On 24 Jul 2013 at 11:41am Deelite 2 wrote:
Caudrilla start fracking tests at Balcombe tomorrow (25th July). Residents and the concerned are planning to pay them a visit and request that they Frack-Off. Read about the desperate madness being visited upon our beautiful county here...
Check it out here »
On 24 Jul 2013 at 2:39pm Here we go again.... wrote:
In the 1980's all the environmentalists went on endlessly about Nuclear Power and how we were all about to die, but it didn't happen. So then they moved to Greenham Common and the threat of us all dying from Armageddon, oh wait, that didn't happen either. Next it was global warming and peak oil - oh dear, we have enough oil for another 300 years and global warming hasn't happened so its now "climate change".
This weeks bandwagon is fracking, same people, same scare stories and in a few years it will be the same result - yet more use of pseudo science to try to scare us, there really is something wrong with these nutters.
On 24 Jul 2013 at 3:38pm Perk wrote:
So 'Here we go again' you wouldn't mind the risk of your Water and Air being polluted with toxins near to your home? You undermined your argument by using the term 'Nutters' to describe people that have legitimate concern.
On 24 Jul 2013 at 4:42pm Zebedee wrote:
You do know that people in the north of Scotland are still dying from cancer as the result of Chernobyl don't you, and that birth deformations are on the rise in Japan? You do know that the climate is changing? Or is your head well and truly up you jacksie?
On 24 Jul 2013 at 5:41pm Knutsen Bolt wrote:
I wish I knew how to tell if the climate is changing.I have noticed the geoengineering going on via persistant contrails but no one else on the forum has commented on it.As far as fracking is concerned I think one thing is for sure:water bills are going to skyrocket.Fracking uses millions of gallons of water and we have hose-pipe bans if it doesn't rain for a few weeks,I can feel one coming on now! SO where is the extra water going to come from? You and me by rationing and putting the price up I expect.I seriously wonder if the government has even thought about this more than wondering how much money they can make out of it.
On 24 Jul 2013 at 6:50pm Rods Tiger wrote:
HWGA - How can you say that global warming hasn't (isn't) happened, are you completely blind to the world around you ? I assume that you have a rational and reasonable explanation for the severe reduction in the size of the polar ice caps and the glaciers across the Alps.
If we have enough oil for another 300 hundred years why are Shell proposing to start drilling in the arctic, presumably they could wait for about 280 years so that there will be a market for their output ?
On 24 Jul 2013 at 10:18pm Deelite 2 wrote:
Hasn't the price of water already sky-rocketed? A couple of decades ago we could use what we liked for a small flat charge. Not now. And the price of power. Oil is 6 times the cost it was a decade ago.
Things are running out mate. Get your head out of the sand and join the real world.
On 24 Jul 2013 at 11:05pm Bloke 2 wrote:
America gets oil from the middle East, they still have plenty of oil reserves themselves that are untouched, They want you to think it's running out to justify the price which is tax.
On 25 Jul 2013 at 10:35am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
The water consumption was something I hadn't really thought about before now. Where will it come from?
Would they get a licence to extract that sort of amount from rivers or boreholes? It would seriously affect the water table.
Southern should make them get a huge water meter and make them pay the same as the rest of us.
On 25 Jul 2013 at 2:52pm Deelite 2 wrote:
An odd situation with the water companies. They charge the water out to Cuadrilla at business rates and often they lease their land to them for the bore holes. The water utilities are private commercial companies so their overriding aim is more profit.
Is there anyone who thinks that privatising our water companies was wise?
I guess you understand that Cuadrilla can only recover 30% of the lethal cocktail they squirt into the earth. 705 of the poisoned water is left in the ground whilst the stuff they recover is then dumped somewhere else in Sussex?
Did you also know that a controlling share of Cuadrilla is owned by Lord John Browne, ex head of BP and Tory party prime mover and funder, and the man responsible for placing many of the advisors to ministers in the cabinet?
In almost every way you look at it fracking stinks.
