Last week I watched an interesting Planning Meeting for Selby in North Yorkshire. This was for a 100MW/200MWh Battery Energy Storage System
which the councillors thought was "small" (actually it is equal in size
to the largest operational BESS in the UK which is Lakeside at Drax).
<https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_LIVE/SearchResult/RunThirdPartySearch?FileSystemId=PL&FOLDER1_REF=ZG2023/1179/FULM>
Ref ZG2023/1179/FULM
On the Selby Planning portal if that doesn't work.
Very Special Circumstances justification on Tab 3.
The location was stated as Land off Lunn Lane, Kellington. It is in the
Green Belt and on Grade 2 agricultural land. Either one of these would
in the past have been sufficient to prevent it from being granted.
No-one from the Beal Parish turned up to speak (it wasn't clear to me
whether this was because they hadn't been told about the meeting - turns
out the site is not *in* Kellington Parish as boundaries are complex).
The objector delivered a three minute deranged rant completely unrelated
to the application under consideration.
However, the applicant pulled a blinder with a 90 page report claiming
"very special circumstances" because of the climate change emergency to
trash Green Belt decent quality agricultural land. The Officer's recommendation was to Grant planning permission and reluctantly the councillors eventually did so - the vote was close 8:6 in favour.
AFAIK this is a first with Green Belt being trashed this way. It could
set a dangerous precedent. There are huge numbers of highly speculative applications for BESS of all shapes and sizes in the pipeline.
Does anyone have any views on whether the case they presented in this document is actually valid in law or merely sophisticated misdirection?
It certainly convinced the Planning Officer:
https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_Live/Document/ViewDocument?id=E3D7C87E76704B829551673413134BAF
The case for "very special circumstances" starts at p14 and all the rest
of the document. I can read the words but that just isn't good enough.
IANAL
It doesn't affect me as ours is not on Green Belt but I thought that it
was a very worrying precedent that hasn't been commented on elsewhere.
Thanks for any enlightenment or examples of other applications using
this approach to circumvent Green Belt planning restrictions.
The Green Belt is so socialist 1940s. As usual the capitalists are using the Labour Party's "turn" at being in goverment to remove that inconvenience without any shouts of "Tories out!".
On 20 Feb 2025 at 13:37:07 GMT, "Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Does anyone have any views on whether the case they presented in this
document is actually valid in law or merely sophisticated misdirection?
It certainly convinced the Planning Officer:
https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_Live/Document/ViewDocument?id=E3D7C87E76704B829551673413134BAF
The case for "very special circumstances" starts at p14 and all the rest
of the document. I can read the words but that just isn't good enough.
IANAL
Thanks for any enlightenment or examples of other applications using
this approach to circumvent Green Belt planning restrictions.
The Green Belt is so socialist 1940s. As usual the capitalists are using the Labour Party's "turn" at being in goverment to remove that inconvenience without any shouts of "Tories out!".
Last week I watched an interesting Planning Meeting for Selby in North Yorkshire. This was for a 100MW/200MWh Battery Energy Storage System
which the councillors thought was "small" (actually it is equal in size
to the largest operational BESS in the UK which is Lakeside at Drax).
<https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_LIVE/SearchResult/RunThirdPartySearch?FileSystemId=PL&FOLDER1_REF=ZG2023/1179/FULM>
Ref ZG2023/1179/FULM
On the Selby Planning portal if that doesn't work.
Very Special Circumstances justification on Tab 3.
The location was stated as Land off Lunn Lane, Kellington. It is in the
Green Belt and on Grade 2 agricultural land. Either one of these would
in the past have been sufficient to prevent it from being granted.
No-one from the Beal Parish turned up to speak (it wasn't clear to me
whether this was because they hadn't been told about the meeting - turns
out the site is not *in* Kellington Parish as boundaries are complex).
The objector delivered a three minute deranged rant completely unrelated
to the application under consideration.
However, the applicant pulled a blinder with a 90 page report claiming
"very special circumstances" because of the climate change emergency to
trash Green Belt decent quality agricultural land. The Officer's recommendation was to Grant planning permission and reluctantly the councillors eventually did so - the vote was close 8:6 in favour.
AFAIK this is a first with Green Belt being trashed this way. It could
set a dangerous precedent. There are huge numbers of highly speculative applications for BESS of all shapes and sizes in the pipeline.
Does anyone have any views on whether the case they presented in this document is actually valid in law or merely sophisticated misdirection?
It certainly convinced the Planning Officer:
https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_Live/Document/ViewDocument?id=E3D7C87E76704B829551673413134BAF
The case for "very special circumstances" starts at p14 and all the rest
of the document. I can read the words but that just isn't good enough.
IANAL
It doesn't affect me as ours is not on Green Belt but I thought that it
was a very worrying precedent that hasn't been commented on elsewhere.
Thanks for any enlightenment or examples of other applications using
this approach to circumvent Green Belt planning restrictions.
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC, strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor
to planetary temperatures.
On 20 Feb 2025 at 15:55:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface
temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC,
strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor
to planetary temperatures.
Do you plan to alter those concentrations and recheck the temperatures, just in order to make your argument remotely meaningful?
