|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 19:59:12 GMT
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. I already said. Houses for everyone already here. WE INVITED THEM. You tell me Red what would you do with the 500,000 immigrants invited to live here last year or the year before. Would you throw them out, push them into the sea? Oh and FYI 330,000 of those 800,000 were from Ukraine. I would stop nearly all new immigrants coming. Offer short term contracts for those we do need. But yes I would build enough homes for everyone already here. Some numbers for you There are 24.6 million homes in the UK at this time covering 7% of the land. We need to build another 1.8 million homes to provide enough for the people living here today That's 0.07% more homes. Yes that's right 0.07% moreSo that would mean increasing the land covered to 7.4% of the UK. No one would even notice. You're locking the door after the horse has bolted. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 20:00:52 GMT
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. The bloke is quoting the Times newspaper not the IPCC. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 5, 2024 20:19:18 GMT
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. The bloke is quoting the Times newspaper not the IPCC. The video was using the official measured temperatures and applying them to expand the measure earlier than 1960 which showed the 1930s were more severe in terms of hot days. Why this insistence that official data is the silver bullet of detail yet hate people using the official data to show that that which is claimed is just false? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 20:59:30 GMT
The bloke is quoting the Times newspaper not the IPCC. The video was using the official measured temperatures and applying them to expand the measure earlier than 1960 which showed the 1930s were more severe in terms of hot days. Why this insistence that official data is the silver bullet of detail yet hate people using the official data to show that that which is claimed is just false? At most the Times is guilty of manipulating the figures to impress the public. The earlier figures were not hidden from the public by the IPCC etc. The video maker found it easy to get the missing measurements. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 5, 2024 22:12:56 GMT
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. What evidence are you using? Hurricanes you can measure - something is either a hurricane or it is not. In the UK named storms are somebody's guesswork. So when it comes to measuring climate change what evidence would you suggest we use? - the quantity of hurricanes or the quantity of named storms? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2024 8:34:57 GMT
So? We use opinion based on evidence for 80% of the decisions we make. What evidence are you using? Hurricanes you can measure - something is either a hurricane or it is not. In the UK named storms are somebody's guesswork. You mean, what evidence are they using. I would imagine they look at wind speeds and rain content, likelihood of landfall etc. Similar to the system they use to give flood and wind warnings. I would say the amount of change in weather and the frequency of change. Then look at what is driving that change. In one country it might be increased droughts, in another increased rainfall. But mostly why there are increases. There are things we can easily see, such as the reduction of ice sheets or the clearing of the Bering straits. Or the moving of the polar vortex. These things confirm climate change is happening. The next question, the one governments want answered: Is the cost of stopping climate change cheaper than the cost of dealing with the effects. That is why frequency and damage are now being measured. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2024 8:37:30 GMT
What evidence are you using? Hurricanes you can measure - something is either a hurricane or it is not. In the UK named storms are somebody's guesswork. You mean, what evidence are they using. I would imagine they look at wind speeds and rain content, likelihood of landfall etc. Similar to the system they use to give flood and wind warnings. I would say the amount of change in weather and the frequency of change. Then look at what is driving that change. In one country it might be increased droughts, in another increased rainfall. But mostly why there are increases. There are things we can easily see, such as the reduction of ice sheets or the clearing of the Bering straits. Or the moving of the polar vortex. These things confirm climate change is happening. The next question, the one governments want answered: Is the cost of stopping climate change cheaper than the cost of dealing with the effects. That is why frequency and damage are now being measured. Its only being measured by the doom goblin and those who are fool enough to believe her. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2024 8:43:53 GMT
You mean, what evidence are they using. I would imagine they look at wind speeds and rain content, likelihood of landfall etc. Similar to the system they use to give flood and wind warnings. I would say the amount of change in weather and the frequency of change. Then look at what is driving that change. In one country it might be increased droughts, in another increased rainfall. But mostly why there are increases. There are things we can easily see, such as the reduction of ice sheets or the clearing of the Bering straits. Or the moving of the polar vortex. These things confirm climate change is happening. The next question, the one governments want answered: Is the cost of stopping climate change cheaper than the cost of dealing with the effects. That is why frequency and damage are now being measured. Its only being measured by the doom goblin and those who are fool enough to believe her. I'm so sorry you are unable to join in the conversation properly. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2024 8:49:54 GMT
Its only being measured by the doom goblin and those who are fool enough to believe her. I'm so sorry you are unable to join in the conversation properly. Oh the irony. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 6, 2024 9:07:12 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. A lot of minds were changed once Covid was established as a pandemic. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 6, 2024 9:11:42 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? 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.
You are not very bright ^^^ expressing your opinion as if it was a fact LOL |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2024 9:12:40 GMT
I'm so sorry you are unable to join in the conversation properly. Oh the irony. Yeah. Look at how many people actually ask your opinion. Off you go and play. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2024 9:14:46 GMT
Yeah. Look at how many people actually ask your opinion. Off you go and play. What other game is there in town apart from showing your bullshit up for what it is zany? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 6, 2024 9:19:48 GMT
Yes. The cost of doing nothing about global warming. we have cut our emissions by more than any other country - what effect do you think that sacrifice has had? That we breath cleaner air? Your comment ignores the fact that many countries are cutting emissions. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2024 9:46:48 GMT
we have cut our emissions by more than any other country - what effect do you think that sacrifice has had? That we breath cleaner air? Your comment ignores the fact that many countries are cutting emissions. We also started out dirtier than other countries. Easy to say you've cleared up more when there was more to clean up. In emissions per capita by country Austria 12th Belgium 15th Germany 50th France 66th UK 69th. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capitaSo lets stop pretending we've done enough and are carrying others. I know that's the message the Tories are trying to spread in their desperation to be popular. |
|
