General Election July 2024

[PurplePenguin]

S600BSB said:

turbobloke said:

JagLover said:

S600BSB said:

Dear oh dear TB.. This figure is consistent with existing estimates for reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which is enshrined in law and also Conservative policy! Come on man - try harder. Or stop believing the junk in the Telegraph.

You are quite correct in that there is no significant difference between the two parties, though Labour have more ambitious power generation targets.

This doesn't change the fact though that the costs need to be paid for and they haven't been budgeted for.

Indeed,

S600BSB's post is odd, it's as though their simplistic tribalism must apply to others. Lab, Con, so what. The issue is that May's silliness is simply unaffordable and both Tories and Labour have until recently been quiet on the cost of Net Zero. Another odd thing is that S600BSB is posting as though it's going to happen.

A third odd thing is that it's a Labour front bencher's words in the DT, it's not DT editorial, so either S600BSB doesn't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, doesn't understand that shooting the messenger (DT) and name calling are both ad hom fallacies, and doesn't understand that Net Zero will do next to nothing for global temperature.

A report with working shown from Profs Lindzen, Happer and Wijngaarden calculated the impact on climate of global Net Zero by 2050 via CO2 emissions reduction, within the evidence starved CO2 ideas of the political advocacy group IPCC. The grand total of averted warming = 0.28 deg C. With the unproven positive feedbacks assumed by IPCC omitted, averted warming = 0.07 deg C.

UK is responsible for 1% of global CO2 emissions, if we transitioned to Net Zero tomorrow then the growth in emissions (not total) from Chna would cancel out our self-inflicted lunacy in months (just over a year).

Haha! It’s the Telegraph reporting that is odd. But then they rely on old fools like you to be taken in. You should know better!

Edited by S600BSB on Thursday 27th June 13:14

How old are you?

[119]

S600BSB said:

turbobloke said:

JagLover said:

S600BSB said:

Dear oh dear TB.. This figure is consistent with existing estimates for reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which is enshrined in law and also Conservative policy! Come on man - try harder. Or stop believing the junk in the Telegraph.

You are quite correct in that there is no significant difference between the two parties, though Labour have more ambitious power generation targets.

This doesn't change the fact though that the costs need to be paid for and they haven't been budgeted for.

Indeed,

S600BSB's post is odd, it's as though their simplistic tribalism must apply to others. Lab, Con, so what. The issue is that May's silliness is simply unaffordable and both Tories and Labour have until recently been quiet on the cost of Net Zero. Another odd thing is that S600BSB is posting as though it's going to happen.

A third odd thing is that it's a Labour front bencher's words in the DT, it's not DT editorial, so either S600BSB doesn't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, doesn't understand that shooting the messenger (DT) and name calling are both ad hom fallacies, and doesn't understand that Net Zero will do next to nothing for global temperature.

A report with working shown from Profs Lindzen, Happer and Wijngaarden calculated the impact on climate of global Net Zero by 2050 via CO2 emissions reduction, within the evidence starved CO2 ideas of the political advocacy group IPCC. The grand total of averted warming = 0.28 deg C. With the unproven positive feedbacks assumed by IPCC omitted, averted warming = 0.07 deg C.

UK is responsible for 1% of global CO2 emissions, if we transitioned to Net Zero tomorrow then the growth in emissions (not total) from Chna would cancel out our self-inflicted lunacy in months (just over a year).

Haha! It’s the Telegraph reporting that is odd. But then they rely on old fools like you to be taken in. You should know better!

Edited by S600BSB on Thursday 27th June 13:14

A bit like the 'old fool' that is going to potentially ru(i)n the country next week?

Or is that a different type of 'old fool'?

[turbobloke]

S600BSB said:

turbobloke said:

JagLover said:

S600BSB said:

Dear oh dear TB.. This figure is consistent with existing estimates for reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which is enshrined in law and also Conservative policy! Come on man - try harder. Or stop believing the junk in the Telegraph.

You are quite correct in that there is no significant difference between the two parties, though Labour have more ambitious power generation targets.

This doesn't change the fact though that the costs need to be paid for and they haven't been budgeted for.

