Saturday
May212011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Repeal the Climate Change Act
May 21, 2011 Climate: Parliament Energy 
There is a petition afoot to repeal the UK's Crazy Climate Change Act.
Sign here.
May 21, 2011 Climate: Parliament Energy
Reader Comments (71)
Signed
This is like ****ing ebay feedback. Great ID, loved it, think it was fantastic, fast delivery, will definitely purchase if I ever want another punk tutu.
Better to recall the idiots who voted it in in the first place so they can't do it again.
Signed.
Signed as number 1030
Done
Also signed
Household has signed
Oh dear. I find that I have perpetrated the following comment:
Any party in charge when the lights go out will be out of power for a generation.
Surely someone has written a paper about how the AGW scare is just another millennial cult?
JF
I signed it weeks ago.
Don Pablo
You can't put the [ - ] back in the dog, as dear old grandma used to say.
Go on - sign up ;-)
Signed,
Thanks for the great visit from HRH Queen Elizabeth ll.
We are still talking about it.
I hope that she comes back again.
Peter
RETEPHSLAW
Are you sure you wouldn't like a visit from Prince Charles? He could stay woth you permanently.
Signed it back in March - with the following comment:
AGW. Keywords: Climatology, junk-science. Madness of Crowds, bollocks.
Signed and sent to everone in my address book.
Loving this.
You're still trying to kid each other that your weird minority take on science is a growing opinion, and are now forced to sign a totally irrelevant petition against a right-wing government.
What will it take for you all to realise that the complete lack of science to support your stance, means that you're an unsupported minority of thousands railing against the entire planet?
I guess most of you will continue to ignore actual science until you've gone to your graves, kidding yourselves the whole time that you're the only ones who actually know the 'truth' of the thing.
Ah thought you'd be here soon! after the ridiculing you got over on the mail lol it's so refreshing to hear from you again with your repetitive links to the same bits of propaganda from the same few people! reminds me of why I fight against ignorance and stupidity and your posts are some of the best ammunition I have to convince others of just how insane the greenish cult is getting !
Keep up the sterling work helping us sceptical types !
Zed
The 'truth of the thing' is that you cannot run an industrial economy on windfarms and posturing bullshit.
The sooner you wake up to what this is really about - wrt your lifetime and mine - the better for everyone.
BTW Zed
The CCA was Tony Blair's doing - like the CCC. So not very right-wing. Stop twisting the obvious (as per). It looks bad.
BBD
Could you point me to where anyone is suggesting we run the economy on windfarms alone?
Quelle surprise, nobody serious is. rendering your comment meaningless.
Dear Matt.
This is invariably where I then make my my own spelling faux pas but...
It's generally spelled 'Matt'.
- New sentences should start with a capital letter
- Proper nouns should start with a capital letter
- Childish textspeak has no real place in recorded opinions
- It's spelled 'propoganda'
- There should not be a space between the end of the sentence and the exclamation mark
- one should try and put commas where one would breath when annunciating a sentence
These are all good indicators as to why your opinions have no actual value.
Zed
More of your usual. Decarbonisation of the UK economy requires a massive increase in the use of renewables in the energy mix. This will be a colossal failure, as everyone conversant with the facts is aware.
For example (emphasis added):
From Guardian letters 13 May 2011
http://www.theiet.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/13/renewable-energy-engineering-challenge
Now, is that clear enough for you?
ZDB,
Possibly you meant breathe, not breath?
Petards and all that.
Inter alia, let's all keep signing the CCA petition. As well as making sense, it will irritate Zed, who deserves it on this occasion.
Simple speaker after truth
One of life's few guarantees, is that if you pick up someone else's English, no matter how attrocious, you'll make a spelling mistake whilst doing so.
BBD
So, in conclusion, nobody serious is suggesting we should get power from wind alone, and you're trying to dodge amitting it.
@zedbed
No, it's not "propoganda" it's "propaganda".
Beware of saying that such errors make the writer's opinion worthless.
Is "attrocious" a joke?
Zed
If you knew what you were talking about - which you clearly don't - you would be fully aware that the majority of the proposed capacity increase in renewables to 2030 is offshore wind.
If I were you, I'd be bloody embarrassed by now.
The newly elected Scottish Government led by First Minister Alex Salmond has upped the region’s 2020 renewable electricity target from 80% to 100%.
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/4109/
Messenger
Oy vey - I should really stop using my own poor English to point out the failings of others. My slim defence is that I'm fresh out of a luncheon, ostensibly to celebrate the climate bill.
