FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is scrapping green policies a vote winner for the tories?
Is scrapping green policies a vote winner for the tories?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. " I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That's what tory stands for; say something and the exact opposite will happen. " I think you mean "politician" rather that "tory". All politicians are the the same. Lying and self-serving. Maybe a better system would be to have MPs selected in the same manner as jurors, with the proviso that anyone who wants to be a politician (or has studied politics & economics, classics or other such useless toss at university) should be barred from the job. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That's what tory stands for; say something and the exact opposite will happen. I think you mean "politician" rather that "tory". All politicians are the the same. Lying and self-serving. Maybe a better system would be to have MPs selected in the same manner as jurors, with the proviso that anyone who wants to be a politician (or has studied politics & economics, classics or other such useless toss at university) should be barred from the job." Sadly, in the last decade, I think you're right. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea?" Is giving the electorate what they want a good idea. Yes | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise." Green cars should havee never been exempt from road tax in the first place. It was brought in tk.build and maintian roads but now simply goes into the sa e tax pot. I actually think governments would do much better splitting out these pots again if roads require more improvements and building then up the road tax. We as motorists require it. I would happily pay more road tax if it meant expanding a 2 lan dual carriageway to a 3 lane motorway etc especially the a64 road to York. Does my swede in | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea? Is giving the electorate what they want a good idea. Yes" *Giving the electorate what they're told they want. I'm not sure that many people actually want to accelerate the race to make the planet uninhabitable by humans. Knowledge is power. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea? Is giving the electorate what they want a good idea. Yes *Giving the electorate what they're told they want. I'm not sure that many people actually want to accelerate the race to make the planet uninhabitable by humans. Knowledge is power. " Isn't what they're told they want green policies? It seem the electorate are rejecting this | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea? Is giving the electorate what they want a good idea. Yes *Giving the electorate what they're told they want. I'm not sure that many people actually want to accelerate the race to make the planet uninhabitable by humans. Knowledge is power. Isn't what they're told they want green policies? It seem the electorate are rejecting this " They're not told that. They're fed misinformation and doubt about climate change. The electorate are listening and likely to comply. As per usual | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Is giving the electorate what they want a good idea. Yes" When a timeshare salesman does his thing well, his customers think they’re buying into something they want. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Is giving the electorate what they want a good idea. Yes When a timeshare salesman does his thing well, his customers think they’re buying into something they want. " Good analogy with timeshares. People thought they were buying s good thing 40 years ago. The cane to realise it was a crock of shit. By 2000 Same with green. We were all doing out part, altering our ways then they over sold it and overtired and people realised it for the sham it was by 2020. Great analogy fun fella. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea?" The ULEZ issue was just another example of the power of communicating lies. Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ and Grant Schapps made its expansion a pre-condition of TfL receiving its requested funding. Come the Uxbridge by-election and the "hated" ULEZ is all down to Sadiq Khan and Labour. As long as we have such a large percentage of the population who are able to be hoodwinked so easily and so mercilessly - lying will always be the main vote winner, irrespective of the issue. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Is giving the electorate what they want a good idea. Yes When a timeshare salesman does his thing well, his customers think they’re buying into something they want. Good analogy with timeshares. People thought they were buying s good thing 40 years ago. The cane to realise it was a crock of shit. By 2000 Same with green. We were all doing out part, altering our ways then they over sold it and overtired and people realised it for the sham it was by 2020. Great analogy fun fella. " I mean anyone objectively looking at data is by now aware that we’re in a worse place than we were 20 years ago, and that we haven’t done nearly enough. But that requires them to look objectively at data, so I’m unsurprised that you think it’s a crock  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise. Green cars should havee never been exempt from road tax in the first place. It was brought in tk.build and maintian roads but now simply goes into the sa e tax pot. I actually think governments would do much better splitting out these pots again if roads require more improvements and building then up the road tax. We as motorists require it. I would happily pay more road tax if it meant expanding a 2 lan dual carriageway to a 3 lane motorway etc especially the a64 road to York. Does my swede in" That is a totally separate point. I agree road tax should be ringfenced. Then again so should NI for pensions and NHS. The point was that incentivising is better than penalising to drive behaviour change. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise. Green cars should havee never been exempt from road tax in the first place. It was brought in tk.build and maintian roads but now simply goes into the sa e tax pot. I actually think governments would do much better splitting out these pots again if roads require more improvements and building then up the road tax. We as motorists require it. I would happily pay more road tax if it meant expanding a 2 lan dual carriageway to a 3 lane motorway etc especially the a64 road to York. Does my swede in That is a totally separate point. I agree road tax should be ringfenced. Then again so should NI for pensions and NHS. The point was that incentivising is better than penalising to drive behaviour change." Carrot vs stick. Would you class tax as stick? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise. Green cars should havee never been exempt from road tax in the first place. It was brought in tk.build and maintian roads but now simply goes into the sa e tax pot. I actually think governments would do much better splitting out these pots again if roads require more improvements and building then up the road tax. We as motorists require it. I would happily pay more road tax if it meant expanding a 2 lan dual carriageway to a 3 lane motorway etc especially the a64 road to York. Does my swede in That is a totally separate point. I agree road tax should be ringfenced. Then again so should NI for pensions and NHS. The point was that incentivising is better than penalising to drive behaviour change. Carrot vs stick. Would you class tax as stick?" A necessary evil. As I said above, nobody WANTS to pay tax but anybody being pragmatic knows we have to. So it can be a lever to drive behaviour change. If electric cars are better for the planet, incentivise buying and running one, for example. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green?" Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise. Green cars should havee never been exempt from road tax in the first place. It was brought in tk.build and maintian roads but now simply goes into the sa e tax pot. I actually think governments would do much better splitting out these pots again if roads require more improvements and building then up the road tax. We as motorists require it. I would happily pay more road tax if it meant expanding a 2 lan dual carriageway to a 3 lane motorway etc especially the a64 road to York. Does my swede in That is a totally separate point. I agree road tax should be ringfenced. Then again so should NI for pensions and NHS. The point was that incentivising is better than penalising to drive behaviour change. Carrot vs stick. Would you class tax as stick? A necessary evil. As I said above, nobody WANTS to pay tax but anybody being pragmatic knows we have to. So it can be a lever to drive behaviour change. If electric cars are better for the planet, incentivise buying and running one, for example." Yep. This. Electric cars are great. Quiet, modern. Clean running, acceleration is off the charts (also a great noise!) But I can’t afford to buy one. Not even close - so I keep my old beemer and wait it out. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour." Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise. Green cars should havee never been exempt from road tax in the first place. It was brought in tk.build and maintian roads but now simply goes into the sa e tax pot. I actually think governments would do much better splitting out these pots again if roads require more improvements and building then up the road tax. We as motorists require it. I would happily pay more road tax if it meant expanding a 2 lan dual carriageway to a 3 lane motorway etc especially the a64 road to York. Does my swede in That is a totally separate point. I agree road tax should be ringfenced. Then again so should NI for pensions and NHS. The point was that incentivising is better than penalising to drive behaviour change. Carrot vs stick. Would you class tax as stick? A necessary evil. As I said above, nobody WANTS to pay tax but anybody being pragmatic knows we have to. So it can be a lever to drive behaviour change. If electric cars are better for the planet, incentivise buying and running one, for example." How do you incentivise? