OT Solar energy generated in the UK.overtook coal last Summer.

Oct 05, 2016 105 Replies

En el artículo , Chris Hogg

I can believe it. I'm not suggesting using 100% renewable, merely using it to top up a baseline load provided by gas and nuke. Diversification is important - we shouldn't be reliant on one source of energy.

Another article on energy storage:

agreed.

I'm sure the greenies will love you for that :)

Totally agreed that we should have gone nuclear from the get-go. But dithering from successive govts over nuclear, plus Chernobyl, plus Fukushima, plus pressure to close coal-fired stations from our overlords in the EU, plus pressure from the greenytwats, has brought us to the position we're in now.

Which is National Grid paying coal plants massive bribes to stay open over this winter to ensure the lights stay on. Which will be reflected in our energy bills sooner or later.

En el artículo , pamela escribió:

Yes

Leo Smith.

I am sure it was fully intended.

You are prepared to admit that TPTB got it wrong, but not that they in fact got it right, and knew AGW was BS from the start, and only there to placate the greens and make money out of and justify more centralised interference in things.

If you look at it in that way, its a beautiful strategy that has worked well and siphoned a decades worth of energy bills into green company profits.

Nuclear power would have ruined everything, which is why lefty renewableites are anti nuclear and anti fracking.

You two should get married, and you can sit there remoaning at each other till death do you partition.

In case you didn't know, he set up and maintains Gridwatch among other things.

formatting link
Look at the 'About' tab, and while you're in there, look at 'this paper', i.e.
formatting link

That paper is called "Limitations of "Renewable Energy by Leo Smith. Is Turnip that author? Is he part of Templar Consultancy?

I took a peek at the site

formatting link
and saw an expensive textbook called "Climate Change Reconsidered II" which surely must be copyright. For example on page 4 of the download it says the charge is $154 for one copy. How is that site allowed to host a free copy for readers?

formatting link

Turnip, have you ever been married?

There's something about you, your intemperate ways, your self- indulgent personality, your extensive free time which all go to hint that the answer might be "No".

Mike Tomlinson has already given you the answer to that - I'm surprised you had to ask.

Possibly, I don't know.

I just got a banner page there with nothing else on it.

Pass.

En el artículo , pamela escribió:

He's just recently been divorced and taken to the cleaners by his ex, which explains a lot, if his behaviour here is anything to go by.

His recent behaviour is probably the cause of his devoice.

In article , Chris Hogg writes

Oh they have always been foreseen by some of us.

Does Mrs Turnip make any posts? It would be fascinating to know her point of view.

I don't want to jump to conclusions.

If that is Turnip then I wonder why he puts his qualification so visibly on the title page? Most authors don't feel the need to do that. If you look at books or papers written by emiment authors, even Nobel laureates, they don't find the need to parade their qualification.

One way or another I acquired so many qualifications that I had to trim them down and not show most of them even on my business card. It doesn't seem Turnip goes for th emodest approach.

Particularly unusual is someone mentioning their specific degree subject as Turnip/Leo does on his title page where he writes "Electrical Sciences" in brackets. What on earth is he trying to impress the reader with by writing that?

Templar has an anti-Muslim crusader feel to it which he probably likes to associate himself with.

This search may be useful:

formatting link

I find your current personal attack on TNP distasteful. Yes, he can be foul-mouthed, he certainly doesn't tolerate fools gladly, and perhaps he does stray into areas where his expertise is lacking, I'm not qualified to judge. But to attack and attempt to expose his personal circumstances in a public forum is unacceptable IMO, and demeans you. Please desist. If you don't like what he writes, either ignore his posts, as I do for his political opinions, or kill-file him.

I have asked about information Turnip has made publicly available.

For example, I didn't know Turnip likes to talk about his marital circumstances but it turns out he has posted about it many times in the past for all to read. Seems it's no secret at all.

I certainly wouldn't have done that but Turnip will have his reasons. You should let him speak for himself if there's a problem.

He has certainly mentioned his personal circumstances from time to time and in passing. But that's no excuse for dragging them up in what appears to be a vindictive attempt at character assassination. Even referring to him a 'Turnip' is derogatory. I had thought better of you.

Referring to him as turnip is no worse than what he does to anyone that disagrees with him.

By your own admission he uses foul language (and I have been on the receiving end of his diatribes) but you consider "Turnip" so derogatory that it should not be permitted whilst his foul language can continue. Puh-leeze.

It's as if you have one set of rules for him and another for everyone else. He likes to feel he's special and that would certainly help.

Would you prefer I call him Leo Smith instead of Turnip?

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required