As far as the ‘climate emergency’ and the next planning application is concerned, ask the party involved to comment on these facts:
It is well accepted by scientists that the factors that control Earth’s climate are: (1) the elliptical orbit, (2) the orbital periapsis, (3) the axial tilt, (4) the precession of the axis. These are said to be
responsible for the advance and retreat of the glaciers over a ~100,000
year cycle. (NASA web site)
Short-term climate effects arise from: (5) changes in the cosmic ray flux, (6) changes in the Sun’s output.
Insignificant effects arise from changes in concentrations of trace gases
in the atmosphere.
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC, strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor
to planetary temperatures.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 15:55:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface
temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC,
strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor >>> to planetary temperatures.
Do you plan to alter those concentrations and recheck the temperatures, just >> in order to make your argument remotely meaningful?
Apologies if the above is only meaningful to a scientist, but even the man
on the Battery Bus could work out eventually that an atmosphere of ~95% CO2 has no effect on planetary temperature, and by extension the whole climate emergency is a huge money spinning hoax. BICBW about said man.
Perceptive people might ask why we have a Renewables Obligation and not a Temperature or CO2-reducing obligation.
You are deliberately trying to mislead the layman here - so typical of
an AGW denier. Sophistry will get you nowhere against a real scientist.
On 20/02/2025 14:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 13:37:07 GMT, "Martin Brown"
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Does anyone have any views on whether the case they presented in
this document is actually valid in law or merely sophisticated
misdirection? It certainly convinced the Planning Officer:
https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_Live/Document/ViewDoc
ument?id=E3D7C87E76704B829551673413134BAF
The case for "very special circumstances" starts at p14 and all the
rest of the document. I can read the words but that just isn't good
enough. IANAL
Thanks for any enlightenment or examples of other applications using
this approach to circumvent Green Belt planning restrictions.
The Green Belt is so socialist 1940s. As usual the capitalists are
using the Labour Party's "turn" at being in goverment to remove that
inconvenience without any shouts of "Tories out!".
Although the document creating a "very special circumstances" argument
for trashing the Green Belt is dated August 2024 they could not
possibly have know when it was being written that Rishi Sunak would
call a snap early election in mid-summer. I'm curious if their core
argument holds any significant legal weight or is just a clever piece
of sophistry.
It convinced the case Officer dealing with the application.
It will be interesting to see if it actually gets connected to the
grid when/if it is actually built (about 5 miles to the nearest
substation). Planning permission for a BESS roughly increases land
value by 1000x. (exact figures are hard to come by - commercially confidential)
On 15:33 20 Feb 2025, Martin Brown said:
On 20/02/2025 14:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 13:37:07 GMT, "Martin Brown"
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Does anyone have any views on whether the case they presented in
this document is actually valid in law or merely sophisticated
misdirection? It certainly convinced the Planning Officer:
https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_Live/Document/ViewDoc
ument?id=E3D7C87E76704B829551673413134BAF
The case for "very special circumstances" starts at p14 and all the
rest of the document. I can read the words but that just isn't good
enough. IANAL
Thanks for any enlightenment or examples of other applications using
this approach to circumvent Green Belt planning restrictions.
The Green Belt is so socialist 1940s. As usual the capitalists are
using the Labour Party's "turn" at being in goverment to remove that
inconvenience without any shouts of "Tories out!".
Although the document creating a "very special circumstances" argument
for trashing the Green Belt is dated August 2024 they could not
possibly have know when it was being written that Rishi Sunak would
call a snap early election in mid-summer. I'm curious if their core
argument holds any significant legal weight or is just a clever piece
of sophistry.
It convinced the case Officer dealing with the application.
It will be interesting to see if it actually gets connected to the
grid when/if it is actually built (about 5 miles to the nearest
substation). Planning permission for a BESS roughly increases land
value by 1000x. (exact figures are hard to come by - commercially
confidential)
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
The ten items (on pp.14 to 15) which allegedly create "Very Special Circumstances" are mostly generic and not specific to this locality. By
their logic, most similar planning applications anywhere in the country
would all justify being "Very Special Circumstances".
Although the Pegasus document proposes that the situation warrants Very Special Circumstances status, is there any mechanism which tests the
claim passes the threshold? At the moment, this relies largely on
Pegasus's assertion.
The legal precedent referenced on page 14 appears to be the following
one. The circumstances seem rather different and the arguments fowarded
are far more factually-based than those in the Pegasus document.
https://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/R-Basildon-District- Council-v-First-Secretary-of-State-2004-JPL-942.pdf
OR https://shorturl.at/woDRA
In paragraph 3 it states:
the Inspector set out seven main issues:
(i) The provision of and need for gypsy sites in the locality.
(ii) Whether the family can be considered as gypsies for the purposes
of planning law and policy and has connections with the District.
(iii) The visual impact of the development and its effect upon the
openness of the Green Belt. (iv) The suitability of the site with
regard to accessibility to schools/shops etc, and access to the main
highway network.
(v) The impact of the development upon existing residential
properties.
(vi) Whether there are any very special circumstances in this case
which clearly outweigh the harm which would be caused to the Green
Belt, and other harm, were the appeal to be allowed.
(vii) Precedent."
