Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


Re: Balcombe

1) A local view:

2) The Argus reports as news an FOI story over 6 months old:

Aug 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Excellent article on renewables by Bjorn Lomberg at Project Syndicate today:

The Decline of Renewable Energy

Aug 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

The Department for International Development has given WWF £22.5 million over the past 5 years. See here and here

It's a good job the country isn't struggling financially.

Aug 14, 2013 at 5:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

The comments and misinformation at this site quite frankly beggar belief:

It appears to be the work of one Kathryn McWhirter, she is very busy on there and alarmingly misinformed on the facts and on science. It is a remarkable insight in to how ordinary members of the public can be frightened or fooled into completely irrational responses by eco-loon propaganda (and, in some places, by the BBC), or by reading and not understanding something found on the internet. Bit like the opening part of Three Men in a Boat when the main character reads a book on medical conditions and decides he has all of them (except Housemaid's Knee).

Some of the side links are also worth following, to read the short articles. Eg, one link purports to show how Cuadrilla, by their own admission, are somehow going to create shallow fractures at Balcombe by taking their numbers from a preparatory report for the Bowland Shale in Lancashire and applying them to the exact foot to Balcombe to somehow "prove" its going to go wrong.

And Balcombe doesn't even have a permission to frack!

Also noticeable are a number of very level headed Balcombe residents who, when making rational and sensible statements on the site, are getting the usual ad hominen diatribes thrown at them.

Aug 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist


"a small delegation to Balcombe to witness the fracking operations"

They'll have a long wait, surely?

Aug 14, 2013 at 3:29 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

oh I got it that £200 in Lord Wind's pocket came from your pocket
so you have less to spend on CO2 producing stuff and he has more.
- Now since you are poor and spend most of your income, and he is so rich that he spends a much smaller percentage ..then there can be a net saving in CO2
- but why bother with the wind farm we could just take 50% of the poor's income and give in to the rich, and thus we'd save a lot of CO2.

Aug 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Interesting find, Paul. Interesting sessions which caught my eye (I kid you not):

So how do those of us trained in other areas effectively communicate the science and the risks of climate change when we might be on shaky ground with some of the in-depth details ourselves?

How can/should/do we think about the role of arts and entertainment in communicating about climate change?

How can we focus on identifying non-traditional allies and finding common ground with people where none is apparent? In particular, how can we explore the role of religious individuals in climate action?

How can we generate more government support for making climate policy-relevant information available more widely across agencies and to the public?

[We are used to arguing that the science is settled ... but] How can one bring uncertainty into the conversation as a reason for action (and not inaction)?

The polar bear and the glacier have been, besides clouds, the only memorable climate icons used to augment discussions of climate. [But ...] How can we conjure up some new, accessible imagery ...?

And I like the comment underneath:

Are there lessons and tactics to be learned from the success climate deniers have in getting their messages out, can we learn from how they use the web to do it? What practices could we utilize?

To which the reply was: Let me try to answer the last question. Don’t call them supporters of illegitimate science, intellectually dishonest, or a climate denier.

Once you get past the grade school name calling, we can work on other, more advanced techniques for effective communication.

Aug 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Guys fault my logic here I was just looking at Tory Advaarks's cartoon Renewables Give with one hand and Take with the other and it inspired this thinking

- 2010 Your electricity bill is £1000
I Lord Wind go to gov with my new windfarm proposal and say I can drop your CO2 by 10% *
- 2013 Your bill is £1200 cos of my £200 subsidy
... but what happens to that £200 ? It works the same way as fake efficiciency savings it actually gets spent
..So I will buy my new Ferrari, which cost a lot of CO2 to make.
....So what happens is that CO2 "savings" to the customer can often be changed into CO2 spending by the subsidy profiteers.
- So maybe we'll have a new law that Renew-unables profiteers cannot spend their profits.

* It's only a pretend saving cos actually the construction of the windfarm concrete etc.uses magnitudes more CO2 than any genuine saving.

Aug 14, 2013 at 2:52 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Over the next 2 days there is yet another climate communication conference (just 2 months after the Chapman climate communication conference). Twitter tag is #scioClimate

It's all the usual stuff: "Those who work in the climate communications trenches continue to search for the most compelling strategy for communicating climate change" and so on.

The most entertaining session could be "Credibility, Trust, Goodwill, and Persuasion" featuring Dr. Michael Mann (I'm not making this up, honestly).
Dan Kahan is also there - he runs the cultural cognition blog, where Shub, Hilary, Willis, Nullius and others have been trying to explain climate scepticism to him, but he still doesn't get it.

There is also a session on "Lessons from the Other Side" where the wording seems to have changed in reponse to a comment from Les Johnson - it was originally "Tactical Lessons from Climate Deniers".

Some of the sessions will be live-streamed.

Aug 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Dorset Agenda 21 Facebook page: this is a poor copy of an entry (I was led to it via looking up more details of Oliver Letwin's chat-ette that is coming up):

"8 August near Horley, England
Accompanied a small delegation to Balcombe to witness the fracking operations and demonstration. Very high vehicle movements and concerns from local residents covering a myriad of issues. Dorset is a proposed location for the roll out of this technology.

Like · · Share
3 people like this.

Mandi Pins Perkins Have been chatting with Lech Kowalski (of 'Drill Baby Drill') and we're going to try & organise a screening of the film down in Dorset at some point in the future... people really need to see his film
8 August at 16:56 · Like · 1

Dorset Agenda 21 Sounds good Mandi - thanks for the message."

Anyone seen this 'Drill Baby Drill' film?

Also, the DT carries an article on the front page today, 'Fracking risks God's creation, say Church'. 'The warning has been issued to Anglicans in Lancashire, where significant work to extract gas and oil by fracking has been proposed.
The Diocese of Blackburn published a leaflet for members of its flock telling them that, for Christians, fracking presents "a choice between economic gain and a healthy environment". .............The church leaflet appears to endorse such concerns [that fracking does environmental harm], saying, "Fracking causes a range of environmental problems". It does not explicitly commit the Church to a clear position for or against fracking, but its focus is on the potential for lasting environmental damage and urges believes to consider their Christian duty to act as "stewards of the Earth".

I must check whether Richard Dawkins has tweeted on this!

There is also a letter from Caroline Lucas in today's DT - apparently the International Energy Agency "has stated that fracking can have major implications for local communities, including the possible contamination of groundwater". Must check that too.

She also says that "according to some estimates, exploiting 10% of Britain's shale gas resources would require 110,000 wells, or an average of 160-170 per parliamentary constituency". Sounds like a rallying call for the general election. Any comments on this?

Aug 14, 2013 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrumpy

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>