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Politics is a cynical business, and politicians of all parties will exploit anything to attain power. The problem with schemes like ULEZ is that they penalise rather than encourage. Government efforts would be better directed at education and subsidies to green initiatives. I think penalise rather than encourage is spot on. One example is the way Council’s initially tried to make everyone start recycling by threatening people with fines and forcing them to do all the separation themselves with multiple bins cluttering up front gardens/the path etc. SOME Council’s soon figured out that if you make it easier to recycle, more people will. If you stop preaching and lambasting and focus on the benefits, more people will recycle. Another example of getting ut wrong - after telling Electric Car buyers they can avoid road tax (or whatever it is called now) they have now started charging them? That feels like the car buyers have been lied to and it has removed a positive benefit to incentivise. Green cars should havee never been exempt from road tax in the first place. It was brought in tk.build and maintian roads but now simply goes into the sa e tax pot. I actually think governments would do much better splitting out these pots again if roads require more improvements and building then up the road tax. We as motorists require it. I would happily pay more road tax if it meant expanding a 2 lan dual carriageway to a 3 lane motorway etc especially the a64 road to York. Does my swede in That is a totally separate point. I agree road tax should be ringfenced. Then again so should NI for pensions and NHS. The point was that incentivising is better than penalising to drive behaviour change. Carrot vs stick. Would you class tax as stick? A necessary evil. As I said above, nobody WANTS to pay tax but anybody being pragmatic knows we have to. So it can be a lever to drive behaviour change. If electric cars are better for the planet, incentivise buying and running one, for example. Yep. This. Electric cars are great. Quiet, modern. Clean running, acceleration is off the charts (also a great noise!) But I can’t afford to buy one. Not even close - so I keep my old beemer and wait it out. " The OTHER incentivisation is to make things just easier (make recycling easier and more people do it). Electric cars need to travel further and charge more quickly. They need to self charge more. There needs to be an exponential increase in charging points to make it as convenient as ICE cars. Then you will see increased take up. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? " You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green?" Isn't keeping the planet habitable enough of an incentive? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Isn't keeping the planet habitable enough of an incentive?" Based on Darwinism, no! The human race is inherently selfish and, driven by being mortal, short term focused. Significantly enough people in the 1st world do not believe. Significantly enough people in the 3rd world are just trying to survive day-to-day. To really drive behaviour change you need to find the triggers that appeal to all groups. Saving the world for future generations is simply too big and too amorphous. You need to identify “what it means TO ME” | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader." I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Electric cars may be the best option for most use cases in the future however current generation vehicles have large, heavy, expensive batteries which use scarce resources (mined usually in less than ideal conditions). The batteries have a limited life span and are currently difficult to recycle. The charging infrastructure, and associated power grid / generation is also nowhere near ready for mass adoption of electric cars. As electric cars are heavier than ICE ones they produce more pollution from tyres and (if regeneration isn't used) brakes. They also wear roads faster and can cause problems in other areas such as multi storey car parks which were not designed for the weight. The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce consumption. Travel less, insulate houses, run houses and workspaces cooler, eat less meat, wear clothes until they wear out etc." Therein lies the problem - too many people (myself included) don’t want to travel less, be colder and be told what to eat. They certainly don’t want to have that thrust upon them and it cost them through either direct or indirect taxation. Doomsday predictions are pretty much always wrong and have the opposite impact on a significant proportion of society. Folk also don’t respond well to being preached to by billionaires and high profile politicians and celebrities who’s do as I say not as I do approach is just laughable | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify." If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green?" I can do that……. For example…… what is the best selling new car in the us? Answer…. It’s the Tesla model y Why is that? A big part of the reason is because more than 50% of it is American made and sourced, it qualifies for a 7500 dollar government ev credit…. And then there are states who then give another credit on top of that (anyway up to 5000 dollars depending on the state) People are incentivised to go green… Then you have solar panels, wind farms, ect | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Electric cars may be the best option for most use cases in the future however current generation vehicles have large, heavy, expensive batteries which use scarce resources (mined usually in less than ideal conditions). The batteries have a limited life span and are currently difficult to recycle. The charging infrastructure, and associated power grid / generation is also nowhere near ready for mass adoption of electric cars. As electric cars are heavier than ICE ones they produce more pollution from tyres and (if regeneration isn't used) brakes. They also wear roads faster and can cause problems in other areas such as multi storey car parks which were not designed for the weight. The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce consumption. Travel less, insulate houses, run houses and workspaces cooler, eat less meat, wear clothes until they wear out etc. Therein lies the problem - too many people (myself included) don’t want to travel less, be colder and be told what to eat. They certainly don’t want to have that thrust upon them and it cost them through either direct or indirect taxation. Doomsday predictions are pretty much always wrong and have the opposite impact on a significant proportion of society. Folk also don’t respond well to being preached to by billionaires and high profile politicians and celebrities who’s do as I say not as I do approach is just laughable " I agree with this. There is a lot of do as I say not as I do. Think Billionaires on private jets. It is hypocritical. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? I can do that……. For example…… what is the best selling new car in the us? Answer…. It’s the Tesla model y Why is that? A big part of the reason is because more than 50% of it is American made and sourced, it qualifies for a 7500 dollar government ev credit…. And then there are states who then give another credit on top of that (anyway up to 5000 dollars depending on the state) People are incentivised to go green… Then you have solar panels, wind farms, ect " So then the government ev credit. Who pays that? possibly a 50000 dollar car with 1/3rd of the cost covered by local and countrywide subsidies? How are subsidies paid for? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? I can do that……. For example…… what is the best selling new car in the us? Answer…. It’s the Tesla model y Why is that? A big part of the reason is because more than 50% of it is American made and sourced, it qualifies for a 7500 dollar government ev credit…. And then there are states who then give another credit on top of that (anyway up to 5000 dollars depending on the state) People are incentivised to go green… Then you have solar panels, wind farms, ect " Those sound like good incentives on the face of it... Do the credits then bring the price of the Model Y in line with comparable size cars? Also, what the infrastructure like in America for EV? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car..." https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric" Do you just not read posts? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric Do you just not read posts?" Tbf yours are usually unintelligible, so I try my best. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me”" Yep, in a nutshell. We’re facing a climate crisis for future generations and we can’t afford to wait. The public won’t act of their own accord in substantial enough numbers so they must be encouraged to do so. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric Do you just not read posts? Tbf yours are usually unintelligible, so I try my best. " Try reading the post I am replying to. Make less of a dick of yourself replying with links with no relevance. You're really frustrating how often you post links which either don't back up your claims. Or aren't related to the question at hand. See how your link is about global sales and where I am asking about the backup. It's mentioned US sales? Please stop wasting peoples time. Read posts first. Or read your articles first. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric Do you just not read posts? Tbf yours are usually unintelligible, so I try my best. Try reading the post I am replying to. Make less of a dick of yourself replying with links with no relevance. You're really frustrating how often you post links which either don't back up your claims. Or aren't related to the question at hand. See how your link is about global sales and where I am asking about the backup. It's mentioned US sales? Please stop wasting peoples time. Read posts first. Or read your articles first." On what planet do you think I give a fuck what you think, Morley? What little respect I had remaining for you disappeared when you didn’t apologise after being proven wrong. Fortunately, with renewables/climate change, like with Brexit, like with tax cuts, you’re reliably wrong on just about everything. Go well. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric Do you just not read posts? Tbf yours are usually unintelligible, so I try my best. Try reading the post I am replying to. Make less of a dick of yourself replying with links with no relevance. You're really frustrating how often you post links which either don't back up your claims. Or aren't related to the question at hand. See how your link is about global sales and where I am asking about the backup. It's mentioned US sales? Please stop wasting peoples time. Read posts first. Or read your articles first. On what planet do you think I give a fuck what you think, Morley? What little respect I had remaining for you disappeared when you didn’t apologise after being proven wrong. Fortunately, with renewables/climate change, like with Brexit, like with tax cuts, you’re reliably wrong on just about everything. Go well. " Well then keep making a tool of yourself posting links with no relevance. And we can ignore you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The thing I don’t entirely understand about the anti-climate lobby: Clean fuel is good. Recycling is good. Reliable and accessible public transport is good. Walking locally rather than taking the car is good. Eating less red meat is good. This all has proven benefits - literally nobody denies any of this. But the reticence to change is mind-boggling. " Exactly | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric Do you just not read posts? Tbf yours are usually unintelligible, so I try my best. Try reading the post I am replying to. Make less of a dick of yourself replying with links with no relevance. You're really frustrating how often you post links which either don't back up your claims. Or aren't related to the question at hand. See how your link is about global sales and where I am asking about the backup. It's mentioned US sales? Please stop wasting peoples time. Read posts first. Or read your articles first. On what planet do you think I give a fuck what you think, Morley? What little respect I had remaining for you disappeared when you didn’t apologise after being proven wrong. Fortunately, with renewables/climate change, like with Brexit, like with tax cuts, you’re reliably wrong on just about everything. Go well. Well then keep making a tool of yourself posting links with no relevance. And we can ignore you." You got a deal, Morley. Ignore everything I say, I’ll reciprocate | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric Do you just not read posts? Tbf yours are usually unintelligible, so I try my best. Try reading the post I am replying to. Make less of a dick of yourself replying with links with no relevance. You're really frustrating how often you post links which either don't back up your claims. Or aren't related to the question at hand. See how your link is about global sales and where I am asking about the backup. It's mentioned US sales? Please stop wasting peoples time. Read posts first. Or read your articles first. On what planet do you think I give a fuck what you think, Morley? What little respect I had remaining for you disappeared when you didn’t apologise after being proven wrong. Fortunately, with renewables/climate change, like with Brexit, like with tax cuts, you’re reliably wrong on just about everything. Go well. Well then keep making a tool of yourself posting links with no relevance. And we can ignore you. You got a deal, Morley. Ignore everything I say, I’ll reciprocate "I'll still point out where you inevitably post ab article thatbdoesnt back up what you claim. So people are aware of your lies. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm also not sure how you declared the model y as the best selling car... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev-record-world-bestselling-car-electric Do you just not read posts? Tbf yours are usually unintelligible, so I try my best. Try reading the post I am replying to. Make less of a dick of yourself replying with links with no relevance. You're really frustrating how often you post links which either don't back up your claims. Or aren't related to the question at hand. See how your link is about global sales and where I am asking about the backup. It's mentioned US sales? Please stop wasting peoples time. Read posts first. Or read your articles first. On what planet do you think I give a fuck what you think, Morley? What little respect I had remaining for you disappeared when you didn’t apologise after being proven wrong. Fortunately, with renewables/climate change, like with Brexit, like with tax cuts, you’re reliably wrong on just about everything. Go well. Well then keep making a tool of yourself posting links with no relevance. And we can ignore you. You got a deal, Morley. Ignore everything I say, I’ll reciprocate
I'll still point out where you inevitably post ab article thatbdoesnt back up what you claim.
So people are aware of your lies. "You do you, Morley. You’ve been shown up on here as someone who refuses to apologise when proven wrong. Zero credibility. So have fun, I’ll have no further interaction with you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea?" If we had PR or STV electoral systems it would be a bigger problem for the main parties as has happened in the Netherlands but since most parties with mps are signed up to net zeroI expect a lot hot of air and tinkering but no real changes to policy. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Clean fuel is good. Recycling is good. Reliable and accessible public transport is good. Walking locally rather than taking the car is good. Eating less red meat is good. This all has proven benefits - literally nobody denies any of this." Well I'm going to deny the last bit. I like red meat. Eating less of it would be bad as far as I'm concerned. Given that we're omnivores, eating red meat clearly isn't bad for us in general. After all, a large number of mammals eat nothing else. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? I can do that……. For example…… what is the best selling new car in the us? Answer…. It’s the Tesla model y Why is that? A big part of the reason is because more than 50% of it is American made and sourced, it qualifies for a 7500 dollar government ev credit…. And then there are states who then give another credit on top of that (anyway up to 5000 dollars depending on the state) People are incentivised to go green… Then you have solar panels, wind farms, ect So then the government ev credit. Who pays that? possibly a 50000 dollar car with 1/3rd of the cost covered by local and countrywide subsidies? How are subsidies paid for?" Because it means that rather than that car being made in china, it means those jobs and the manufacturing lines and processes stay in the us and nafta aligned territories This of it as jobs at us car plants… jobs in us manufacturing in making the cars ect ect Remember that it’s not just Tesla getting the discounts… ford are getting them, GM are getting them, bmw will also get them on American built cars ect ect…. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Clean fuel is good. Recycling is good. Reliable and accessible public transport is good. Walking locally rather than taking the car is good. Eating less red meat is good. This all has proven benefits - literally nobody denies any of this. Well I'm going to deny the last bit. I like red meat. Eating less of it would be bad as far as I'm concerned. Given that we're omnivores, eating red meat clearly isn't bad for us in general. After all, a large number of mammals eat nothing else." Red meat farming is unsustainable for the world’s growing population/demand. Takes up too much land, uses up too much water. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Also, what the infrastructure like in America for EV?" The answer to this is not bad… but it will get a lot better very soon Reason for this… because finally most of the us car makers are going to adopt the Tesla NACS charging, and Tesla in return will allow all cars to use their superchargers….. Remember vhs vs Betamax…. Well it looks like one charging standard which means one adapter meaning greater access to all charging points | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Also, what the infrastructure like in America for EV? The answer to this is not bad… but it will get a lot better very soon Reason for this… because finally most of the us car makers are going to adopt the Tesla NACS charging, and Tesla in return will allow all cars to use their superchargers….. Remember vhs vs Betamax…. Well it looks like one charging standard which means one adapter meaning greater access to all charging points " That's good news. We do need one standard chargers across the board. From what I can tell its one the big drawbacks at present. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The answer is pretty simple. Just incentivize people to do green stuff rather than constantly clobber them all the time. It's amazing what a bit of kindness does." So true, penalising people over ULEZ and other green schemes just stores up resentment and anger | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Clean fuel is good. Recycling is good. Reliable and accessible public transport is good. Walking locally rather than taking the car is good. Eating less red meat is good. This all has proven benefits - literally nobody denies any of this. Well I'm going to deny the last bit. I like red meat. Eating less of it would be bad as far as I'm concerned. Given that we're omnivores, eating red meat clearly isn't bad for us in general. After all, a large number of mammals eat nothing else." 100% | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? I can do that……. For example…… what is the best selling new car in the us? Answer…. It’s the Tesla model y Why is that? A big part of the reason is because more than 50% of it is American made and sourced, it qualifies for a 7500 dollar government ev credit…. And then there are states who then give another credit on top of that (anyway up to 5000 dollars depending on the state) People are incentivised to go green… Then you have solar panels, wind farms, ect So then the government ev credit. Who pays that? possibly a 50000 dollar car with 1/3rd of the cost covered by local and countrywide subsidies? How are subsidies paid for? Because it means that rather than that car being made in china, it means those jobs and the manufacturing lines and processes stay in the us and nafta aligned territories This of it as jobs at us car plants… jobs in us manufacturing in making the cars ect ect Remember that it’s not just Tesla getting the discounts… ford are getting them, GM are getting them, bmw will also get them on American built cars ect ect…. " So you're not talking about production subsidies but purchasing. This as far as I am aware would t affect Tesla decision of where manufacturing occurs. Given where the texts factory is and its output. If the subsidybm is for the buyer is it only on the condition the car is made in the USA? This is against wto terms that the usa signed up to. What you've typed also doesnt answer how the subsidy is paid for. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me”" Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! " OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution?" I am sure there would need to be detailed thinking around the exact mechanics and terms but long (really long) term govt borrowing is clearly possible and has been used before. WTO and everyone else would need to figure out how to make it work. But to drive innovation and uptake there needs to be short term benefits to current generations. What we have currently are people saying “why should I change?” and complaining about the cost. Why shouldn’t future generations pay for the change that needs to happen now? Who will benefit from the activity undertaken now? Why should current generations take all the pain? Distribute it over 10 generations! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"What I an trying g to get across here is subsidies are paid for. Whether its now by fuel taxtroad tax on cars(carrot to ev buyers and stick to petrol buyers) Or buy government borrowing. ( asking future generations to pay for a shiny Tesla you buy now) There is always going to be a carrot and stick method involved with electric vehicles. It's predominantly stick. " And what I am trying to get across is that the only really successful way to achieve behaviour change is with carrot not stick. Make it easy and provide short-term benefits and people will do it. If you penalise people you drive entrenched behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution? I am sure there would need to be detailed thinking around the exact mechanics and terms but long (really long) term govt borrowing is clearly possible and has been used before. WTO and everyone else would need to figure out how to make it work. But to drive innovation and uptake there needs to be short term benefits to current generations. What we have currently are people saying “why should I change?” and complaining about the cost. Why shouldn’t future generations pay for the change that needs to happen now? Who will benefit from the activity undertaken now? Why should current generations take all the pain? Distribute it over 10 generations! " Typically in bygone eras. People would invent something that's sustainable now or sustain it with their own money until economies of scale and public desire for the product took over. Model T etc. Eddison did this with many products. This is the socialist in me now. Why should I as a tax payer with a petrol car who doesn't believe we need electric cars , nor does the technology make it viable economically, subsidise a man wet dream who's worth 100bn dollars or so by my government taking out a bond to support the sale of his cars by 30% of the value and an interest of 6%/ per annum? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"What I an trying g to get across here is subsidies are paid for. Whether its now by fuel taxtroad tax on cars(carrot to ev buyers and stick to petrol buyers) Or buy government borrowing. ( asking future generations to pay for a shiny Tesla you buy now) There is always going to be a carrot and stick method involved with electric vehicles. It's predominantly stick. And what I am trying to get across is that the only really successful way to achieve behaviour change is with carrot not stick. Make it easy and provide short-term benefits and people will do it. If you penalise people you drive entrenched behaviour. " For me the carrot is getting Elon to sell his shares in Tesla and re invest the funds into improving the tech. He owns roughly 15% of the company.thays about 85bn dollars of shares. Personally I think the stock is massively.over pumped. But he should ask for an equity pump by current share holders. And then have premium shares. And improve the productivity and tech etc. His car line has been going for 15 years or so and still apparently the public are subsidising it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution? I am sure there would need to be detailed thinking around the exact mechanics and terms but long (really long) term govt borrowing is clearly possible and has been used before. WTO and everyone else would need to figure out how to make it work. But to drive innovation and uptake there needs to be short term benefits to current generations. What we have currently are people saying “why should I change?” and complaining about the cost. Why shouldn’t future generations pay for the change that needs to happen now? Who will benefit from the activity undertaken now? Why should current generations take all the pain? Distribute it over 10 generations! " You might be onto something. We keep being told that we must save the planet for future generations. Cool, let's do that, as long as those future generations pick up the tab  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution? I am sure there would need to be detailed thinking around the exact mechanics and terms but long (really long) term govt borrowing is clearly possible and has been used before. WTO and everyone else would need to figure out how to make it work. But to drive innovation and uptake there needs to be short term benefits to current generations. What we have currently are people saying “why should I change?” and complaining about the cost. Why shouldn’t future generations pay for the change that needs to happen now? Who will benefit from the activity undertaken now? Why should current generations take all the pain? Distribute it over 10 generations! You might be onto something. We keep being told that we must save the planet for future generations. Cool, let's do that, as long as those future generations pick up the tab "I'd happily pass on the buck. If that's the reason. Sorry great grandson. I wanted a brand new 50k car whose power supply was supplied by electricity made 50% from gas and cobalt mined by 9 year old in Africa. Thanks for picking up the tab. After all, it was your future I was preserving. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution? I am sure there would need to be detailed thinking around the exact mechanics and terms but long (really long) term govt borrowing is clearly possible and has been used before. WTO and everyone else would need to figure out how to make it work. But to drive innovation and uptake there needs to be short term benefits to current generations. What we have currently are people saying “why should I change?” and complaining about the cost. Why shouldn’t future generations pay for the change that needs to happen now? Who will benefit from the activity undertaken now? Why should current generations take all the pain? Distribute it over 10 generations! Typically in bygone eras. People would invent something that's sustainable now or sustain it with their own money until economies of scale and public desire for the product took over. Model T etc. Eddison did this with many products. This is the socialist in me now. Why should I as a tax payer with a petrol car who doesn't believe we need electric cars , nor does the technology make it viable economically, subsidise a man wet dream who's worth 100bn dollars or so by my government taking out a bond to support the sale of his cars by 30% of the value and an interest of 6%/ per annum? " But therein lies the problem. YOU (and many like you) do not believe you need to switch to an EV from a ICE. You see no benefits to you. I actually agree re cars! The infrastructure isn’t there (so harder to use/less convenient than ICE). The price point to purchase is too high. The residual value currently too low (driven in part by the first point). And with the increase in cost of electricity I suspect the running costs are higher than ICE (and believe servicing costs are too). So why would you buy one? Solve those issues and suddenly an EV not only becomes viable, it becomes attractive. Final point re cars - thank god car manufacturers have started making EVs that look like normal cars. All the while they looked like something from a 70s Sci Fi movie they were never going to shift. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"What I an trying g to get across here is subsidies are paid for. Whether its now by fuel taxtroad tax on cars(carrot to ev buyers and stick to petrol buyers) Or buy government borrowing. ( asking future generations to pay for a shiny Tesla you buy now) There is always going to be a carrot and stick method involved with electric vehicles. It's predominantly stick. And what I am trying to get across is that the only really successful way to achieve behaviour change is with carrot not stick. Make it easy and provide short-term benefits and people will do it. If you penalise people you drive entrenched behaviour. For me the carrot is getting Elon to sell his shares in Tesla and re invest the funds into improving the tech. He owns roughly 15% of the company.thays about 85bn dollars of shares. Personally I think the stock is massively.over pumped. But he should ask for an equity pump by current share holders. And then have premium shares. And improve the productivity and tech etc. His car line has been going for 15 years or so and still apparently the public are subsidising it." Equity pump by current shareholders? A bit like the privatised water companies? Sorry couldn’t resist  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'll ask again for your proof on the usa the Tesla y model.being the best selling car?" Caranddriver.com keeps a track of us auto sales… In 2023 Tesla have sold approximately 190k units which makes it the no.1 car and no.4 overall… only beaten by 3 pickup trucks.. ram pickup, Chevy Silverado and the Ford f-series That good enough for you… Oh and how is the credit applied… basically on the sale and the manufacturer then gets that credit from the government The way the credit is applied is that the more of a car and parts are us sourced.. the higher the tax credit, so at the moment the model y is applicable for a 7500 federal credit , whereas the model 3 is applicable for a 3750 credit It’s not against WTO rules as if tariffs on cars and trucks is huge already (which is why you rarely see American cars here and low priced European cars there) The incentive is there to fight more against us jobs going south to Mexico | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution? I am sure there would need to be detailed thinking around the exact mechanics and terms but long (really long) term govt borrowing is clearly possible and has been used before. WTO and everyone else would need to figure out how to make it work. But to drive innovation and uptake there needs to be short term benefits to current generations. What we have currently are people saying “why should I change?” and complaining about the cost. Why shouldn’t future generations pay for the change that needs to happen now? Who will benefit from the activity undertaken now? Why should current generations take all the pain? Distribute it over 10 generations! You might be onto something. We keep being told that we must save the planet for future generations. Cool, let's do that, as long as those future generations pick up the tab
I'd happily pass on the buck. If that's the reason.