On 20/02/2025 15:55, Spike wrote:
As far as the ‘climate emergency’ and the next planning application is >> concerned, ask the party involved to comment on these facts:
It is well accepted by scientists that the factors that control Earth’s
climate are: (1) the elliptical orbit, (2) the orbital periapsis, (3) the
axial tilt, (4) the precession of the axis. These are said to be
responsible for the advance and retreat of the glaciers over a ~100,000
year cycle. (NASA web site)
This much is true. But the clear intent is obviously to mislead.
Short-term climate effects arise from: (5) changes in the cosmic ray flux, >> (6) changes in the Sun’s output.
The changes in the sun's output have been accurately measured since the 1970's when satellites to monitor solar flux first went into orbit. You
can't magic away AGW by claiming that the sun's brightness has changed. Likewise for cosmic rays which are also monitored routinely.
Even the prostitute scientist deniers for hire so loved by US Right Wing Think Tanks have given up on trying to make that claim fly.
Insignificant effects arise from changes in concentrations of trace gases
in the atmosphere.
Without the effects of polyatomic species in our atmosphere the Earth
would be a hell of lot colder than it is. Tyndall (and Fourier) were
amongst the first to realise this and that was long before global
warming was even on the horizon. Back then the CO2 concentration wasn't actually changing very quickly but it certainly is now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface
temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC,
strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor
to planetary temperatures.
You are deliberately trying to mislead the layman here - so typical of
an AGW denier. Sophistry will get you nowhere against a real scientist.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes a lot of difference. Lead
melts on the surface of Venus in part because there was never anything
there to lock up all that CO2 and atmospheric pressure is very high. It
is pretty much what you get when thermal runaway occurs.
Earth had liquid water and then photosynthesis evolved which turned a
lot of primordial CO2 into diatomic O2 (then a toxic gas in a primordial reducing atmosphere). The sun was a fair bit dimmer when it was younger.
Mars barely has any atmosphere left to speak of which is what makes
landing there so difficult.
Just enough atmosphere to burn up on entry if you get it slightly wrong
but not really enough to use parachutes to slow down reliably.
On 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 15:55:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface >>>> temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC, >>>> strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor >>>> to planetary temperatures.
Do you plan to alter those concentrations and recheck the temperatures, just
in order to make your argument remotely meaningful?
Apologies if the above is only meaningful to a scientist, but even the man >> on the Battery Bus could work out eventually that an atmosphere of ~95% CO2 >> has no effect on planetary temperature, and by extension the whole climate >> emergency is a huge money spinning hoax. BICBW about said man.
How on earth(sic) can you say whether it has had an effect if you have no idea
what the temperature would have been without it?
(And while we are on the subject of being scientifically literate, Mars has an
exceedingly thin atmosphere and Venus a rather dense one, and you would expect
the effect of CO2 to be absolute concentration rather than percentage concentration dependent, so the whole comparison was absurd anyway.)
Perceptive people might ask why we have a Renewables Obligation and not a
Temperature or CO2-reducing obligation.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 15:55, Spike wrote:
As far as the ‘climate emergency’ and the next planning application is >>> concerned, ask the party involved to comment on these facts:
It is well accepted by scientists that the factors that control Earth’s >>> climate are: (1) the elliptical orbit, (2) the orbital periapsis, (3) the >>> axial tilt, (4) the precession of the axis. These are said to be
responsible for the advance and retreat of the glaciers over a ~100,000
year cycle. (NASA web site)
This much is true. But the clear intent is obviously to mislead.
Short-term climate effects arise from: (5) changes in the cosmic ray flux, >>> (6) changes in the Sun’s output.
The changes in the sun's output have been accurately measured since the
1970's when satellites to monitor solar flux first went into orbit. You
can't magic away AGW by claiming that the sun's brightness has changed.
Likewise for cosmic rays which are also monitored routinely.
Even the prostitute scientist deniers for hire so loved by US Right Wing
Think Tanks have given up on trying to make that claim fly.
Insignificant effects arise from changes in concentrations of trace gases >>> in the atmosphere.
Without the effects of polyatomic species in our atmosphere the Earth
would be a hell of lot colder than it is. Tyndall (and Fourier) were
amongst the first to realise this and that was long before global
warming was even on the horizon. Back then the CO2 concentration wasn't
actually changing very quickly but it certainly is now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface
temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC,
strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor >>> to planetary temperatures.
You are deliberately trying to mislead the layman here - so typical of
an AGW denier. Sophistry will get you nowhere against a real scientist.
Ah… ‘denier’ wheeled out at the earliest opportunity.
Why am I not expecting a rational discussion?
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes a lot of difference. Lead
melts on the surface of Venus in part because there was never anything
there to lock up all that CO2 and atmospheric pressure is very high. It
is pretty much what you get when thermal runaway occurs.
What ‘thermal runaway’? Why doesn’t it happen on Mars, which also has a similar concentration of CO2?
Could there be another factor in play here?
Earth had liquid water and then photosynthesis evolved which turned a
lot of primordial CO2 into diatomic O2 (then a toxic gas in a primordial
reducing atmosphere). The sun was a fair bit dimmer when it was younger.
Yes, that’s all routine stuff.
