|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 13, 2024 12:28:57 GMT
Look, if you people actually spared the time to watch the videos I post you would know that over in China they have set the whole apparatus up. dan dare cant be arsed reading 11 lines of a small article I quoted comparing European district heating and why its currently unworkable in the uk , and you expect people like him with the attention span of a gnat to watch hour long videos about china? No one cares baron. you need to be as short and to the point as you can. imagine know its hard , and im as guilty as any for not summarising succinctly my points at times , but it simply bores people to tears listening to you waffle on about china. China is the "promised land" for Baron I am afraid Tom... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 13, 2024 12:30:13 GMT
Your video just shows an UNMANNED drone Baron...The same as Amazon have been using since mid pandemic... You are wrong. It states UN-CREWED baron. It's no more than a drone. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 13, 2024 12:32:15 GMT
Prosperity, an aircraft developed by Chinese company AutoFlight, in February became the first eVTOL to complete a cross-sea intercity flight between Shenzhen and Zhuhai, 70 kilometers southwest. The uncrewed flight covered a journey that would typically take two hours by car in 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 13, 2024 12:33:25 GMT
Look, if you people actually spared the time to watch the videos I post you would know that over in China they have set the whole apparatus up. dan dare cant be arsed reading 11 lines of a small article I quoted comparing European district heating and why its currently unworkable in the uk , and you expect people like him with the attention span of a gnat to watch hour long videos about china? No one cares baron. you need to be as short and to the point as you can. I know its hard , and im as guilty as any for not summarising succinctly my points at times , but it simply bores people to tears listening to you waffle on about china. I agree with you. The biggest problem we have in the UK right now is our minds. They have collectively packed up. Every other problem follows from here. Every time we lose money, have a massive smash up on the roads or whatever, it all comes from the metal states of the population. Next time you get food poisoning eating out, it will be down o the worker having never bothered to understand hygiene and what bacteria are. It is so depressing being amongst adult children. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 13, 2024 12:56:13 GMT
Yet more evidence to show that net zero is not only expensive and unproven, but for many people unaffordable. People will have to be forced to accept net zero, and that will breed increasing resentment. Net zero could be achieved if politicians weren't idiots. It requires a lot of nuclear power in our country, and fuel synthesis with the excess energy generated. Fuel synthesis of petrol, fuel synthesis of diesel, and fuel synthesis of methane for home heating and cooking. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 13, 2024 13:06:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 13, 2024 13:06:27 GMT
Net zero could be achieved if politicians weren't idiots. It requires a lot of nuclear power in our country, and fuel synthesis with the excess energy generated. Fuel synthesis of petrol, fuel synthesis of diesel, and fuel synthesis of methane for home heating and cooking. Vin, I agree we should heavily invest in nuclear but unilateral net zero is utterly pointless, all it will achieve is to make people in the UK poorer, colder, and damage the economy. The UK cannot make a jot of difference on a global level. And as we have just seen with the pointless COP meeting many countries including China, Russia, the US, even the EU, didn't bother attending. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 13, 2024 13:17:54 GMT
Making technologies that will keep the world going when oil is gone, will benefit everyone.
Besides, countries without any natural resources other than sunlight will be able to become carbon exporters and key players in renewable fuels.
If we manufacture the equipment to do it, we could get quite rich from doing so, but idiot labour want to scrap our steel industry instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 13, 2024 13:33:24 GMT
Yet more evidence to show that net zero is not only expensive and unproven, but for many people unaffordable. People will have to be forced to accept net zero, and that will breed increasing resentment. Net zero could be achieved if politicians weren't idiots. It requires a lot of nuclear power in our country, and fuel synthesis with the excess energy generated. Fuel synthesis of petrol, fuel synthesis of diesel, and fuel synthesis of methane for home heating and cooking. There are millions of technologies around now. The best way is to let the market function properly so it can select the right solutions for every problem. Every problem is different. These homes would need looking at first in order to establish the best solution. The best solution is going to give the residents best value for money. They want heat when they want it, and they want to pay the least for it. That's design spec. One should survey the entire market and find the custom solution that gives the best deal.
What you will find now is a non-hydrocarbon solution is likely to give you better value for money. The system it replaces is 60 years old. Technology has moved on massively since then. These residents should be better off after the refit financially.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 13, 2024 13:39:11 GMT
China this China that, & lithium ion bullshit.
No thanks....
Renewable hydrocarbons keep existing machinery going meaning less waste and long term sustainability.
Keep people using combi boilers and gas cookers but seamlessly and unnoticeably change the fuel they burn.
Keep people using petrol and diesel cars.
