Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1816577]
The point is not to leave crude measurements out but to accept that you can predict fuck-all with your couple-of-decades worth of temperature measurements, since you do not even consider anything like Solar flux in your shitty report. (That's the answer to Trish's earlier communist post trying to insinuate I am a hypocrite).
--Climate change science is informed by over a century of records, at least get your facts right, if facts are of interest to you.

Oh, of course state should not interfere in economy. Not bailing out failing enterprises is exactly that. -
--The State has paid Carillion millions of pounds to run public services and repair and re-invigorate our public infrastructure. The company has failed -why? According to you markets work, private enterprise works. Perhaps you can explain why this private enterprise has failed in spectacular fashion to meet its contractual obligations to the government as well as its shareholders. And who do you expect to pay the bills, if not the taxpayer? And why should we anyway? There are successful companies in the market, I don't attack the whole of the private sector, but to pretend it is some irreplaceable gift to mankind is to ignore the obvious. It doesn't always work.
So who now is going to complete work on that unfinished hospital, fill in the pot-holes in the road, and so on? Maybe you should start up a company and apply for the contract.

[Ts RedVeX]

It failed because the majority of idiotic democrats had been voting for socialists who decide to give taxpayer's money (money that was given away by democrats and all other sorts of communists, as well as the money the remaining normal part of the British nation was robbed of). I have said it a few times already and I will say it again: government should not interfere in economy. Bankruptcy is part of the free market's ways and anyone who believes they can bail it out is wrong. - Of course, e.g. in democracy, or republic, where term of office is very short, bailouts are a good way of getting rich quickly by fucking the nation over and fucking off before shit hits the fan... I cannot understand why the majority on here believes in the communist "nanny state" that is supposed to regulate everything. What is truly astonishing and scary, though, is that apart from me, there is absolutely nobody else sane on here, who feels that normality must be brought back or our civilisation will cease to exist within the next 20 or 30 years. Or will you have all died by 2047? And because you all have pensions you do not give a fuck what sort of country your children would have to live in, had you had any? You just push your global warming and other bollocks either because you are to daft to see what is going on or just want your cut of the "fat red cake".

Unless your politicians are going to give more of your money away - taking their shares, of course - or ideally somebody normal decides to liquidate the Ministry of Health, or whatever it is called, nobody will complete your unfinished hospital, because it would not make any sense economically. What is that is so difficult to understand here?

As to filling pot holes, it is a public road so why don't you do it? It is your road as well as it is anyone else's... Can't you see how stupid this way of thinking is? I'll just get an off-road car and I'll be fine.

Show me where that report reads that the research it regards proves that solar flux does not contribute to global warming.

Actually, since we got back to the report, show me where it states that global warming has been proven to be caused by humans. - Cos I have not found such a statement in it.

[trish]

...you do not even consider anything like Solar flux...

The theory of climate change you oppose is the one that attributes the change to the greenhouse effect, right? That theory maintains that light energy from the Sun (otherwise known as the solar flux) passes through the atmosphere (with some absorption) and warms the Earth’s surface( i.e. surface atoms are excited by their absorption of the solar radiation ). The warmed Earth then radiates that energy (i.e. the excited atoms emit new photons, mostly in the infrared band) outward into the atmosphere, where the greenhouse gasses capture enough of it create a imbalance: i.e. in net, more energy is absorbed from the Sun, than is radiated back out into space.

The whole greenhouse model is based on a detailed analysis of the solar flux at all wavelengths. (I explained this in some detail already back in post #1572.) You’re being more than disingenuous when you claim, “...you do not even consider anything like Solar flux...”

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1816783]

It failed because the majority of idiotic democrats had been voting for socialists who decide to give taxpayer's money (money that was given away by democrats and all other sorts of communists, as well as the money the remaining normal part of the British nation was robbed of).
--This is a complete negation of the facts, which are that it was the government of Margaret Thatcher, basing its policies on free market ideas derived from Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, to name but two non-socialists, that believed private enterprise could do a better job than state-owned companies in providing services in key parts of the economy and thus began the trend to out-source major projects to private enterprise. In the US, it was the Reagan Presidency that out-sourced contracts and yet today the largest employer in the US, directly or indirectly is the Federal government of the US and State and local government. I wonder, is your idol in the White House going to dismantle this aspect of the US economy, cancel all those contracts and 'liberate' the markets? And taxation is legal in this country whether or not you regard it as theft.

