FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Mini budget
Mini budget
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Well looks like we've all been screwed over again by the polititans doing the reverse Robin Hood (steal from the poor and give to the rich) " . Hobin Rood is the new Chancellor.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Well looks like we've all been screwed over again by the polititans doing the reverse Robin Hood (steal from the poor and give to the rich) " “ Robin “ says it all | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Well looks like we've all been screwed over again by the polititans doing the reverse Robin Hood (steal from the poor and give to the rich) "  | |||
"Can’t do anything about it, suck it up and work hard , at least energy bills lower. The world has gone to shit, let’s just hope for no nuclear winter" I'm kinda hoping for vlad to send a tactical nuke Wednesday afternoon around 2 to hit Westminster  | |||
"Disgusting way to treat majority of people. Instead of spending billions on these cuts why not help people put solar panels on theirs roofs. Cut peoples bills and good for the environment " Meh solar panels and the batterys ain't that good for the environment instead of spewing billions to the energy companies and Ukraine just give the money back to the taxpayers who earn less than £50k pa simple answer | |||
| |||
| |||
"There was nothing "mini" about it. Basically, he's in his own "I'm Kwasi and I'm a genius" little world, with no awareness beyond his ideology; and he's fucking about with the entire economy, hoping for a miracle - and if he doesn't get one, he doesn't care. Why should he? If he wrecks the economy, he'll still be a millionaire and so will all his friends. He and Liz are trying to drag England even further to the right - so far right, it might as well be Hungary; whilst borrowing the sort of vast sums of money that, if Labour were doing it, they'd be screaming blue murder about. He has pointed out that economic inactivity by the over 50's is slowing growth - and he's right, it is. Surprisingly, for such an allegedly intelligent man, he seems to be too stupid to grasp that he's talking about a huge number of boomers, retired on gold plated pensions; who, quite rightly, can't be arsed working any more, if they don't have to. That he thinks sanctioning workers who still need UC to make ends meet, if they don't do a minimum of 18 hours work (rather than 15) per week, is going to plug that "boomer gap" is just another reason that reports of his massive intelligence have been greatly exaggerated. Like all politicians, he buys, completely and utterly, into his own bullshit. Unlike most politicians, his bullshit is going to harm millions. Even if it works." Well said | |||
"Can’t do anything about it, suck it up and work hard , at least energy bills lower. The world has gone to shit, let’s just hope for no nuclear winter" People could maybe stop voting for these self serving narcissists? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. " And? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And?" ...and. Don't look at the government or the budget, look at this distraction over here | |||
| |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying." Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying." Well said. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And?" Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. " "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. " I don't think he is trolling at all. I thought it was a rare example of common sense breaking out on here. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change?" In this forum common sense is rare. Hysteria is very common. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. I don't think he is trolling at all. I thought it was a rare example of common sense breaking out on here." Just so we're clear. Destroying the planet even faster, at a huge cost to the tax payer is now "common sense". Now you have to be trolling. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change?" I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic. "And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? In this forum common sense is rare. Hysteria is very common." | |||
| |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed. "You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality. You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Well said. "second that politics of envy does rear high amongst the masses though | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying." poliitcal roulete. Trouble is, even if things are shit, they can get worse. I get individual voters voting for change, any change, on this basis (although the bluenwall may be regretting that). Tintin polci that way is incredible. I've not looked at the detail. Have they committed to any lower spend ? And which countries are getting it right ? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. " Id wager if they gave any details, people would fall over themselves to say the books don't balance. Yet the Tories have rolled the dice, with no oversight. And noone seems to give a shit. It's like Brexit impacts all over again. | |||
"Can’t do anything about it, suck it up and work hard , at least energy bills lower. The world has gone to shit, let’s just hope for no nuclear winter People could maybe stop voting for these self serving narcissists? " Don’t not vote…vote to get rid | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. " It is a different opinion to yours, how is it trolling, he has a point. My thoughts, we are not the worst, we are trying but we also need to have a level playing field for growth in our economy. If we go full green to early, the impact would be huge as we would start to rely even more on foreign imports, more on global market swings. Those same people struggling with the mini budget, high energy prices, cost of food and so on would be further in the mire. Graceful change in line with other countries is the way forward, not throwing us under the bus for others to take advantage of. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. " Wait till the announcements at the labour conference, you should know better than that merky. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? " Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? " I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years?" "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour?" You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view. | |||
| |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view. "while it was done under a different leader, I'd refer back to the 2019 manifesto as a starting point. Windfall taxes of the oil companies wasn't a knee jerk reaction to the crisis. It was part of theor manifesto. They would have built nuclear power plants for energy security. As well as the usual greener solutions. And Interestingly, but off.topic, they had a view on patents of drugs and the third world. Kudos. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view. "Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view.
Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour?"I think so, we can see what the government have done, it is well documented. Labour have been missing for the last 12 years, so what have they been up to? | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view.
Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour?
I think so, we can see what the government have done, it is well documented.
Labour have been missing for the last 12 years, so what have they been up to?"what do you expect them to have done. All they can do is share their polices, and challenge the government on theirs. The a latter only goes so far if the government whips. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view.
Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour?
I think so, we can see what the government have done, it is well documented.
Labour have been missing for the last 12 years, so what have they been up to?what do you expect them to have done. All they can do is share their polices, and challenge the government on theirs. The a
latter only goes so far if the government whips.
