|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 5, 2024 16:33:31 GMT
Exactly, Mr Green flip flop Starmer who's trying to get the green votes, has pledge to build build build on 'Greenbelt land'.
How the fuck can you profess to be on the side of the Environmentalists when on the next breath you are telling the other side you are going to chop down trees, chop up greenbelt land to make way for concrete jungles.
Double standard hypocrite, I'm all things to all people Starmer.
The greenbelt is fields of turnips and sugar beet not rolling forests. We have currently built on about 7% of the whole country. Starmer's plans involve another 1% Get a grip. China FFS, You have had the links so many times but have chosen to ignore them......And how many fucking lefty councils hace chopped down our trees for their vanity projects? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 5, 2024 16:44:50 GMT
God almost certainly knows, as He designed the eco-system. But for mankind to be sure, they need a double blind controlled experiment. As that is not possible, we'll put up with the 100 year floods every 3 years. You do know that 100 year events don't come like clockwork every 100 years? So, until we can prove beyond doubt that global warming will change our weather we do nothing. Naah, I don't think that's gonna work. And I assume you know a 100 year event is an estimate of how often we are likely to see such a thing. Just the same for a three year event. What we would have likely seen once every 100 years, we are now likely to see every 3 years. 21 named storms in 2023. In the UK a storm will be named when it has the potential to cause disruption or damage which could result in an amber or red warning. This is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service, Naming storms in the UK is a very recent phenomenon that is not based on any scientific measurement, so using that as an indication of worsening climate is rather hit and miss. If you use something that is measurable like a Hurricane then we see that the there has been no rise at all in the number making landfall..  |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 5, 2024 16:46:12 GMT
Whose chopping down trees? The greenbelt is fields of turnips and sugar beet not rolling forests. We have currently built on about 7% of the whole country. Starmer's plans involve another 1% Get a grip. China FFS, You have had the links so many times but have chosen to ignore them......And how many fucking lefty councils hace chopped down our trees for their vanity projects? The lefty councils are murdering trees on a daily basis, most lefty councils are bankrupt but can still find the money to cull as many trees as they can to make way for their concrete jungles, they must think we are all as fuckin thick as fuck.
Vote for 'Green Labour' Save the Planet, the party of the Environment, the party that is everything to everybody, yes we'll murder trees to make way for concrete jungles .... but wait a minute vote for Labour and we will save the planet, we are the party to save the environment ...vote Labour to keep your green spaces.
FFS Labour a party that stands for NOTHING, no policies, no plans, no future, NO NOTHING.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 5, 2024 17:06:44 GMT
Vote for 'Green Labour' Save the Planet, the party of the Environment, the party that is everything to everybody, yes we'll murder trees to make way for concrete jungles .... but wait a minute vote for Labour and we will save the planet, we are the party to save the environment ...vote Labour to keep your green spaces. FFS Labour a party that stands for NOTHING, no policies, no plans, no future, NO NOTHING. And even if they did, they'd change their minds next week. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 5, 2024 17:16:20 GMT
Vote for 'Green Labour' Save the Planet, the party of the Environment, the party that is everything to everybody, yes we'll murder trees to make way for concrete jungles .... but wait a minute vote for Labour and we will save the planet, we are the party to save the environment ...vote Labour to keep your green spaces. FFS Labour a party that stands for NOTHING, no policies, no plans, no future, NO NOTHING. And even if they did, they'd change their minds next week. VOTE LABOUR IF YOU WANT MORE HOUSES ....Those who want tens of thousands of houses built, even if it means building on Greenbelt .... will vote Labour because Labour are the party to build build build 1.5 million houses, and they don't care where they build them, but Greenbelt will give their property developer buddies more profits.
VOTE LABOUR IF YOU WANT TO SAVE YOUR GREENBELT... We will save your Greenbelt, we are the party of the environment, save our trees, save our green spaces.
VOTE LABOUR we will promise you everything and anything ....... then when we get elected we will deliver ........ NONE OF IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 17:26:54 GMT
Same thing. Zany thinks blah blah... Noooo. I meant my strawman example was the same as yours. ...but you were implying they were like for like with the consensus on global warming... They were in their day. Absolutely. I'm fair bit younger than you and I can remember it. If you can't, well maybe you have memory issues. Well it shouldn't be too difficult to find a few. That said; I doubt you could even find a government of today giving dates of destruction from global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 17:34:23 GMT
Whose chopping down trees? The greenbelt is fields of turnips and sugar beet not rolling forests. We have currently built on about 7% of the whole country. Starmer's plans involve another 1% Get a grip. China FFS, You have had the links so many times but have chosen to ignore them......And how many fucking lefty councils hace chopped down our trees for their vanity projects? I've already showed you that Chinas forests are increasing. Here you go. Enjoy. rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-its-forests-back-to-life-in-a-decade/#:~:text=Since%20the%201990s%2C%20however%2C%20China,of%20the%20country%20in%201990. I don't know. How many leftie councils have chopped down our trees for vanity projects? The problem you have with counting really shows. Cutting down 20 beautiful chestnut trees in an avenue might be sad, but it has little effect on our number of trees. And I'm sure just as many rightwing councils have done the same, but climate change is not political. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 17:37:19 GMT
So, until we can prove beyond doubt that global warming will change our weather we do nothing. Naah, I don't think that's gonna work. And I assume you know a 100 year event is an estimate of how often we are likely to see such a thing. Just the same for a three year event. What we would have likely seen once every 100 years, we are now likely to see every 3 years. 21 named storms in 2023. In the UK a storm will be named when it has the potential to cause disruption or damage which could result in an amber or red warning. This is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service, Naming storms in the UK is a very recent phenomenon that is not based on any scientific measurement, so using that as an indication of worsening climate is rather hit and miss. If you use something that is measurable like a Hurricane then we see that the there has been no rise at all in the number making landfall.. Storms are named if they are likely to cause substantial damage or flooding. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 5, 2024 18:06:18 GMT
Naming storms in the UK is a very recent phenomenon that is not based on any scientific measurement, so using that as an indication of worsening climate is rather hit and miss. If you use something that is measurable like a Hurricane then we see that the there has been no rise at all in the number making landfall.. Storms are named if they are likely to cause substantial damage or flooding. but that is not based on any scientific measurement - it is simply somebody's opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2024 18:07:37 GMT
And even if they did, they'd change their minds next week. VOTE LABOUR IF YOU WANT MORE HOUSES ....Those who want tens of thousands of houses built, even if it means building on Greenbelt .... will vote Labour because Labour are the party to build build build 1.5 million houses, and they don't care where they build them, but Greenbelt will give their property developer buddies more profits.