Sorry great grandson.
I wanted a brand new 50k car whose power supply was supplied by electricity made 50% from gas and cobalt mined by 9 year old in Africa.
Thanks for picking up the tab. After all, it was your future I was preserving.
"Lots of LOLZ but why shouldn’t the cost to “save the planet” be shared between current and future generations? Why should the whole burden fall on to today’s generations? The argument against “going green” is very often the cost. Morley you often talk against subsidies for green tech and how some projects become unviable. It’s always barrier after barrier and never solution except let’s carry on as we are doing more of the same. You know our great great grandfathers fought in WWI and great grandfathers in WWII to stop imperialism and Nazism. Are we glad they did? Did we benefit from it? Cos we only just finished paying for it. Did you notice when the bill was settled? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How do you inceitivise going green? Take a loss leader approach to drive consumer behaviour. Sorry. What is a loss leader approach? You're an accountant so I am sure you know? However, when a company launches a new product they will have incurred R&D costs and marketing costs but instead of raising the product price they actually make it cheaper than their competitors (or even their own existing product range they expect/want to phase out and replace with the new one). They then increase market share through the combination of the new shiny thing AND lower price (which will increase in future). Normally that means taking a short term loss on the new product (offset by being able to offset R&D costs against tax). A loss leader. I am . But your use of the term makes no sense. A loss leader product is a product you use to get tpeople tk buy others. That are more profitable. In relation to the discussion it has bo baring. How does a government have a loss leader approach when it sells ho items? So please explain the loss leader in terms of the discussion of going green What is the loss on green? Yourengoing to have to clarify. If climate change is an existential threat to the future of mankind, then govts have to take action. We know that behaviour change is more likely to happen with carrot rather than stick. Therefore Govts need to support businesses developing green/sustainable products to be loss leaders to drive adoption. The perfect example being electric cars. They are too expensive so will not get mass take up. Green domestic energy needs to be cheaper to drive take up. Eco-homes need to be cheaper than standard build. Etc. If consumers are paying a premium “to go green” you won’t drive sufficient behaviour change... Even climate change deniers or sceptics would think twice about which car to buy if there were price, running, and convenience benefits to buying an EV over ICE. It is all about “what’s in it for me” Further point in response to a fair challenge from Morley on who pays for the incentives... Govt borrowing! This is an existential threat to mankind right? So the IMF provides long term loans to states, maybe 200 years. That “money” is used to incentivise “going green” building infrastructure (which makes use-ability of green products easier) and reducing purchase price and running costs. The current generation undertake a step change in behaviour change driven by a clear set of short term benefits (cost to me) and future generations pick up the tab to say thanks to us for not destroying the planet! Afterall the compensation to sl@ve owners took almost 200 years to pay back! OK so then the imf I'd to pay for a loan to subsidise a car industry in countries that's fully functioning. ( indont think they can do this) Maybe the government can issue bonds. (Again this would have to be wto compiant) And it will be so that we 20-40 year old can buy cars cheaply now at gilts rates at 5% at the cost of 200 year bonds our great great grandchildren pay off? Is that the solution? I am sure there would need to be detailed thinking around the exact mechanics and terms but long (really long) term govt borrowing is clearly possible and has been used before. WTO and everyone else would need to figure out how to make it work. But to drive innovation and uptake there needs to be short term benefits to current generations. What we have currently are people saying “why should I change?” and complaining about the cost. Why shouldn’t future generations pay for the change that needs to happen now? Who will benefit from the activity undertaken now? Why should current generations take all the pain? Distribute it over 10 generations! Typically in bygone eras. People would invent something that's sustainable now or sustain it with their own money until economies of scale and public desire for the product took over. Model T etc. Eddison did this with many products. This is the socialist in me now. Why should I as a tax payer with a petrol car who doesn't believe we need electric cars , nor does the technology make it viable economically, subsidise a man wet dream who's worth 100bn dollars or so by my government taking out a bond to support the sale of his cars by 30% of the value and an interest of 6%/ per annum? But therein lies the problem. YOU (and many like you) do not believe you need to switch to an EV from a ICE. You see no benefits to you. I actually agree re cars! The infrastructure isn’t there (so harder to use/less convenient than ICE). The price point to purchase is too high. The residual value currently too low (driven in part by the first point). And with the increase in cost of electricity I suspect the running costs are higher than ICE (and believe servicing costs are too). So why would you buy one? Solve those issues and suddenly an EV not only becomes viable, it becomes attractive. Final point re cars - thank god car manufacturers have started making EVs that look like normal cars. All the while they looked like something from a 70s Sci Fi movie they were never going to shift. " If EV can sort those problems out I'll happily buy one. For me, I make long commutes. I've driven Teslas. In winter they're uncomfortably cold for me, the range drastically changes when you do apply the barriers. And I'd have to alter my.house for a charging point as I have no garage If they can spruce the range up, make the battery last 20 years and not use child labour for one of tbe main components, They have a viable car, then the rocnomies of scale happen I am sure It really shouldn't come down to evs though. Our country is small enough that public transport should be top notch but its awful. And that's not a privatisation vs public ownership problem. Taking leeds as an example One of the more upmarket areas, that a lot for families but also young professional live( Chapel allerton) in has no direct train line to it. The buses are terrible. They built an inner ring road with 2 lanes instead of an outer one around the main towns ?Otley,Rothwell,Garforth,Seacroft,pudsey Horsforth. If they built a ring road in the 60s they'd have been fine. Instead to get from Horsforth to Morley tales 1.5 hours at 8am in tbr morning currently ( I could drive to York quicker) That's British planning for you though. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea?" They may give it a try and may pick up a few extra votes but no where near enough to prevent them getting kicked out at the next GE | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I think the answer to the OP is yes. There are enough people who don't understand climate science, don't want to understand climate science and aren't engaged enough with the issues. The pledge to boost fossil fuel companies profits at the cost to British people and the cost to the environment will be q vote winner. " ************************************ I'm seriously interested, Referring to your first sentence, may I ask how you know this for certain, is it from what you read here on Fab. forum...?? * As for your second sentence, do you REALLY believe this is an agenda of the UK government to "boost fossil fuel companies' profits"...? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
Everything green electric cars , wind turbines,look into there manufacturing and there requirements of the raw materials they use ..there life span . suddenly those wind turbines are worse than a coal power station that was engineered from masters , engineering that was designed to last and produce .
We think if we import everything we are green..
