Conservation groups express concern over 175-turbine Rampion wind farm off Sussex coast

The view of the Rampion wind farm from Birling Gap

The view of the Rampion wind farm from Birling Gap

First published in News
Last updated
by

The approval of a wind farm 13km off the Sussex coast has been met by opposition from conservation authorities.

The South Downs National Park (SDNPA), The National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) have all expressed concern over E.ON’s 175-turbine Rampion wind farm, which was given consent by the Government last Wednesday.

The SDNPA said it would “scar” the county’s rare chalk grassland. The project means digging a 14km trench for an underground cable connection to the national grid running through the South Downs to a substation near Bolney.

Trevor Beattie, SDNPA chief executive, said: “There will be 14km of cable going straight through the rare chalk grassland of the national park.

“It is a rarer habitat than the Amazon rainforest.

“How long the scar will take to repair itself we don’t know.”

In the South Downs National Park, 4% of the land is chalk grassland.

The decision does mean E.ON has to pay the SDNPA £242,500 in mitigation and £116,000 for monitoring, while it has reduced the number of turbines from 195 to 175.

Mr Beattie welcomed the mitigation measures but felt they did not go far enough.

The National Trust is also disappointed by the level of mitigation.

Jane Cecil, the trust’s general manager for the South Downs, said: “We support renewable energy in principle but remain concerned about the major potential impact of the proposals on Birling Gap, Seven Sisters and the Heritage Coast.”

The RSPB is in favour of renewable energy but previously raised concerns about the wind farm’s impact on kittiwake breeding and birds migrating along the Channel, which could collide with the turbines.

However, not all environmentalists are against the wind farm. Brenda Pollack, from Friends of the Earth, described the approval as “fantastic”.

Michael Lewis, chief operating officer for E.ON Renewables, said: “We firmly believe Rampion will make a significant contribution towards meeting the UK’s renewable energy targets.”

Chris Tomlinson, development manager for Rampion Wind Farm, added: “The wind farm will not only help generate jobs but also provide a boost to the port regeneration at Newhaven and the local economy.”

E.ON said it would remain aware of the environmental impact of activities associated with building the wind farm.

The first sections of onshore cabling work are expected to start in spring 2015.

The farm is expected to produce enough energy to power two-thirds of the homes across Sussex.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:11pm Thu 24 Jul 14

billy goat-gruff says...

For goodness sakes, the south east will all be under water if we continue to burn fossil fuels and produce more carbon dioxide!
For goodness sakes, the south east will all be under water if we continue to burn fossil fuels and produce more carbon dioxide! billy goat-gruff
  • Score: -1

12:12pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Bugzy84 says...

Oh this stupid argument that wind turbines kill huge amounts of birds, compare this to cats, power lines, windows, pesticides, cars, trucks, and lighted towers which causes millions of bird deaths each on there own.
Oh this stupid argument that wind turbines kill huge amounts of birds, compare this to cats, power lines, windows, pesticides, cars, trucks, and lighted towers which causes millions of bird deaths each on there own. Bugzy84
  • Score: 9

12:13pm Thu 24 Jul 14

rolivan says...

The answer to the question about recovery of the Chalkland is readily available just look where the Natural Gas Pipeline was laid and you have your answer . As for Birdlife ask the People in Brittany where there are hundreds of Turbines and it is on the Migration route for countless species.
The answer to the question about recovery of the Chalkland is readily available just look where the Natural Gas Pipeline was laid and you have your answer . As for Birdlife ask the People in Brittany where there are hundreds of Turbines and it is on the Migration route for countless species. rolivan
  • Score: 7

12:33pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans. Kate234
  • Score: -3

12:41pm Thu 24 Jul 14

fredaj says...

Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
It is not like they want to build a 100 foot high wall on the beach - we will still have a sea view.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]It is not like they want to build a 100 foot high wall on the beach - we will still have a sea view. fredaj
  • Score: -1

1:48pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Bugzy84 says...

Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
And in 50 years when we have depleted fossil fuels and the country decays into a war torn hell hole i'm sure they will thank you preserving the sea horizon.
People like you are the cancer of society and the fools of spin doctors.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]And in 50 years when we have depleted fossil fuels and the country decays into a war torn hell hole i'm sure they will thank you preserving the sea horizon. People like you are the cancer of society and the fools of spin doctors. Bugzy84
  • Score: -4

1:49pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Will scar the chalk grassland? Tough. The opposition to these schemes beggars belief and gets more and more desperate.

