Council vows to resist new wind farm plans in Lincolnshire

“The real scientists of this world say that global warming/climate change is a natural act of this planet. It has been going on since the end of the last ice age.
The governmental scientists are told what to say.
People like Prof David Bellamy of the real world has been band from the media because they speak the truth.”

“You can bet your life, when the lights go out you'll hear all these forelock tugging nimby's screaming the loudest.”

“Interesting how the council doesn't seem so bothered about destroying the countryside, noise etc when they're building their precious roads...
http://tinyurl.com/d5mj8bw”

“There's now a peititon doing the rounds. Sign if you want to urge Lincolnshire's local decision makers to follow the science and support the expansion of clean, renewable forms of energy: http://tinyurl.com/7t6px65”

“Global warming, Climate change. Chicken or Egg or Egg or Chicken. The subject is just not worth arguing about. It's happening. I see a beautiful aesthetic slimline piece of engineering producing electricity from a sustainable source but the far flung vista's of lincolnshires Fens and Wolds are not the place for them, nor the land of any other county. They should be placed out in the North Sea out of sight of land. From a small rise about 3/4 of a mile outside of Old Somerby at about 300 feet above sea level St Botolph's church tower in Boston can be seen across about 20 miles of lincolnshire flatland on a clear day, with the naked eye.( If the hedges aren't cut low on the nearest fields you would need a vantage point to stand on.) That is one view that could be obliterated. I am quite sure there are views that that the locals of other localities know of that would be equally spoiled. delsylvest .”

“But is business you would have a draft proposal for a marketing campaign with research and focus groups etc. You could then just as easily present the same case the other way with similar research and focus groups, you then have to decide which is correct. When Red Bull was launched, all pre anaylsis suggested its branding was wrong and it would be a flop.

Expanding the parallel a bit more, the research you do can be biased by things and might not be accurate. A stand out example comes to me from The Apprentice last year where their "market research" showed people in Paris would not be interested in a child car seat. They carried this out at a metro station.”

“Hi Duffer,

You clearly have some sort of scientific background, and yes I admit I don't, other than I did Physics at school, albeit a very long time ago. I am very much a black and white type of person who lives in the business world, where I only act upon clear concise facts. Perhaps the scientific world needs to look at the way they express themselves in order to put their view point across for us laymen to understand. However that said, the word "theory" has more than one meaning depending on the context in which it is used.

The problem I and many others like me have, is what "theory" really means in the scientific context.

"Theory" means "a set of ideas, based on evidence and careful reasoning, which offers an explanation of how something works, or in this case, why something happens, but has not been completely proved" or it could mean an idea or opinion which maybe worth pursuing.

Either way, it is not conclusive. In the business world if someone comes to me and says there "maybe something happening" in such and such country, I will always ask them "where are your facts" and if they haven't got any, and inform me that it's just hearsay, I will always say bring me the facts and hard evidence, then we will act upon it.

You can't act upon anything based on hearsay.”

“On that note at the end Dufferbadge, my least favourite line is "a study out today says" or "a report out today shows" and then the view presented as the latest way of looking at something changing all views before. The more controversial the view the more likely it is for the media to go with it (which is fair enough), and as long as there is a study to back it then it is accepted. The Millenium Bug and MMR scare came from the studies or one off papers then being whipped up. My favourite example recently was a study that showed high heels really do give you more shapely legs. People with longer heels have more defined calf muscles. Or at least that is what the paper said. In fact the study looked at the length of a person's heel as in the part of their body. Those with longer heels had longer levers therefore needed more power to move them and so had larger calf muscles.”

“nigelsparky not trying to pick a fight with you and I genuinely appreciate you trying to engage in debate on the forum but I think you are getting bogged down on the language used in science.
Scientific theories are not supposition but you won't find the word "fact" used too often. When someone puts forward a theory to explain a pattern of behaviour the scientific community will try to show why the theory doesn't work. This is done by examining their methodology and looking at their data (peer review) and conducting other experiments to show why the theory doesn't hold. Very seldom is a theory presented and everyone goes "oh yeah, that makes sense".
Newton's theory on gravity was used to successfully predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Ur****.
Part of the problem arises when scientific studies are reported in the popular press as they don't have a great record in reporting proper science. So when other work is reported that appears to contradict the original findings it looks like scientists can't make up their mind, or don't really know anything - when in fact it is just the normal process of moving towards a better understanding of something.”

“Interesting debate on AGW guys, but what has that got to do with building 40 storey high power stations scattered over farmland in the Lincolnshire countryside?
Wind lobbyists are not environmentalists, they are simply profiteers. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of their arguments.”