"Did they have their house in order for the last 12 years? Have they been coherent in approach and ensured they resinating with the public of the UK? Did they have the ear of the people? | |||
| |||
"Labour spent 5 years trying to get re-elected but were undone by a bacon sandwich. They then spent 4 years arguing with each other about whether others were "Labour enough" to be allowed a voice, and forgot to be an opposition. The jury's still out on the last 3 years. So many open goals should have left them 20-0 up by now but they keep forgetting which game to play. Meanwhile the other cunts have ignored the rules of every game and stolen all the prize money. " I like this summary a lot. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view.
Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour?
I think so, we can see what the government have done, it is well documented.
Labour have been missing for the last 12 years, so what have they been up to?what do you expect them to have done. All they can do is share their polices, and challenge the government on theirs. The a
latter only goes so far if the government whips.
Did they have their house in order for the last 12 years? Have they been coherent in approach and ensured they resinating with the public of the UK?
Did they have the ear of the people?"I agree there have been errors. That the Tories made the most of. I also believe they spent too much time trying to give the country what it needed. Not what the voters were asking for. Labour was the grown up parent trying to get its kids to eat greens. Tories were the parent who gave them ice cream. And I agree they lacked coherence. But I think thay is because they don't tend to close down differing views the way the Tories do. A single voice is great for electioneering. It also leads to a weaker government imo. A bunch of yes men and weak imitators. Unfortunately we the voters need to accept some of this lack of poliah to get a better outcome. But we go for style over substance imo. It's Sophie's choice whether labour should stick with style and never be in power, or go for style and not do any good. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view.
Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour?
I think so, we can see what the government have done, it is well documented.
Labour have been missing for the last 12 years, so what have they been up to?what do you expect them to have done. All they can do is share their polices, and challenge the government on theirs. The a
latter only goes so far if the government whips.
Did they have their house in order for the last 12 years? Have they been coherent in approach and ensured they resinating with the public of the UK?
Did they have the ear of the people?
I agree there have been errors. That the Tories made the most of.
I also believe they spent too much time trying to give the country what it needed. Not what the voters were asking for. Labour was the grown up parent trying to get its kids to eat greens. Tories were the parent who gave them ice cream.
And I agree they lacked coherence. But I think thay is because they don't tend to close down differing views the way the Tories do. A single voice is great for electioneering. It also leads to a weaker government imo. A bunch of yes men and weak imitators.
Unfortunately we the voters need to accept some of this lack of poliah to get a better outcome. But we go for style over substance imo. It's Sophie's choice whether labour should stick with style and never be in power, or go for style and not do any good.
"Fair comments
I feel Labour lost its way, it's still not where it needs to be. It could be seen as a bonus they didn't make a government and blow it with in fighting and lack of direction.
We will get to hear whats what from them tomorrow. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? " You do know it’s the Labour conference this weekend don’t you? They may provide some more clarity after that | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? You do know it’s the Labour conference this weekend don’t you? They may provide some more clarity after that "Yes, let's see what sort of reaction SKS gets in Liverpool. | |||
| |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. " Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view.
Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour?
I think so, we can see what the government have done, it is well documented.
Labour have been missing for the last 12 years, so what have they been up to?"They've been in opposition. They've been in the news quite a lot. What should they have been doing, that they haven't? | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries." It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it." There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them. | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them." And how would Labour have borrowed less than the Tories since 2019, given that they supported Tory lockdowns every step of the way? | |||
"your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place." So you believe that the Labour Party have good policies, but they're really bad at communicating them? Have I got that right? | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them. And how would Labour have borrowed less than the Tories since 2019, given that they supported Tory lockdowns every step of the way? " Who knows. Maybe hand less multi million £ contracts to their pals for dodgy PPE. Anyway, does it matter to Tory voters? They're never going to stray from the path. They would have borrowed less over the previous 10 years though. | |||
"your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So you believe that the Labour Party have good policies, but they're really bad at communicating them? Have I got that right?" Nope. | |||
"your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place." "So you believe that the Labour Party have good policies, but they're really bad at communicating them? Have I got that right?" "Nope." So then why are Labour's policies so commonly misunderstood? | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them. And how would Labour have borrowed less than the Tories since 2019, given that they supported Tory lockdowns every step of the way? Who knows. Maybe hand less multi million £ contracts to their pals for dodgy PPE. Anyway, does it matter to Tory voters? They're never going to stray from the path. They would have borrowed less over the previous 10 years though. " In the scheme of how much has been wasted over the past two years a few million finding its way to government cronies is peanuts. And if Labour were in power it would just be handing out the pork to its union bosses. I'm just intrigued to understand why anyone thinks that Labour would have behaved any differently over the past two years, aside from probably keeping us in lockdown for longer and running up even bigger debts. | |||
"your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So you believe that the Labour Party have good policies, but they're really bad at communicating them? Have I got that right? Nope. So then why are Labour's policies so commonly misunderstood?" Why don't you ask the other guy here why? | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them. And how would Labour have borrowed less than the Tories since 2019, given that they supported Tory lockdowns every step of the way? Who knows. Maybe hand less multi million £ contracts to their pals for dodgy PPE. Anyway, does it matter to Tory voters? They're never going to stray from the path. They would have borrowed less over the previous 10 years though. In the scheme of how much has been wasted over the past two years a few million finding its way to government cronies is peanuts. And if Labour were in power it would just be handing out the pork to its union bosses. I'm just intrigued to understand why anyone thinks that Labour would have behaved any differently over the past two years, aside from probably keeping us in lockdown for longer and running up even bigger debts. " *Over 20 billion. More than just a couple of mil. I've no idea what Labour would have done. But the interesting thing here is that people would rather speculate over what someone else might have done, instead of considering what the government actually did. As if we don't deserve any