Getting ready for Climate Change in Warrington

Warrington Guardian: Getting ready for Climate Change in Warrington Getting ready for Climate Change in Warrington

SNOW in spring, hurricane force gales - even hot weather in early March.

Climate change is happening in Warrington and this week, we look at what is being done to tackle the issue.

DOCUMENTS

A NEW framework has been produced to look at what impact severe weather has in Warrington.

Clr Linda Dirir, executive board member for climate change at Warrington Borough Council, said: “In August 2013, we signed climate local which committed us to set locally-owned and determined commitments and actions to reduce carbon emissions and to manage climate impacts.

“This framework is our commitment to managing climate impacts.

“For the council, it means making sure that we can continue to deliver our services during extreme weather events and that our infrastructure like parks and roads, are suitable for long term changes in weather.

“The framework looks into how we can help businesses and the rest of our community to be prepared for such events and become more resilient to ensure that there is minimal disruption.”

Copies and guides for businesses are available at warrington.gov.uk/info/200561/climate_change and you can call the team on 442630 for more information.

Meanwhile the council is currently asking for people to get involved in a consultation on its flood risk strategy which runs until the end of March. Have your say at warrington.gov.uk/floodrisk.

GUIDE

A GUIDE to help businesses prepare for extreme weather is now available.

Warrington Borough Council has teamed up with neighbouring authorities in Cheshire to produce Weathering the Storm.

it looks at how businesses in the borough can become more resilient to extreme weather events, offering advice on how to maintain business continuity.

Clr Dirir said: “We hope that businesses find this guide useful and helps them prepare for the impacts of extreme weather and also offers advice about how to recover quickly if you are affected.

“Such events have the potential to affect our everyday lives and it is important that we all take responsibility and do everything we can to be prepared.”

Included are cases studies from businesses who have been hit by extreme weather, how they dealt with it and also useful advice on how to respond to the variety of weather.

Get the guide from claspinfo.org/SMEadapt

EMERGENCY PLANS

WHEN emergencies do happen, there is a team of council officers ready to help.

Theresa Whitfield is risk and resilience manager for the council and manages the team responsible for making sure thos emergency plans and response arrangements are ready.

She said “We can rely on the resources of teams council wide to provide a seamless, co-ordinated response with our partners, the ultimate aim is to minimise the disruption to the council’s business and the services we provide to our community”

Emergencies can be anything from a serious fire or gas leak, widespread flooding, evacuation or a public health emergency.

Plans are testing regularly to make sure they are set for the real thing.

And that happened in late November when homes around Chester Road were evacuated over worries about a possible explosion at a nearby petrol station Some reisdents were moved to a hotel and it was council officers who were sent out to help.

There is more information on the council website, or e-mail emergencyplanning@warrington.gov.uk with questions.

DECLARATION

MARCH will see the singing of The Warrington declaration.

The agreement, which covers the whole of the town, accepts climate change is happening and council bosses say it shows a commitment to making a change.

Clr Dirir, who came up with the idea, said: “Climate change affects everyone and we can all play our part.

“Local authority, business and community leadership, and individual action will be essential to success.

“We will make better progress if we work together. By having a Warrington declaration it is a way of bringing together the different organisations in our area.”

TASK GROUP

THE council event has an extreme weather task group - charged with responding to emergency situations.

Be it flooding, heatwave, ice or snow the group of councillors and officers meet to look at the impact of severe weather and what can be done to improve the response.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:06pm Fri 14 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

"THE council event has an extreme weather task group - charged with responding to emergency situations".

Didn't come and fix my bloody fence though did you!

Still Grumpy
"THE council event has an extreme weather task group - charged with responding to emergency situations". Didn't come and fix my bloody fence though did you! Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 3

12:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Karlar says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
"THE council event has an extreme weather task group - charged with responding to emergency situations".

Didn't come and fix my bloody fence though did you!

