dark light

Derekf

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 1,281 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #256736
    Derekf
    Participant

    Those employed by the EU are doing very well riding that gravy train

    Indeed, with the oaf Farage being a very good example.

    I did enjoy this.

    Farage getting a taste of his own medicine

    in reply to: Nigel Farage and the EU #1854933
    Derekf
    Participant

    Those employed by the EU are doing very well riding that gravy train

    Indeed, with the oaf Farage being a very good example.

    I did enjoy this.

    Farage getting a taste of his own medicine

    in reply to: General Discussion #256746
    Derekf
    Participant

    Interesting viewpoint.

    As far as I can work out, the power plants are being closed down because of this, the

    Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD, 2001/80/EC)

    which, according to DEFRA , does this:-

    The LCPD aims to reduce acidification, ground level ozone and particles throughout Europe by controlling emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and dust (particulate matter (PM)) from large combustion plants (LCPs) in power stations, petroleum refineries, steelworks and other industrial processes running on solid, liquid or gaseous fuel.

    Strangely, no mention of CO2. The date is interesting though. 2001. It is now 2013 and we’re acting surprised?
    The EU have given everyone 14 years to comply and the UK has fallen short – big surprise. I’m struggling to see how this can be the fault of the EU?

    As far as I can see, powers stations can opt in or opt out. By opting in, they have to put measures in place to curb the emissions above. By opting out they have to close by the end of 2014, or earlier if the are used for more than 20000 hours. That is what has happened. It is clearly the fault of the UK that measures haven’t been taken to mitigate against these closures not the EU.

    in reply to: BBC Global warming deceit #1854942
    Derekf
    Participant

    Interesting viewpoint.

    As far as I can work out, the power plants are being closed down because of this, the

    Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD, 2001/80/EC)

    which, according to DEFRA , does this:-

    The LCPD aims to reduce acidification, ground level ozone and particles throughout Europe by controlling emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and dust (particulate matter (PM)) from large combustion plants (LCPs) in power stations, petroleum refineries, steelworks and other industrial processes running on solid, liquid or gaseous fuel.

    Strangely, no mention of CO2. The date is interesting though. 2001. It is now 2013 and we’re acting surprised?
    The EU have given everyone 14 years to comply and the UK has fallen short – big surprise. I’m struggling to see how this can be the fault of the EU?

    As far as I can see, powers stations can opt in or opt out. By opting in, they have to put measures in place to curb the emissions above. By opting out they have to close by the end of 2014, or earlier if the are used for more than 20000 hours. That is what has happened. It is clearly the fault of the UK that measures haven’t been taken to mitigate against these closures not the EU.

    in reply to: General Discussion #257160
    Derekf
    Participant

    John Green

    Humans effect is local and contained. Your idea of local and mine are very different. I can’t imagine anyone calling the hole on the ozone layer local. Chernobyl? Local and contained? The fallout covered a massive area and it certainly wasn’t contained.

    As far as recycling is concerned, you need to get a better council. Ours takes our recycled rubbish and sorts it at a recycling site at Shotton.

    Interestingly the temperature data for weather stations throughout the UK is available on the Met Office website. I’ve had a look at these and thought, well, if that well known climate expert Burt Rutan can do it, so can I. There is no doubt that over the timescales of the available data, the average temperature in the UK (for the samples I looked at) is rising. I know it wasn’t very scientific but there you are.

    in reply to: BBC Global warming deceit #1855396
    Derekf
    Participant

    John Green

    Humans effect is local and contained. Your idea of local and mine are very different. I can’t imagine anyone calling the hole on the ozone layer local. Chernobyl? Local and contained? The fallout covered a massive area and it certainly wasn’t contained.

    As far as recycling is concerned, you need to get a better council. Ours takes our recycled rubbish and sorts it at a recycling site at Shotton.

    Interestingly the temperature data for weather stations throughout the UK is available on the Met Office website. I’ve had a look at these and thought, well, if that well known climate expert Burt Rutan can do it, so can I. There is no doubt that over the timescales of the available data, the average temperature in the UK (for the samples I looked at) is rising. I know it wasn’t very scientific but there you are.

    in reply to: General Discussion #257204
    Derekf
    Participant

    I take John Green that you now accept that humans can and have made differences to their environment and that those differences can be widespread and catastrophic. I have no idea whether humans contribute to global warming but in plenty of other ways we can have a detrimental effect on the place we inhabit.

    We all have to make do with the environment we find ourselves in. That doesn’t mean we can’t do our bit to reduce waste of raw materials or energy or emissions. As well as being “green” (which ironically you don’t seem to be :D) it has the added advantage of reducing costs as well. In that respect I don’t particularly see anything wrong with being environmentally aware.

    There is also no doubt that data has been “manipulated” and, as I said before, it has been very difficult to get real unadulterated data, unsullied by one agenda or another.

    The bottom line seems to be that global warming is happening, but it is unclear if humans are a contributory factor. The question is, are we willing to take chance that we aren’t to blame? Some clearly are. I’m not so sure.

    in reply to: BBC Global warming deceit #1855458
    Derekf
    Participant

    I take John Green that you now accept that humans can and have made differences to their environment and that those differences can be widespread and catastrophic. I have no idea whether humans contribute to global warming but in plenty of other ways we can have a detrimental effect on the place we inhabit.