better than this current government. | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them. And how would Labour have borrowed less than the Tories since 2019, given that they supported Tory lockdowns every step of the way? Who knows. Maybe hand less multi million £ contracts to their pals for dodgy PPE. Anyway, does it matter to Tory voters? They're never going to stray from the path. They would have borrowed less over the previous 10 years though. In the scheme of how much has been wasted over the past two years a few million finding its way to government cronies is peanuts. And if Labour were in power it would just be handing out the pork to its union bosses. I'm just intrigued to understand why anyone thinks that Labour would have behaved any differently over the past two years, aside from probably keeping us in lockdown for longer and running up even bigger debts. *Over 20 billion. More than just a couple of mil. I've no idea what Labour would have done. But the interesting thing here is that people would rather speculate over what someone else might have done, instead of considering what the government actually did. As if we don't deserve any better than this current government." As the main opposition and the party with ideas of forming the next govt, I'm very interested in establishing what the Labour party would've done and what they would do in future...eg reverse tax cuts? That's a legitimate concern | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? Yes definitely, let's not focus on the government, and how they've run the country into the ground for their own bank balances. What are Labour actually doing? I didn't say lets not focus on the government.... I'm suggesting the Labour party will make the conservatives 12 years in power, what have they done to us, their conference mantra. I'm asking what have the Labour party been doing in those 12 years? "Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Doesn't this imply concentrating on Labour? You know you can look at more than one thing? It tends to give you a more rounded well thought out view.
Indeed. So anyway, the real question is still about Labour?
I think so, we can see what the government have done, it is well documented.
Labour have been missing for the last 12 years, so what have they been up to?what do you expect them to have done. All they can do is share their polices, and challenge the government on theirs. The a
latter only goes so far if the government whips.
"I have only just stopped spitting feathers about the 45p rate thing. Then last night on news night the Labour business person refused to say they will reverse it. | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them. And how would Labour have borrowed less than the Tories since 2019, given that they supported Tory lockdowns every step of the way? Who knows. Maybe hand less multi million £ contracts to their pals for dodgy PPE. Anyway, does it matter to Tory voters? They're never going to stray from the path. They would have borrowed less over the previous 10 years though. In the scheme of how much has been wasted over the past two years a few million finding its way to government cronies is peanuts. And if Labour were in power it would just be handing out the pork to its union bosses. I'm just intrigued to understand why anyone thinks that Labour would have behaved any differently over the past two years, aside from probably keeping us in lockdown for longer and running up even bigger debts. *Over 20 billion. More than just a couple of mil. I've no idea what Labour would have done. But the interesting thing here is that people would rather speculate over what someone else might have done, instead of considering what the government actually did. As if we don't deserve any better than this current government. As the main opposition and the party with ideas of forming the next govt, I'm very interested in establishing what the Labour party would've done and what they would do in future...eg reverse tax cuts? That's a legitimate concern " According to the Tory diehards here. Worst case scenario is that they would have been as bad as the Tories. | |||
"I think the Tories have just lost the next election. Short sighted budget people don't want investment that's going to be a benefit in 10/20 years they want it now. The rich are rich because they keep hold of their money and invest in stuff to benefit themselves not the people. The people rely on the government to make sure that the people are invested in not some big mega corporation. All the shit that happened because of rich greedy banker's seems to have been swept under the carpet. Once again obscene bonuses are going to be paid at the expense of the country. Agree with all of that, except the Tories will win the next election, no worries. It will certainly be interesting to hear what Labour is going to offer at the next election. I'm not convinced that even higher taxes, even more money printing and borrowing, everyone buy a Tesla and open borders is going to hack it. There's no way they could borrow more than the Tories. Doesn't really matter what they're going to do though. Just as an example, your complete misunderstanding of Labour policy, is common place. So people won't vote for them. And how would Labour have borrowed less than the Tories since 2019, given that they supported Tory lockdowns every step of the way? Who knows. Maybe hand less multi million £ contracts to their pals for dodgy PPE. Anyway, does it matter to Tory voters? They're never going to stray from the path. They would have borrowed less over the previous 10 years though. In the scheme of how much has been wasted over the past two years a few million finding its way to government cronies is peanuts. And if Labour were in power it would just be handing out the pork to its union bosses. I'm just intrigued to understand why anyone thinks that Labour would have behaved any differently over the past two years, aside from probably keeping us in lockdown for longer and running up even bigger debts. *Over 20 billion. More than just a couple of mil. I've no idea what Labour would have done. But the interesting thing here is that people would rather speculate over what someone else might have done, instead of considering what the government actually did. As if we don't deserve any better than this current government. As the main opposition and the party with ideas of forming the next govt, I'm very interested in establishing what the Labour party would've done and what they would do in future...eg reverse tax cuts? That's a legitimate concern " Labour would raise the threshold of tax to help those who earn a lot less, and keep the 45p? Tax for those earning over 150k. Energy companies paying a reasonable amount of windfall tax. Interestingly, the government say they want to encourage the energy companies into invest ing in renewables but none of companies have ringfenced the huge profits for that.being sceptical, i reckon the tories are hedging their bets on a huge roll of the dice.. 1. The country's ecomomy picks up and the Tories win the next election after making huge profits for themselves and their rich mates 2. The gamble fails, the country goes tit up bit what the hell, the tories have milked the peasents dry anyway and made gigantic profits for themselves and their rich mates before getting kicked out at the next election. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine. "I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens | |||
| |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens "What's "green tech" got to do with anything? Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird. Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway? | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?"So the UK should engage in a course of action that will have no impact, and impoverish itself to achieve nothing? | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
So the UK should engage in a course of action that will have no impact, and impoverish itself to achieve nothing? "Lol. The UK should work with the rest of the world to tackle climate change. And the UK should transition to renewable energy generation, for cheap electricity, and energy independence. Of course we could continue to expand fossil fuels usage, keep electricity expensive, and make the planet uninhabitable.