Still Grumpy
Nor does it seem to have attended promptly to the climate change induced increase in the local pot hole count.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: "THE council event has an extreme weather task group - charged with responding to emergency situations". Didn't come and fix my bloody fence though did you! Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Nor does it seem to have attended promptly to the climate change induced increase in the local pot hole count. Karlar
  • Score: 9

3:27pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't. Freeborn John
  • Score: 3

3:34pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Nick Tessla says...

Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc. Nick Tessla
  • Score: 1

3:52pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

The evidence is not overwhelming.
And it is you, not I, that is quoting dogma like a flat earther.
The evidence is not overwhelming. And it is you, not I, that is quoting dogma like a flat earther. Freeborn John
  • Score: 2

6:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Karlar says...

Freeborn John wrote:
The evidence is not overwhelming.
And it is you, not I, that is quoting dogma like a flat earther.
It is you not me that is quoting dogma like a flat earther. That said, I grant you the manner in which wind turbines, voltaic cells and allthe other allegedly green methods of generating electricity are presently funded is inequitable.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: The evidence is not overwhelming. And it is you, not I, that is quoting dogma like a flat earther.[/p][/quote]It is you not me that is quoting dogma like a flat earther. That said, I grant you the manner in which wind turbines, voltaic cells and allthe other allegedly green methods of generating electricity are presently funded is inequitable. Karlar
  • Score: -2

11:04pm Fri 14 Mar 14

muckerman says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change. muckerman
  • Score: -2

2:02am Sat 15 Mar 14

grey-area says...

Why doesn't the Council (or Government) make solar panels and/or wind turbines compulsory on new build houses if they take climate change seriously?

But this just seems like another "bandwagon" report where nothing is actually achieved.
Why doesn't the Council (or Government) make solar panels and/or wind turbines compulsory on new build houses if they take climate change seriously? But this just seems like another "bandwagon" report where nothing is actually achieved. grey-area
  • Score: 3

8:35am Sat 15 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

muckerman wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.
I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job.
But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do.
Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it.
The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science.
Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.
[quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.[/p][/quote]I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job. But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do. Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it. The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science. Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it. Freeborn John
  • Score: 1

3:38pm Sat 15 Mar 14

muckerman says...

Freeborn John,
Just for the record then, how old do you think the Earth is?
Freeborn John, Just for the record then, how old do you think the Earth is? muckerman
  • Score: -3

6:54pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

muckerman wrote:
Freeborn John,
Just for the record then, how old do you think the Earth is?
The Earth is thought to have formed around 4.5 Billion years ago, since the scientists involved in calculating this figure have no incentive to lie, nor are they involved in some Earth ageist cult, I can go along with that.
[quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: Freeborn John, Just for the record then, how old do you think the Earth is?[/p][/quote]The Earth is thought to have formed around 4.5 Billion years ago, since the scientists involved in calculating this figure have no incentive to lie, nor are they involved in some Earth ageist cult, I can go along with that. Freeborn John
  • Score: 3

8:47pm Sat 15 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
muckerman wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.
I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job.
But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do.
Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it.
The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science.
Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.
I can think of a name worse than Bigot..or Creationist
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.[/p][/quote]I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job. But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do. Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it. The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science. Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.[/p][/quote]I can think of a name worse than Bigot..or Creationist PageA
  • Score: -3

8:48pm Sat 15 Mar 14

PageA says...

PageA wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
muckerman wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.
I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job.
But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do.
Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it.
The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science.
Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.
I can think of a name worse than Bigot..or Creationist
...Clarkson
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.[/p][/quote]I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job. But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do. Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it. The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science. Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.[/p][/quote]I can think of a name worse than Bigot..or Creationist[/p][/quote]...Clarkson PageA
  • Score: -1

9:07pm Sat 15 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
muckerman wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.
I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job.
But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do.
Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it.
The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science.
Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.
Haha! they didn't bury it Freeborn John, they debunked it. Only you and Sarah Palin still believe this nonsense
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.[/p][/quote]I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job. But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do. Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it. The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science. Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.[/p][/quote]Haha! they didn't bury it Freeborn John, they debunked it. Only you and Sarah Palin still believe this nonsense PageA
  • Score: -3