VOTE LABOUR IF YOU WANT TO SAVE YOUR GREENBELT... We will save your Greenbelt, we are the party of the environment, save our trees, save our green spaces.
VOTE LABOUR we will promise you everything and anything ....... then when we get elected we will deliver ........ NONE OF IT.
You say vote Labour if you want more houses, but houses for who? With 800,000 immigrants a year coming here we certainly need more housing. But every government in my lifetime has promised to build a certain number of houses and they always fail to hit targets. You say Labour will build 1.5 million homes, I assume you think they will be in power for the next 20 years, lol. ZG, it would appear you are yet to learn that the opposition are always long on promises, short on delivery. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 19:23:36 GMT
Storms are named if they are likely to cause substantial damage or flooding. but that is not based on any scientific measurement - it is simply somebody's opinion. So? We use opinion based on evidence for 80% of the decisions we make. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 5, 2024 19:29:20 GMT
Surely there is no faking it as they are using official figures all they have done is go back a bit further which is not cherry picking it is just going back a bit further. If any claims of cherry picking arises it could be why limit the data to 1960 why not take it back 50 or 60 years earlier? I can't be bothered to look into it. I've debunked so many fake claims and no denier changes their minds. By all means research it yourself. At this time on this tiny forum I think opinions are set in cement. You do not have to 'look into it' all you need to do is make a note from whence they draw their info as regards actual measurements. You somehow epitomise the problem with global warming in that you are convinced and no amount of contrary information will deconvince you whereas I am not convinced but could be convinced if it was not for several things. 1 Alarmists claiming the science is settled when many scientists, many of whom are climatologists are sceptical on the narrative and how information is disseminated to the public. 2 Scientists calling each other charlatans. 3 No model has accurately predicted anything as regards the relationship between CO2 and actual global warming. 4 The money to be made and being made by those who are using AGW to push their own agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jan 5, 2024 19:33:54 GMT
The two upcoming by elections in Wellingborough and Kingswood (Bristol suburbs) will tell us much about whether Reform can begin to deliver in actual elections in ideal seats for them. My guess is Labour wins both and Reform get around 10% - we’ll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 5, 2024 19:45:25 GMT
China FFS, You have had the links so many times but have chosen to ignore them......And how many fucking lefty councils hace chopped down our trees for their vanity projects? I've already showed you that Chinas forests are increasing. Here you go. Enjoy. rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-its-forests-back-to-life-in-a-decade/#:~:text=Since%20the%201990s%2C%20however%2C%20China,of%20the%20country%20in%201990. I don't know. How many leftie councils have chopped down our trees for vanity projects? The problem you have with counting really shows. Cutting down 20 beautiful chestnut trees in an avenue might be sad, but it has little effect on our number of trees. And I'm sure just as many rightwing councils have done the same, but climate change is not political. Without China, Efforts to Reverse Deforestation Will Fail.
China’s demand for raw materials drives deforestation by mining, report says
As China replants its own forests, it is destroying the world’s
The cutting down of just one tree in the UK has a dia effect. How mant Elms, Beech and Oak trees have we lost due to fungus and decease?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 5, 2024 19:46:03 GMT
Oh, I see - you've added the word "Government" to make a strawman. Very clever.  A strawman is when you invent someone who makes a stupid argument you can easily beat. The strawman says whatever you want him to. Adding government is not a strawman argument. Its a specification to make your claims match the current opinion on climate change. Almost every government and scientific body around the globe agrees that global warming is happening and is man made. The dumbass poster you showed does not compare to this in any way. The UN declares because it lends them power, governments agree because it releases them from direct blame for problems at home, scientific bodies toe the IPCC line as almost in total when they 'agree' they quote the IPCC as the source of that info. Uncomfortable as it may be scientists in teh employ of oil and energy companies will tend to be sceptical as their employment depends on meeting the needs of their employer, in the same breath those scientists employed in funded research into climate change will need to generally agree with the IPCC assessments as in the main their funding depends on it. These are the facts of life and realistically we have to assess the research of those with no vested interest as to what conclusion they reach, not an easy task but sceptics have much to lose if they are not employed by oil companies so why would they rock the boat? |
|