You imagine into existence a situation in which an entrepreneur creates a company or companies that will meet marked demands for roads, hospitals, libraries, bridges, canals, tunnels, and so forth. But where does capital come from?

In the 19th century the capitalists in the industrial north did indeed build impressive public buildings, canals and railways which still stand in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham and are threaded through the country. They built schools, libraries, hospitals, and prisons. Where did the money come from? From the profits made from slavery, steel, coal, cotton, machine manufacture, the railways etc -so get this, those buildings were paid for from the profits from (say) textiles they then used to employ other workers to build facilities that were then used to charge the same workers to use them.

Under your system, we consumers could give Carillion £10 million to build a hospital and when it fails, they walk away leaving us without a hospital and nothing for our investment, and your reaction is, so what? Markets fail, deal with it. But why should we then trust another company to take our money if it cannot guarantee success?

I have said it a few times already and I will say it again: government should not interfere in economy. Bankruptcy is part of the free market's ways and anyone who believes they can bail it out is wrong. -
--And how many times do failing businessmen file for bankruptcy to avoid paying workers their wages, and pay back to their investors the money they have lost? In the US it is even possible to file for bankruptcy and get the tax-payer to compensate the Chief Executive who ruined the business. Surely in a free market, if I lend Donald Bandit $10 million as part of an investment in a casino, I expect to get that $10 million back and with interest? In what free market does he screw it up then tell me to get lost? In a rigged market, where capitalists invent tax laws that compensate one man's failure with another man's money.

What is truly astonishing and scary, though, is that apart from me, there is absolutely nobody else sane on here, who feels that normality must be brought back or our civilisation will cease to exist within the next 20 or 30 years.
You are easily scared. Maybe you should be more scared of rising sea levels due to climate change plunging Florida and Manhattan under water; or the threat of nuclear war currently being devised by the Madman-in-Chief in Washington DC.

Or will you have all died by 2047?
-- In my case almost certainly!

As to filling pot holes, it is a public road so why don't you do it? It is your road as well as it is anyone else's... Can't you see how stupid this way of thinking is?
--I could, in theory go to a shop in town, buy a bucket and spade, some cement and fill the hole in the road. In practice, I am not very good with my hands and in fact have no idea how to make cement, never mind fill in a hole. That is why we have trained men and women who know how to do these things. And if I did make an attempt to fill in a hole -in fact I am more concerned with loose paving stones in my town- I would probably be arrested for being a public nuisance and damaging the road.

Actually, since we got back to the report, show me where it states that global warming has been proven to be caused by humans. - Cos I have not found such a statement in it.
-- You can read, and probably know how to use a library or the internet, which is a virtual library. Declaring ignorance on one of the most widely reported issues of our time suggests a lack of interest. Which is your right.

[Stavros]

Meanwhile the US Administration has opened its long-awaited trade war with the rest of the world by raising tariffs on the import of solar panels. In practical terms I am not sure what this means as the Guardian assessment is that on the one hand-

Donald Trump’s decision to impose a tariff on imported solar panels will cost the US solar industry about 23,000 jobs this year and risks slowing the growth of clean energy that would help address climate change, renewable energy advocates warned.
While on the other hand

But while the tariffs may provide an unwelcome hurdle for the US solar industry, the cost of the technology and installation has dropped so precipitously in recent years that the industry could emerge relatively unscathed.

The cost of installing solar panels on rooftops has fallen by more than 70% since 2010, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. Solar now accounts for around 1.4% of US utility-scale electricity generation, up from virtually nothing in 2007.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-solar-panels

I think the key issue here is the commitment to raise tariff barriers on the ideological basis that this will replenish those parts of the US economy that have been lost to offshoring since the 1980s, though the President will not admit it was his idol Ronald Reagan who started it. It also fits into the anti-alternative energy ideology based on the 'hoax' of climate change without regard to the growth of the alternative energy sector in terms of jobs and the provision of cheap energy, and these factors as usual are driven by the 'What did Obama do? Let's undo it' strategy that seems to think that whatever short-term damage is done the US economy will revive. Ironically that might be true, though in the meantime people lose their jobs, and bills rise, but why should the billionaires who run the US care about the little guy?