9:44pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

PageA wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
muckerman wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.
I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job.
But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do.
Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it.
The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science.
Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.
Haha! they didn't bury it Freeborn John, they debunked it. Only you and Sarah Palin still believe this nonsense
They debunked the fact that a Warmist cadre (with an eye on all that lovely funding) at the University of East Anglia were caught red handed rigging data from Russian weather stations to make it look like Climate Change was real?
Oh, you silly sausage, you can't debunk the awkward truth, only bury it
Nowt wrong with Sarah by the way, I believe that MILF is the current term....
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.[/p][/quote]I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job. But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do. Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it. The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science. Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.[/p][/quote]Haha! they didn't bury it Freeborn John, they debunked it. Only you and Sarah Palin still believe this nonsense[/p][/quote]They debunked the fact that a Warmist cadre (with an eye on all that lovely funding) at the University of East Anglia were caught red handed rigging data from Russian weather stations to make it look like Climate Change was real? Oh, you silly sausage, you can't debunk the awkward truth, only bury it Nowt wrong with Sarah by the way, I believe that MILF is the current term.... Freeborn John
  • Score: 1

10:37pm Sat 15 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
PageA wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
muckerman wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.
I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job.
But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do.
Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it.
The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science.
Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.
Haha! they didn't bury it Freeborn John, they debunked it. Only you and Sarah Palin still believe this nonsense
They debunked the fact that a Warmist cadre (with an eye on all that lovely funding) at the University of East Anglia were caught red handed rigging data from Russian weather stations to make it look like Climate Change was real?
Oh, you silly sausage, you can't debunk the awkward truth, only bury it
Nowt wrong with Sarah by the way, I believe that MILF is the current term....
I think you mean GILF and er...whatever floats your boat. It all went very quiet because you didn't get the smoking gun that you wanted. Your reference is so outdated that there really isn't an argument. Can I suggest you update your internet search or read a book.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]I'm with you Nick: A lot of creationists think the good old Earth is only around 6000 years old. You will find that a lot of these idiots are the ones who mostly deny climate change.[/p][/quote]I don't think that Tessie imagines for a second that I'm really a flat earth nut job. But with no opportunity to hiss 'Bigot!' or any other of his favourite luvvieist put downs at me, then 'Creationist!' will have to do. Anyway, I repeat, Climate Change is a lie, a worldwide swindle designed to hoover our pockets out, though when I say worldwide, I mean the EU and USA, nobody else swallows it. The 'evidence' (for man made CO2 changes) doesn't bear scrutiny, being bad science, spin doctored science, or, as in the case of Climategate at the University of East Anglia, lying through their teeth science. Climategate. They soon buried that one, Google it.[/p][/quote]Haha! they didn't bury it Freeborn John, they debunked it. Only you and Sarah Palin still believe this nonsense[/p][/quote]They debunked the fact that a Warmist cadre (with an eye on all that lovely funding) at the University of East Anglia were caught red handed rigging data from Russian weather stations to make it look like Climate Change was real? Oh, you silly sausage, you can't debunk the awkward truth, only bury it Nowt wrong with Sarah by the way, I believe that MILF is the current term....[/p][/quote]I think you mean GILF and er...whatever floats your boat. It all went very quiet because you didn't get the smoking gun that you wanted. Your reference is so outdated that there really isn't an argument. Can I suggest you update your internet search or read a book. PageA
  • Score: -4

