Bio-fuels produce more CO2

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Doug,

Colonists is the correct usage. I'm the Columnist! Sorry you will have to search for the links yourself.

I'll get on it straight away . . .

JH

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

"Colonists"?! (Columnists?)
"KING;S"? (Queen's)
"you will need to that this up"?! (You will need to take this up)

Hmmmm.

3/10
Could do better.
Must try harder.



Doug

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Guess you will need to that this up with the WSJ.

It's the journalists I was complaining about, James, not you. I guess I could have made that a bit clearer!

I try hard never to comment on typos, spelling, grammar etc. on the forums (unless the slip-up is really funny) but these people are making their living from writing for a prestigious publication and apparently do not know the difference between a verb and a noun! The chance that they know the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates is vanishingly small. So it may be silly of me but I am afraid I have discounted the entire article as being written by an idiot.

Dave P.

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Doug,

Colonists is the correct usage. I'm the Columnist! Sorry you will have to search for the links yourself.

I'll get on it straight away . . .

JH

Ah.... as in Colony. I see now James!
Or perhaps... colon?

Doug

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Dave P.

I understand and agree. Just because the WSJ writes it, doesn't make it true. So too, that which is penned by any Green doesn’t make the author a real environmentalist!

Balance in any system of energy production is a fair issue to discuss and investigate. That’s the reason I started posting such items.
CWW stands on its own content, which is mostly directed to local and regional issues. However, folks who dismiss litigate concerns about the siting industrial wind machines near residents are making a huge mistake.

If a serious understanding can be forged to respect real health and safety issues, and eliminate the “wind gold rush” and use the public funds that are being wasted on a flawed technology for true long term uses, we would all be better off.

Thanks,

JH

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Dave P.

I understand and agree. Just because the WSJ writes it, doesn't make it true. So too, that which is penned by any Green doesn’t make the author a real environmentalist!

Balance in any system of energy production is a fair issue to discuss and investigate. That’s the reason I started posting such items.
CWW stands on its own content, which is mostly directed to local and regional issues. However, folks who dismiss litigate concerns about the siting industrial wind machines near residents are making a huge mistake.

If a serious understanding can be forged to respect real health and safety issues, and eliminate the “wind gold rush” and use the public funds that are being wasted on a flawed technology for true long term uses, we would all be better off.

Thanks,

JH

Am I missing something? What has it all got to do with bio-fuels? You're obviously anti wind turbines in your own back yard...so why post lots of threads about other environmental topics? Wouldn't your time be better spent on wind-related discussions in the US...just a thought.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Doug,

Colonists is the correct usage. I'm the Columnist! Sorry you will have to search for the links yourself.

I'll get on it straight away . . .

JH

No, the 'colonists' were the Europeans who colonised N. America. You're a 'colonial' or, since the rebellion, an 'ex-colonial'. Whereas Rupert was a 'colonial' until he became a USAmerican citizen. Don't know what that makes him ... (well, I do really but it's too rude to print here .... ).

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

No, the 'colonists' were the Europeans who colonised N. America. You're a 'colonial' or, since the rebellion, an 'ex-colonial'. Whereas Rupert was a 'colonial' until he became a USAmerican citizen. Don't know what that makes him ... (well, I do really but it's too rude to print here .... ).

A colon Paul?

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

A colon Paul?

... colonic produce for sure but I think I could go further!

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Am I missing something? What has it all got to do with bio-fuels? You're obviously anti wind turbines in your own back yard...so why post lots of threads about other environmental topics? Wouldn't your time be better spent on wind-related discussions in the US...just a thought.

We are involved full time already. So what is the question, why post on your forum? Because we have friends in the UK.
Campaign Windfarm Action Groups

Did you not move the WSJ post to this topic on your forum? I made it originally under the Wind Energy section.

JH

[StuartDH]

Exactly, the WSJ post isn't about wind. I added a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment in post #2 then you've replied with 'Progress at last!' in post #6 ??? I take this to mean that you finally got on to the subject that wanted to bring up in the first place

You seem keen to just post links to your own site, other sites, or long texts that other people have written, mostly talking about issues specific to the US.