As for tariff wars and protectionism, again, the 'bring it on' mentality chimes in with the insidious belief that limited nuclear war is realistic, though it remains to be seen if the US military in Syria will assist their Kurdish allies or stand by as Turkey attempts to wipe them out, after all when it comes to protecting the President's business interests in Turkey or protecting the Kurds who played the key role in destroying Daesh in Raqqa, it's the money that matters most. I don't suppose the Landlord is about to divest himself of his Turkish rents -? Who knows?

[smalltownguy]

Meanwhile the US Administration has opened its long-awaited trade war with the rest of the world by raising tariffs on the import of solar panels. In practical terms I am not sure what this means as the Guardian assessment is that on the one hand-

Donald Trump’s decision to impose a tariff on imported solar panels will cost the US solar industry about 23,000 jobs this year and risks slowing the growth of clean energy that would help address climate change, renewable energy advocates warned.
While on the other hand

But while the tariffs may provide an unwelcome hurdle for the US solar industry, the cost of the technology and installation has dropped so precipitously in recent years that the industry could emerge relatively unscathed.

The cost of installing solar panels on rooftops has fallen by more than 70% since 2010, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. Solar now accounts for around 1.4% of US utility-scale electricity generation, up from virtually nothing in 2007.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-solar-panels

I think the key issue here is the commitment to raise tariff barriers on the ideological basis that this will replenish those parts of the US economy that have been lost to offshoring since the 1980s, though the President will not admit it was his idol Ronald Reagan who started it. It also fits into the anti-alternative energy ideology based on the 'hoax' of climate change without regard to the growth of the alternative energy sector in terms of jobs and the provision of cheap energy, and these factors as usual are driven by the 'What did Obama do? Let's undo it' strategy that seems to think that whatever short-term damage is done the US economy will revive. Ironically that might be true, though in the meantime people lose their jobs, and bills rise, but why should the billionaires who run the US care about the little guy?

As for tariff wars and protectionism, again, the 'bring it on' mentality chimes in with the insidious belief that limited nuclear war is realistic, though it remains to be seen if the US military in Syria will assist their Kurdish allies or stand by as Turkey attempts to wipe them out, after all when it comes to protecting the President's business interests in Turkey or protecting the Kurds who played the key role in destroying Daesh in Raqqa, it's the money that matters most. I don't suppose the Landlord is about to divest himself of his Turkish rents -? Who knows?

solar panel saves money & works for free after installation . it is a good long term investment.

[Ts RedVeX]

So Trish, have you even not read the report then? Because it clearly says that the scientists involved have not found evidence to prove that global warming is caused by humans. What is your problem with that? Why don't you just present us with some scientific that actually proves your irreverent theory of humans changing Earth's climate? Have you ever looked beyond the greenhouse effect in your global warming proving "analysis"

I would like to make it clear that I am not and I never have written that Earth's climate is not changing. I am only stating that we - humanity - have as much as nothing to negligibly little to do with the change. Unless we develop new technologies, we indeed might become extinct. Only it will be due to ass-holes like you and Stavros, and any other pseudo scientist who does science for money rather than because they like it.

Stavros, I am sorry but i am an ignorant cunt an I am not even going to read your shit. We have already established that you simply believe in the communist (a.k.a.) nanny state that I totally oppose to (due to the values believe in, with which I have been brought up with) There is no way you can logically convince me to assume that your point of view is the "good one". I can only say that this time it wont be me who is going to refuse to fight the "bad guys" when shit hits the fan... So far, I have been very disappointed in the UK. It is definitely not what I had expected

[Stavros]

Stavros, I am sorry but i am an ignorant cunt an I am not even going to read your shit. We have already established that you simply believe in the communist (a.k.a.) nanny state that I totally oppose to (due to the values believe in, with which I have been brought up with) There is no way you can logically convince me to assume that your point of view is the "good one". I can only say that this time it wont be me who is going to refuse to fight the "bad guys" when shit hits the fan... So far, I have been very disappointed in the UK. It is definitely not what I had expected