Indeed,

S600BSB's post is odd, it's as though their simplistic tribalism must apply to others. Lab, Con, so what. The issue is that May's silliness is simply unaffordable and both Tories and Labour have until recently been quiet on the cost of Net Zero. Another odd thing is that S600BSB is posting as though it's going to happen.

A third odd thing is that it's a Labour front bencher's words in the DT, it's not DT editorial, so either S600BSB doesn't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, doesn't understand that shooting the messenger (DT) and name calling are both ad hom fallacies, and doesn't understand that Net Zero will do next to nothing for global temperature.

A report with working shown from Profs Lindzen, Happer and Wijngaarden calculated the impact on climate of global Net Zero by 2050 via CO2 emissions reduction, within the evidence starved CO2 ideas of the political advocacy group IPCC. The grand total of averted warming = 0.28 deg C. With the unproven positive feedbacks assumed by IPCC omitted, averted warming = 0.07 deg C.

UK is responsible for 1% of global CO2 emissions, if we transitioned to Net Zero tomorrow then the growth in emissions (not total) from Chna would cancel out our self-inflicted lunacy in months (just over a year).

Haha! It’s the Telegraph reporting that is odd. But then they rely on old fools like you to be taken in. You should know better!

The words in a senior politician's speech are of interest to me at election time, I can make my own mind up regarding their value without considering what a newspaper says about them, which is of no value to me at any time.

I know that the words of a Labour shadow are those of the Labour shadow, not the newspaper they're reported in, if you really don't know the difference between primary and secondary sources you're the bigger fool, age no bar, congratulations - in particular on the combination of hypocrisy and irony you bring to the thread when not understanding what's going on.

[pingu393]

eharding said:

M1AGM said:

Be careful what you wish for lol. Had a flyer yeaterday for an Indy which personifies to me how much of an amateur st show our politics are. I’m sure this chap is a lovely person full of good intentions but wtf is this all about?



And unfortunately for him our property is in a different constituency to the one he is standing in. Oops.

Darren Borrows statement to voters said:

Despite multiple submissions - and a mailing to 500 physicists - no rebuttal of the analysis has been offered. However, no remedial action has been taken. It seems evidence contrary to present belief is undesirable.

The concern is this:

In his Theory of General Relativity, Albert Einstein predicted time travels at different rates in the universe, and it is broadly accepted evidence now exists to support the claim.

And when measuring the distance of a light year, the parameter of time is used twice; once in the year of an earth orbit, and again in the second used to calculate the speed of light in metres per second.

It is a simple task to show these times must be inversely proportional. That is, as time becomes slower for the light, the year becomes an underestimate of the distance the light has travelled, and faster time for the light becomes an overestimate of distance. In an infinite universe, the scale of error is potentially infinite.

If this assertion cannot be disproved, a door opens to new ideas that may answer questions and change some of our beliefs about the universe; but it seems science authorities cannot acknowledge the possibility of error because they've been building on the certainty of a flawed theory for far too long to examine and expose such a simple mistake.

Most recently I tried to petition Lord Bragg in the House of Lords: on 1/6/21, 26/10/21, and 14/6/23, without success.

In order to best serve public interest, there now seems no other choice but to seek representation to affect positive change.

Please cast your vote for the candidate who you feel is best equipped to create the future you think is right.

I stand for the pursuit of truth and disproof in science, and if you think it is me I ask for your support AND vote.

Candidate for York Outer Oort Cloud, he's that far off the planet.

What are the odds on him not being elected?

I'm just asking for a friend .

[swisstoni]

Just out of idle curiosity, who in this congregation has ever been polled?

Never in my life have I been approached by a pollster.

[ChocolateFrog]

Had a flyer from George Galloway's party.

Something, something, Palestine.

Someone must be chucking them some money if they're leafleting in a 1.7% Muslim area.

[Digga]

swisstoni said:

Just out of idle curiosity, who in this congregation has ever been polled?

Never in my life have I been approached by a pollster.

My clipboard radar is exceptionally well honed.

[MC Bodge]

ChocolateFrog said:

Had a flyer from George Galloway's party.

Something, something, Palestine.

Someone must be chucking them some money if they're leafleting in a 1.7% Muslim area.