| |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?"Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
So the UK should engage in a course of action that will have no impact, and impoverish itself to achieve nothing? "this is exactly the course of action the UK is engaged in | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research "Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse. I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it."well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so.... | |||
| |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it.
well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so.... "Erm. Climate science, especially the impact of human activity on the climate is not hard to understand. Anyway, not really sure why you think that understanding climate science is "ignorant" and yet not understanding it is something to boast about? | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it.
well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so....
Erm. Climate science, especially the impact of human activity on the climate is not hard to understand.
Anyway, not really sure why you think that understanding climate science is "ignorant" and yet not understanding it is something to boast about?"This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves.. You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics. | |||
"Just listened to Angela Rayner being interviewed. She kept repeating the mantra that "the poorest will be better off under Labour" but had no answers on how that would be achieved. And? Are Labour going to try and win the next GE, or just hope the Conservatives lose it? Labour will milk the Conservatives 12 years in power at their conference, for all its worth. Isn't the real question what have the labour party been doing for 12 years? " Opposing the tories, winning seats, then losing seats, then winning seats, defending themselves against the right wing media, then forcing the government to make U turns, internal battles, managing councils on limited budgets. You know, the shit you don’t see because the Tories hog the media, with their scandals, outrageous bullshit, and general incompetence. | |||
"In my opinion All polititans from all parties are the same treasonous poisonous treacherous lying theiveing corrupt hippocritical snivelling shit weasels robbing the taxpayers for everything they can and only deserve the sentence for their treasonous behaviour heads on spikes above traitors gate " Yes because you’ve been watching 12 years of Tory psychodramas being played out, of course you are disillusioned. It kinda like a bad relationship you’ve been cheated on so much, you cannot trust anyone now. But not all politicians are the same, and you need to engage with your local leaders and be forward with your grievances, instead of letting them build up. | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it.
well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so....
Erm. Climate science, especially the impact of human activity on the climate is not hard to understand.
Anyway, not really sure why you think that understanding climate science is "ignorant" and yet not understanding it is something to boast about?
This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves..
You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics."Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't? Two things. Firstly, the single reason it's not treated with the urgency it deserves, globally and here is money. Plain and simple, the oil companies won't make as much money if we start to take more action. Secondly, if someone forms an opinion from an emotional response to something, no amount of logic, science or fact will change their mind. See it all the time with people who believe climate change isn't real, people who believe the pandemic is a hoax, people who believe brexit is a good idea etc etc. In this instance, there are countless websites that explain the science of human activity causing climate change. Such as NASA. But do you really think the person on question would be open to reading it? And is that still my fault? | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it.
well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so....
Erm. Climate science, especially the impact of human activity on the climate is not hard to understand.
Anyway, not really sure why you think that understanding climate science is "ignorant" and yet not understanding it is something to boast about?
This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves..
You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics.
Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't?
Two things. Firstly, the single reason it's not treated with the urgency it deserves, globally and here is money. Plain and simple, the oil companies won't make as much money if we start to take more action.
Secondly, if someone forms an opinion from an emotional response to something, no amount of logic, science or fact will change their mind. See it all the time with people who believe climate change isn't real, people who believe the pandemic is a hoax, people who believe brexit is a good idea etc etc. In this instance, there are countless websites that explain the science of human activity causing climate change. Such as NASA. But do you really think the person on question would be open to reading it? And is that still my fault?"Do you think that the unilateral pursuit of net zero is going to make anyone in the UK richer aside from big corporations selling electric cars, heat pumps, and "renewables"? | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it.
well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so....
Erm. Climate science, especially the impact of human activity on the climate is not hard to understand.
Anyway, not really sure why you think that understanding climate science is "ignorant" and yet not understanding it is something to boast about?
This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves..
You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics.
Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't?
Two things. Firstly, the single reason it's not treated with the urgency it deserves, globally and here is money. Plain and simple, the oil companies won't make as much money if we start to take more action.
Secondly, if someone forms an opinion from an emotional response to something, no amount of logic, science or fact will change their mind. See it all the time with people who believe climate change isn't real, people who believe the pandemic is a hoax, people who believe brexit is a good idea etc etc. In this instance, there are countless websites that explain the science of human activity causing climate change. Such as NASA. But do you really think the person on question would be open to reading it? And is that still my fault?