The only thing that has been established, other than your dependence on abusive words (that diminish the quality of your argument), is that you yearn to live in a country that has neither government nor taxes, but cannot go beyond that to tell is if or when or where this Utopia is going to exist, but at least it gives you something to complain about, other than the treatment you get on the NHS, which for some reason you seem to prefer rather than using your hard-earned cash to take advantage of the private health care that is also available in the UK. There may be better countries to live in than the UK, there are certainly many more that are much worse at every level. You are always welcome to join in the debates that we have, it is up to you to choose the degree of intelligence, wit and empathy you bring to this forum.

[Ts RedVeX]

Well, If someone keeps bullshitting about me wanting to live in a country with neither government nor taxes, while I clearly stated several times now that I would advocate inherited monarchy with taxes for police and military, all the "abusive words" just come naturally. Have I mentioned that I am not in favour of censorship already or is that another thing that you just cannot acknowledge?

Treatment I get on the NHS... Firstly, anyone who lives in the UK and wants to work legally is being threatened with penalties for tax evasion. Taxes include the obligatory National Insurance contributions. Since I am still a guest here, and I respect my host's law I do actually pay those with my hard-earned cash so you can fuck off!

The reason why I rant about it is because obligatory insurance is a communist trait and it works against development of private clinics that either cannot or find it very hard to compete with your socialist NHS that gets free support from your government. And still, if you try to get certain things done "on the NHS" it turns out that you have to pay extra for it anyway, you moron. E.g. If I need a certificate before a porn shoot I have to pay 30quid for it. That is 30 quid for a piece of paper, plus half a day off because of some stupid law that apparently does not allow them to send it by email or post; parking fee; and fuel or fare for a few busses. What a lying communist arse-hole or how deluded must one be to call that "free"? Have you had your brains removed on the NHS recently, or something? That means it may cost me anything from 35 quid to around 400 quid (unlikely but possible) if the day turns out to one that would have been a good one hadn't your socialist NHS and related legislation fucked it up.

As to hormones, I still pay for "prescriptions" so meds are not quite free now, are they?

[Stavros]

With some exceptions such as children and senior citizens the NHS is not free. Citizens pay a monthly National Insurance contribution and in return they are entitled to a full range of services 'from the cradle to the grave'. As I pointed out to you before, prescriptions for medicine were free until the outbreak of war in Korea. In order to meet some of the cost of the UK's military contribution, the Labour government introduced prescription charges, leading Aneurin Bevan, the Minister responsible for introducing the NHS in 1948 to resign from the government in protest. Nevertheless, the basic principle is that health care is 'free at the time of use' so that, for example, we don't pay a fee to see a doctor, or to a hospital if we receive treatment in A&E or for an operation. Most charges in the NHS have been introduced since Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, but something tells me you are reluctant to blame her for anything that has gone wrong with the NHS even though it was her government that introduced the 'internal market reforms' in the mid-1980s that have cause so much damage to our service while enriching a few corporations.

You complain that obligatory insurance is a communist trait yet is there another means of creating health services that is not some form of insurance scheme, private or public? And why would anyone not want health insurance, and what would happen if they did not and fell ill? Presumably live with rotten teeth and that misery for years, or just die of some other illness. As for fees for certificates, these latter are recent introductions designed to raise money and originated with the Blair government I believe, they may not fit with the principle of free treatment, but are not issued for treatment as such.

All of this treatment is available to you in the private sector if you are prepared to take out a private health insurance policy or pay for treatment on a pay-as-you-go basis, and as far as I am aware, most of the private health staff work in the NHS, so it is odd that you should see the two as competing, though this may not be the case with cosmetic surgery and some private clinics offering alternative services.

I could use some abusive language to describe someone who comes to live in the UK and 'takes advantage' of our NHS which provides a whole range of courses for transgendered individuals ranging from counselling to sex reassignment surgery and appears to do nothing less than criticise and moan about the treatment. One wonders why you do not seek the range of treatment and surgery in Poland, or Thailand, or maybe Sweden if you want to stay in the EU. But my guess is that your reply will just be another parade of vituperative anti-communist invective serving no purpose.