Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Fracking banned in Ohio, EPA reports that it is ca

On 11 Feb 2012 at 12:13pm Rickshaweddie wrote:
See EPA report in link, looks like Harvey's will need a new water supply if. The EPA report is correct

Check it out here »
On 11 Feb 2012 at 12:15pm Rickshaweddie wrote:
Opps link not working, link in following article!

Check it out here »
On 11 Feb 2012 at 4:56pm Southover Girl wrote:
'Green Energy' is inefficient and expensive.
Be brave - read this counter argument:-

Check it out here »
On 11 Feb 2012 at 4:59pm Southover Girl wrote:
And this one...

Check it out here »
On 11 Feb 2012 at 9:36pm Deelite wrote:
Unless effcient renewables and robust storage methods can be developed there is currently no real option but nuclear if the human race is going to continue to use so much engergy. Hopefully the fusion stuff being developed in the States might hold the key to safe and efficient nuclear. It's being a stupidly long time coming though.

Fracking et al will rape the planet so much that soon no-one will want to live on it.

Bye bye paradise. We could have made something of this.
On 11 Feb 2012 at 11:08pm Southover Queen wrote:
They've been banging on about fusion for 50 years at least, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'd go for the nuclear option as well, since it's quite clear that no-one is ever going to moderate our energy needs enough. Raping the planet because the price has gone up is so utterly stupid as to defy belief, and I have more faith in the scientists figuring out how to handle the waste than I do in entrepreneurs seeking to line their pockets.
On 12 Feb 2012 at 4:27am SHS wrote:
"Gas prices... are half what they are in Europe."
Well done Southover Girl - that Spectator article really opened my eyes to something I had only suspected before. Much of this 'green technology' and general business-bashing (anti-fracking camp) is just adding hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds a year to the living costs of every working man and woman in the country.
On 12 Feb 2012 at 7:10pm jrsussex wrote:
SHS - Glad to have you aboard, slowly people are getting the message. Green technology/saving the planet etc, etc is costing each and everyone of us untold amounts of money. It is not just private enterprise that is cashing in on it but Governments as well, time for someone to be courageous enough to call a halt.
On 13 Feb 2012 at 12:50am Dingo wrote:
When millions of people are dying of starvation,when the seas are acidifying destroying the oxygen producing organisms that we rely on to breathe,when the ice caps melt and the seas wash away the low lying areas leaving millions homeless,when the gulf stream changes direction or the heat conveyer buggers up leaving us with the same winter temperatures as Canada,when we`ve destroyed the natural world and fished the oceans of all fish, imagine if you can what" untold amounts of money" you`ll be paying out then to preserve your miserable skin and that of your unfortunate descendants you prize dick brain.
On 13 Feb 2012 at 6:45am grafter wrote:
ever heard of crying wolf?It's too late for your histrionics,we have had 20 years of this sort of unsupported emotional hissy fit. We have a physics problem that will be solved by productive, calm people working the numbers. Whether or not fracking is part of it it is unlikely to be a big part in this country.The new thorium units look hopeful but we will have to wait for a while. No one really expects the wind turbines to be here in 50 years do they? Truth is the future looks potentially very bright if we can invest in engineering solutions rather than a fairytale return to Eden as so many greens hope. My biggest fear is that governments will continue with gesture politics rather than seed funding competitive technology bids with the potential to provide solutions.
And calling someone a rude name doesn't increase the credibility of your argument you know!
On 13 Feb 2012 at 9:45am Southover Girl wrote:
hear, hear grafter! Well said.
thanks SHS.
A useful tool when dealing with the likes of Dingo and torrent of emotional pathos washing over the search for sustainable energy is a new book called 'Watermelons.'
Link below.

Check it out here »
On 13 Feb 2012 at 10:26am Dingo wrote:
Here`s a little something for the Lewes ostriches and lemmings to read that didn`t originate in the Daily Mail ,The Sun or O.K. Magazine so they might find it a little difficult to follow at first.

