Argyll's online broadsheet.

@webcraft We’ve reconfigured the comments app after your …

Comment posted Fracking facts: pros, cons and issues by Techroom.

@webcraft We’ve reconfigured the comments app after your reposting which means the situation shouldn’t arise again.

Techroom also commented

  • Think you will find Big Ugly that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is more or less constant whereas the amount of CO2 is increasing somewhat.
  • They’re all from different IP addresses which resolve to different providers so in that sense they’re genuine. So it means I am still agog (although, as you’ll understand more than those from across the pond, there’s something distinctly ferrous about my agogness).
  • So Randy, How much revenue has Iran lost? How much terrorism has been reduced? How much has fracking reduced the US trade deficit (we’re a Scottish site by the way), and what US co’s have increased revenue by using the process? Go on let us know, enlighten us … we’re agog!

Recent comments by Techroom

  • Apologies: outtage lasted 2 hours but effects remain for 24
    Unfortunately, Newsroom is still experiencing outtages. We have a story about Comar etc. which will be up today we hope – thanks Nocheesehere!
  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Sorry everyone, I didn’t disclose all I should have: as a matter of fact I do have views of three turbines from my property and on some nights we can hear the soft whump of the blades turning.
  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Turbines in my back yard: yes, but not likely given present planning constraints. As for its effect on tourism, well, I am not so sure it has an observable effect. There’s an accommodation provider who has good views of a big windfarm in this glen, and the business has not suffered in the slightest (but then that might be because it is a well-run business). Baseload, for now, preferably gas, but even then … Fuel poverty is defined as over 10% of income I think, and frankly if that’s the price of clean energy we should consider paying it as a society – and before you ask, I fall into that classification. And lastly, great spoof of my name…
  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Hurrah! To Global Warming sceptics: 97% of all scientists agree. I rest.

    I agree technology will eventually come to our aid with, hopefully, fusion, non-rare earth-based pv etc. etc. but we must reduce emissions now, not in 30 years time, not in 20 years, not in 10 years time, but now. What do we have now? Wind turbines.

  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Subsidy or not, cash machines or not, blight on the landscape or not, the point is this: if we don’t put every effort into renewable energy, these debates will become academic. Frankly, if we have to subsidise these installations ongoing, well, why not? They are presently the only game in town – for the abovementioned reasons. And to object to them on their aesthetic impact is, as I say in the article, selfish. A question: would you prefer to subsidise renewables or fossil fuels? Because that’s the choice the Tories are making…

powered by SEO Super Comments