On 25 Jul 2013 at 3:45pm I don't live in lewes... wrote:
We need hydro carbons, home grown ones are better than importing them for all the obvious reasons. It would be nieve to think that fracking won't go ahead. Yes there are downsides but the benefit to gov.uk are far greater. What stinks isn't fracking, it's that the status quo probably won't reap the rewards and enjoy cheap energy.
On 25 Jul 2013 at 3:53pm Independent Thinker wrote:
Here We Go Again, I tried not to bite, but can't help myself.
1. Nuclear accidents did happen, in Chernobyl and Japan. 2. Read a book on the Cuban Missile Crisis to see how close to nuclear armageddon we came. The risk was real. 3. Global Warming is happening. 97% of Climate scientists agree that it's primarily man made. Of the remaining 3% they're just arguing over the causes and severity, not about whether it's actually happening. 4. Global Warming causes Climate Change, both terms are correct to use. Just some people couldn't understand how Global Warming can result in colder winters in some places, for example, so the latter term is often used instead. 5. Oil is a finite resource. Finding new sources will grow increasingly difficult and expensive. Regardless of when that happens, reducing reliance on it is a good thing.
Others have commented on the fracking issues, but it always amazes me that someone can display such breathtaking ignorance on so many different levels, and then accuse others of being the nutters.
On 25 Jul 2013 at 4:11pm i don't live in lewes wrote:
The UK is now doing more to add to global warming than previous.
We used more coal in 2012 than in 2011 because coal is now cheap. Coal is cheap because the USA has benefitted from the bonanza of cheap shale gas so there's plenty of coal around.
We would generate less pollution if we switched to shale gas.
Funny old world...
Check it out here »
On 25 Jul 2013 at 5:55pm Local wrote:
Well done balcome villagers for being a nuisance and voiceing their opinions.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 1:08am Dingo wrote:
We must stop consuming fossil fuels,if we don`t ,we will codemn our kids to a living hell as the planet becomes incapable of supporting us and the oceans acidify.Fracking is insanity.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 7:53am Bored wrote:
Global warming is rubbish, when the last ice age melted that wasn't down to heavy traffic in London or too many planes in the sky!!!
Natural weather patterns in the reason.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 9:34am Tim wrote:
Bored. You are obviously a knob end. Your statement is complete drivel and if you could actually read, you could find the facts easily. Moron!!!!
On 26 Jul 2013 at 10:11am The Kronic wrote:
I find "Bored's" post to be spot on to be honest Tim. Shame some people get brainwashed by the daily Express so easily. MORON!!!!
On 26 Jul 2013 at 10:12am The Bank of Fracksense wrote:
Bored, since you don't understand the massive difference between the timescales of manmade climate change and natural glaciation, may I suggest that you might like to borrow a tenner from me? My rates of interest would make Wonga's eyes water, but what's a few orders of magnitude between friends?
On 26 Jul 2013 at 12:18pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I feel the evidence for man-made climate change to be less than wholly convincing, and see that there is a case to be made for natural variations in climate over long periods.
But given that there is less than 100%, beyond all doubt certainty, wouldn't the prudent thing to do be to reduce emissions massively, just in case?
On 26 Jul 2013 at 12:27pm Priory Ghost wrote:
The point is that yes the climate cycles over thousands of years BUT the melting of the ice caps has been rapid. How anyone can think that the pollution we pump into the atmosphere in such massive quantities does not affect the climate is slightly potty in my opinion.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 12:28pm Knutssen Boults wrote:
It's good to see so many highly intelligent commenters on the forum who can recognise a moron when they see one.Perhaps you could explain how the Medieval Warm Period occurred as you are such experts.Fracksense has reminded me about interest on loans.If we didn't have to pay so much interest we wouldn't have to manufacture so much to make ends meet and so cause global warming if that really causes it.Also if 10% own 90% of the wealth and wealth is produced from the worker's industry we could produce 90% less and only 10% would be worse off financially and there would be a 90% reduction in pollution.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 1:58pm Independent Thinker wrote:
Bored, ACT etc, no disrespect, but if the evidence for man made climate change hasn't convinced you, it's because you haven't read, or understand the evidence. Understandable, perhaps, given I'm guessing you aren't climate scientist yourselves. And googling takes you to all kinds of bloggers with their own personal agendas (often coincidentally right wing), as opposed to scientific research. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that Climate scientists are aware of all the deniers talking points (the medieval warm period is a particular favourite of theirs) and sadly none of those points refutes the simple fact that global warming is real, is happening, and we are primarily responsible for it.