Ask your self how are these products produced, what happens at the end of there life ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Don't matter what pledges they make, you can guarantee whatever comes out of their mouths are lies. That's what tory stands for; say something and the exact opposite will happen. " Considering how many uturns Stramer has done. Labour are catching the bug.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea? The ULEZ issue was just another example of the power of communicating lies. Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ and Grant Schapps made its expansion a pre-condition of TfL receiving its requested funding. Come the Uxbridge by-election and the "hated" ULEZ is all down to Sadiq Khan and Labour. As long as we have such a large percentage of the population who are able to be hoodwinked so easily and so mercilessly - lying will always be the main vote winner, irrespective of the issue. " The failure of communicating that was the failure of the Labour Party. I didn't know that it was a condition Schapps imposed, until somebody posted in another thread. Labour didn't seem to counter the attack Khan regarding this at Uxbridge either. Instead Stramer choosing to jump on bash Khan bandwagon. What should have been a easy Labour victory at the next GE is looking pretty precarious. All because Labour have a leadership that thinks listening to Mr Gallop and Mr Mori is the way to forge policies. Instead of fighting perceived enemies with-in, its time they focused on trying to differentiate themselves from the Tories, instead of trying to clone them. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea? The ULEZ issue was just another example of the power of communicating lies. Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ and Grant Schapps made its expansion a pre-condition of TfL receiving its requested funding. Come the Uxbridge by-election and the "hated" ULEZ is all down to Sadiq Khan and Labour. As long as we have such a large percentage of the population who are able to be hoodwinked so easily and so mercilessly - lying will always be the main vote winner, irrespective of the issue. The failure of communicating that was the failure of the Labour Party. I didn't know that it was a condition Schapps imposed, until somebody posted in another thread. Labour didn't seem to counter the attack Khan regarding this at Uxbridge either. Instead Stramer choosing to jump on bash Khan bandwagon. What should have been a easy Labour victory at the next GE is looking pretty precarious. All because Labour have a leadership that thinks listening to Mr Gallop and Mr Mori is the way to forge policies. Instead of fighting perceived enemies with-in, its time they focused on trying to differentiate themselves from the Tories, instead of trying to clone them." Just a fact on the on transport for London.It has written off nearly 150 million plus is owed 643.8 million by over 1 year which it expects to get very little back in fines and charges mainly from the congestion zone and ULEZ. I got that information off its accounts. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Looks like anger over ULEZ has reopened up the debate on green policies and commitments to going net-zero. Have the tories found the single issue which will save them from electoral defeat? Is weaponising climate change as a ploy to stay in power a good idea? The ULEZ issue was just another example of the power of communicating lies. Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ and Grant Schapps made its expansion a pre-condition of TfL receiving its requested funding. Come the Uxbridge by-election and the "hated" ULEZ is all down to Sadiq Khan and Labour. As long as we have such a large percentage of the population who are able to be hoodwinked so easily and so mercilessly - lying will always be the main vote winner, irrespective of the issue. The failure of communicating that was the failure of the Labour Party. I didn't know that it was a condition Schapps imposed, until somebody posted in another thread. Labour didn't seem to counter the attack Khan regarding this at Uxbridge either. Instead Stramer choosing to jump on bash Khan bandwagon. What should have been a easy Labour victory at the next GE is looking pretty precarious. All because Labour have a leadership that thinks listening to Mr Gallop and Mr Mori is the way to forge policies. Instead of fighting perceived enemies with-in, its time they focused on trying to differentiate themselves from the Tories, instead of trying to clone them. Just a fact on the on transport for London.It has written off nearly 150 million plus is owed 643.8 million by over 1 year which it expects to get very little back in fines and charges mainly from the congestion zone and ULEZ. I got that information off its accounts." Maybe so, but how many people knew ULEZ expansion was a tory imposed condition on Khan. I didn't. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Don't matter what pledges they make, you can guarantee whatever comes out of their mouths are lies. That's what tory stands for; say something and the exact opposite will happen. Considering how many uturns Stramer has done. Labour are catching the bug.." You'll be well pleased on yesterday's Labour U Turn on trans rights then! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so." Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. " ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X "Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
"It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said. Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'. You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you. Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do."This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to. "Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate. "Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean? That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed' | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate.
Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?
That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed'"Climate science is extremely well understood and is well beyond theories. If you're talking what happened before the big bang, then sure, lots of theories. "Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?". I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate.
Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?
That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed'
Climate science is extremely well understood and is well beyond theories.
If you're talking what happened before the big bang, then sure, lots of theories.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?". I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?"There are plenty of different theories on how we slow down climate change. "Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but". I missed a comma. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate.
Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?
That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed'
Climate science is extremely well understood and is well beyond theories.
If you're talking what happened before the big bang, then sure, lots of theories.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?". I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?
There are plenty of different theories on how we slow down climate change.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but". I missed a comma."No, it has absolutely nothing to do with me and my opinion. Climate science is well understood. This issue mirrors evolution, with some people saying a supreme being created everything in seven days, and that we should promote the debate over this in the scientific community. And there's a slight change of tac there to slowing down climate change. Which is fine. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Urgently. The only other scientific option is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But the reality is the solution is about reducing output. Everything else around the issue is political and about £££. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate.
Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?
That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed'
Climate science is extremely well understood and is well beyond theories.
If you're talking what happened before the big bang, then sure, lots of theories.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?". I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?
There are plenty of different theories on how we slow down climate change.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but". I missed a comma.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with me and my opinion. Climate science is well understood. This issue mirrors evolution, with some people saying a supreme being created everything in seven days, and that we should promote the debate over this in the scientific community.
And there's a slight change of tac there to slowing down climate change. Which is fine. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Urgently. The only other scientific option is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But the reality is the solution is about reducing output. Everything else around the issue is political and about £££."Here's the kicker though... You regularly say 'people don't understand science' 'people don't want to understand science' 'people aren't informed' 'govts pledge to increase fossil profits' etc etc. Those kind of statements absolutely show your disdain for people who either 'aren't as informed as you' or 'disagree with you' So it really is about you and your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. " It’s not just education… it’s challenging misinformation that isn’t done nearly enough Case in point… Morley constantly bringing up cobolt! … the thing is most batteries in ev’s aren’t made from lithium ion batteries anymore…. They are made from lithium phosphate (LFP)…. These batteries DONT use or need cobolt ! The price of electricity…. People seem to have short memories because in my time on here I have seen petrol prices as high as £1.80-1.90 a litre and as low as £1 a litre But I don’t have a home charger…. , you don’t have a home petrol station either but I don’t see you complaining In time petrol stations will become multi variable refuelling points… whether that is just ev stations or joint ev/petrol/diesel points! Charging times will come down, car distance ranges will go up… choices of vehicles will go up, prices of cars will come down! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate.
Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?
That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed'
Climate science is extremely well understood and is well beyond theories.
If you're talking what happened before the big bang, then sure, lots of theories.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?". I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?
There are plenty of different theories on how we slow down climate change.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but". I missed a comma.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with me and my opinion. Climate science is well understood. This issue mirrors evolution, with some people saying a supreme being created everything in seven days, and that we should promote the debate over this in the scientific community.
And there's a slight change of tac there to slowing down climate change. Which is fine. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Urgently. The only other scientific option is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But the reality is the solution is about reducing output. Everything else around the issue is political and about £££."This has gone off on some weird tangent. I'll let Eva come back to you on your claims of 'accusations' | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate.
Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?
That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed'
Climate science is extremely well understood and is well beyond theories.
If you're talking what happened before the big bang, then sure, lots of theories.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?". I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?
There are plenty of different theories on how we slow down climate change.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but". I missed a comma.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with me and my opinion. Climate science is well understood. This issue mirrors evolution, with some people saying a supreme being created everything in seven days, and that we should promote the debate over this in the scientific community.
And there's a slight change of tac there to slowing down climate change. Which is fine. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Urgently. The only other scientific option is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But the reality is the solution is about reducing output. Everything else around the issue is political and about £££.
Here's the kicker though...
You regularly say 'people don't understand science' 'people don't want to understand science' 'people aren't informed' 'govts pledge to increase fossil profits' etc etc.
