CD – thank you for your expansive response to my post. Yes we might rue the UK’s lack of involvement in new technologies but as far as wind farms are concerned we have no choice. We have no expertise here – the Danes, Germans and others have. The government’s committments to the EU targets means that we have to buy in the technology, although it is arguable that there are simply not the resources to build what we need in the time span available. But that’s another story.

To be honerst I do not care where the technology comes from or where it goes at the end. All I know is that under current energy decisions we will not be able to generate enough electicity for our needs by 2018. We will struggle if the nuclear plans come to fruition on time. I can still see us importing some of our energy within a decade. And that is sheer irresponsibilty brought about by dithering indecision and obeissance to the great god Brussels.

The key claims made by him have even been disowned by the ICCC panel. The fact that the film was treated as “gospel” even to the point of it being required watching in every secondary school in the UK, that the man was seen as a disciple of his cause, I think, justifies the words I used. If you set yourself up that high then you deserve the fall, if you are found wanting, as he has been in his involvement with the global warming phenomenum.

Oh, no – I know what assuming leads to…

If only it was that simple. Scientific opinion is divided over warming itself, let alone whether or not is it man made. There have been several “warmings” in the last few thousand years.

Many are of the view that the recent “warming” ended about 10 years ago. So mitigating the effects may be irrelevant and in any case warming has always had a beneficial effect, historically and it is during warmings that the population has increased quickest, and mankind has prospered.

To bring the protagonists of the two extreme views down by cheap jibes does nothing to advance the cause of rational debate in which the majority try to engage.

So you’re not a fan of the adjustable rear wing? Next you’ll complain when a load of F-22s taxi round at high speed or very low level.:diablo:

Regarding the testing I’ve been down before when Renault were testing and they were very friendly to the public, let us look inside the ‘garage’ set up and closest I’ll probably get to a running F1 car, and what a backdrop.

That would be exciting!! No, racing was more exciting and more unpredictable a few years ago with less technology.

No idea what he’s on about…………..

Mean sea level rises globally factoring out al the myriad local variations are about 1.8mm annually. In the lifetime of a nuclear reactor that is about 70mm. I think that can be safely factored into the calculations.

No it means you go ping and I go pong, or vice versa, if you prefer.

I have rephrased it – isn’t that acceptable? You seem to have conceded that it is, despite the italics.

What about a plane flying into a nuclear power station? But Oldbury hasn’t has it, and is extremely unlikely to do so. I do not follow the logic of your argument which seems to be based on the fact you are opposed to nuclear power. Fair enough but I think there needs to be a basis for your position other than that they are inherently dangerous, without setting the danger in context.

I would if I had my way remove all of the telemetry so they cannot tweak anything from the pit wall or plan anything……. would leave the radio in but make it for the drivers to be able to warn the stewards of anything untoward on the circuit……… take it back to real racing where the drivers and pit crews best guess is all they can use.

Now you are talking…..:)