Behold, Catchedicam, the next Messiah......All be it he is a discriminating troll himself.
Go away and read, (you know that thing with books and research papers etc) about the issue and you will quickly understand that your ignorance on the subject is currently without boundaries. The uneducated always think they know more than those that actually do understand the issues, and no I am not a "messiah" just someone who does understand and is actively doing something about the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: Catchedicam, Chris Flunk, STOP FEEDING THIS B L O O D Y TROLL. Of course he is behaving this irritating and contrary way. It is part of his obviously unfulfilled Machiavellian tendency that life denies but the internet satiates. If only we could harvest the limitless hot air that emanates from said troll ...[/p][/quote]As you say, harvesting the hot air could indeed solve part of our energy problems, and it would appear to be a limitless supply. But it's always fun playing with the intellectually retarded trolls :-)[/p][/quote]So, you play with yourself or sandgronun64 ? You say...."as demand from India, China and Brazil grows?" ....How much pollution are they going to pump out with world demand ? Or does that not matter to you ? Because it does not matter to them. Why should they worry when there are people like you, who think they can change the world. Behold, Catchedicam, the next Messiah......All be it he is a discriminating troll himself.[/p][/quote]Go away and read, (you know that thing with books and research papers etc) about the issue and you will quickly understand that your ignorance on the subject is currently without boundaries. The uneducated always think they know more than those that actually do understand the issues, and no I am not a "messiah" just someone who does understand and is actively doing something about the problem. Catchedicam

10:34pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one?
You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.
Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one? You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on. Assimilation

10:49pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

Assimilation wrote:
Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one?
You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.
Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one? You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.[/p][/quote]Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise. Catchedicam

1:16am Thu 20 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one?
You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.
Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.
Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls.
Pot, kettle comes to mind
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one? You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.[/p][/quote]Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.[/p][/quote]Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls. Pot, kettle comes to mind Assimilation

10:06am Thu 20 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

Assimilation wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one?
You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.
Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.
Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls.
Pot, kettle comes to mind
It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian...
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one? You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.[/p][/quote]Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.[/p][/quote]Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls. Pot, kettle comes to mind[/p][/quote]It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian... Catchedicam

11:20am Thu 20 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one?
You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.
Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.
Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls.
Pot, kettle comes to mind
It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian...
For all you "Big girls blouses" out there, who just have to have the last word on everything. The amber weather warning for parts of Essex is now cancelled. So, you can now all shut up and move on to another story. I will be waiting !

And for the record, as you put it, I am well educated enough not to get facts, figures and information from tabloids like the Guardian that "You" do not read.

Quick, look up, another one has just flown by!
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one? You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.[/p][/quote]Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.[/p][/quote]Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls. Pot, kettle comes to mind[/p][/quote]It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian...[/p][/quote]For all you "Big girls blouses" out there, who just have to have the last word on everything. The amber weather warning for parts of Essex is now cancelled. So, you can now all shut up and move on to another story. I will be waiting ! And for the record, as you put it, I am well educated enough not to get facts, figures and information from tabloids like the Guardian that "You" do not read. Quick, look up, another one has just flown by! Assimilation

10:25pm Thu 20 Feb 14

UndergroundOverground says...

Assimilation wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one?
You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.
Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.
Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls.
Pot, kettle comes to mind
It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian...
For all you "Big girls blouses" out there, who just have to have the last word on everything. The amber weather warning for parts of Essex is now cancelled. So, you can now all shut up and move on to another story. I will be waiting !

And for the record, as you put it, I am well educated enough not to get facts, figures and information from tabloids like the Guardian that "You" do not read.

Quick, look up, another one has just flown by!
Now you see you claim to be well educated but at the same time seem to be claiming some type of victory based on the fact the weather today isn't the same as it was last week. Quite the intellectual aren't you.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one? You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.[/p][/quote]Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.[/p][/quote]Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls. Pot, kettle comes to mind[/p][/quote]It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian...[/p][/quote]For all you "Big girls blouses" out there, who just have to have the last word on everything. The amber weather warning for parts of Essex is now cancelled. So, you can now all shut up and move on to another story. I will be waiting ! And for the record, as you put it, I am well educated enough not to get facts, figures and information from tabloids like the Guardian that "You" do not read. Quick, look up, another one has just flown by![/p][/quote]Now you see you claim to be well educated but at the same time seem to be claiming some type of victory based on the fact the weather today isn't the same as it was last week. Quite the intellectual aren't you. UndergroundOverground

10:25pm Thu 20 Feb 14

UndergroundOverground says...

Assimilation wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Assimilation wrote:
Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one?
You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.
Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.
Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls.
Pot, kettle comes to mind
It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian...
For all you "Big girls blouses" out there, who just have to have the last word on everything. The amber weather warning for parts of Essex is now cancelled. So, you can now all shut up and move on to another story. I will be waiting !

And for the record, as you put it, I am well educated enough not to get facts, figures and information from tabloids like the Guardian that "You" do not read.

Quick, look up, another one has just flown by!
Now you see you claim to be well educated but at the same time seem to be claiming some type of victory based on the fact the weather today isn't the same as it was last week. Quite the intellectual aren't you.
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: Hello! Is that an echo, or is it a parrot that I hear ? It`s obviously not the Messiah because he would not be repeating himself. It must be Mr Catchedicam Mensa or Mr Catchedicam Wikipedia even.Or could they be as one? You just don't get it, do you? The more you go on belittling people and name calling, the bigger idiot you make yourself look. So, carry on.[/p][/quote]Only an idiot can make themselves look an idiot, but you are correct in one thing attempting to educate those that will not listen is a pointless exercise, and you Mr Daily Mail reader are most certainly a pointless exercise.[/p][/quote]Then don't bother Swampy, just go away! I don't need educating by the likes of you and your idiotic guardian reading trolls. Pot, kettle comes to mind[/p][/quote]It's quite clear that you wish to remain uneducated, a shame really that you will never realise the human being that you might have become had you cast aside your ignorance. And for the record, I don't read the Guardian...[/p][/quote]For all you "Big girls blouses" out there, who just have to have the last word on everything. The amber weather warning for parts of Essex is now cancelled. So, you can now all shut up and move on to another story. I will be waiting ! And for the record, as you put it, I am well educated enough not to get facts, figures and information from tabloids like the Guardian that "You" do not read. Quick, look up, another one has just flown by![/p][/quote]Now you see you claim to be well educated but at the same time seem to be claiming some type of victory based on the fact the weather today isn't the same as it was last week. Quite the intellectual aren't you. UndergroundOverground

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree