Wrekin mining group in call for support
Tuesday 15th June 2010, 3:39PM BST.
A campaigner, who did not want to be named, said: “Should an eviction date come there would need to be an all out call for as many people as possible to bolster the camp and help defeat an eviction.
“It’s hoped that this would become a nationwide focus for everyone who opposes new coal, or devastation of the environment, wildlife, and quality of life for those downwind of the opencast mine.
“We still need many more people and with the summer break coming hopefully many will join those resident and contribute to helping to save this site from devastation.”
The campaigner also thanked neighbouring residents who have donated funds, equipment and food to the group.
Earlier this month it was revealed the protesters were digging a network of tunnels under the site near Little Wenlock.
The tunnels have been dug in a bid to stop UK Coal from bringing diggers onto the land and starting work to mine 900,000 tonnes of coal for fear of them collapsing and injuring someone.
Last month Chris Crouch, spokesman for UK Coal, called the protesters’ actions “irresponsible”.
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Shrewsbury’s broadband speed one of slowest in UK
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Look at all the smoke being created from their fire….. they should calm their carbon emissions down!
How do they afford to live….. I trust they have well paid jobs with lots of holidays and are not just abusing the benefits system in this great and rather generous country of ours.
Report abuse
Perhaps they could raise funds to buy the land, rather than cut down and burn the trees on someone else’s land. Then they can opencast it themselves.
Report abuse
Yes please somebody lend these people a bus and take them away from here ! The sooner the opencast is completed the better for all concerned. Where were these people when lawley was opencast? Its a complete nonsense.
Report abuse
Trespassing, vandalism, theft …… surely they can all be arrested without hesitation?
If someone was unlawfully on my land I would use ‘reasonable force’ to move them on!
Report abuse
Vandalism? Theft? Pretty big accusations to band about there Squire, what are you basing them on? The police/community support officers pay us a visit 2 or 3 times a week for a chat and to see how things are going, I’m pretty sure if any of the things you claim were happening they would have noticed by now and taken action.
If you did try ‘reasonable force’ or intimidation tactics to remove squatters from your land you would be faced with the police on YOUR doorstep and a possible fine of up to £1000. Laws and proceedure are in place for a reason, to protect EVERYONE concerned. You would have to take your squatters to court, just like everyone else.
Report abuse
Theft of wood, raw materials from the ground, damage of the land that is not theirs by digging tunnels etc.
If you want the land then go and buy it, form a cooperative and buy it to protect it. Take positive pro-active action rather than just causing trouble for the sake of it, the mine will go ahead regardless of your efforts. So why not do something positive?
Refusing to move from my land could easily be interpreted as intimidating. The laws are ludicrous in this country regarding squatters, another example of the government rewarding inappropriate actions.
Report abuse
Squire- The burning of wood doesn’t really count as a carbon emission as the carbon is already in the existing carbon cycle, whereas the coal they want to dig up is not. As for how they afford it, I myself am up there most evenings and weekends and I have a 9-5 job, many folks there have no income at all and are purely living off donated food and water.
NW- At no point have protesters cut down any trees for firewood, there would be no point, it would be too green to burn. UKCoal cut down all the trees in February
Pete- I imagine most of them were toddlers or not yet born, the older ones may have been in their early teens.
Folks, please do feel free to explain why digging up a massive amount of land for a tiny amount (in the grant scheme of things) of not to great quality coal causing massive amounts of dust, pollution and noise less than 50 metres from a village with a large percentage of retired & elderly folk is something you don’t think is worth stopping. It would make more interesting reading than pure ‘protesters go home’ garbage
Report abuse
Please explain the carbon cycle then Joe? Last time I checked, both trees and coal were carbon based…. or is it just down to how long its been in the ground?
Why does it matter that the residents are retired or elderly? Surely everyone quality of life is equal, or are we discriminating now?
Dust, pollution and noise…. why be so negative? Jobs, progress, evolution are three other words that could be used to describe these side effects of the industrial heritage of this fantastic area!
By the way, I live locally and love this area having ran and walked the area near the proposed mine countless times!!!
Report abuse
Wood burning does not release any more carbon dioxide than it would otherwise release if left to rot, Squire. It’s carbon neutral.
Coal-burning, on the other hand, is not.
According to a 2007 study by Germany’s Öko-Institut, COAL releases 1153 grammes of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
By contrast, WIND releases 24 grammes per kilowatt hour, and SOLAR in sunny countries like Spain releases 27 grammes per kilowatt hour.)
According to a report in Nature magazine in April 2009 (just google BBC -’Safe’ climate means ‘no to coal’), three-quarters of the world’s fossil fuel reserves must be left unused if society is to avoid dangerous climate change.
Squire, you berated the protesters for not being ‘positive’ and ‘pro-active’.
I disagree.
These protesters have done something very positive and pro-active.
They have forced us all to look at how positive and pro-active we are being as a society, when confronted with this sort of information, which is familiar to us all.
If governments and energy companies were being positive and pro-active about tackling climate change, kicking our addiction to fossil fuels and accelerating our society’s transition to renewable energy, then these brave protesters would not be risking arrest, abuse and physical harm for the sake of their and our grandchildren.
You mentioned 3 words: jobs, progress and evolution.
1) Renewables create more JOBS per kilowatt hour than fossil fuels. Why are we not investing in them massively like in South Korea?
2) Do deep-water oil-drilling, open-cast coal-mining and tar-sands exploitation really represent PROGRESS for you, Squire?
3) EVOLUTION. This isn’t 1750. Surely we can evolve in a way that does not harm the environment and do irreparable harm to our climate and our life-support systems.
What do you think, Squire?
Report abuse
Still worrying about that essential gas that constitutes 0.038% of the globe’s atmosphere, Huw.
Tsk.
Anyway, seeing as you warmist lot like short-termism: “xyz since records began” for example, you may like to investigate the recent strong El Nino since July of last year as it has produced a seven year cooling trendline for NASA/GISS, RSS/MSU, UAH/AMSU, and Hadley for GMST anomalies.
Not to mention a predicted solar Dalton Minimum.
I hope swampy and his cohorts have packed some wooly jumpers. They’re gonna need it.
Report abuse
Ok, let’s get a few things straight.
We did not cut down any trees – UK Coal are responsible for that, and seeing as they are down any way, we may as well use them.
Second, when lawley was open-casted, most of us were in primary school/not born/ not living in the area (delete as appropriate). As for “living down there and sponging off the state” – no – that is very much not the case, there are some, like myself who hold down full time jobs, college courses etc yet go down in my spare time and do what I can, those who are permanently there do not claim a single benefit, they live off donations to the camp and hitch-hike when travel is required, so get your facts right before you voice opinions.
As for why we do it, I have walked through those woods many times, it is truy a beautiful place – you can see the site from the top of the Wrekin – the last thing I want to see is a huge opencast mind when I go up there, not to mention the environmental, visual and health implications for the whole of Telford. The coal is sub-standard – ironbridge powerstation don’t want it- UK Coal are floundering in deep water (have you seen how low their shares are?!) and are trying to make a quick buck. They will fail.
As for our “breaking laws” – we have claimed squatters rights, we are a community and that is our right. Neither of which is illegal by any means. The will have to follow the letter of the law to evict us and we will do the same to stay. There has been no theft, no criminal damage, and as a previous poster has said, if the police thought we were, ten them wouldve done something about it long ago rather than coming down for a chat and a cuppa.
I suggest you keep your misguided and narrow minded opinions to yourself or get all the facts before you voice your opinions or you may end up looking like a bit of an idiot! Shame that!
Report abuse
Its interesting that you refer to narrow minded opinions, when people like myself are quite the opposite yet I feel the comment was directed my way!
I love England and often find myself defending it to the majority of people that are always moaning about the terrible country we live in. Its because I love this country that I thing the mine is a good thing, yes the quality of the coal might not be fantastic, but it is required and it saves importing it, thus keeping money in the country. Not transporting the coal as far must be better for the environment?!? Jobs will be created, money bought into the area, in the grand scale of things the differences might be small, but the differences are there. The coal mine will in a few years be closed, the grass will grow, the trees will grow back and in 20 years time it will look like other beautiful parts of the area where you have scars of an industrial past that have been ‘taken’ back by nature.
I drive one of the lowest emission and greenest cars on the market, produce small amounts of waste, grow my own veg as well as cycling, walking or running whenever possible. I consider myself to lead a much ‘greener’ life than most yet I’m considered narrow minded! ;)
Report abuse
Squire, your misty-eyed optimism that everything will be fine and that we should blindly continue to ignore the effects of opencast on locals reminds me of UKIP Deputy Leader Lord Monckton’s remarkably similar views on the BP oil spill.
In a YouTube video from 16th May 2010 a couple of weeks into the disaster ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z__oTeIF_EU -reference: 6 minutes 11 seconds in), Lord Monckton seems to be speaking from the same script as Squire, when he says of the Gulf of Mexico disaster,
‘They will eventually sort it out, but a lot of damage will be done in the meantime. But it will only be temporary damage. Why? Because the great thing about oil, as well as all fossil fuels is that they are naturally occurring substances. They bio-degrade, and they do so very rapidly. They break up. I mean, if you go to Alaska, where the Exxon Valdez disaster happened –that was the last really big oil spill – you’ll find that, yes, great efforts were made by Exxon Mobil and by the state of Alaska to clean up the mess. They were only partially successful. If you go there now, you cannot tell that that spill happened. Was that because they cleaned it up so beautifully? No. It’s because Mother Nature did her bit and bio-degraded the lumps of oil, has dispersed them all into the vast oceans. They are now part of the ocean sediment, where they will do no harm to anything or anyone. So ultimately there will be no long-term damage because this is a naturally-occurring substance. However much damage it may appear to cause in the short term, there will be no long-term damage because this is a naturally occurring substance. So let’s not make too much of a fuss about it, and let’s not let the ‘greenies’ exaggerate the dangers… because in the end [politicians] are going to have to grow up a bit and stop worrying about all these things when they happen.’
Reassured, Shropshire?
Report abuse
Looks like “Squire”, and” NWs ” ignorance of basic facts shines like a candle in darkness.
Well done “Joe”, “Treehuhgger”, and “Markus”, for stating the real facts – wonder when the whingers last got National TV airtime as having something of interest to say about anything? *lol*
Well done the “Eco warriors”, look forward to seeing perhaps many hundreds if an eviction notice is served on the camp.
Magister.
Report abuse
Ignorance? Please explain! Hardly ignorant when its the minority like myself that look at the whole scenario rather than just one viewpoint!
Could ignorance be described as listening to other peoples opinions respectfully? Or forming opinions based on the facts and information provided or is ignorance taking a one dimensional stand on a whole collection of issues and not looking at each one independently? It appears to me that most so called environmentalists jump on the bandwagon and campaign or protest at any opportunity.
If there are so many valid facts then why are we not being told about them? If the mine was not a viable proposition then why would British coal even consider going ahead, or are you suggesting that the aim of mining this low quality coal is to lose money?
Report abuse
(Anonomous shropshire resident)
It is really a crying shame; many generations of my family have walked these woodlands, my Uncle worked the original mine near Shortwood in the 1960′s. Well, New Works as it is now called? It seems that the name of Shortwood has changed in recent years to New Works? (and we didn’t know where New Works was to start with).
Recently we went up to see the site, to see for ourselves (we did not intrude on the protest camp, we could see there were a number of visitors already there).
We were quite shocked that the campaign had got to this point, my Uncle felt sure that the mine wouldn’t happen again, he thought it wasn’t worth it for such a small amount of coal?
The woodlands looked so beautiful, full of life, surrounded by rolling pastures and fields, many rare birds and deer go up there too (we know, we’ve seen them many, many times), also huge trees, some of the original trees are still there (ancient wrekin forest, I believe?), some well over one hundred years old?
I would like to add that the camp (what we could see), looked very organized and tidy, even the people seemed well dressed, not a bunch of yobbos that we are often shown on the news! We did see some dead rotting sheep though, but they’d been there for quite a long time, I reckon.
I do understand the need for energy, but here? and now? seems a real waste of money for Coal???? I’m sure there’s more to it than that!!! probably more like housing.
This whole area is being developed at the moment, you can see it all around (which is good I suppose?) new Leisure Centre, new market exspansion, new super schools, new refugees (no disrespect).
‘It’s a perfect place to develop really’; my uncle says; most of the locals who’d remember the site are elderly now and the other locals particularly from the Arleston area come across so appathetic, a culturally mixed and alienated community, so I’m sure UK Coal would have anticipated little objection. (and still alot of people don’t really know its going on!) And we bet there’s been a few hand-shakes here, *wink wink*.
My heart goes out to these protestors, shame, I think this developemnt was sealed even before the inquiry started, which also seemed a bit of a sham, i’m told (a bit of a smoke-screen excuse the pun!) My Uncle reckoned alot of this land was public, not owned by a landowner (but yes boundary’s are disputable!)
(Why is this happening in this place? we think the whole thing stinks. And it really is dirty business.) Will Wellington get its museum now?
PS. I wonder if any of the landowners or developers will be living near here when the diggers start, to breathe in some of that nice clean Coal air?
Report abuse
narrow minded ahem get your facts right indeed squitters rights eh is it? Try understanding some old land law wood lover how about caveat emptor! lets see whats the place called New Works , why’s that then?what do you think may have gone on there in the birth place of industries past ? what do you think may of happened at coalmoor or coalbrookdale for that fact . Get a proper job and stop wasting public finances . Lets not be idiots as “the last thing I want to see is an opencast mind” !! Your words not mine Ha Ha ha….HaHa
Report abuse
I forgot “Pete” – im not sure what language he is typing in, it seems to not be comprehensible English.
“New Works”, was just that, new workings of old seams – and if “Pete” has copies of the maps that show just how much poor quality coal has been removed over the last 70 odd years, he would realise that enough is enough.
Telfords History was based on Coal and Industrial Revolution – times have moved on since those days – as the outcry against developing countries and their carbon emissions proves; lets take India and China for an example – their Industrial Revolution is now taking place, and developed countries, mor environmentally aware, wish to curtail their activities.
Even President Obama is conceding that “Clean energy sources” must be embraced more in light of environmental disaster with the oil leak off the US coast.
This coal is poor quality “packer” material, to eke out tonnages that will be supplied to one of the ditiest power stations in Europe – Buildwas.
It does however, form a useful reserve should disaster – or the conveyer belt of coal coming from countries happy to deplete their ow reserves for needed capital, should be cut off.
This scenario is an energy security fact.
We are supplied by other nations who wish to sell us coal, as we cannot produce enough from our own country anyway nowadays, again, fact, but to deplete our own energy reserves whilst alternative supplies are freely available, is future planning contingency suicide.
Magister.
Report abuse
” This coal is poor quality ” packer ” material, to eke out tonnages that will be supplied to one of the dirtiest power stations in Europe- Buildwas..
Is there another power station in Buildwas because in a previous rant ( one of the ones where you called anyone questioning your motives ignorant, sheep, and idiots ) You Informed people that the coal was not going to the Ironbridge power station.
I don’t want to come accross as a fan of Uk coal, but i do feel that the truth is being manipulated somewhat by supporters of the protesters, such as, The location ( under the Wrekin),and The ecological motive(apparently its more eco-friendly to road/rail and boat the coal from the Ukraine), and my personal favourite being the point you make about it not bringing any new jobs to the area.
None of the questions above have ever been answered, although i have asked them on several occasions all i ever seem to get back are insults, rumours, speculation and lies.
Report abuse
People are clearly very passionate about this issue, whichever ‘side’ they’re on! I hope I can answer some of your questions, Spencer. The agreement at the public inquiry was that the coal should be used to supply Buildwas B. Indeed it was granted permission based on the ‘local need’ for this coal.
That being said we have since become aware that Buildwas have no need or in fact any desire for this coal and it’s quite possible that it could actually be used to supply another power station instead. This would contravene the Sustainable Communities Act which dictates an upper limit on the distance minerals should be transported from source to point of use within the UK. In fact significant quantities of coal would still need to be imported from Russia, in order to blend with the coal from Huntington Lane so it’s useable. I believe this process is what Magister was referring to when using the term “packer material”. Therefore the transport of this coal by road will lead an increase of the current transport carbon emissions.
However, the approval was given to this development based on the fact that the coal would be used at Buildwas B, we can only assume that UK Coal plan to play by the rules and stick the the agreement that was approved by the secretary of state.
As has already been stated, the renewables sector offers huge job creation opportunities, whereas jobs in the fossil fuel industry are simply not sustainable in the long term. Also many of the contracts provided by UK Coal will be filled by experienced, skilled mine workers, I doubt there’s many of them living in Telford at the moment?
And just for the record the term ‘under the Wrekin’ was coined by the media, not the camp. We are not in the business of misinformation :)
I’m sorry you feel that your questions have been ignored in the past, and I hope some of the details have been cleared up for you now.
Report abuse
spencer, if government and energy companies had the guts and the vision to invest massively in energy conservation, renewable energy and clean technologies, this could create jobs here, too, and help start our transition away from dependence on climate-altering fossil fuels.
Report abuse
So there wouldn’t be a protest if the area was being filled with wind turbines. Is that what you’re saying..
Report abuse
Looking at the images I think I’ll donate some soap to them!
Report abuse
These are wonderful people, doing a wonderful thing. Tree hugger sets out the facts. I have a high profile job but will be camping their, again, this weekend for 3 nights. I work permanently, but will put whatever in I can – time, money, food, etc. I fully support these people and none are spongers. The real Eco-Terrorists are UK Coal!
Report abuse
I’d have thought that with a high profile job you’d have known which there/their to use..
Report abuse
Spencer,
If you were a local you would know that “under the wrekin” is a local phrase to suggest an area that comes under the wrekins view.
It’s well known that not all the coal will be going to Ironbridge (which will be closing in a few years anyway) but UK coal have plans to ship some to Nottingham (about 80 miles away. Will the “new mining jobs” be worth the desecration of ancient woodland or is it the “new building site jobs”, when the area is later built on that you are so concerned about?
Report abuse
Is Madeley local enough for you..
Report abuse
Bloody foreigner!!!!
Report abuse
No wonder he’s pro coal site, he won’t even know it’s there, unless he works for them.
Report abuse
Well if i’m not going to notice from only four miles away then it can’t be that bad ..can it
Report abuse
Well it’s nice to see, that the anti coal protesters not only have concern for people living in close proximity to the site , even if they themselves in the majority, don’t but can also answer all questions truthfully, eloquently and without silly insults.
Report abuse
“Spencer” – in reply; UK COAL have identified Buildwas, Ratcliffe on Soar, and Rugeley as 3 “receptors of the coal” – not me, we are determined that they will not by pass or break the sustainable communities act , which specifies a 30 mile limit from source to useage.
All other “receptors of the coal” are over 30 miles , with Buildwas the exception – and they prefer Rail delivery of coal ( and its fact – I have the documented letter fromEON stating this and itwas submitted as evidence to Public Inquiry.
Answer one sorted.
Number two -at no point has any of the campaigners said “under the Wrekin” – you will find that this is amedia term, we refer to it as New Works/Huntington Lane – answered and sorted.
Number three – ecological motive – we havent 42 pages here to reprint the case supplied by a highly qualified, and paid Barrister for Telford and Wrekin Council at the Public Inquiry – those who protested at the Inquiry, you will find, did not base their case upon this single point, but health was the dominant feature -Im sure that if you take time to read the box full of documents supplied by ENTEC, UK COALs lackies, you will find in 3 months time that what has been said here is accurate.
Question answered I believe to my capability, not being a Barrister, with multiple personnell to research data, facts and figures.
Question of jobs – again, UK COAL stated in the begining, 90 for local people – this reduced to 40, and these will be low skilled, temporary contracts, the skilled plant drivers coming from winding down existing sites – and probably transitory, taking their pay home to another area, not spending it here – I believe a postee on a previous article stated that they worked in opencasting in Scotland, but chose to live here and travel.
Point made.
Barbara – we would love some soap – could do with a solar powered shower too f possible , and youare kind enough to donate one, we have topo keep going off site for a break to have one – this would allow us all longer periods on site to re -inforce defences – a kind thought, we love Palmolive.
Magister.
Report abuse
Can you let your supporters know where the site is please, Roadrunner ( the chap above who seems to know where i live better than i do ) used more comments than i care to mention, wrongly explaining that the proposed mine is at the Wrekin..
But then again i suppose it sounds better that saying its close to the landfill
Report abuse
I would offer my attendance and support to the happy campers, but I fear I would lose my job in doing so (it’s a 5 day a week job, you see. And I spend all weekend sorting out the recycling).
Report abuse
“Can you let your supporters know where the site is please, Roadrunner ( the chap above who seems to know where i live better than i do ) used more comments than i care to mention, wrongly explaining that the proposed mine is at the Wrekin..
But then again i suppose it sounds better that saying its close to the landfill”
At the wrekin eh? I suppose you could point this statemnet out where I said this?
I know very well where the former Shortwoods mine workings are , Spencer, as I used to go there frequently during the sixties and seventies, when they were running as a drift mine. Have you ever been there?
Report abuse
spencer in response to your (#10) June 18, 2010 at 09:41 point about windfarms, I think most people support offshore wind.
Some do object to onshore windfarms, but in democracies people can discuss these issues rationally, can’t they?
In Denmark, 19.7% of electricity production in 2007 came from wind. The vast majority of Danes support wind energy, perhaps because families can buy stakes in wind turbine cooperatives there. Maybe we need the Danish cooperative model here in the UK.
Do you think people would object to solar PV on roofs, investment in insulation / energy conservation in the region and the jobs this could bring, spencer?
Feed-in tarriffs reward domestic and electricity customers for putting green energy back into the grid. That’s a positive development, isn’t it?
Winja, in response to your (#5) reply on June 17, 2010 at 19:43 , stating (falsely) that CO2 is an insignificant trace gas and that climate change is all down to the sun, I wonder if you are familiar with UKIP’s Deputy Leader, Lord Monckton, who shares your views.
A talk which Monckton gave to the Minnesota Free Market Institute on October 14th 2009, saying that global warming is nothing to be concerned about, has been systematically analysed by John Abraham, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, who specialises in heat transfer, at the University of St thomas in Minnesota. (just google ‘John Abraham’s reply to Lord Christopher Monckton’)
The slides which are salient to your point about the sun are Abraham’s slides 83-104.
John Abraham has followed up and analysed the scientific references that Lord Monckton gave in his lecture, re-reading those references and comparing the conclusions of those papers to what Monckton said, then contacting the authors of those papers by e-mail to see if Monckton was right in his interpretation of their research.
Abraham’s online presentation demonstrates that Lord Monckton sytematically mis-interprets and mis-represents the science of climate change and frequently fails to attribute his scientific sources.
The authors of the research, which Monckton cites, say Monckton is wrong.
Do other supporters of this open-cast coal mine share winja’s / Monckton’s views on CO2 and the sun? Spencer? I think Shropshire readers would be interested.
Report abuse
Huw, thank you for reminding both myself and others on what date and time I posted my comment to which you subsequently replied to, saving one keystroke for us. But, seemingly, causing you a needless additional twenty keystrokes. Nevertheless, well done. I (slowly) applaud you.
My maths are obviously wrong.
A gas that constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere is significant? Really? Is that what you’re trying to convince us all of? I think Shropshire readers would be interested in your support of such an assertion.
Also, you are being disingenuous as I did not state that, “it is all down to the sun”. I alluded to the fact that solar activity is a primary driving force in the globe’s climate. But not the only one. What is certain is that an event similar to the Maunder Minimum (which was the primary forcing that instigated the Little Ice Age) is predicted.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am aware of Christopher Monckton. However, I prefer to gather my information from independant scientific reviews and papers (although I do read commentary on such publications occasionally), written by those from the “hard” sciences. I certainly would not take at face value a rebuttal from a mechanical engineer to an address by a deputy leader of a political party. In the same way I do not trust the findings of climate “scientists” whose salary is funded by a) political figures intent on finding a visible human fingerprint in climate change and b) green lobbyists.
Report abuse
winja, you, like Lord Monckton, don’t think CO2 emissions are important.
See wikipedia, ‘Scientific opinion on climate change’ for a full list of scientific organisations, who disagree.
Report abuse
Wikipedia? That well known, and totally unbiased source of soundly researched information on Man-Made Up Climate Change?
No, Huw. That is a very poor reference tool indeed.
By the way, you may like to have a read of the following regarding your mate Mr Abraham:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/#more-20670
From the comments section, Christopher Monckton said:
“Several people have made comments suggesting that a full refutation of Abraham’s attempt to rebut a talk by me about the climate would be desirable.
I have written to Abraham at length, asking him many questions about his talk. He has not yet acknowledged my letter, still less replied substantively. But at least I have given him an opportunity to reply before I publish – an opportunity which, contrary to academic good practice and courtesy, he had not extended to me before publishing his talk.
On 10 July my letter to Abraham, and a subsequent letter from me to the president of his university raising some concerns about his talk, will be published, together with any replies that may have been received by then.
These two letters will provide all the detail necessary to establish that Abraham’s talk fell a long way short of being scientifically reliable or academically acceptable.
In one respect, I did not behave as I should have done. In my anger at the many distortions of my talk that Abraham had relayed to third parties so that he could obtain and publish withering comments from them not on what I had said but what he wished I had said, I issued an early statement that, while indicating that much of Abraham’s talk was defective, also resorted to some ad-hominem remarks. I have apologized to Abraham for those remarks. However, he has not yet apologized to me for the numerous ad-hominem comments that he directed at me throughout his talk.
Bottom line: do not rely upon Abraham’s serially unreliable talk until you have seen the two letters from me that I have mentioned. – Monckton of Brenchley”
Report abuse
Huw, I did post a fairly lengthy reply – well scripted and informative as usual.
However, for no apparent reason, the moderators on here have seemingly chosen not to post it.
Mods, you owe me fifteen minutes of my life for needlessly typing a reply. The bill is in the post.
Report abuse
You lot do go on a bit – I can’t make sense of half of what’s being said but that’s irrelevant really – who do you think the autorities are going to back up, non tax paying eco warriors (honourable intentions folks but it’s going nowhere) or a huge firm that pays over tens of thousands of pounds in tax to both local and central government who currently have empty piggy banks?
Complete no brainer!
Report abuse
Golly gosh, Cor Blimey!
Goliath was huge, but David didn’t become a mythical figure because the rest of us took the giant’s tax money and abandoned him.
I think the protesters’ vision of a future of renewable technology – wind, wave power, tidal power and solar power- is inspiring, and I’m sure local authorities and politicians who opposed this mine (-see http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2009/03/31/planners-against-mining-plans/ + http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2009/05/29/mps-against-mining-plan/) would back that sustainable vision up given the right incentives from central government.
After all, an increasing number of people realise it is a complete no brainer to ignore what 96% of climate scientists are telling us (see Doran and Zimmermann, winja).
Report abuse
96% of climate scientists? Really?
Shropshire Star readers may be interested to read this, then:
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/20861.pdf
Oh. And I’ll see your Doran and Zimmermann, Huw, and raise you a Baliunas & Soon (Mann, Jones, Trenberth et al did seem to get their collective knickers in an awful twist about it ;-)).
Report abuse
If you think Shropshire people will trust corporate-funded US think tanks, like the Heartland Institute, over the world’s scientific institutions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ), then I would suggest that you are mistaken, winja.
Between 1998 and 2005, the Heartland Institute received $561 500 from Exxon Mobil.
Today further confirmation was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in a paper by William Anderegg, from Stanford University in California.
His conclusion: 98% of climate scientists that publish research on the subject support the view that human activities are warming the planet.
Report abuse
winja, open-cast coal’s most persistent cheerleader in Shropshire, thinks wikipedia is not as reliable a reference tool as Lord Monckton, Anthony Watts and conspiracy theorist, John P. Costella (see winja reply to comment #13 (June 4, 2010 at 19:55) http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2010/05/29/wrekin-campaigners-digging-in-for-a-fight/ ).
So be it.
However, I think the vast majority of people in Shropshire would disagree with winja.
And I think many people in Shropshire -like the protesters- want cleaner, greener energy, not dirty, open-cast coal.
I would encourage those people to have a look at the 2 presentations below to see which is ‘a very poor reference tool indeed’ for a true understanding of climate science:
a) Lord Monckton’s slide-show to US sceptics, saying global warming is a non-problem according to the science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 ,
b) John Abraham’s slide-show, demonstrating reference by reference, e-mail by e-mail that Monckton consistently mis-interprets and mis-represents the science:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
Report abuse
Update:
Correction to #17. The slides which are salient to winja’s / Monckton’s point about the sun are Abraham’s slides 93-115.
Report abuse