    We all have to make do with the environment we find ourselves in. That doesn’t mean we can’t do our bit to reduce waste of raw materials or energy or emissions. As well as being “green” (which ironically you don’t seem to be :D) it has the added advantage of reducing costs as well. In that respect I don’t particularly see anything wrong with being environmentally aware.

    There is also no doubt that data has been “manipulated” and, as I said before, it has been very difficult to get real unadulterated data, unsullied by one agenda or another.

    The bottom line seems to be that global warming is happening, but it is unclear if humans are a contributory factor. The question is, are we willing to take chance that we aren’t to blame? Some clearly are. I’m not so sure.

    in reply to: General Discussion #257430
    Derekf
    Participant

    Well I wouldn’t criticise someone for doing or believing something if I was unable to counter their view. You have a right to criticise my views and the reasons for them but not if you have no countervailing arguments.

    I guess my last few posts seem to have been a waste of time. I’m not sure what you want from a discussion charliehunt. I disagreed and put forward and argument against but, and not surprisingly, this isn’t good enough. What you seem to be saying, and I’m sure you’ll correct me on this, is that you don’t care about the environment, and I do, but I have to find a solution to the mess. :confused:

    As MoggyC said, that’s a fine list but seems a little short on climatologists and flight test engineers 🙂

    in reply to: BBC Global warming deceit #1855630
    Derekf
    Participant

    Well I wouldn’t criticise someone for doing or believing something if I was unable to counter their view. You have a right to criticise my views and the reasons for them but not if you have no countervailing arguments.

    I guess my last few posts seem to have been a waste of time. I’m not sure what you want from a discussion charliehunt. I disagreed and put forward and argument against but, and not surprisingly, this isn’t good enough. What you seem to be saying, and I’m sure you’ll correct me on this, is that you don’t care about the environment, and I do, but I have to find a solution to the mess. :confused:

    As MoggyC said, that’s a fine list but seems a little short on climatologists and flight test engineers 🙂

    in reply to: General Discussion #257445
    Derekf
    Participant

    You’re right. I haven’t got the solutions, why would I? – I am only a flight test engineer and would never presume to pontificate on stuff I didn’t know about 😉

    However I can read and understand and I can see what effect we have had already and what measures we can take to mitigate against what we have already done. Also we can try and see what measures we can take to make sure the impact of any future exploitation is minimized. We can only go digging holes and burning stuff for so long.

    I’m not sure that energy or raw materials are in abundance either. I guess it depends on what you are talking about, but abundant?

    It always strikes me as odd that climatologists think there is a problem, whereas blokes on the internet don’t. If it come to issues of climate, I know which one I would rather believe.

    in reply to: BBC Global warming deceit #1855650
    Derekf
    Participant

    You’re right. I haven’t got the solutions, why would I? – I am only a flight test engineer and would never presume to pontificate on stuff I didn’t know about 😉

    However I can read and understand and I can see what effect we have had already and what measures we can take to mitigate against what we have already done. Also we can try and see what measures we can take to make sure the impact of any future exploitation is minimized. We can only go digging holes and burning stuff for so long.

    I’m not sure that energy or raw materials are in abundance either. I guess it depends on what you are talking about, but abundant?

    It always strikes me as odd that climatologists think there is a problem, whereas blokes on the internet don’t. If it come to issues of climate, I know which one I would rather believe.

    in reply to: General Discussion #257454
    Derekf
    Participant

    You must have edited your post after I replied.

    You accuse me of criticism of others. Only where necessary. 🙂 I am still astounded that anyone could care so little for the future.

    To answer your question, it seems to me that much is being being done already to mitigate against human’s ability to make a mess of things. There are strenuous efforts to reduce waste; waste of energy, raw materials etc. Measures such as the ban on CFCs, the Clean Air act, reducing emissions etc. have proved that things can be sorted, or at least the increase slowed but they are only the start of what needs to be done.There is a very very long way to go.

    in reply to: BBC Global warming deceit #1855653
    Derekf
    Participant

    You must have edited your post after I replied.

    You accuse me of criticism of others. Only where necessary. 🙂 I am still astounded that anyone could care so little for the future.

    To answer your question, it seems to me that much is being being done already to mitigate against human’s ability to make a mess of things. There are strenuous efforts to reduce waste; waste of energy, raw materials etc. Measures such as the ban on CFCs, the Clean Air act, reducing emissions etc. have proved that things can be sorted, or at least the increase slowed but they are only the start of what needs to be done.There is a very very long way to go.

    in reply to: General Discussion #257466
    Derekf
    Participant

    Looks that way to me.

    I have to say that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone state so blatantly that they don’t care what sort of world they leave for their descendants.

    Fortunately, I would say that your point of view is a minority one. Most folks would not want their children or grandchildren growing up in a world where there are no environmental concerns.
    Most of us value the place we live in and try to do our best to not s**t it up too much for those that come after.

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 1,281 total)