Mars barely has any atmosphere left to speak of which is what makes
landing there so difficult.
Just enough atmosphere to burn up on entry if you get it slightly wrong
but not really enough to use parachutes to slow down reliably.
And?
On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:56:30 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 15:55, Spike wrote:
As far as the ‘climate emergency’ and the next planning application is >>>> concerned, ask the party involved to comment on these facts:
It is well accepted by scientists that the factors that control Earth’s >>>> climate are: (1) the elliptical orbit, (2) the orbital periapsis, (3) the >>>> axial tilt, (4) the precession of the axis. These are said to be
responsible for the advance and retreat of the glaciers over a ~100,000 >>>> year cycle. (NASA web site)
This much is true. But the clear intent is obviously to mislead.
Short-term climate effects arise from: (5) changes in the cosmic ray flux, >>>> (6) changes in the Sun’s output.
The changes in the sun's output have been accurately measured since the
1970's when satellites to monitor solar flux first went into orbit. You
can't magic away AGW by claiming that the sun's brightness has changed.
Likewise for cosmic rays which are also monitored routinely.
Even the prostitute scientist deniers for hire so loved by US Right Wing >>> Think Tanks have given up on trying to make that claim fly.
Insignificant effects arise from changes in concentrations of trace gases >>>> in the atmosphere.
Without the effects of polyatomic species in our atmosphere the Earth
would be a hell of lot colder than it is. Tyndall (and Fourier) were
amongst the first to realise this and that was long before global
warming was even on the horizon. Back then the CO2 concentration wasn't
actually changing very quickly but it certainly is now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface >>>> temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC, >>>> strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor >>>> to planetary temperatures.
You are deliberately trying to mislead the layman here - so typical of
an AGW denier. Sophistry will get you nowhere against a real scientist.
Ah… ‘denier’ wheeled out at the earliest opportunity.
Why am I not expecting a rational discussion?
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes a lot of difference. Lead
melts on the surface of Venus in part because there was never anything
there to lock up all that CO2 and atmospheric pressure is very high. It
is pretty much what you get when thermal runaway occurs.
What ‘thermal runaway’? Why doesn’t it happen on Mars, which also has a
similar concentration of CO2?
Could there be another factor in play here?
Earth had liquid water and then photosynthesis evolved which turned a
lot of primordial CO2 into diatomic O2 (then a toxic gas in a primordial >>> reducing atmosphere). The sun was a fair bit dimmer when it was younger.
Yes, that’s all routine stuff.
Mars barely has any atmosphere left to speak of which is what makes
landing there so difficult.
Just enough atmosphere to burn up on entry if you get it slightly wrong
but not really enough to use parachutes to slow down reliably.
And?
The actual amount of CO2 (despite being a high percentage of a thin atmosphere) is tiny, and unlikely to reflect much radiation.
And that is before we note the inverse square law of radiation intensity and Mars being a lot further from the sun. Chalk and cheese spring to mind.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 15:55, Spike wrote:
As far as the ‘climate emergency’ and the next planning application is >>> concerned, ask the party involved to comment on these facts:
It is well accepted by scientists that the factors that control Earth’s >>> climate are: (1) the elliptical orbit, (2) the orbital periapsis, (3) the >>> axial tilt, (4) the precession of the axis. These are said to be
responsible for the advance and retreat of the glaciers over a ~100,000
year cycle. (NASA web site)
This much is true. But the clear intent is obviously to mislead.
Short-term climate effects arise from: (5) changes in the cosmic ray flux, >>> (6) changes in the Sun’s output.
The changes in the sun's output have been accurately measured since the
1970's when satellites to monitor solar flux first went into orbit. You
can't magic away AGW by claiming that the sun's brightness has changed.
Likewise for cosmic rays which are also monitored routinely.
Even the prostitute scientist deniers for hire so loved by US Right Wing
Think Tanks have given up on trying to make that claim fly.
Insignificant effects arise from changes in concentrations of trace gases >>> in the atmosphere.
Without the effects of polyatomic species in our atmosphere the Earth
would be a hell of lot colder than it is. Tyndall (and Fourier) were
amongst the first to realise this and that was long before global
warming was even on the horizon. Back then the CO2 concentration wasn't
actually changing very quickly but it certainly is now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface
temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC,
strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor >>> to planetary temperatures.
You are deliberately trying to mislead the layman here - so typical of
an AGW denier. Sophistry will get you nowhere against a real scientist.
Ah… ‘denier’ wheeled out at the earliest opportunity.
Why am I not expecting a rational discussion?
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes a lot of difference. Lead
melts on the surface of Venus in part because there was never anything
there to lock up all that CO2 and atmospheric pressure is very high. It
is pretty much what you get when thermal runaway occurs.
What ‘thermal runaway’? Why doesn’t it happen on Mars, which also has a similar concentration of CO2?
Could there be another factor in play here?
Earth had liquid water and then photosynthesis evolved which turned a
lot of primordial CO2 into diatomic O2 (then a toxic gas in a primordial
reducing atmosphere). The sun was a fair bit dimmer when it was younger.
Yes, that’s all routine stuff.
Mars barely has any atmosphere left to speak of which is what makes
landing there so difficult.