Do you think that the unilateral pursuit of net zero is going to make anyone in the UK richer aside from big corporations selling electric cars, heat pumps, and "renewables"? "Yes, someone will make money from it. But it's a miniscule amount compared to the oil company profits. | |||
"This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves.. You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics." "Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't?" What I see him saying is that most people don't understand climate change, and that you keep saying that it's simple, but you don't ever explain anything. How are those who don't understand it supposed to learn, if those that do understand it just tell them to figure it out for themselves? | |||
"This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves.. You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics. Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't? What I see him saying is that most people don't understand climate change, and that you keep saying that it's simple, but you don't ever explain anything. How are those who don't understand it supposed to learn, if those that do understand it just tell them to figure it out for themselves?" Who told them to figure it out for themselves? If I'm 100% honest, three things. 1. They probably shouldn't be trying to learn about climate change from a random bloke on a swingers website who the insulted by calling me "ignorant" because I do understand some of the science. 2. The person in question has zero interest in understanding it. Otherwise they would go and read about it. There is a wealth of information out there. 3. You could have pointed that out. But you are just here to attack people instead of discussing the issues. Have a good Sunday. | |||
"How are those who don't understand it supposed to learn, if those that do understand it just tell them to figure it out for themselves?" "Who told them to figure it out for themselves?" Well, mostly, you do. You regularly post along the lines of 'it's very simple, go and read up on it'. "1. They probably shouldn't be trying to learn about climate change from a random bloke on a swingers website" That's true enough. "2. The person in question has zero interest in understanding it. Otherwise they would go and read about it. There is a wealth of information out there." There you go again, saying that people should just find the information for themselves. Earlier on in this thread you said "You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine". How do you expect people to tell the difference between proper climate science and propaganda if you don't help them out with a few pointers? "3. You could have pointed that out. But you are just here to attack people instead of discussing the issues." I'm always happy to discuss issues, especially when people can quote facts and show their sources. I'm happy to debate any part of the science with you if you want to demonstrate how easy it all is to understand. | |||
"How are those who don't understand it supposed to learn, if those that do understand it just tell them to figure it out for themselves? Who told them to figure it out for themselves? Well, mostly, you do. You regularly post along the lines of 'it's very simple, go and read up on it'. 1. They probably shouldn't be trying to learn about climate change from a random bloke on a swingers website That's true enough. 2. The person in question has zero interest in understanding it. Otherwise they would go and read about it. There is a wealth of information out there. There you go again, saying that people should just find the information for themselves. Earlier on in this thread you said "You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine". How do you expect people to tell the difference between proper climate science and propaganda if you don't help them out with a few pointers? 3. You could have pointed that out. But you are just here to attack people instead of discussing the issues. I'm always happy to discuss issues, especially when people can quote facts and show their sources. I'm happy to debate any part of the science with you if you want to demonstrate how easy it all is to understand." Sure. Then go to the NASA page on climate change. How's that? If you're saying that this guy can't tell the difference between science that you can read, learn about, understand, or some hocus pocus that isn't scientific, requires belief and encourages people to argue against their own interests for the benefit of oil company profits. Then I agree with you. This is the way of the world now. Me, or you arguing on a swingers forum over weather it's my responsibility to educate these people or not. Will not help. | |||
"Me, or you arguing on a swingers forum over weather it's my responsibility to educate these people or not. Will not help." That's true enough. How about we both stop posting about climate change, and let this thread get back to discussing the mini-budget. | |||
"Me, or you arguing on a swingers forum over weather it's my responsibility to educate these people or not. Will not help. That's true enough. How about we both stop posting about climate change, and let this thread get back to discussing the mini-budget." | |||
"This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves.. You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics. Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't? What I see him saying is that most people don't understand climate change, and that you keep saying that it's simple, but you don't ever explain anything. How are those who don't understand it supposed to learn, if those that do understand it just tell them to figure it out for themselves?" Pretty spot on, people are lazy and if not spoon fed will not look into things themselves. | |||
"This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves.. You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics. Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't? What I see him saying is that most people don't understand climate change, and that you keep saying that it's simple, but you don't ever explain anything. How are those who don't understand it supposed to learn, if those that do understand it just tell them to figure it out for themselves? Pretty spot on, people are lazy and if not spoon fed will not look into things themselves. " This is the interesting point about the whole thing. And it applies to most aspects of life. Not just climate change. It's one of the big problems that faces humanity. It's much easier to see a catchy catchphrase then it is to actually learn something. | |||
"This thread is an example of why climate change is not treated with the urgency it deserves.. You argue it is not hard to understand, but do nothing to explain, you are doing nothing to prove the basics. Just to be clear. You're suggesting that the reason climate change isn't treated with the urgency it deserves is because of people who do understand it. And nothing to do with those who don't? What I see him saying is that most people don't understand climate change, and that you keep saying that it's simple, but you don't ever explain anything. How are those who don't understand it supposed to learn, if those that do understand it just tell them to figure it out for themselves? Pretty spot on, people are lazy and if not spoon fed will not look into things themselves. This is the interesting point about the whole thing. And it applies to most aspects of life. Not just climate change. It's one of the big problems that faces humanity. It's much easier to see a catchy catchphrase then it is to actually learn something." | |||
"In my opinion All polititans from all parties are the same treasonous poisonous treacherous lying theiveing corrupt hippocritical snivelling shit weasels robbing the taxpayers for everything they can and only deserve the sentence for their treasonous behaviour heads on spikes above traitors gate Yes because you’ve been watching 12 years of Tory psychodramas being played out, of course you are disillusioned. It kinda like a bad relationship you’ve been cheated on so much, you cannot trust anyone now. But not all politicians are the same, and you need to engage with your local leaders and be forward with your grievances, instead of letting them build up. " Name 2 polititans in Westminster from any party who have NOT claimed a penny in "expenses" or that have physically done something for the benifit of the people (not just talked or had an enquiry) or one that said oh hang on we shouldn't be paid this much for what we do the Westminster bubble is the biggest organised crime syndicate in the world | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it.