The scientific method is extraordinarily robust and effective. It is the basis for every scientific discovery which has transformed how humans live. By definition it involves constant repetition of experiments to test theories, and publishing them in peer reviewed journals so others can test them to make sure no mistakes were made. It's evidence based. Theories adapt and change as more evidence emerges, which is a good thing. There's no room for dogma in science. If you expect something to happen, test for it, and it doesn't, you have to adapt your theory to explain it. 97% of the world's climate scientists all agree that climate change is real, and primarily man made. To dismiss that because some right wing bloggers with an agenda say it's nonsense, or some tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist claims tens of thousands of scientists are corrupt and part of a global conspiracy to bring down capitalism is lunacy. If you don't have the time or inclination to read the IPCC report on climate change, then New Scientist magazine published responses to the most common Deniers talking points in 2007, which is aimed at summarising the evidence in an easy to read way. It will be a bit out of date as more evidence has come in since then, but a useful starting point.
Check it out here »
On 26 Jul 2013 at 4:33pm Dingo wrote:
The worst effects of climate change are yet to be felt.If you have kids or grand kids you should be extremely worried for them.Fracking , I repeat is absolute madness.Our children will curse us for our shortsightedness our wilful stupidity and our greed.Sadly the thousands of innocent creatures our insanity will condemn to extinction do not have a voice.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 5:03pm Knutssen Bolts wrote:
When I see things like"tin hat wearing","right wing bloggers","Deniers",I always wonder why the writer needs to belittle other people's opinions.It just makes a joke of their pretentions of being rational and scientific.I think the climate is so incredibly complex that it doesn't surprise me that the weather forecasts are often wrong,especially long range ones.The recent information from NASA finds that CO2 levels are rising but temperatures have remained steady for about 17 years.This suggests to me that CO2 may not be a greenhouse gas and that taxing CO2 emissions is just a cash cow.If all the bigwigs fly their private jets to climate conferences it does rather suggest they know something we don't, doesn't it?
On 26 Jul 2013 at 6:12pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I wasn't dismissing the climate change argument (I find it more convincing than the alternative, just not 100%), just trying to point out that even if there's a only a possibility it's right we should err on the side of caution.
It's not the only argument against fracking either - the pollution, use of massive amounts of water, possible geological instability and despoliation of the countryside are all good reasons for being against imo.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 6:36pm Bored wrote:
Tim, I don't believe I was nasty about anybody on here just voicing an opion like many do, so get your head out your arse and stop being abusive to forum users. Twat
On 26 Jul 2013 at 7:09pm Dingo wrote:
So mr knutssenBolts you don`t think Co2 is a green house gas do you?Why on earth should anybody take any notice of an ill educated self opinionated scientifically illiterate idiot like yourself?
I suppose you think the sun goes around a flat earth and the moon is made of cheese?The whole scientific establishment is wrong to think that Co2 is a greenhouse gas because you the great unaknowledged genius of our age doesn`t`t think it is.
What were you doing in your science classes at school? Farting about I`ll bet! making methane which is as you are probly unaware is another greehouse gas contributing to catastrophic climate change.You unspeakable idiot.
On 26 Jul 2013 at 7:28pm Independent Thinker wrote:
Knutsen Bolts, the reason for those terms is that Science isn't about opinions. It isn't a democracy where the public gets to vote on whether or not Global Warming is happening. Same way Gravity, or whether the earth is flat, aren't matters of opinion. Climate change is a real physical process that can be measured, and analysed. Thousands of highly trained scientists across the world are dedicating themselves to doing just that, publishing their work in peer reviewed journals that anyone can read for themselves. Dismissing 97% of them as being part of a global conspiracy of epic proportions, falsifying mountains of evidence for financial gain, is genuinely tin foil hat territory.