Just enough atmosphere to burn up on entry if you get it slightly wrong
but not really enough to use parachutes to slow down reliably.
And?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
snip
And that is before we note the inverse square law of radiation intensity and >> Mars being a lot further from the sun. Chalk and cheese spring to mind.
And the difference in solar irradiation between Venus
and Mars is what?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 15:55:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface >>>>> temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC, >>>>> strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor >>>>> to planetary temperatures.
Do you plan to alter those concentrations and recheck the temperatures, just
in order to make your argument remotely meaningful?
Apologies if the above is only meaningful to a scientist, but even the man >>> on the Battery Bus could work out eventually that an atmosphere of ~95% CO2 >>> has no effect on planetary temperature, and by extension the whole climate >>> emergency is a huge money spinning hoax. BICBW about said man.
How on earth(sic) can you say whether it has had an effect if you have no idea
what the temperature would have been without it?
Why do you think I was careful to quote the data for Venus and Mars, two planets that have very similar concentrations of CO2 and yet have wildly varying surface temperatures?
(And while we are on the subject of being scientifically literate, Mars has an
exceedingly thin atmosphere and Venus a rather dense one, and you would expect
the effect of CO2 to be absolute concentration rather than percentage
concentration dependent, so the whole comparison was absurd anyway.)
Kindly give some links to authoritative scientific papers that support your claim of expecting absolute concentrations to be the driving factor of the difference of surface temperatures between Venus and Mars. Otherwise, it’s just an absurd claim on your part.
Perceptive people might ask why we have a Renewables Obligation and not a >>> Temperature or CO2-reducing obligation.
Absence of response noted.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 15:55:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface >>>>> temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC, >>>>> strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant contributor >>>>> to planetary temperatures.
Do you plan to alter those concentrations and recheck the temperatures, just
in order to make your argument remotely meaningful?
Apologies if the above is only meaningful to a scientist, but even the man >>> on the Battery Bus could work out eventually that an atmosphere of ~95% CO2 >>> has no effect on planetary temperature, and by extension the whole climate >>> emergency is a huge money spinning hoax. BICBW about said man.
How on earth(sic) can you say whether it has had an effect if you have no idea
what the temperature would have been without it?
Why do you think I was careful to quote the data for Venus and Mars, two planets that have very similar concentrations of CO2 and yet have wildly varying surface temperatures?
(And while we are on the subject of being scientifically literate, Mars has an
exceedingly thin atmosphere and Venus a rather dense one, and you would expect
the effect of CO2 to be absolute concentration rather than percentage
concentration dependent, so the whole comparison was absurd anyway.)
Kindly give some links to authoritative scientific papers that support your claim of expecting absolute concentrations to be the driving factor of the difference of surface temperatures between Venus and Mars. Otherwise, it’s just an absurd claim on your part.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 15:55:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Other solar planets with CO2 atmospheres are Venus at 96% CO2, surface >>>>> temperature 467degC, and Mars at 95% CO2, surface temperature -82degC, >>>>> strongly suggesting that CO2 concentrations are an irrelevant
contributor to planetary temperatures.
Do you plan to alter those concentrations and recheck the
temperatures, just in order to make your argument remotely
meaningful?
Apologies if the above is only meaningful to a scientist, but even
the man on the Battery Bus could work out eventually that an
atmosphere of ~95% CO2 has no effect on planetary temperature, and
by extension the whole climate emergency is a huge money spinning
hoax. BICBW about said man.
How on earth(sic) can you say whether it has had an effect if you
have no idea what the temperature would have been without it?
Why do you think I was careful to quote the data for Venus and Mars, two planets that have very similar concentrations of CO2 and yet have wildly varying surface temperatures?
(And while we are on the subject of being scientifically literate,
Mars has an exceedingly thin atmosphere and Venus a rather dense one,
and you would expect the effect of CO2 to be absolute concentration
rather than percentage concentration dependent, so the whole
comparison was absurd anyway.)
Kindly give some links to authoritative scientific papers that support your claim of expecting absolute concentrations to be the driving factor of the difference of surface temperatures between Venus and Mars. Otherwise, it’s just an absurd claim on your part.
On 21 Feb 2025 at 12:10:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Why do you think I was careful to quote the data for Venus and Mars, two
planets that have very similar concentrations of CO2 and yet have wildly
varying surface temperatures?
(And while we are on the subject of being scientifically literate, Mars has an
exceedingly thin atmosphere and Venus a rather dense one, and you would expect
the effect of CO2 to be absolute concentration rather than percentage
concentration dependent, so the whole comparison was absurd anyway.)
Kindly give some links to authoritative scientific papers that support your >> claim of expecting absolute concentrations to be the driving factor of the >> difference of surface temperatures between Venus and Mars. Otherwise, it’s >> just an absurd claim on your part.
It is self-evident that it is the absolute concentration of a reflecting molecular species that matters, not whether there are lots of other molecules floating around, and if you can't understand this there is no point in further
discussion.
On 21/02/2025 12:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 12:10:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Why do you think I was careful to quote the data for Venus and Mars, two >>> planets that have very similar concentrations of CO2 and yet have wildly >>> varying surface temperatures?