Check it out here »
On 13 Feb 2012 at 10:38am Dingo wrote:
Yes let`s leave it to the so called competetive free market Grafter, after all it`s clear that the greedy lying b*stards have the solution to everything don`t they?

Check it out here »
On 13 Feb 2012 at 10:49am Southover Queen wrote:
I've given up on the utterly moronic "consume everything and hang the consequences" brigade. If they can't see that eviscerating the earth of fossil fuel by ever more extreme methods and in the course of a 100 years using 80% of everything accumulated over aeons is problematic for the generations that follow us then I give up. Luckily I don't have kids, so it's theirs that will suffer.
On 13 Feb 2012 at 1:36pm Dingo wrote:
I know I really shouldn`t abuse them but their refusal to appreciate the mess that we are all in really beggars belief.I`m sure there were similar opinions being expressed on Easter Island just before they chopped down the last tree.
On 13 Feb 2012 at 1:52pm Clifford wrote:
It's hysterical nonsense to claim that smoking is an important element in lung cancer. In fact it's good for your throat. (jrsussex and Grafter, 1960).
On 13 Feb 2012 at 2:56pm Dingo wrote:
Here`s the author of "Watermelons" the meganumpty James Delingpole being systematically taken to bits by Sir Paul Nurse.Enjoy!

Watch the video »
On 13 Feb 2012 at 3:28pm bloke wrote:
I got a little confused there I didn't realise that Southover Girl and Southover Queen were two different posters. Southover Girl links to a book by the well-known science-hating climate change denier Jame's Delingpole. While Southover Queen argues from a perspective that would draw Delingpole's invective.
On 13 Feb 2012 at 3:58pm jrsussex wrote:
Clifford - Do not understand, what is the reference to 1960?
On 13 Feb 2012 at 4:33pm Dingo wrote:
Dear ,oh dear, oh dear!Will somebody please enlighten dear old Mr Sussex?
On 13 Feb 2012 at 8:43pm grafter wrote:
I'm not a denier of climate change but I am extremely skeptical about the methods our nation has selected to "combat" it. The precautionary principle works both ways. At the moment we are losing any energy security we had and putting ourselves at the mercy of those who are not our friends. The slur "anti-science" is meaningless unless more specific. You might as well say anti-historical or anti-economics. Delingpole is a comedian but is an inevitable counter to the hot wind rushing from the other direction.
The idea that those who diagnose a problem with the climate will be the best people to direct energy policy is absurd. It has led to the obscene state where poor people pay much more for their energy and the profit is reeled in by wealthy landowners and rentiers. The environmental damage caused in china by open cast mining of rare earth metals is truly appalling. There are always trade offs with any strategy and in this case we have exported some of them rather than face the problem here.
On 13 Feb 2012 at 10:12pm Southover Queen wrote:
I think you're exactly right, grafter. That's because you're interpreting the science sensibly, without hysteria. At the moment everyone is too distracted by their own needs, the absurd (and tiny) Delingpole constituency and the sheer political difficulty of effecting real change. The solution however CANNOT be to go on consuming on the basis that China and India are now making their own messes; that's like shrieking that little Jonnie did a dump in the corner so it's okay if I do.

As Deelite says, nuclear power is probably the way ahead, but that's politically difficult after the hysteria post-tsunami. (Privately I suspect the chances of a tsunami in the UK are small and the benefits of nuclear power high, but that's just me). Renewables should be part of the plan and using far less energy than we do now should also feature high on the list. Going on as we are now with our fingers stuck in our ears shouting I'd not listening is really not a sensible option...

15 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



The John Harvey Tavern 116:132
The John Harvey Tavern

Given the amount of vitriol aimed at Viva Lewes over the years, I'm surprised that nobody has come on here to celebrate its... more
I like the forum and being able to respond to things I agree and don't agree with.