I'd love to believe those who deny the evidence. I have kids. Who wants to think the world is heading to disaster if we don't act? I briefly got my hopes up the other day hearing Andrew Neil claim temperatures aren't rising any more. Unfortunately he was wrong. He focussed solely on air temperatures (though even that is debated). But the surface temperature only accounts for 2% of Global warming. 90% is in the oceans, and the temperature there is still going up as relentlessly as ever. And one final point, climate scientists aren't in the business of trying to predict whether it's going to rain on Saturday. Two very different fields of study.
On 27 Jul 2013 at 5:52pm Knutssen Boults wrote:
Hey dingo it's not hard to see how you got your name! It was those unspeakable idiots at NASA who came up with the data,you know tin foil hat scientists with,wait for it,degrees in science.
On 27 Jul 2013 at 9:42pm Independent Thinker wrote:
Knutsen Bolts, yes the scientists at NASA have degrees, and I would trust any data they come up with. What I wouldn't trust are those who cherry pick individual bits of data and twist it to fit their own pre-determined opinions, ignoring all the other evidence. There have been several pauses in surface air temperature rising since the 1970s, but the trend continues upwards, and as I mentioned surface temperatures only account for 2% of global warming. The oceans account for 90% of it and temperature rises there have not paused. But don't take my word for any of this. Don't take anyone's word for it. Read the actual science for yourself, the IPCC reports are a good starting point as they link to all of the source data which you can draw your own conclusions from. The 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made climate change have all heard all of the deniers talking points, yet still hold to their beliefs. Ask yourself why that is. As I've said, it's either a global conspiracy of epic proportions (tin foil hat territory). Or they believe it because that's what the evidence, taken as a whole, is saying.
On 28 Jul 2013 at 1:13pm bored wrote:
why all the fuss it will happen and dont forget the extra council tax now they need all them police there
On 28 Jul 2013 at 3:20pm Knutssen Boults wrote:
Glad you're still here Indy and the dog's growling elsewhere.Basically I'm one of those people who are very sceptical about governments and international everythings.Organisations have a way of perpetuating themselves as their members protect their salaries and status.I think the UN are using global warming as a device to further Agenda21 and the abolition of nation states in order to bring in a world government.Cue the tin hat theory remarks.If instead you do some searching around you will find that it's not a theory but "The Open Conspiracy" that H G Wells wrote about so long agoIf you still think that conspiracies are just paranoid nightmares check out Oded Yinon's plan for securing Israel's borders,the Project for a New American Century's plans for the Middle East and what has happened there. You may think that it's a coincidence that their plans have turned into reality,if so we can only agree to differ.See you in the secure ward! Which reminds me,whats happened to Mrs Twine?
On 29 Jul 2013 at 12:03am Mr Baba wrote:
The sooner people take of their blinkers and see what kind of World we really are living in the better for all of us. But I'm afraid that is to much to hope for. A lot of the problem is GREED.. It never ceases to amaze me the insatiable hunger people can have for what they perceive to be power. Humility goes a long way!
KB I'll be in room 101.
On 29 Jul 2013 at 7:44am Zebedee wrote:
And here it us greed in the shape of American Cuadrilla, the highly privileged Tory cabinet posh boys and ex head of BP, major Cuadrilla shareholder and Tory big wig Lord John Browne it seems.
Man-made clmate change is an established fact. The only people who still deny it are oil company lackeys and sad simpletons whose opinions are formed exclusively by the size of the chip on their shouder (yes, people like you Knuddsen).
On 30 Jul 2013 at 2:17pm Knutssen Boults wrote:
No chips,Zeb,the oil companies are all on board with the wind and solar industry,they'll make the same mess with that.They don't care where the cash comes from as long as it goes in their pockets.