Our growing population needs the energy, but fine, let's scrap it and build a ruddy great coal-fired power satation instead. Happy now SDNPA?

(SDNPA reply: We don't care, so long as whatever it is you build it somewhere else)
Will scar the chalk grassland? Tough. The opposition to these schemes beggars belief and gets more and more desperate. Our growing population needs the energy, but fine, let's scrap it and build a ruddy great coal-fired power satation instead. Happy now SDNPA? (SDNPA reply: We don't care, so long as whatever it is you build it somewhere else) Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 2

2:26pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Poem58 says...

Possible impact on seagulls?

Any possibility we could have one nearer to Brighton...
Possible impact on seagulls? Any possibility we could have one nearer to Brighton... Poem58
  • Score: -1

2:34pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Made In Sussex says...

A scarred chalk land, really?? I remember a new gas pipeline being laid from Worthing to Washington in the early 90's and yes the land was scarred for a while but within 10 years you wouldn't have a clue it had ever been put in. Clutching at straws methinks!
A scarred chalk land, really?? I remember a new gas pipeline being laid from Worthing to Washington in the early 90's and yes the land was scarred for a while but within 10 years you wouldn't have a clue it had ever been put in. Clutching at straws methinks! Made In Sussex
  • Score: 3

2:40pm Thu 24 Jul 14

s_james says...

Landscape scarring is temporary and certainly not a reason not to proceed. As for the view - a few faint matchsticks lined up on the horizon does not equal a ruined view.
Landscape scarring is temporary and certainly not a reason not to proceed. As for the view - a few faint matchsticks lined up on the horizon does not equal a ruined view. s_james
  • Score: 4

5:19pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Goldenwight says...

"Trevor Beattie, SDNPA chief executive, said: “There will be 14km of cable going straight through the rare chalk grassland of the national park.

“It is a rarer habitat than the Amazon rainforest."

Quite possibly it is a rarer habitat, but this is surely due to the relative size of the Amazon rainforest which covers half a continent?
"Trevor Beattie, SDNPA chief executive, said: “There will be 14km of cable going straight through the rare chalk grassland of the national park. “It is a rarer habitat than the Amazon rainforest." Quite possibly it is a rarer habitat, but this is surely due to the relative size of the Amazon rainforest which covers half a continent? Goldenwight
  • Score: 2

7:23pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang
e and amusing rantings though they are!
I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang e and amusing rantings though they are! I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it. Nikski
  • Score: 2

8:47pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

Nikski wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang

e and amusing rantings though they are!
I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.
Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption.
Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang e and amusing rantings though they are! I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.[/p][/quote]Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption. Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits. Kate234
  • Score: -3

8:52pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Kate234 wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang


e and amusing rantings though they are!
I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.
Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption.
Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.
'I am talking from a science background'........R
eally?
Your argument doesn't come across as overly scientific I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang e and amusing rantings though they are! I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.[/p][/quote]Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption. Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.[/p][/quote]'I am talking from a science background'........R eally? Your argument doesn't come across as overly scientific I'm afraid. Nikski
  • Score: 1

9:10pm Thu 24 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Kate234 wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang


e and amusing rantings though they are!
I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.
Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption.
Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.
I don't know what you are complaining about. People like you have voted for a free market system that has left Britain as little more than an opportunity for multinationals and foreign state owned companies to make money.

If we build nuclear it is French, Chinese and Russian state companies that benefit. Open up more fossil fueled power stations and you can add Germans to the list. We flogged it all off for a song years ago and I bet you voted for it.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang e and amusing rantings though they are! I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.[/p][/quote]Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption. Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.[/p][/quote]I don't know what you are complaining about. People like you have voted for a free market system that has left Britain as little more than an opportunity for multinationals and foreign state owned companies to make money. If we build nuclear it is French, Chinese and Russian state companies that benefit. Open up more fossil fueled power stations and you can add Germans to the list. We flogged it all off for a song years ago and I bet you voted for it. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

9:15pm Thu 24 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

This feels like a bit of a desperate attempt to stir things up by the Argus.

It is quite right the various environmental groups should bring pressure to bear on the siting and construction of Rampion. Wind farms can be built responsibly and with little long term damage or they can be built with little or no regard for the environment. Let's work to having the former.
This feels like a bit of a desperate attempt to stir things up by the Argus. It is quite right the various environmental groups should bring pressure to bear on the siting and construction of Rampion. Wind farms can be built responsibly and with little long term damage or they can be built with little or no regard for the environment. Let's work to having the former. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

9:27pm Thu 24 Jul 14

John Steed says...