But seamlessly and unnoticably change the fuel they burn from non renewable to renewable.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 13, 2024 13:54:39 GMT
Hmm, The Daily Mail again. bore off see 2. Stop shooting the messenger. Would you prefer is we only used articles approved by labour hame? I note that instead of addressing the holes I highlighted in your OP you decided to hide behind an off the cuff remark about the Mail jumping on board of the false political bandwagon. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 13, 2024 13:56:54 GMT
bore off see 2. Stop shooting the messenger. Would you prefer is we only used articles approved by labour hame? I note that instead of addressing the holes I highlighted in your OP you decided to hide behind an off the cuff remark about the Mail jumping on board of the false political bandwagon. all platforms of news are perfectly acceptable to most reasoned individuals see 2. You are not a reasonable individual , hence why most of us laugh when you gibber about the mail . The mail is about as unbelievable as the bbc , or any other platform. the content is what matters , ie the message , not the fucking messenger. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 13, 2024 22:24:27 GMT
I didn't.I note that instead of addressing the holes I highlighted in your OP you decided to hide behind an off the cuff remark about the Mail jumping on board of the false political bandwagon. see 2. You are not a reasonable individual , hence why most of us laugh when you gibber about the mail . The mail is about as unbelievable as the bbc , or any other platform. the content is what matters , ie the message , not the fucking messenger.No they are not, some outlets have some need for genuineness in the messages they put out, many private organisations such as GB News, Bloggers, Social Media and comments made by politicians are free to do as much political damage as they choose. Newspapers, often being privately owned are open to be as politically biased as they choose, which include derogation and insinuation, both of which are designed to influence the naive. They do it because they know it works, if it didn't work they wouldn't waste their time doing it. Of course it is the 'message not the messenger', BUT when the messenger is repeatedly posting or printing bias or is exaggerating an infrequent problem into a major cause for concern, then both should be exposed. Your post is the epitome of naivety. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 14, 2024 9:00:43 GMT
all platforms of news are perfectly acceptable to most reasoned individuals see 2. You are not a reasonable individual , hence why most of us laugh when you gibber about the mail . The mail is about as unbelievable as the bbc , or any other platform. the content is what matters , ie the message , not the fucking messenger. No they are not, some outlets have some need for genuineness in the messages they put out, many private organisations such as GB News, Bloggers, Social Media and comments made by politicians are free to do as much political damage as they choose. Newspapers, often being privately owned are open to be as politically biased as they choose, which include derogation and insinuation, both of which are designed to influence the naive. They do it because they know it works, if it didn't work they wouldn't waste their time doing it. Of course it is the 'message not the messenger', BUT when the messenger is repeatedly posting or printing bias or is exaggerating an infrequent problem into a major cause for concern, then both should be exposed. Your post is the epitome of naivety. Ive asked you to provide , in your opinion , which platforms are acceptable .You refuse to do so. The is because the platform isnt necessarily the problem , its the message when you disagree with it. Your initial reaction to any criticism of the Labour Party and keir starmer is to instantly shoot the messenger , because you cant deal with the truth in the message. Its the epitome of Labour Party stupidity , trying futilely to censor dissent by undermineing messengers , which draws people to read and view these platforms even more , and shows your own personal shallowness and weakness as a much ridiculed contributor to these boards. I thought this was a good article on twitter regarding the left quitting X , and like you shooting the messenger........... This is the heart of the matter. The Left is quitting X and wants you to as well because the ridiculous dogmas, propaganda, and logical fallacies at the centre of ‘progressive’ politics are being exposed; the lack of due diligence on new ideas and the novelty fallacies that sent them down this road in the first place. The bandwagon fallacies so many have jumped on are there to see. The single-cause fallacy that identity is the root of all good and evil. The false dilemma fallacy framing that you’re ‘with us or against us’ in oppressed vs. oppressor struggles, stripping any complex topic area of nuance or middle-ground. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy cherry-picking stats to suit narratives, omitting any counter-evidence or context. And finally, the sunk cost fallacy that we are now seeing as the chickens come home to roost from supporting dogmas built on sand. The legacy media’s narratives are now being bypassed on X. The truth is out.
As we’ve seen with ‘progressives’ over the last few years, their only response to scrutiny is censoriousness. They obfuscate, block, cancel, leave, and tell others to do the same. The strategy of ‘winning the debate by not having the debate’ is now coming to a head. This is the reason they want their acolytes off X, so they aren’t exposed to the truth. And the more people they label ‘far-right’, the more ludicrous their counter-narrative gets. Sooner or later, you run out of far-right people to blame
x.com/Postwoke_Pete/status/1823986512586772743 |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 14, 2024 9:06:00 GMT
all platforms of news are perfectly acceptable to most reasoned individuals see 2. You are not a reasonable individual , hence why most of us laugh when you gibber about the mail . The mail is about as unbelievable as the bbc , or any other platform. the content is what matters , ie the message , not the fucking messenger. Your post is the epitome of naivety. As my above article suggests , screaming incoherently about rightist bias on platforms like the mail , or gb news , or anything else which isnt in the back pocket of labour isnt a sign of your strength , its a sign of your leftist ideological weakness . If you were a bright chirpy communicator on this board , arguing on behalf of new labour from a position of strength , you wouldn't need to be calling to vilify gb news , or censor the daily mail etc etc , as you would be self confident arguing your case. You aren't. You are weak , like your idiotic party new labour. |
|