(And while we are on the subject of being scientifically literate, Mars has an
exceedingly thin atmosphere and Venus a rather dense one, and you would expect
the effect of CO2 to be absolute concentration rather than percentage
concentration dependent, so the whole comparison was absurd anyway.)
Kindly give some links to authoritative scientific papers that support your >>> claim of expecting absolute concentrations to be the driving factor of the >>> difference of surface temperatures between Venus and Mars. Otherwise, it’s
just an absurd claim on your part.
It is self-evident that it is the absolute concentration of a reflecting
molecular species that matters, not whether there are lots of other molecules
floating around, and if you can't understand this there is no point in further
discussion.
It's a bit of a downer as regards your argument, though, that carbon
dioxide is not actually a 'reflecting molecular species'.
You *are* an AGW denier. The way you constructed your bogus argument demonstrates so clearly what you are. I hope that most laypersons will
be able to see through your pathetic attempts to invoke pseudoscience.
Why am I not expecting a rational discussion?
Because you are here to pretend that AGW is not happening when anyone
who is prepared to look at the data can see that it is.
On 21/02/2025 12:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 12:10:01 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Why do you think I was careful to quote the data for Venus and Mars,
two
planets that have very similar concentrations of CO2 and yet have wildly >>> varying surface temperatures?
(And while we are on the subject of being scientifically literate,
Mars has an
exceedingly thin atmosphere and Venus a rather dense one, and you
would expect
the effect of CO2 to be absolute concentration rather than percentage
concentration dependent, so the whole comparison was absurd anyway.)
Kindly give some links to authoritative scientific papers that
support your
claim of expecting absolute concentrations to be the driving factor
of the
difference of surface temperatures between Venus and Mars. Otherwise,
it’s
just an absurd claim on your part.
It is self-evident that it is the absolute concentration of a reflecting
molecular species that matters, not whether there are lots of other
molecules
floating around, and if you can't understand this there is no point in
further
discussion.
It's a bit of a downer as regards your argument, though, that carbon
dioxide is not actually a 'reflecting molecular species'.
On 20/02/2025 22:11, Pamela wrote:
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
So am I. That is why I am asking about it. It looks like it drives a
coach and horses through any attempt to prevent BESS units being built
on any land at all - Green belt or high grade agricultural land.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 22:11, Pamela wrote:
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
So am I. That is why I am asking about it. It looks like it drives a
coach and horses through any attempt to prevent BESS units being built
on any land at all - Green belt or high grade agricultural land.
They mention VSC 2 being the grid connection. The site is crossed by a 33kV power line and just down the road is Eggborough 400kV substation. So it's a pretty good place to put a BESS, unlike some other places.
You have to put the things somewhere, and at some point the value of the installation outweighs the value of the area of agricultural land that's being used for it.
Theo
On 22 Feb 2025 at 15:23:16 GMT, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 22:11, Pamela wrote:
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
So am I. That is why I am asking about it. It looks like it drives a
coach and horses through any attempt to prevent BESS units being built
on any land at all - Green belt or high grade agricultural land.
They mention VSC 2 being the grid connection. The site is crossed by a 33kV >> power line and just down the road is Eggborough 400kV substation. So it's a >> pretty good place to put a BESS, unlike some other places.
You have to put the things somewhere, and at some point the value of the
installation outweighs the value of the area of agricultural land that's
being used for it.
Theo
Other things being equal, you should probably put them as near as is safe to large centres of population (or power use).
On 21/02/2025 12:57, Martin Brown wrote:
You *are* an AGW denier. The way you constructed your bogus argument
demonstrates so clearly what you are. I hope that most laypersons will
be able to see through your pathetic attempts to invoke pseudoscience.
Why am I not expecting a rational discussion?
Because you are here to pretend that AGW is not happening when anyone
who is prepared to look at the data can see that it is.
Is the climate changing? Yes - but then it always is.
Are the changes man made? There is an unproven possibility.
Will the 'green' initiatives make the slightest difference to the
climate? Not a chance in hell.
Net zero = net income loss.
On 22 Feb 2025 at 15:23:16 GMT, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 22:11, Pamela wrote:
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
So am I. That is why I am asking about it. It looks like it drives a
coach and horses through any attempt to prevent BESS units being built
on any land at all - Green belt or high grade agricultural land.
They mention VSC 2 being the grid connection. The site is crossed by a 33kV
power line and just down the road is Eggborough 400kV substation. So it's a
pretty good place to put a BESS, unlike some other places.
You have to put the things somewhere, and at some point the value of the installation outweighs the value of the area of agricultural land that's being used for it.
Theo
Other things being equal, you should probably put them as near as is safe to large centres of population (or power use).
On 22/02/2025 16:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Feb 2025 at 15:23:16 GMT, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >> wrote:You make a good point there. I live on Anglesey (an island) - proposed
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 22:11, Pamela wrote:
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
So am I. That is why I am asking about it. It looks like it drives a
coach and horses through any attempt to prevent BESS units being built >>>> on any land at all - Green belt or high grade agricultural land.
They mention VSC 2 being the grid connection. The site is crossed by a 33kV
power line and just down the road is Eggborough 400kV substation. So it's a
pretty good place to put a BESS, unlike some other places.