Get it built, let the whinging stop and the action start.
Get it built, let the whinging stop and the action start. John Steed
  • Score: 1

12:55am Fri 25 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man.
Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.
Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man. Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: -7

6:19am Fri 25 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

HJarrs wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang



e and amusing rantings though they are!
I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.
Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption.
Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.
I don't know what you are complaining about. People like you have voted for a free market system that has left Britain as little more than an opportunity for multinationals and foreign state owned companies to make money.

If we build nuclear it is French, Chinese and Russian state companies that benefit. Open up more fossil fueled power stations and you can add Germans to the list. We flogged it all off for a song years ago and I bet you voted for it.
I have no objection to the company doing this being German, although I think there may be an argument that some things as important as energy should be UK owned.

The objection I have is the environmental destruction to areas of great beauty and as UK taxpayers us paying £200 million in subsidies to allow this scheme to happen. This isn't free market capitalism as without a significant amount of taxpayers money E-On wouldn't build it. The free market consider it a poor investment. In a free market situation E-ON should also be paying to get the sea land, destroying the views and for destruction of the Downs.

They are not. The Conservatives and Lib Dems have instead paid them our money to do this. They could have instead given solar panels free of charge to 44,000 elderly people on low incomes and in exchange reduced the winter fuel allowance for instance and used the money they saved each year to invest in additional panels for more elderly people.

Any upside in profits of course from Rampion will go out of the country to Germany.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang e and amusing rantings though they are! I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.[/p][/quote]Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption. Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.[/p][/quote]I don't know what you are complaining about. People like you have voted for a free market system that has left Britain as little more than an opportunity for multinationals and foreign state owned companies to make money. If we build nuclear it is French, Chinese and Russian state companies that benefit. Open up more fossil fueled power stations and you can add Germans to the list. We flogged it all off for a song years ago and I bet you voted for it.[/p][/quote]I have no objection to the company doing this being German, although I think there may be an argument that some things as important as energy should be UK owned. The objection I have is the environmental destruction to areas of great beauty and as UK taxpayers us paying £200 million in subsidies to allow this scheme to happen. This isn't free market capitalism as without a significant amount of taxpayers money E-On wouldn't build it. The free market consider it a poor investment. In a free market situation E-ON should also be paying to get the sea land, destroying the views and for destruction of the Downs. They are not. The Conservatives and Lib Dems have instead paid them our money to do this. They could have instead given solar panels free of charge to 44,000 elderly people on low incomes and in exchange reduced the winter fuel allowance for instance and used the money they saved each year to invest in additional panels for more elderly people. Any upside in profits of course from Rampion will go out of the country to Germany. Kate234
  • Score: -2

6:54am Fri 25 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Thankfully it's only creatures which will perish and no million pound homes affected as in Balcombe otherwise Caroline and her posh hippy mates would be protesting.
It's funny I never see them protesting about the diesel vans in Wild Park causing an environmental mess as they were this week, but then who gives a toss about Moulsecoomb and the park, there's no photoshoot opportunity and no fancy houses.
Thankfully it's only creatures which will perish and no million pound homes affected as in Balcombe otherwise Caroline and her posh hippy mates would be protesting. It's funny I never see them protesting about the diesel vans in Wild Park causing an environmental mess as they were this week, but then who gives a toss about Moulsecoomb and the park, there's no photoshoot opportunity and no fancy houses. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

8:24am Fri 25 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man.
Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.
Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now?

It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man. Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.[/p][/quote]Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now? It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

8:29am Fri 25 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Thankfully it's only creatures which will perish and no million pound homes affected as in Balcombe otherwise Caroline and her posh hippy mates would be protesting.
It's funny I never see them protesting about the diesel vans in Wild Park causing an environmental mess as they were this week, but then who gives a toss about Moulsecoomb and the park, there's no photoshoot opportunity and no fancy houses.
So you don't think we should be building wind farms? How do you propose we meet our emission objectives? Or don't you?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Thankfully it's only creatures which will perish and no million pound homes affected as in Balcombe otherwise Caroline and her posh hippy mates would be protesting. It's funny I never see them protesting about the diesel vans in Wild Park causing an environmental mess as they were this week, but then who gives a toss about Moulsecoomb and the park, there's no photoshoot opportunity and no fancy houses.[/p][/quote]So you don't think we should be building wind farms? How do you propose we meet our emission objectives? Or don't you? HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:42am Fri 25 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Kate234 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it.