Those kind of statements absolutely show your disdain for people who either 'aren't as informed as you' or 'disagree with you'
So it really is about you and your opinion."Well I'm sorry you read into it that way. It's true that lots of people aren't engaged enough with this issue. Don't understand or aren't interested in understanding the science. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Even reading the posts, it looks like a potential vote winning strategy. There is so much disagreement on the “green” issue. It will cause utter discord and disrupt what was effectively a done deal in the south east and in areas where ULEZ is implemented. Unfortunately nobody really gives a damn about clean air or stopping deaths due to respiratory problems. I think the tories are going to make the next GE a single issue election. Forget the five pledges they were weak to begin with. It’s going to be the choice those who want a green sustainable future and those who want to maintain the current status quo. This is how you beat labour this is how you win elections being able to paint the opposition as an uncaring tax hungry entity who will let people be burdened and not provide support. Sunak better get on this train and capitalise on this open goal. Has he got the stomach, I think so. Education is the key to breaking this cycle. But those in power much prefer an electorate who are confused and in disagreement over actual real life science and what we actually know. ***************************************** All this 'science' you seem to blindly follow is there for anyone to search and study. Now, how are 'those in power' restricting folk from doing just that...? Seems like you have a fixed disdain for the electorate who, you have said previously, 'do as they're told'...?! So, just HOW do 'those in power' influence us all from seeing your light...? Are we all stupid and uneducated, as you constantly infer....? Do we need guidance..? AND...... this is NOT a 'personal insult', it's a serious question, regarding the source of this information you state as fact, rather than your own personal opinion. Same as this post is merely an opinion with a genuine curiousity. Eva X
Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer.
Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it.
The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started.
It's much less accusations, and much more asking you questions based on things you ACTUALLY said.
Above you state, 'there's enough people who don't understand science' and 'govts pledge to boost fossil fuel profit'.
You definitely do have a disdain for the electorate, or at the least the ones who don't agree with you.
Or maybe you don't, but from watching your posts over a period, I'd conclude that you definitely do.
This thread is evidence that people either don't understand the science, or don't want to.
"Distain" for the electorate is what the Tories have. I would like to see an engaged and well informed electorate.
Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?
That's the thing with science, there's plenty of theories, none of which we can categorically say makes everyone 'informed'
Climate science is extremely well understood and is well beyond theories.
If you're talking what happened before the big bang, then sure, lots of theories.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but you mean?". I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?
There are plenty of different theories on how we slow down climate change.
"Well informed on the science that you choose and nothing but". I missed a comma.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with me and my opinion. Climate science is well understood. This issue mirrors evolution, with some people saying a supreme being created everything in seven days, and that we should promote the debate over this in the scientific community.
And there's a slight change of tac there to slowing down climate change. Which is fine. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Urgently. The only other scientific option is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But the reality is the solution is about reducing output. Everything else around the issue is political and about £££.
This has gone off on some weird tangent. I'll let Eva come back to you on your claims of 'accusations'"I haven't made any claims. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"understood and is well beyond theories." Unfortunately that's just not true. The basics of climate change are understood, but our understanding of the details changes week by week. As an example, try to find 2 climate models that predict the same result after 20 years. Or take any climate model, feed it data from 20 years ago, and see if it can predict how the planet looks today. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"understood and is well beyond theories. Unfortunately that's just not true. The basics of climate change are understood, but our understanding of the details changes week by week. As an example, try to find 2 climate models that predict the same result after 20 years. Or take any climate model, feed it data from 20 years ago, and see if it can predict how the planet looks today." We actually have that nowadays fro the times kf the hockey stick. It was grossly inccurate and the immediate models that followed. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
Making changes systemically, rather than imposing burdens on individuals, is one of the benefits of having a state apparatus. The Tories have increased electricity generation costs for years, by banning new inland wind generation.  .
The public aren't fools and see the need for urgent action to tackle pollution, global heating etc. If Tories want to consign themselves to irrelevance, they could work against the public interest and concerns. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Tories win election on promises to increase shit levels in our water?
Making changes systemically, rather than imposing burdens on individuals, is one of the benefits of having a state apparatus. The Tories have increased electricity generation costs for years, by banning new inland wind generation. .
The public aren't fools and see the need for urgent action to tackle pollution, global heating etc. If Tories want to consign themselves to irrelevance, they could work against the public interest and concerns. "I think you need to look at other threads on sewage and electricity generation | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Don't matter what pledges they make, you can guarantee whatever comes out of their mouths are lies. That's what tory stands for; say something and the exact opposite will happen. Considering how many uturns Stramer has done. Labour are catching the bug.. You'll be well pleased on yesterday's Labour U Turn on trans rights then!" Its not a policy I was in favour off. But irrelevant of my my personal views on the policy. It reinforces what I am saying about Labour under Stramer. A party whose policy is being lead by opinion polls and think tanks and no principles. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"understood and is well beyond theories. Unfortunately that's just not true. The basics of climate change are understood, but our understanding of the details changes week by week. As an example, try to find 2 climate models that predict the same result after 20 years. Or take any climate model, feed it data from 20 years ago, and see if it can predict how the planet looks today." Week to week is utterly irrelevant when studying, understanding and discussing climate change. Now you're talking about climate modelling, which is an entirely different discipline. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"understood and is well beyond theories. Unfortunately that's just not true. The basics of climate change are understood, but our understanding of the details changes week by week. As an example, try to find 2 climate models that predict the same result after 20 years. Or take any climate model, feed it data from 20 years ago, and see if it can predict how the planet looks today. Week to week is utterly irrelevant when studying, understanding and discussing climate change. Now you're talking about climate modelling, which is an entirely different discipline. " People are usually stuck to climate change views depending on their political views. They will cherry pick arguments to suit that view. I have always found it a pointless debate on these forums. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. " 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"understood and is well beyond theories. Unfortunately that's just not true. The basics of climate change are understood, but our understanding of the details changes week by week. As an example, try to find 2 climate models that predict the same result after 20 years. Or take any climate model, feed it data from 20 years ago, and see if it can predict how the planet looks today. Week to week is utterly irrelevant when studying, understanding and discussing climate change. Now you're talking about climate modelling, which is an entirely different discipline. People are usually stuck to climate change views depending on their political views. They will cherry pick arguments to suit that view. I have always found it a pointless debate on these forums." Very true. There are some good studies into the lack of acceptance of climate change and why it's usually on the right wing. Katharine Heyhoe is a good person to look up if interested. Also, climate feedback (all one word) dot org is a fun website where climate scientists review climate related news articles. It's pretty fun and terrifying at the same time. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. " No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made." ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there..............." Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying "Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made." For the onlooker, what specifically is the bizarre attack in the post above. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him. "Absolutely do not. I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. For the onlooker, what specifically is the bizarre attack in the post above. " Can't reply to this or I will get another forum ban. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times. "Are you sure? You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is. You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'. Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you. Need I go on? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?"None of which are personal attacks on other forum users. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users. "Oh that makes it OK then | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then "You're going off on a tangent. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then "********************************* Thanks Feisty and the other good folks here. I'm now determined to dismiss totally this person in future. I appreciate your sensible posts along with a few others here but, I've never enough time to engage properly. Just that certain ignorants wind me right up. Eva X | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then "Sitting on this fence (or my high horse if you like Feisty) I have to agree with Johnny here. Generalised criticisms of types of people is totally different to a personal attack on a fellow poster. I have confidence that the moderators are watching and can spot the difference. For example: 1. All [insert political party] voters are thick = ok 2. You are thick because you vote for [insert political party] = not ok I see Johnny doing a lot of 1 and not doing any of 2. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then
Sitting on this fence (or my high horse if you like Feisty) I have to agree with Johnny here. Generalised criticisms of types of people is totally different to a personal attack on a fellow poster. I have confidence that the moderators are watching and can spot the difference.
For example:
1. All [insert political party] voters are thick = ok
2. You are thick because you vote for [insert political party] = not ok
I see Johnny doing a lot of 1 and not doing any of 2."There are clear Tory voters here so anyone (Johnny) who says that is indeed attacking those very people. BTW, if you're sitting on the fence, you wouldn't be agreeing with either of us
Double BTW, Johnny often complains of personal attacks on him (I've had it plenty myself), if the mods are indeed watching, why are these never picked up on? Is it perhaps because they're not as personalnas he may think? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then
Sitting on this fence (or my high horse if you like Feisty) I have to agree with Johnny here. Generalised criticisms of types of people is totally different to a personal attack on a fellow poster. I have confidence that the moderators are watching and can spot the difference.