You have to put the things somewhere, and at some point the value of the >>> installation outweighs the value of the area of agricultural land that's >>> being used for it.
Theo
Other things being equal, you should probably put them as near as is safe to >> large centres of population (or power use).
for a replacement nuclear power station and acres of ghastly solar
"farms". There is sod all demand for the electricity here, so we will
then need lots of lovely copper wiring to send the stuff to where it is required.
On 22/02/2025 16:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
Other things being equal, you should probably put them as near as is safe to
large centres of population (or power use).
You make a good point there. I live on Anglesey (an island) - proposed
for a replacement nuclear power station and acres of ghastly solar
"farms". There is sod all demand for the electricity here, so we will
then need lots of lovely copper wiring to send the stuff to where it is required.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 22:11, Pamela wrote:
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
So am I. That is why I am asking about it. It looks like it drives a
coach and horses through any attempt to prevent BESS units being
built on any land at all - Green belt or high grade agricultural
land.
They mention VSC 2 being the grid connection. The site is crossed by
a 33kV power line and just down the road is Eggborough 400kV
substation. So it's a pretty good place to put a BESS, unlike some
other places.
You have to put the things somewhere, and at some point the value of
the installation outweighs the value of the area of agricultural land
that's being used for it.
Theo
On 20/02/2025 22:11, Pamela wrote:https://publicaccess1.selby.gov.uk/PublicAccess_Live/Document/ViewD
On 15:33 20 Feb 2025, Martin Brown said:
On 20/02/2025 14:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 13:37:07 GMT, "Martin Brown"
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Does anyone have any views on whether the case they presented in
this document is actually valid in law or merely sophisticated
misdirection? It certainly convinced the Planning Officer:
oc ument?id=E3D7C87E76704B829551673413134BAF
The case for "very special circumstances" starts at p14 and all
the rest of the document. I can read the words but that just isn't
good enough. IANAL
Thanks for any enlightenment or examples of other applications
using this approach to circumvent Green Belt planning
restrictions.
The Green Belt is so socialist 1940s. As usual the capitalists are
using the Labour Party's "turn" at being in goverment to remove
that inconvenience without any shouts of "Tories out!".
Although the document creating a "very special circumstances"
argument for trashing the Green Belt is dated August 2024 they could
not possibly have know when it was being written that Rishi Sunak
would call a snap early election in mid-summer. I'm curious if their
core argument holds any significant legal weight or is just a clever
piece of sophistry.
It convinced the case Officer dealing with the application.
It will be interesting to see if it actually gets connected to the
grid when/if it is actually built (about 5 miles to the nearest
substation). Planning permission for a BESS roughly increases land
value by 1000x. (exact figures are hard to come by - commercially
confidential)
I am somewhat unclear about the "Very Special Circumstances".
So am I. That is why I am asking about it. It looks like it drives a
coach and horses through any attempt to prevent BESS units being built
on any land at all - Green belt or high grade agricultural land.
The ten items (on pp.14 to 15) which allegedly create "Very Special
Circumstances" are mostly generic and not specific to this locality.
By their logic, most similar planning applications anywhere in the
country would all justify being "Very Special Circumstances".
That is what worries me. It was enough to convince a local planning
officer and that is all it needs to do. Battery storage systems of
whatever size (and the one I'm fighting would be the largest in the
world if built today) are a local planning decision. It's bonkers!
Although the Pegasus document proposes that the situation warrants
Very Special Circumstances status, is there any mechanism which tests
the claim passes the threshold? At the moment, this relies largely on
Pegasus's assertion.
A legal position which has been accepted by at least one county
council for a BESS and others will now see this decision as a
precedent.
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular
decision.
The legal precedent referenced on page 14 appears to be the following
one. The circumstances seem rather different and the arguments
fowarded are far more factually-based than those in the Pegasus
document.
https://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/R-
Basildon-District- Council-v-First-Secretary-of-State-2004-
JPL-942.pdf
OR https://shorturl.at/woDRA
In paragraph 3 it states:
the Inspector set out seven main issues:
(i) The provision of and need for gypsy sites in the locality.
(ii) Whether the family can be considered as gypsies for the
purposes of planning law and policy and has connections with the
District. (iii) The visual impact of the development and its
effect upon the openness of the Green Belt. (iv) The suitability
of the site with regard to accessibility to schools/shops etc,
and access to the main highway network. (v) The impact of the
development upon existing residential properties. (vi) Whether
there are any very special circumstances in this case which
clearly outweigh the harm which would be caused to the Green
Belt, and other harm, were the appeal to be allowed. (vii)
Precedent."
It all seemed very tangential to me but I quite literally cannot
follow the Pegasus reasoning from how they got this assertion of "very special circumstances" to fly. It looks like "proof by dynamic
assertion" to me.
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision.
In message <vp9i2b$3b68q$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:48 on Fri, 21 Feb
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
In message <vp9i2b$3b68q$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:48 on Fri, 21 Feb
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:00:32 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vp9i2b$3b68q$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:48 on Fri, 21 Feb
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be murdered,
as long as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered at
once?