8:09am Sun 16 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

No problem, here's something from just 19 days ago then.
On 25th Feb 2014 a chap called Patrick Moore spoke in the US Congress about Climate Change.
Mr Moore has immaculate credentials, he is the co founder and one time president of Greenpeace, the environmental activist group.
Said Moore;
'It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it look as though they're saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over large issues like our entire energy policy, media for sensationalism, universities and professors for grants...you can't hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has got something to do with Climate Change.'
Mr Moore went on to point out that the Earth once had 10 times the CO2 we have now and still experienced an ice age, which knocks the whole thing onto its backside, and pointed out that the climate models which Warmist zealots constantly shove down our throats as 'proof' of climate change are, in reality, as accurate as 'throwing a load of bones on the ground'.
Do try to keep up Pagey, and perhaps you could bring something of your own to the table? Bring a book if you wish, preferably one that's not been coloured in yet!
No problem, here's something from just 19 days ago then. On 25th Feb 2014 a chap called Patrick Moore spoke in the US Congress about Climate Change. Mr Moore has immaculate credentials, he is the co founder and one time president of Greenpeace, the environmental activist group. Said Moore; 'It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it look as though they're saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over large issues like our entire energy policy, media for sensationalism, universities and professors for grants...you can't hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has got something to do with Climate Change.' Mr Moore went on to point out that the Earth once had 10 times the CO2 we have now and still experienced an ice age, which knocks the whole thing onto its backside, and pointed out that the climate models which Warmist zealots constantly shove down our throats as 'proof' of climate change are, in reality, as accurate as 'throwing a load of bones on the ground'. Do try to keep up Pagey, and perhaps you could bring something of your own to the table? Bring a book if you wish, preferably one that's not been coloured in yet! Freeborn John
  • Score: 2

9:43am Sun 16 Mar 14

Nick Tessla says...

The weakness of the deniers case is their obsession with one incident of misbehaviour by one set of academics.
The weakness of the deniers case is their obsession with one incident of misbehaviour by one set of academics. Nick Tessla
  • Score: -2

10:55am Sun 16 Mar 14

Nick Tessla says...

CORRECTION

The weakness of the deniers case is demonstrated by their obsession with one incident of misbehaviour by one set of academics.
CORRECTION The weakness of the deniers case is demonstrated by their obsession with one incident of misbehaviour by one set of academics. Nick Tessla
  • Score: -1

12:34pm Sun 16 Mar 14

fedster says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock.
As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.
The evidence is overwhelming .

Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.
no they said it was round at school i feel so let down


but i have to say

WHEN emergencies do happen, there is a team of council officers ready to help.


oh yeah dont you just feel all warm inside knowing that.

bet if we had a foot of snow they wouldn't make it of there driveway.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion 'Climate Change' is a con trick, a stick devised by weasel politicians beat incredible amounts of taxes out of the rest of us, a cynical hoax designed to allow them to rub our noses in whatever PC nonsense they wish to push upon us, in short, a crock. As far as the great and the good 'singing a declaration' (freudian eh?) about it, not on my behalf they don't.[/p][/quote]The evidence is overwhelming . Mind you, some people still prefer creationism to evolution and the idea we live on a flat disc.[/p][/quote]no they said it was round at school i feel so let down but i have to say WHEN emergencies do happen, there is a team of council officers ready to help. oh yeah dont you just feel all warm inside knowing that. bet if we had a foot of snow they wouldn't make it of there driveway. fedster
  • Score: 1

6:06pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

Now here's an odd thing. Apparently, Drax power station in Yorkshire is being run on wood pellets produced by destroying woodland in the USA, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions in the UK to satisfy the climate change cultists.
Here's the mad bit, the power station is now producing 3% more CO2 than when it ran on coal, and that's before the CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them almost 4,000 miles is taken into account.
Of course, the whole farce is financed by a levy on us, the consumers, so that's all right, lots of lovely profit for somebody then.
Now here's an odd thing. Apparently, Drax power station in Yorkshire is being run on wood pellets produced by destroying woodland in the USA, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions in the UK to satisfy the climate change cultists. Here's the mad bit, the power station is now producing 3% more CO2 than when it ran on coal, and that's before the CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them almost 4,000 miles is taken into account. Of course, the whole farce is financed by a levy on us, the consumers, so that's all right, lots of lovely profit for somebody then. Freeborn John
  • Score: 3

8:39am Mon 17 Mar 14

AbsoluteZero says...

If we are going to burn anything then burning wood is one of the better options. If the trees are replanted then its even better. Burning a mature tree is a better option than letting it fall and rot. Rotting produces methane and that is a much worse greenhouse gas.