The wine was excellent.
Things were meant to finish with a superb '97 port, but we're only human, and one thing led to another...
Grammar was the ultimate vicitm. Even in my fug, I can still point out with accuracy, that 'mat' seems to be barely on nodding terms with the langauge, and, as a consequence, is an extremely unreliable witness.
p.s. - for those that care, it was still a bit early for it, but promised to mature into an astonishing vintage. Leave them cellared for at least another 5 years.
BBD
So there is no suggestion that an industrial economy should be run on windfarms alone.
I rest my case.
Zed
I hope you're being contentious for the hell of it. Read Kemp's letter and try to understand that there are two prongs to this:
- Phasing out coal and old nuclear
- Phasing in wind (mainly)
If wind fails, you do not have enough remaining capacity for a fall-back position that will meet demand.
Do you really not see this?
Phillip Bratby says:
RETEPHSLAW
Are you sure you wouldn't like a visit from Prince Charles? He could stay woth you permanently.
May 21, 2011 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby
Nice to hear from you Phillip, long time no chat.
While doing a daily Trivia quiz on the "stuffnz" website earlier today, I came across this question: How many children does Queen Elizabeth have? I correctly answered 4.
the next question was, how many girls are there in the family.
I replied with the correct answer, 1.
Then I sent a message to the email address for this quiz and wrote that the queen has 1 daughter, Ann(e) but that Charles is a big girls blouse.
I may have my New Zealand citizenship withdrawn or cancelled once "Chuckles" gets his mother's job!
And by the way, when you are granted NZ citizenship, you have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
Rgds
Peter
ZedsDeadBead said: "What will it take for you all to realise that the complete lack of science to support your stance, means that you're an unsupported minority of thousands railing against the entire planet?"
I'm still waiting for you to point me to just *one* piece of scientific evidence that supports CAGW theory (i.e. real-world data that verifies any unambiguous prediction from said theory).
The simple fact that you continue to make such statements and yet be totally unable to justify them suggests to me that you are either ignorant, stupid or just a troll... or maybe some wierd combination of the three.
Signed. Of Course
I would definitely sign if I lived in England. Wind is now a dead issue in the province of Ontario, Canada. The premier of the province finally saw it wouldn't work. Is Zed here for comic relief?
I really wish I could be invited to a "luncheon" that goes on until the early hours of the evening.
But if I were I would have the sense (and the courtesy) not to demonstrate to the world at large that I am unable to maintain a degree of dignity and sobriety. Being pissed as a newt is not an edifying spectacle, Zed, and when you add it to your not inconsiderable reputation for being disputatious to no good purpose you start to become seriously tedious.
In fact I find your postings today mildly offensive. I was going to add 'disruptive' but you're always that so no surprise there.
I suggest you might like to go and lie down until the effects have worn off and perhaps you might then come back and apologise for your more than usually crass behaviour.
genealogymaster
What's worrying isn't Zed's rather feeble pop-up appearances but that here in the UK, energy policy is going in a very dangerous direction and lots of people share her ill-informed view of renewables.
A group of them comprise the unelected Committee on Climate Change, which is overseeing the implementation of the unachievable emissions targets imposed by our unilateral adoption of the Climate Change Act.
While I am happy to learn that Zed has lunched well in celebration of the latest incremental 'win' for the proponents of renewables (chiefly on- and off-shore wind), I suspect she and her friends will be laughing out of the other side of their faces in a few years time. When the consequences become apparent.
Ironic, isn't it: champagne socialists still celebrating the poisoned legacy of Tony Blair?
Poster:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/StopDiggingThatHole.jpg
Striving for a positive note, the good news is that as more offshore wind is installed it will be impossible to conceal the truth about failure rates, maintenance costs, variability and intermittency. These will sharply elevate the cost per kWh, which will be noticed by the Treasury. And things will change.
orkneylad
Amusing. Still trying to decide whether the boot and spade belong to an agricultural labourer, a builder, or a grave-digger.
Signed and commented Bish. Now I'm waiting for the knock on the door from the global warming STAZI.
Breath of fresh air - 100% renewables in scotland by 2020 - that's only NINE YEARS from now - they've got to be kidding, right..??
Sorry - forgot - they're politicians - practicalities don't figure in the rarified atmosphere in which they operate....