On 2025-02-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:00:32 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vp9i2b$3b68q$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:48 on Fri, 21 Feb
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision. >>>I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be murdered,
as long as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered at
once?
You realise that equating "building on some green belt land" and
"murdering people" is utterly ridiculous, right?
On 23 Feb 2025 at 18:11:07 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:00:32 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>> In message <vp9i2b$3b68q$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:48 on Fri, 21 Feb
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision. >>>>I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be murdered,
as long as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered at
once?
You realise that equating "building on some green belt land" and
"murdering people" is utterly ridiculous, right?
I am criticising the logic, not the conclusion.
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:00:32 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vp9i2b$3b68q$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:48 on Fri, 21 Feb
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be murdered, as long >as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered at once?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be murdered,
as long as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered at
once?
You realise that equating "building on some green belt land" and
"murdering people" is utterly ridiculous, right?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be murdered,
as long as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered at
once?
False dichotomy.
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular
decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side
Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be murdered, >>>>> as long as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered at >>>>> once?
False dichotomy.
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, claiming that building
on the Green Belt is morally equivalent to committing a murder.
That was pretty obvious, I'd say.
If you say so.
It's true whether I say so or not.
In message <m2ba51Ff7q8U2@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:44 on Thu, 27
Feb 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
All Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular
decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side >>>>>>> Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be
murdered,
as long as there was no serious risk of all people being murdered
at once?
False dichotomy.
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, claiming that building
on the Green Belt is morally equivalent to committing a murder.
That was pretty obvious, I'd say.
If you say so.
It's true whether I say so or not.
"It's just my personal opinion, but I know I'm right".
<JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
ENDQUOTEAll Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular
decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side >>>>>>> Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be
murdered, as long as there was no serious risk of all people
being murdered at once?
False dichotomy.
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, claiming that building
on the Green Belt is morally equivalent to committing a murder.
That was pretty obvious, I'd say.
If you say so.
It's true whether I say so or not.
"It's just my personal opinion, but I know I'm right".
On 01/03/2025 08:38 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
<JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
QUOTE:
ENDQUOTEAll Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular >>>>>>>>> decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side >>>>>>>> Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be
murdered, as long as there was no serious risk of all people
being murdered at once?
False dichotomy.
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, claiming that building >>>>> on the Green Belt is morally equivalent to committing a murder.
That was pretty obvious, I'd say.
If you say so.
It's true whether I say so or not.
"It's just my personal opinion, but I know I'm right".
It was never my "personal opinion".
There are no sides to take on this. It's a straightforward *fact* that
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
Ask yourself a simple question:
Is it the slightest bit LIKELY that he was claiming (or trying to
claim) that building on the Green belt is the equivalent of murder (as
was alleged by another poster)?
And if you are tempted to answer anything but "No", take yourself aside
and have a serious word with yourself.
In message <m2gdi5F88b7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:40:36 on Sat, 1 Mar 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2025 08:38 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
<JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
QUOTE:
ENDQUOTEAll Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular >>>>>>>>>> decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side >>>>>>>>> Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be
murdered, as long as there was no serious risk of all people
being murdered at once?
False dichotomy.
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, claiming that building >>>>>> on the Green Belt is morally equivalent to committing a murder.
That was pretty obvious, I'd say.
If you say so.
It's true whether I say so or not.
"It's just my personal opinion, but I know I'm right".
It was never my "personal opinion".
There are no sides to take on this. It's a straightforward *fact* that
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
Ask yourself a simple question:
Is it the slightest bit LIKELY that he was claiming (or trying to
claim) that building on the Green belt is the equivalent of murder (as
was alleged by another poster)?
And if you are tempted to answer anything but "No", take yourself aside
and have a serious word with yourself.
I think I'm going to take myself aside and killfile you. There comes a
point when discussion is fruitless.
On 6 Mar 2025 at 19:07:17 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m2gdi5F88b7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:40:36 on Sat, 1 Mar
2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2025 08:38 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
<JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
QUOTE:
ENDQUOTEAll Green Belt land is in serious danger from this particular >>>>>>>>>>> decision.
I rather doubt the whole Green Belt will end up with side-by side >>>>>>>>>> Battery Storage.
So you would be happy for the occasional random person to be >>>>>>>>> murdered, as long as there was no serious risk of all people >>>>>>>>> being murdered at once?
False dichotomy.
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, claiming that building >>>>>>> on the Green Belt is morally equivalent to committing a murder.
That was pretty obvious, I'd say.
If you say so.
It's true whether I say so or not.
"It's just my personal opinion, but I know I'm right".
It was never my "personal opinion".
There are no sides to take on this. It's a straightforward *fact* that
RH was making a comparison of logical processes.
Ask yourself a simple question:
Is it the slightest bit LIKELY that he was claiming (or trying to
claim) that building on the Green belt is the equivalent of murder (as
was alleged by another poster)?
And if you are tempted to answer anything but "No", take yourself aside
and have a serious word with yourself.
I think I'm going to take myself aside and killfile you. There comes a
point when discussion is fruitless.
It tends to be when you're wrong.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:49:45 |
| Calls: | 9,809 |
| Calls today: | 11 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,345 |