well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so....
Erm. Climate science, especially the impact of human activity on the climate is not hard to understand.
Anyway, not really sure why you think that understanding climate science is "ignorant" and yet not understanding it is something to boast about?"When did I say I don't understand? I merely pointed out you don't. You quoted nasa as one of your research tools scientists paid by the federal government to provide data supporting "climate change". True science is having both sets of data and information formulating theorys and trying to prove them. your not seeing both sides of the data I urge you to watch the links I put up | |||
"It's the sort of radical thinking that Johnson should have been doing on Day 1 of his premiership, until he got distracted by his wife's green lunacy and was forced to fall into line over COVID lockdowns. The reality is that the left of centre, high tax, high spend, centralised state control, sAvE tHe PlAnEt globalist groupthink is failing pretty much everywhere across the West and they can either try to do something different (by spurring on some economic growth) or continue with the rest of the West with the managed stagflation decline. Good on them for trying. Are you trolling, or do you genuinely believe that the government, who are catastrophically failing to tackle climate change and move away from fossil fuels (largely due to the oil companies being major donors), are in fact too green and aren't accelerating the heating of the planet fast enough? All at the tax payers expense. Amazing. "Catastrophically failing to tackle climate change". Hysterical, in more ways than one. Shouldn't you be on some Chinese forum moaning about governments failing to tackle climate change? I'm not Chinese. So no. But I do understand climate change. It's well worth reading up on, especially if you are interested in the topic.
And there we have it. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ill informed.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with reality.
You can choose to learn about climate change, or you can continue to believe any hocus pocus pumped out by the oil companies and their propaganda machine.
I'm sorry but it's you who's ill informed brainwashed by the ecoloons https://youtu.be/x2CwvxuM4gk just watch
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE just watch.. there is nothing environmentally friendly about "green tech" and considering the tiny uk produces about 1% of co2 and China,India produces 60+% go and glue yourself to thier roads and see what happens
What's "green tech" got to do with anything?
Why do you think that everyone who understands climate change will glue themselves to roads? That's really weird.
Are you suggesting that because other countries release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, that the UK shouldn't do our part? And if climate change is some kind of conspiracy, why would you care anyway?
Personally I don't care about the climate change charade.. but what I do care deeply about is paying through the nose for a myth that's more destructive to the environment and about the people who will freeze, starve and die on the altar of "climate change" all the predicted effects have not happened in the 70s it was "ooh a new ice age" 80s "acid rain" and "ozone layer" 90s "great barrier reef is dying" and "oh the polar ice caps are melting" "polar bears are going extinct" 2000s "Sea levels are going to drown us all" non of it is true co2 is a plant fertiliser, nitrogen is the most abundance element in the atmosphere do your research
Well then, if you choose not to understand climate change, what's the point in having an opinion? The science is pretty basic, well understood, and easy to grasp. There really isn't any excuse.
I dunno, if I had a really strong opinion on a topic, I would at least want to learn about it.
well now I just know your ignorant.... climate science is like quantum mechanics the science is not easy or basic in any way.. So you understand malankavich cycles and icecore data combined with the sun's activity and the orbit of the earth not to mention the harder science of of atmospheric construction, jet stream cycles and the effects of water vapour didn't think so....
Erm. Climate science, especially the impact of human activity on the climate is not hard to understand.
Anyway, not really sure why you think that understanding climate science is "ignorant" and yet not understanding it is something to boast about?
When did I say I don't understand? I merely pointed out you don't. You quoted nasa as one of your research tools scientists paid by the federal government to provide data supporting "climate change".