The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't.

It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs.

When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for.

It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.
Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang




e and amusing rantings though they are!
I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.
Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption.
Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.
I don't know what you are complaining about. People like you have voted for a free market system that has left Britain as little more than an opportunity for multinationals and foreign state owned companies to make money.

If we build nuclear it is French, Chinese and Russian state companies that benefit. Open up more fossil fueled power stations and you can add Germans to the list. We flogged it all off for a song years ago and I bet you voted for it.
I have no objection to the company doing this being German, although I think there may be an argument that some things as important as energy should be UK owned.

The objection I have is the environmental destruction to areas of great beauty and as UK taxpayers us paying £200 million in subsidies to allow this scheme to happen. This isn't free market capitalism as without a significant amount of taxpayers money E-On wouldn't build it. The free market consider it a poor investment. In a free market situation E-ON should also be paying to get the sea land, destroying the views and for destruction of the Downs.

They are not. The Conservatives and Lib Dems have instead paid them our money to do this. They could have instead given solar panels free of charge to 44,000 elderly people on low incomes and in exchange reduced the winter fuel allowance for instance and used the money they saved each year to invest in additional panels for more elderly people.

Any upside in profits of course from Rampion will go out of the country to Germany.
What you call beauty is an opinion. I think wind turbines are majestic and add to the sky line.

There is a limit to the amount of solar that can be rolled out, we will always need offshore wind power and I fail to see why a tiny number of elderly should get free PVs when insulating their homes to a high level would provide a much higher quality of life and Rampion will provide power enough for well over 200000 households.

Personally, I would have prioritised energy efficiency, including insulating the building stock to a very high level, on shore wind, then PV and finally solar heat, offshore wind and heat networks. All following on in quick succession. Sadly, we have a government going about things in the wrong order. And we should own the lot.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: As UK taxpayers we will also be subsidising this scheme to the tune of £225m a year. All profits go to Germany to EON. The energy generated from it will also be highly expensive and only rich Greens will be using it. The report that approved this also acknowledges that it will have a negative impact on local economies. People don't pay to look at wind turbine views from Brighton seafront or from Sussex beauty spots. Caroline Lucas and Norma Baker may pay to get a wind turbine view in Skegness for their holidays but normal people don't. It will also according to the report that approved it by the energy secretary create very few jobs. When these turbines go up I think the conservative and liberal democrats that let this scheme happen on their watch will have a lot to answer for. It is a disgrace that we have given away Brighton's best asset (our sea view) at a very high financial cost to all taxpayers to the Germans.[/p][/quote]Ok your tedious negative whining is one thing, but to talk unadulterated nonsense about rich greens, Germans etc is quite another.......strang e and amusing rantings though they are! I wonder did you look at the picture of the wind farm from Birling Gap? See how small it looks and how little of the horizon it occupies? Yes well that will be the same looking out from Brighton, hardly 'giving away' the view is it.[/p][/quote]Yes I have looked at the photos. They are visible right across the seafront. If you want a real like example look at Skegness where they have been very unpopular. I don't want to look at electricity pylons, wind turbines or oil rigs right across the seafront. Also as a taxpayer investment it is very expensive as well as unpopular and an inefficient way to reduce carbon consumption. Mind you I am talking from a science background and the facts not from a Green party - Ecotricity £20,000 donation background. If the governments wants to pay £200 million pounds to install solar panels on industrial factories or put the money into a low carbon technology such as nuclear that's fine. However they should not have the right to damage or beautiful and precious environment for German E-On profits.[/p][/quote]I don't know what you are complaining about. People like you have voted for a free market system that has left Britain as little more than an opportunity for multinationals and foreign state owned companies to make money. If we build nuclear it is French, Chinese and Russian state companies that benefit. Open up more fossil fueled power stations and you can add Germans to the list. We flogged it all off for a song years ago and I bet you voted for it.[/p][/quote]I have no objection to the company doing this being German, although I think there may be an argument that some things as important as energy should be UK owned. The objection I have is the environmental destruction to areas of great beauty and as UK taxpayers us paying £200 million in subsidies to allow this scheme to happen. This isn't free market capitalism as without a significant amount of taxpayers money E-On wouldn't build it. The free market consider it a poor investment. In a free market situation E-ON should also be paying to get the sea land, destroying the views and for destruction of the Downs. They are not. The Conservatives and Lib Dems have instead paid them our money to do this. They could have instead given solar panels free of charge to 44,000 elderly people on low incomes and in exchange reduced the winter fuel allowance for instance and used the money they saved each year to invest in additional panels for more elderly people. Any upside in profits of course from Rampion will go out of the country to Germany.[/p][/quote]What you call beauty is an opinion. I think wind turbines are majestic and add to the sky line. There is a limit to the amount of solar that can be rolled out, we will always need offshore wind power and I fail to see why a tiny number of elderly should get free PVs when insulating their homes to a high level would provide a much higher quality of life and Rampion will provide power enough for well over 200000 households. Personally, I would have prioritised energy efficiency, including insulating the building stock to a very high level, on shore wind, then PV and finally solar heat, offshore wind and heat networks. All following on in quick succession. Sadly, we have a government going about things in the wrong order. And we should own the lot. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