For example:
1. All [insert political party] voters are thick = ok
2. You are thick because you vote for [insert political party] = not ok
I see Johnny doing a lot of 1 and not doing any of 2.
There are clear Tory voters here so anyone (Johnny) who says that is indeed attacking those very people.
BTW, if you're sitting on the fence, you wouldn't be agreeing with either of us
Double BTW, Johnny often complains of personal attacks on him (I've had it plenty myself), if the mods are indeed watching, why are these never picked up on? Is it perhaps because they're not as personalnas he may think?"Sitting on the fence was indeed the wrong metaphor. I can’t agree with the first point because there would be little discussion. I see as many posts aimed at remoaners, and lefties, as I do tories, or brexiters. I think generalised comments are ok and if people self identify then that is on them and they should grow a thicker skin. I was subject to a “personal attack” just the other day in the Consultant Doctors striking thread. It just made me laugh because it was so unhinged. I could have reported but didn’t bother because I was waiting to see what other strange posts would come after pointing out (quoting) the exact text from another thread that seemed to have triggered said poster. But nothing. Complete silence. Hey ho! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then
Sitting on this fence (or my high horse if you like Feisty) I have to agree with Johnny here. Generalised criticisms of types of people is totally different to a personal attack on a fellow poster. I have confidence that the moderators are watching and can spot the difference.
For example:
1. All [insert political party] voters are thick = ok
2. You are thick because you vote for [insert political party] = not ok
I see Johnny doing a lot of 1 and not doing any of 2.
There are clear Tory voters here so anyone (Johnny) who says that is indeed attacking those very people.
BTW, if you're sitting on the fence, you wouldn't be agreeing with either of us
Double BTW, Johnny often complains of personal attacks on him (I've had it plenty myself), if the mods are indeed watching, why are these never picked up on? Is it perhaps because they're not as personalnas he may think?
Sitting on the fence was indeed the wrong metaphor. I can’t agree with the first point because there would be little discussion. I see as many posts aimed at remoaners, and lefties, as I do tories, or brexiters. I think generalised comments are ok and if people self identify then that is on them and they should grow a thicker skin.
I was subject to a “personal attack” just the other day in the Consultant Doctors striking thread. It just made me laugh because it was so unhinged. I could have reported but didn’t bother because I was waiting to see what other strange posts would come after pointing out (quoting) the exact text from another thread that seemed to have triggered said poster. But nothing. Complete silence. Hey ho!"You're absolutely right, there are as many people who write posts aimed at others. I thunk the difference herebis Johnny is the only one who (almost on a daily basis) complains of personal attacks against him whilst being more than rude himself. We won't agree on the first point, that's cool, but I can't quite help but think his faux victim complex is all for show. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then
Sitting on this fence (or my high horse if you like Feisty) I have to agree with Johnny here. Generalised criticisms of types of people is totally different to a personal attack on a fellow poster. I have confidence that the moderators are watching and can spot the difference.
For example:
1. All [insert political party] voters are thick = ok
2. You are thick because you vote for [insert political party] = not ok
I see Johnny doing a lot of 1 and not doing any of 2.
There are clear Tory voters here so anyone (Johnny) who says that is indeed attacking those very people.
BTW, if you're sitting on the fence, you wouldn't be agreeing with either of us
Double BTW, Johnny often complains of personal attacks on him (I've had it plenty myself), if the mods are indeed watching, why are these never picked up on? Is it perhaps because they're not as personalnas he may think?"I never say "all conservative voters are....". And the things I say aren't insulting. However yes, some people do get personal with me. I never report anyone. As much as I would like the personal attacks and insults to stop (not from you btw, you're relatively polite), I don't want anyone banned. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thank you, I appreciate not having the customary personal attack. So I will answer. Nobody blindly follows science. That's the point of it. It provides knowledge and understanding. This removes the need to "believe" or "blindly follow". As you mentioned, it's there for everyone, some people maybe don't know that, or maybe they choose not to read it. The rest is just a load of things you accused me of saying, so I'm not really sure how to answer any of it. Doesn't seem related to the topic. More directly related to your dislike of me. Which I have no clue where it came from. I don't remember interacting with you before the personal attacks started. 1) I never once made a "personal attack" toward you. Where you get that from is not my business. 2) The only science I'm interested in is tangible and absolutely established. There is too much 'could', 'might', 'possible', 'if' and 'maybe' about, regarding this climate change subject. My opinion, (I have my private reasons) there seems to be too much knee-jerk involved, and the amount of money paid out toward it is incredible. I blindly follow no popular craze or trend. Certain gangs of 'do-gooders', eg, "J.S.O. usually fade away after a short time, or grow up. 3) If I have indeed 'accused' anyone of posting words I don't agree with or consider ridiculous, I am serious and do not 'make stuff up' Only a fool would act in such a way. 4) I am completely at a loss to understand this idea you have of myself and, I may add, others here that you are "disliked". I, for one, do not know you, your appearance or anything other than what is posted here in your name. Same goes for myself, although many people on here do know me reasonably well. OK, the above was rattled out fast on an iPhone, so I apologise if it seems like a 'ramble', or any other errors. Now, I'm busy with friends. No idea what to make of this bizarre attack. Would be great if you either stopped, or addressed the points being made. ********************************** ATTACK....!!!??!! That's it, from now onwards I'll definitely cease hurting you with a my stiff rebukes. I'm very sorry but I had no idea you were as delicate as you seem, you carry on. There there............... Actually there has been a few personal attacks from you on Johnny over the last few months. It means any subsequent engagement comes with baggage. Just saying
Tbf Johnny regularly attacks people and then can't handle it when it's done to him.
Absolutely do not.
I attack the things people post, I don't go after the person, as other people do at times.
Are you sure?
You regularly attack 'Tories', the people who vote Tory that is.
You regularly attack 'people who don't understand science'.
Whilst continually accusing others of attacking you.
Need I go on?
None of which are personal attacks on other forum users.
Oh that makes it OK then
Sitting on this fence (or my high horse if you like Feisty) I have to agree with Johnny here. Generalised criticisms of types of people is totally different to a personal attack on a fellow poster. I have confidence that the moderators are watching and can spot the difference.
For example:
1. All [insert political party] voters are thick = ok
2. You are thick because you vote for [insert political party] = not ok
I see Johnny doing a lot of 1 and not doing any of 2.
There are clear Tory voters here so anyone (Johnny) who says that is indeed attacking those very people.
BTW, if you're sitting on the fence, you wouldn't be agreeing with either of us
Double BTW, Johnny often complains of personal attacks on him (I've had it plenty myself), if the mods are indeed watching, why are these never picked up on? Is it perhaps because they're not as personalnas he may think?
Sitting on the fence was indeed the wrong metaphor. I can’t agree with the first point because there would be little discussion. I see as many posts aimed at remoaners, and lefties, as I do tories, or brexiters. I think generalised comments are ok and if people self identify then that is on them and they should grow a thicker skin.
I was subject to a “personal attack” just the other day in the Consultant Doctors striking thread. It just made me laugh because it was so unhinged. I could have reported but didn’t bother because I was waiting to see what other strange posts would come after pointing out (quoting) the exact text from another thread that seemed to have triggered said poster. But nothing. Complete silence. Hey ho!
You're absolutely right, there are as many people who write posts aimed at others.
I thunk the difference herebis Johnny is the only one who (almost on a daily basis) complains of personal attacks against him whilst being more than rude himself.
We won't agree on the first point, that's cool, but I can't quite help but think his faux victim complex is all for show. "Agreed and others . | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
""Centrists" - "I don't support either party" Also "centrists" - "won't somebody think of the Tory voter's feelings?! ""I would replace “centrists” with “contraryists” | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