True science is having both sets of data and information formulating theorys and trying to prove them. your not seeing both sides of the data I urge you to watch the links I put up "I saw them the Michael Moore movie was debunked and represents out of date information. And doesn't disprove what we know about climate change. As for "two sides" this isn't how science works. Science describes the how the world around us works. It removes the need for "belief", because you can understand the mechanisms that effect and control our universe. Such as CO2 absorbing sunlight and converting it into heat. People not understanding climate change, or believing it to be a hoax is not related to the fact that it's happening. If you choose to believe a YouTube video over NASA and all the agencies around the world that research the climate change (and are in complete agreement about the causes). Then where can we go? | |||
"As for "two sides" this isn't how science works. Science describes the how the world around us works. It removes the need for "belief", because you can understand the mechanisms that effect and control our universe. Such as CO2 absorbing sunlight and converting it into heat." Oh dear. You really don't understand it at all. CO2 doesn't 'absorb sunlight and turn it into heat', it's almost the opposite of that. It lets sunlight pass through (mostly), but (partially) reflects the long wave infra-red radiated from the earth, thus causing warming by preventing some of the heat from escaping. Here's a link to explain it at length, to help you understand: https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html | |||
"As for "two sides" this isn't how science works. Science describes the how the world around us works. It removes the need for "belief", because you can understand the mechanisms that effect and control our universe. Such as CO2 absorbing sunlight and converting it into heat. Oh dear. You really don't understand it at all. CO2 doesn't 'absorb sunlight and turn it into heat', it's almost the opposite of that. It lets sunlight pass through (mostly), but (partially) reflects the long wave infra-red radiated from the earth, thus causing warming by preventing some of the heat from escaping. Here's a link to explain it at length, to help you understand: https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html" So the scientists say that we are at 450ppm atmospheric co2? Plants die at 150ppm and back in the plioscene(think I spelt it correctly) atmospheric co2 was over 1000ppm but there was still ice on the polar regions? And the rest of the planet was a lush green paradise as core sampling proves so I'll stick with them | |||
| |||
"Why has this thread descended into an anti-science festival?" Anti science festival pahahaha I celebrate science but only the science that hasn't been corrupted by money | |||
"Why has this thread descended into an anti-science festival? Anti science festival pahahaha I celebrate science but only the science that hasn't been corrupted by money " *Anti-science and confusion festival. | |||
"Why has this thread descended into an anti-science festival? Anti science festival pahahaha I celebrate science but only the science that hasn't been corrupted by money *Anti-science and confusion festival." So far only by your good self | |||
"As for "two sides" this isn't how science works. Science describes the how the world around us works. It removes the need for "belief", because you can understand the mechanisms that effect and control our universe. Such as CO2 absorbing sunlight and converting it into heat. Oh dear. You really don't understand it at all. CO2 doesn't 'absorb sunlight and turn it into heat', it's almost the opposite of that. It lets sunlight pass through (mostly), but (partially) reflects the long wave infra-red radiated from the earth, thus causing warming by preventing some of the heat from escaping. Here's a link to explain it at length, to help you understand: https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html So the scientists say that we are at 450ppm atmospheric co2? Plants die at 150ppm and back in the plioscene(think I spelt it correctly) atmospheric co2 was over 1000ppm but there was still ice on the polar regions? And the rest of the planet was a lush green paradise as core sampling proves so I'll stick with them " As I usually say when someone comes up with this nonsense (much more rarely nowadays).... It doesn't matter. Every major government accepts the science now, every major industry including the fossil based ones. I'm much more relaxed about it because no one else believes this apart from one or two other people like yourself. It must be strange. People warning of climate change used to be dismissed as cranks. Now it's the deniers who are ignored and ridiculed. | |||
"Why has this thread descended into an anti-science festival?" Was it when you started posting stuff that has no basis in science? | |||
"Disgusting way to treat majority of people. Instead of spending billions on these cuts why not help people put solar panels on theirs roofs. Cut peoples bills and good for the environment " Totally agree.. Just put another 3kw on roof yesterday, now running at just shy of 10kwh in total. Swimming in free electricity here now. I did set up a petition to help support this as well as speaking to my councillors and MP to fund it by purchasing cheap electricity from yourself over 7 years. Zero Interest | |||
"As for "two sides" this isn't how science works. Science describes the how the world around us works. It removes the need for "belief", because you can understand the mechanisms that effect and control our universe. Such as CO2 absorbing sunlight and converting it into heat. Oh dear. You really don't understand it at all. CO2 doesn't 'absorb sunlight and turn it into heat', it's almost the opposite of that. It lets sunlight pass through (mostly), but (partially) reflects the long wave infra-red radiated from the earth, thus causing warming by preventing some of the heat from escaping. Here's a link to explain it at length, to help you understand: https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html So the scientists say that we are at 450ppm atmospheric co2? Plants die at 150ppm and back in the plioscene(think I spelt it correctly) atmospheric co2 was over 1000ppm but there was still ice on the polar regions? And the rest of the planet was a lush green paradise as core sampling proves so I'll stick with them As I usually say when someone comes up with this nonsense (much more rarely nowadays).... It doesn't matter. Every major government accepts the science now, every major industry including the fossil based ones. I'm much more relaxed about it because no one else believes this apart from one or two other people like yourself. It must be strange. People warning of climate change used to be dismissed as cranks. Now it's the deniers who are ignored and ridiculed." The insufficient action of the governments around the world to tackle climate change is mostly due to the huge lobbying power of the fossil fuels industry. (They don't want to lose the trillions of dollars they receive annually). But part of the problem, is these kind of science deniers, there's not many of them here, but over in the states there are millions of them. | |||
| |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? " "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive?" Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%  | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5% "Spoiler alert. It's way, way less. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less."Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow"Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow"What are you blathering on about? | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow"Windmills for when it’s windy , solar panels for when it’s sunny, both work when it’s windy and sunny, problem solved | |||
| |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies. "Ah, so green energy will be run by a charity organisation then lol | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Windmills for when it’s windy , solar panels for when it’s sunny, both work when it’s windy and sunny, problem solved "People don’t understand solar, you still generate energy even on a cloudy day. But tories don’t do science, their brains cannot handle it. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Ah, so green energy will be run by a charity organisation then lol"What? | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies. "Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster. "Ah you're on team climate change denial with the other anti-science guy? | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster. "I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps? | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
Ah you're on team climate change denial with the other anti-science guy?"Team reality...team non hysterical hypocrite. Team freedom. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?"Greatest country on earth!! Keep subsiding us please!! | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Ah, so green energy will be run by a charity organisation then lol
What?"Well still pay trillions just to a different set of billionaires | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
Ah you're on team climate change denial with the other anti-science guy?