9:13am Fri 25 Jul 14

Morpheus says...

HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man.
Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.
Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now?

It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.
Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question:
http://www.climatesc
ienceinternational.o
rg/index.php?option=
com_content&view=art
icle&id=761
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man. Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.[/p][/quote]Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now? It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.[/p][/quote]Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question: http://www.climatesc ienceinternational.o rg/index.php?option= com_content&view=art icle&id=761 Morpheus
  • Score: -2

9:36am Fri 25 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

Morpheus wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man.
Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.
Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now?

It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.
Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question:
http://www.climatesc

ienceinternational.o

rg/index.php?option=

com_content&view
=art
icle&id=761
HJarrs claims to follow the science but objects to fracking. There will be a reason why this letter has no validity, such as all the scientists have been bribed by oil companies or have shares in fossil fuel companies etc.

Climate change is, for the greens a religion. Like ancient religious structures that sought to control populations, climate change is a new type of socialism also designed to control huge swathes of society. And for those lucky enough to be near the top of the pyramid, there's plenty of money in it too.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man. Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.[/p][/quote]Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now? It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.[/p][/quote]Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question: http://www.climatesc ienceinternational.o rg/index.php?option= com_content&view =art icle&id=761[/p][/quote]HJarrs claims to follow the science but objects to fracking. There will be a reason why this letter has no validity, such as all the scientists have been bribed by oil companies or have shares in fossil fuel companies etc. Climate change is, for the greens a religion. Like ancient religious structures that sought to control populations, climate change is a new type of socialism also designed to control huge swathes of society. And for those lucky enough to be near the top of the pyramid, there's plenty of money in it too. Plantpot
  • Score: -2

9:48am Fri 25 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Plantpot wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man.
Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.
Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now?

It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.
Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question:
http://www.climatesc


ienceinternational.o


rg/index.php?option=


com_content&view

=art
icle&id=761
HJarrs claims to follow the science but objects to fracking. There will be a reason why this letter has no validity, such as all the scientists have been bribed by oil companies or have shares in fossil fuel companies etc.

Climate change is, for the greens a religion. Like ancient religious structures that sought to control populations, climate change is a new type of socialism also designed to control huge swathes of society. And for those lucky enough to be near the top of the pyramid, there's plenty of money in it too.
Your arguments sound a tad paranoid; conspiracy theories anyone. Your lack of reason would be worrying if it wasn't so laughable. You talk about the wind farm being 'the folly of man' - so the plundering of the earth's resources, destruction of habitat, overwhelming evidence of climate change are not the result of 'the folly of man'?
You keep on burying your head in the sand chum......
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man. Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.[/p][/quote]Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now? It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.[/p][/quote]Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question: http://www.climatesc ienceinternational.o rg/index.php?option= com_content&view =art icle&id=761[/p][/quote]HJarrs claims to follow the science but objects to fracking. There will be a reason why this letter has no validity, such as all the scientists have been bribed by oil companies or have shares in fossil fuel companies etc. Climate change is, for the greens a religion. Like ancient religious structures that sought to control populations, climate change is a new type of socialism also designed to control huge swathes of society. And for those lucky enough to be near the top of the pyramid, there's plenty of money in it too.[/p][/quote]Your arguments sound a tad paranoid; conspiracy theories anyone. Your lack of reason would be worrying if it wasn't so laughable. You talk about the wind farm being 'the folly of man' - so the plundering of the earth's resources, destruction of habitat, overwhelming evidence of climate change are not the result of 'the folly of man'? You keep on burying your head in the sand chum...... Nikski
  • Score: 0

11:38am Fri 25 Jul 14

Fairfax Aches says...

thinly veiled NIMBYs using any excuse to protect their ill-gotten gains at the expense of the rest of society.
thinly veiled NIMBYs using any excuse to protect their ill-gotten gains at the expense of the rest of society. Fairfax Aches
  • Score: -3

3:02pm Fri 25 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Plantpot wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man.
Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.
Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now?