Burning fossil fuel is worse because carbon is released that was stored away millions of years ago.
If we are going to burn anything then burning wood is one of the better options. If the trees are replanted then its even better. Burning a mature tree is a better option than letting it fall and rot. Rotting produces methane and that is a much worse greenhouse gas. Burning fossil fuel is worse because carbon is released that was stored away millions of years ago. AbsoluteZero
  • Score: -1

10:50am Mon 17 Mar 14

Geoff Settle says...

grey-area wrote:
Why doesn't the Council (or Government) make solar panels and/or wind turbines compulsory on new build houses if they take climate change seriously?

But this just seems like another "bandwagon" report where nothing is actually achieved.
You can't insist on such a planning condition but WBC has encouraged GGHT and will be encouraging new Omega factories to have solar panels on rooves where appropriate.

Despite the generally poor weather last year with many grey cloudy days the GGHT solar panels proved a worth while investment as mentioned during last January's WBC Climate Change meeting :-)
[quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: Why doesn't the Council (or Government) make solar panels and/or wind turbines compulsory on new build houses if they take climate change seriously? But this just seems like another "bandwagon" report where nothing is actually achieved.[/p][/quote]You can't insist on such a planning condition but WBC has encouraged GGHT and will be encouraging new Omega factories to have solar panels on rooves where appropriate. Despite the generally poor weather last year with many grey cloudy days the GGHT solar panels proved a worth while investment as mentioned during last January's WBC Climate Change meeting :-) Geoff Settle
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Mon 17 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
No problem, here's something from just 19 days ago then.
On 25th Feb 2014 a chap called Patrick Moore spoke in the US Congress about Climate Change.
Mr Moore has immaculate credentials, he is the co founder and one time president of Greenpeace, the environmental activist group.
Said Moore;
'It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it look as though they're saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over large issues like our entire energy policy, media for sensationalism, universities and professors for grants...you can't hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has got something to do with Climate Change.'
Mr Moore went on to point out that the Earth once had 10 times the CO2 we have now and still experienced an ice age, which knocks the whole thing onto its backside, and pointed out that the climate models which Warmist zealots constantly shove down our throats as 'proof' of climate change are, in reality, as accurate as 'throwing a load of bones on the ground'.
Do try to keep up Pagey, and perhaps you could bring something of your own to the table? Bring a book if you wish, preferably one that's not been coloured in yet!
...Facepalm. Can you look into things in a bit more detail please..unless you are deliberately trying to mislead people. I've never heard of this guy but it took me .68 of 1 minute to find...

Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any expertise in the matter -- is nothing new.

Patrick Moore Is Not A Co-Founder Of Greenpeace. Moore frequently portrays himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace, a title often repeated by the media. But Moore was not a co-founder, as explained by Greenpeace:
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).

Greenpeace: Moore Left Greenpeace For "Financial Gain." Moore has repeatedly claimed that he left Greenpeace because their policies shifted to the radical left, saying for instance in his testimony, "I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective." But Greenpeace has a different view of the situation, saying "what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters."

Moore Has Been An Industry Spokesman For Over 20 Years. Patrick Moore founded Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in 1991, a communications strategy firm that promotes energy-intensive industries including "mining, energy, forestry, aquaculture, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing," and supports "environmentally sound oil extraction, like is being done in the Canadian oil sands." Moore has worked as a spokesman for many different nuclear energy companies, as reported by Media Matters