Team reality...team non hysterical hypocrite. Team freedom. "Lol. Amazing. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Ah, so green energy will be run by a charity organisation then lol
What?
Well still pay trillions just to a different set of billionaires "Even if that was true. Wouldn't that be better than paying trillions to pollute the atmosphere and change the climate? | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?"You are charmer  | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?
Greatest country on earth!! Keep subsiding us please!!"No it isn’t. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?
Greatest country on earth!! Keep subsiding us please!!
No it isn’t. "Go on then...give your opinion on which is the best country in the world in which to live...and further more, if it's not Englandshire...why not move to wherever it may be? | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?
Greatest country on earth!! Keep subsiding us please!!
No it isn’t.
Go on then...give your opinion on which is the best country in the world in which to live...and further more, if it's not Englandshire...why not move to wherever it may be?"Sadly people voted to remove our rights to live and work freely in EU countries, so most of us are stuck here. That's not to say I think any country is the "best", everywhere has their positive and negatives. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?
Greatest country on earth!! Keep subsiding us please!!
No it isn’t.
Go on then...give your opinion on which is the best country in the world in which to live...and further more, if it's not Englandshire...why not move to wherever it may be?"England of course, its a beautiful land, and I want it to be better, not being pillaged by profiteers and criminals. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?
Greatest country on earth!! Keep subsiding us please!!
No it isn’t.
Go on then...give your opinion on which is the best country in the world in which to live...and further more, if it's not Englandshire...why not move to wherever it may be?
England of course, its a beautiful land, and I want it to be better, not being pillaged by profiteers and criminals. "I agree! England is a great country. Plenty of people out to destroy it with globalism but it is a great place to live when it's run by people with a love of it and it's people. The way it's being wrecked with policies that don't favour the good folk of your native land is heartbreaking. Yes England is possibly the 2nd best country in which to live....behind N. Ireland | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Or, invest in renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate change. Bonus side effects would include cheap electricity, energy independence, and not giving trillions of dollars to oil companies.
Yes all that catastrophic global warming is such a drag. I feel sorry for all the folks in the Maldives that are now under six feet of water since 2001. Not to mention the entire area of lower Manhattan that vanished under the waves in 2013...spare a thought for poor Barack Obama that just spent $12m dollars on a beach front mansion... going to be utterly destroyed in a couple of years when the sea level rises by the (insert made up measurement here) disaster.
I wonder how much we can sell NI for? Possibly a packet of Tayto crisps?
Greatest country on earth!! Keep subsiding us please!!
No it isn’t.
Go on then...give your opinion on which is the best country in the world in which to live...and further more, if it's not Englandshire...why not move to wherever it may be?
England of course, its a beautiful land, and I want it to be better, not being pillaged by profiteers and criminals.
I agree! England is a great country. Plenty of people out to destroy it with globalism but it is a great place to live when it's run by people with a love of it and it's people. The way it's being wrecked with policies that don't favour the good folk of your native land is heartbreaking. Yes England is possibly the 2nd best country in which to live....behind N. Ireland "Only in your mind about NI. | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive?" https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/?sh=2d47235e128c your wrong again | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Windmills for when it’s windy , solar panels for when it’s sunny, both work when it’s windy and sunny, problem solved "Yes they do but we still have no viable way to store the electricity produced so it all gets wasted and solar doesn't work at night | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? Hopefully it's in line with what the green energy sector provides...less than 5%
Spoiler alert. It's way, way less.
Happy days.... maybe the lights will stay on when the wind decides not to blow and the sun doesn't shine... going to need a decent supply of energy for when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are under six inches of snow
Windmills for when it’s windy , solar panels for when it’s sunny, both work when it’s windy and sunny, problem solved
Yes they do but we still have no viable way to store the electricity produced so it all gets wasted and solar doesn't work at night "could add in tidal. It would be interesting to know, if we aimed for most of our energy to come from green, how often and how much any shortfall would be. And maybe some bright spark could come up with a way of storing energy while we are reducing our reliance on gas and oil. Because once storgae has been solved the demand for green will go up. So investment costs will go up... | |||
"As opposed to the green energy sector and the trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, they receive in subsidiary payments each year? "Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020" source IMF. How much does the green energy sector receive? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/?sh=2d47235e128c your wrong again " Aliens? | |||
"Isn't there a politics page for this shit? "Look at the heading of the section. You will find "Do women like cum facials" on Swingers Chat. OK? | |||
"Well looks like we've all been screwed over again by the polititans doing the reverse Robin Hood (steal from the poor and give to the rich) " They try to con us with the childish notion that by making the rich even wealthier, it will trickle down to us peasants. Human nature says that people are selfish and people don't share their wealth. | |||