I have seen and heard (albeit not that loudly compared with the equivalent in the 1980s ) a van with loudspeakers promoting a Workers' Party candidate. I can't imagine that they will pick up many votes where I saw it.

[bitchstewie]

Interesting little bit of compare and contrast between todays ads from the two main parties.

https://x.com/Conservatives/status/180629130606433...

https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1806310773813104736

[hidetheelephants]

isaldiri said:

hidetheelephants said:

isaldiri said:

His record as a centrist that includes being fully behind Corbin (twice) but of course excused because he thought Corbyn wouldn’t win so that’s fine…..?

The same purity test applied to the tory party, seeing as they all backed Johnson and Truss they must all be soiled and incapable of changing, so they should all resign? Fatuous in both instances.

Well if any tory was a cheerleader for Johnson and Truss especially at cabinet level then did an about turn to disown anything they said at the time and now claim they were a ‘centrist’, I’d consider them every bit as self serving and unprincipled as I do Starmer.

You think an inherent feature of UK party politics, that MPs are expected to support the party leader, means he's selfish and unprincipled? It's an opinion I suppose.

[isaldiri]

hidetheelephants said:

isaldiri said:

hidetheelephants said:

isaldiri said:

His record as a centrist that includes being fully behind Corbin (twice) but of course excused because he thought Corbyn wouldn’t win so that’s fine…..?

The same purity test applied to the tory party, seeing as they all backed Johnson and Truss they must all be soiled and incapable of changing, so they should all resign? Fatuous in both instances.

Well if any tory was a cheerleader for Johnson and Truss especially at cabinet level then did an about turn to disown anything they said at the time and now claim they were a ‘centrist’, I’d consider them every bit as self serving and unprincipled as I do Starmer.

You think an inherent feature of UK party politics, that MPs are expected to support the party leader, means he's selfish and unprincipled? It's an opinion I suppose.

Well actually I do - any mp who is prepared to say and do anything he thinks is necessary irrespective of what he believes in because it’s useful for him to climb the greasy slope to is certainly unprincipled.

Starmer did so plenty of times (agreeing to be part of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet then again pretending to be a lot more inside with the left leaning elements of the party when pitted against Long-Bailey). That is no different from the yammering fools on the tory benches queuing up to spew platitudes about Johnson and (initially at least) Truss having been supposed ‘one nation tories’.

[hidetheelephants]

I take it more as a feature of a deeply flawed system, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[NuckyThompson]

bhstewie said:

Interesting little bit of compare and contrast between todays ads from the two main parties.

https://x.com/Conservatives/status/180629130606433...

https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1806310773813104736

The Tory one is baffling, it’s like they’re actually championing labour.

There can’t be many people out there who actually want fire and rehire and zero hour contracts.

It’s like they’re trying to be st now

[mikey_b]

NuckyThompson said:

bhstewie said:

Interesting little bit of compare and contrast between todays ads from the two main parties.

https://x.com/Conservatives/status/180629130606433...

https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1806310773813104736

The Tory one is baffling, it’s like they’re actually championing labour.

There can’t be many people out there who actually want fire and rehire and zero hour contracts.

It’s like they’re trying to be st now

Maybe their social media ad manager is one of those who bet significant sums on their own party losing?

[carlo996]

NuckyThompson said:

bhstewie said:

Interesting little bit of compare and contrast between todays ads from the two main parties.

https://x.com/Conservatives/status/180629130606433...

https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1806310773813104736

The Tory one is baffling, it’s like they’re actually championing labour.

There can’t be many people out there who actually want fire and rehire and zero hour contracts.

It’s like they’re trying to be st now

They’re both very embarrassing quite frankly. Prolly a fresh out of college numpty blinded by the promise of a bright future…like many in this thread

[anonymous-user]

philv said:

Face it, are the uk public really going to vote in a funny little rich Indian guy?
Were a naturally prejudiced society.

Seems most will vote for an old white bloke with a knighthood

[BigMon]

[turbobloke]

BigMon said:

[valiant]

86 said:

Seems most will vote for an old white bloke with a knighthood

61 is old now?

[S600BSB]

valiant said:

86 said:

Seems most will vote for an old white bloke with a knighthood

61 is old now?

Ancient tbf