Contrary To Moore, Actual Climate Scientists Have Extensive Scientific Proof Of Man's Impact. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom's Royal Society released a report on February 26, 2014, saying that "t is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." NASA has explained some of the evidence showing that recent warming is due to an amplified greenhouse effect rather than an increase in solar output:
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: No problem, here's something from just 19 days ago then. On 25th Feb 2014 a chap called Patrick Moore spoke in the US Congress about Climate Change. Mr Moore has immaculate credentials, he is the co founder and one time president of Greenpeace, the environmental activist group. Said Moore; 'It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it look as though they're saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over large issues like our entire energy policy, media for sensationalism, universities and professors for grants...you can't hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has got something to do with Climate Change.' Mr Moore went on to point out that the Earth once had 10 times the CO2 we have now and still experienced an ice age, which knocks the whole thing onto its backside, and pointed out that the climate models which Warmist zealots constantly shove down our throats as 'proof' of climate change are, in reality, as accurate as 'throwing a load of bones on the ground'. Do try to keep up Pagey, and perhaps you could bring something of your own to the table? Bring a book if you wish, preferably one that's not been coloured in yet![/p][/quote]...Facepalm. Can you look into things in a bit more detail please..unless you are deliberately trying to mislead people. I've never heard of this guy but it took me .68 of 1 minute to find... Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any expertise in the matter -- is nothing new. Patrick Moore Is Not A Co-Founder Of Greenpeace. Moore frequently portrays himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace, a title often repeated by the media. But Moore was not a co-founder, as explained by Greenpeace: Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF). [Greenpeace, 12/7/10] Greenpeace: Moore Left Greenpeace For "Financial Gain." Moore has repeatedly claimed that he left Greenpeace because their policies shifted to the radical left, saying for instance in his testimony, "I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective." But Greenpeace has a different view of the situation, saying "what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters." [U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2/25/14; Greenpeace, 10/10/08] Moore Has Been An Industry Spokesman For Over 20 Years. Patrick Moore founded Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in 1991, a communications strategy firm that promotes energy-intensive industries including "mining, energy, forestry, aquaculture, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing," and supports "environmentally sound oil extraction, like is being done in the Canadian oil sands." Moore has worked as a spokesman for many different nuclear energy companies, as reported by Media Matters Contrary To Moore, Actual Climate Scientists Have Extensive Scientific Proof Of Man's Impact. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom's Royal Society released a report on February 26, 2014, saying that "[i]t is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." NASA has explained some of the evidence showing that recent warming is due to an amplified greenhouse effect rather than an increase in solar output: PageA
  • Score: -1

4:32pm Mon 17 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
Now here's an odd thing. Apparently, Drax power station in Yorkshire is being run on wood pellets produced by destroying woodland in the USA, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions in the UK to satisfy the climate change cultists.
Here's the mad bit, the power station is now producing 3% more CO2 than when it ran on coal, and that's before the CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them almost 4,000 miles is taken into account.
Of course, the whole farce is financed by a levy on us, the consumers, so that's all right, lots of lovely profit for somebody then.
Not quite sure I take your point here. Surely to you it doesn't matter if there's more or less CO2 produced because according to you it doesn't make any difference.
FBJ a recent analysis of 2,258 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between November 2012 and December 2013, written by a total of 9,136 authors found that 9,135 of the scientists believed that Climate change was linked to human activity.

Now i know that you'll be very interested in quoting the 1 out of the 9,136 scientists who do don't believe that in your future posts so here he is....S. V. Avakyan writing for the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Please feel free to tell me what he said and convince me that it... and only it is the truth.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: Now here's an odd thing. Apparently, Drax power station in Yorkshire is being run on wood pellets produced by destroying woodland in the USA, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions in the UK to satisfy the climate change cultists. Here's the mad bit, the power station is now producing 3% more CO2 than when it ran on coal, and that's before the CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them almost 4,000 miles is taken into account. Of course, the whole farce is financed by a levy on us, the consumers, so that's all right, lots of lovely profit for somebody then.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I take your point here. Surely to you it doesn't matter if there's more or less CO2 produced because according to you it doesn't make any difference. FBJ a recent analysis of 2,258 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between November 2012 and December 2013, written by a total of 9,136 authors found that 9,135 of the scientists believed that Climate change was linked to human activity. Now i know that you'll be very interested in quoting the 1 out of the 9,136 scientists who do don't believe that in your future posts so here he is....S. V. Avakyan writing for the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Please feel free to tell me what he said and convince me that it... and only it is the truth. PageA
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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