I've just watched another instalment of the Wind Farm Wars in which the Devon Council's refusal of planning permission went to appeal. I understand from what was said in the programme that the government guidelines say that the reporter has to take the installed capacity of the turbines into consideration. If they actually produce no wind at all it apparently doesn't matter, as long as the installers put in the capacity they say they will. This means that the fact that wind turbines are useless when the wind doesn't blow and will probably produce less than 25% of their installed capacity is entirely immaterial to the government's planning aims and objectors cannot use the fact as a reason for turning them down. Several other guidelines seemed pretty draconian too, leaving little room for manouevre. Is this still the case?
On May 21, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Unregistered Commenter ZedsDeadBed wrote (my comments interleaved)
"Dear Matt.
This is invariably where I then make my my own spelling faux pas but...
It's generally spelled 'Matt'."
No, it may be common, but not "general" nor even correct should the owner of the name or nickname choose otherwise.
"- New sentences should start with a capital letter"
Agreed. It is a convention derived from typography; its purpose being to indicate the start of the new sentence. It was once a hard and fast rule to use two spaces after a period or colon for the same typography derived reason. The change from typewriters (and hand written prose) to computers and variable spaced characters created the river effect, so the hard and fast rule was dropped. It happens. Of course, old sentences should end with a period, questions with a query, and an exclamation with an exclamation.
"- Proper nouns should start with a capital letter"
True, unless the owner of said proper noun says otherwise.
"- Childish textspeak has no real place in recorded opinions"
"Textspeak" is nothing new. It's been in use since at least the early 1800s. "OMG" and "IOW" show up quite often in formal correspondence from that time with the same meanings as today. Business abbreviations were also quite common analogues to textspeak, e.g. "20th inst", meaning the twentieth of this month, or "Yr Ob Servant"; not too different from ur,eh? I grant you it's annoying when overdone.
"- It's spelled 'propoganda'"
Not according to my dictionary.
"- There should not be a space between the end of the sentence and the exclamation mark"
Really picking at nits, aren't we? Since it wasn't done every time, I'd assume it's a typo; one with which I can sympathize. As a result of GBS, I can no longer touch type and must use the keyboard's base to steady my hands. Reaching for the exclamation can cause the heel of my hand to drag over the space bar.
"- one should try and put commas where one would breath when annunciating a sentence"
Really? Have you thought that through? Someone suffering from COPD should put a comma after each word? Maybe even in the middle of long words? No, there are syntax rules for the use of punctuation; breathing is not included as a decision point.
Not a major point, but since you try to be oh, so correct ….
Did you really mean to say "annunciating a sentence"? I don't believe I've ever heard anyone announce a sentence. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. I am about to speak a sentence. Maybe you meant enunciate. But no, that refers to pronunciation. He enunciates esses with a definite lisp. I'm thinking you really meant to say "speaking a sentence", but wanted to make yourself seem erudite. Eh, major fail.
"These are all good indicators as to why your opinions have no actual value."
If that is so, what are we to think of yours? You use a foreign phrase without italicizing it, faux pas; you use three periods where you should use a horizontal ellipsis plus a period and should have been a space before the ellipsis, but ….; you seem to have an aversion to using a dictionary to check the spelling or the meaning of words; and you failed to punctuate your list. Perhaps you prefer to rag on others, and in doing so flaunt your ignorance.
cheers,
gary
Just signed in at #1231 but sadly am despairing that any amount of dissension will make any difference to our Lords and Masters.
They're not listening, not even paying a miniscule of attention to our thoughts or worries. They've been seduced by the consensus, entrapped by their hubristic self-promoting and protected from criticism (or so they believe) by the actions and words of the 'scientists' and professional bodies.
I think that ZedInTheBed is right to crow. He or She, will win in the short term. With idiots, at the top, who chose to believe the same nonsense as him/er for whatever rationale they deem convenient then it's becoming clear that GB will soon be irrelevant on the world stage.
Tata UK - Nope, more Goodbye GB - and thanks for all the politicians *ish!
Wow! I started attempting my post immediately after ZDB's, and prior to any other following posts. It just did get through without timing out.
When I initially saw this post, even though I'm an ex-pat who's lived in "the colonies" for many, many years, I thought that my signature would be inappropriate. BUT ... this was before I became aware of the fact that (propagandist par excellence) Bob Ward was recently permitted to pollute the public airwaves in Canada.
So I had to strke back! And I've now done so - not only by signing the petition, but also by posting about Ward's infiltration of Canadian airwaves :-)
How low can the CBC go … paints Bob Ward, U.K. PR hack, as ‘expert’
ZDB
I might point out that most of us are asking EXACTLY that question of you and your friends.