It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.
Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question:
http://www.climatesc


ienceinternational.o


rg/index.php?option=


com_content&view

=art
icle&id=761
HJarrs claims to follow the science but objects to fracking. There will be a reason why this letter has no validity, such as all the scientists have been bribed by oil companies or have shares in fossil fuel companies etc.

Climate change is, for the greens a religion. Like ancient religious structures that sought to control populations, climate change is a new type of socialism also designed to control huge swathes of society. And for those lucky enough to be near the top of the pyramid, there's plenty of money in it too.
How does fracking lower carbon emissions? Religion is based upon faith and you have to have a big slice of faith to think that fracking is some sort of solution.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man. Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.[/p][/quote]Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now? It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.[/p][/quote]Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question: http://www.climatesc ienceinternational.o rg/index.php?option= com_content&view =art icle&id=761[/p][/quote]HJarrs claims to follow the science but objects to fracking. There will be a reason why this letter has no validity, such as all the scientists have been bribed by oil companies or have shares in fossil fuel companies etc. Climate change is, for the greens a religion. Like ancient religious structures that sought to control populations, climate change is a new type of socialism also designed to control huge swathes of society. And for those lucky enough to be near the top of the pyramid, there's plenty of money in it too.[/p][/quote]How does fracking lower carbon emissions? Religion is based upon faith and you have to have a big slice of faith to think that fracking is some sort of solution. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

3:07pm Fri 25 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Morpheus wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man.
Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.
Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now?

It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.
Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question:
http://www.climatesc

ienceinternational.o

rg/index.php?option=

com_content&view
=art
icle&id=761
Look, posting up a letter from well known climate skeptics and deniers posted on a climate skeptic organisation's website part funded by the climate denying Heartland foundation that also funded pro-tobacco propoganda (and is using the same tactics to stop action on climate change) is hardly going to change my mind is it?
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: Well....The lukewarmers have won the scientific argument on CAGW (i.e. its not going to happen), although you may not have been told this if your information comes from a left/liberal newspaper. This means one of two things - either this wind farm will be put up quickly so as to maximise the income stream (subsidies), or it will miss the boat and not be built. My money's on the latter at the moment, a good result for anyone who enjoys looking out to sea and contemplating the grandeur of nature rather than the folly of Man. Having said that, I have to agree that the downland/sea floor destruction will be limited and temporary, although I wouldn't like to be a local Gull if it is put up.[/p][/quote]Climate change deniers now calling themselves lukewarmers now? It is not about people winning a debate, it is about physics. You "lukewarmers" are yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to how emitting billions of tonnes extra of green house gases does not significantly affect our climate.[/p][/quote]Try reading this letter signed by 134 climate scientists and you will have the answer to your question: http://www.climatesc ienceinternational.o rg/index.php?option= com_content&view =art icle&id=761[/p][/quote]Look, posting up a letter from well known climate skeptics and deniers posted on a climate skeptic organisation's website part funded by the climate denying Heartland foundation that also funded pro-tobacco propoganda (and is using the same tactics to stop action on climate change) is hardly going to change my mind is it? HJarrs
  • Score: -2

10:14am Sat 26 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

In 2012 and 2013 the UK benefitted from a glut of cheap coal shipped here from the USA as the States has increased its reliance on fracked shale gas enabling the country to expert more fossil fuel.
UK energy customers received cheaper energy prices due to fracking which is being expanded across the globe.
So while it may be useful to have wind turbines, no doubt we will continue to use cheap fossil fuels for many decades.
The Eco folk still have not answered why some environmental damage is more acceptable than others, it can only be the cost of the houses in Balcombe as I said earlier none of these Eco people are campaigning about the diesel threat to our parks.
It's odd.
In 2012 and 2013 the UK benefitted from a glut of cheap coal shipped here from the USA as the States has increased its reliance on fracked shale gas enabling the country to expert more fossil fuel. UK energy customers received cheaper energy prices due to fracking which is being expanded across the globe. So while it may be useful to have wind turbines, no doubt we will continue to use cheap fossil fuels for many decades. The Eco folk still have not answered why some environmental damage is more acceptable than others, it can only be the cost of the houses in Balcombe as I said earlier none of these Eco people are campaigning about the diesel threat to our parks. It's odd. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree