Things i really dislike or downright hate.

Whitesince63 wrote:I think we’ll just leave it at your first sentence Sluffy, being the only sensible thing you’ve said and you should certainly take it for yourself as good advice. We’re just never going to agree are we so let’s leave it there.

No we are never going to agree because you are in denial of the cause of the current global warming being basically all down to the man made burning of fossil fuels over the last century or so.

EVERY NATION in the world accepts this is the case - EVERY ONE - but if you think you know better, then what's the point in laying the proof before you...

...but I will do every time you decide to deny it on here because whether you face up to it or not, that is the science of what is happening.

PS, I'm still waiting for you to provide the names of any prominent scientists (not funded by the petrol companies) who state that it isn't due to the burning of fossil fuels...

I won't hold my breath though because there is none.

Sluffy wrote:

No we are never going to agree because you are in denial of the cause of the current global warming being basically all down to the man made burning of fossil fuels over the last century or so.

EVERY NATION in the world accepts this is the case - EVERY ONE - but if you think you know better, then what's the point in laying the proof before you...

...but I will do every time you decide to deny it on here because whether you face up to it or not, that is the science of what is happening.

PS, I'm still waiting for you to provide the names of any prominent scientists (not funded by the petrol companies) who state that it isn't due to the burning of fossil fuels...

I won't hold my breath though because there is none.

Yawn 🥱🥱

Whitesince63 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

No we are never going to agree because you are in denial of the cause of the current global warming being basically all down to the man made burning of fossil fuels over the last century or so.

EVERY NATION in the world accepts this is the case - EVERY ONE - but if you think you know better, then what's the point in laying the proof before you...

...but I will do every time you decide to deny it on here because whether you face up to it or not, that is the science of what is happening.

PS, I'm still waiting for you to provide the names of any prominent scientists (not funded by the petrol companies) who state that it isn't due to the burning of fossil fuels...

I won't hold my breath though because there is none.

Yawn 🥱🥱

Saw this picture and the people in them reminded me very much of you, do you know why...?



...because they are all also 'in de'Nile' as well!

The tell tale sign Sluffy is that when you can’t win an argument you have to resort to insults instead of just accepting that no matter how compelling you believe your point to be you can’t accept that others may take a different opinion. Bit sad really.

Whitesince63 wrote:The tell tale sign Sluffy is that when you can’t win an argument you have to resort to insults instead of just accepting that no matter how compelling you believe your point to be you can’t accept that others may take a different opinion. Bit sad really.

   

Jesus Christ are you really being serious???

The post was a JOKE FFS!!!

I couldn't give two hoots about winning an argument with anyone on the internet - my life isn't that sad and never will be.

It's clear to everyone on here that you are in complete denial of the SCIENCE that proves that the current phase of global warming is man made due to the burning of fossil fuel and the release of a unique form of  CO2 which can be identified from its isotope from the other two forms of CO2 creation.

If you want to believe with others stuff like the world is flat, the Moon is made out of cheese or that the current global warming is not man made from burning fossil fuels, then that's up to you but the science and technology have shown us otherwise.

You ARE in denial and the picture above is of some people being 'in the Nile'.

God help you if you're so touchy about it now that you can't even take a gentle leg pull which this clearly was.

My beloved Bill and Ben! They always cheer me up when I'm ill. Maestro, please.....

I can't stand Fiona Bruce .
.

Vernon Kay's northern accent on radio 2 can't believe he's replaced Ken Bruce  bloody awful .

Angry Dad wrote:Vernon Kay's northern accent on radio 2 can't believe he's replaced Ken Bruce  bloody awful .

Nice to see the voice of reason back on Nuts.

Sluffy wrote:

   

Jesus Christ are you really being serious???

The post was a JOKE FFS!!!

I couldn't give two hoots about winning an argument with anyone on the internet - my life isn't that sad and never will be.

It's clear to everyone on here that you are in complete denial of the SCIENCE that proves that the current phase of global warming is man made due to the burning of fossil fuel and the release of a unique form of  CO2 which can be identified from its isotope from the other two forms of CO2 creation.

If you want to believe with others stuff like the world is flat, the Moon is made out of cheese or that the current global warming is not man made from burning fossil fuels, then that's up to you but the science and technology have shown us otherwise.

You ARE in denial and the picture above is of some people being 'in the Nile'.

God help you if you're so touchy about it now that you can't even take a gentle leg pull which this clearly was.

Of course I’m aware it was a joke Sluffy, ha ha very funny I’m splitting my sides . This is a joke too by the way.

I’m not in denial or the Nile on anything. The facts are that long before we burned fossil fuels, CO2 levels have been higher, the world has been hotter, floods have been worse and storms and droughts also and I’m not just talking about prehistoric times either. 

I have absolutely no problem with a progressive move towards renewable energy but am totally against arbitrary dates created by politicians with no cost benefit analysis or even capability to meet them taken into account. Take copper for example which every scientist accepts the electrical infrastructure needs to meet a 2050 net zero target. It’s an impossible date to meet. There isn’t enough copper available to build such an infrastructure. It’s not that there isn’t enough in the ground to provide it just that there isn’t enough mining capability to extract it. 

It takes an average of around 16 years from start to extraction, usually longer than that and the latest mine under construction is currently 26 years in the process. Sadly your eco mad politicians have delayed planning for so long it’s making it impossible to build any faster. So much for their net zero targets.

Global warming is real, I totally accept that. The climate has and will change all the time and if we can try to help in any way we can it must be proportionate and not the damaging and expensive mess our “leaders” are making of it now. There are and always were other options to electrification but politicians have grasped at what they see as the fast solution without accepting the damage it in itself is causing. We just can’t afford it that’s the biggest fact of all you just seem to want to ignore.

You are in denial of the scientific proof of what is happening which is basically just the same thing as people believing that the world is flat and the Moon is made out of cheese.

I've explained to you before that 'targets' are simply something to aim at - we all know they can't be achieved unless everyone is willing to work hard to achieve them and we all know too that many aren't.

The longer it takes the world to do something to end the burning of fossil fuels, the more dire the consequences for everyone in the future as the world becomes more toxic to live on.

That is the future - it is the scientific cause and effect - the consequence of burning too much fossil fuel than the Earths atmosphere can deal with and not remain the same - Earth will get hotter and change negatively for all life on it.

It's your own children and grandchildren that will be suffering the ongoing effects of what we've done by not doing something to stop it getting out of hand while we had a chance to (but clearly not the will).

And fwiw you still can't name one single reputable scientist who isn't funded by the petrol companies who denies that the current global warming isn't due to the man made burning of fossil fuel.

Nor will you because the scientific proof is beyond any doubt - the global warming is demonstrably driven by the CO2 isotopes created from the burning of fossil fuel is the 'smoking gun' which they simply can't explain away as all previous global warming events since the Earth was created has been driven from volcanic CO2 emissions which form a different isotope.

That mate is what is happening whether you want to believe it or not...

...and not believing it makes you to be in denial of the facts.

QED.

You see this is the problem, let’s set targets which we already know are impossible to reach. It doesn’t matter though, as long as we just have targets it won’t matter if we don’t achieve them. How utterly stupid is that. If what you were saying was true smutty wouldn’t it be better to consider alternative ways to achieve a well considered and achievable target for renewables? It may take longer but it will be both cheaper, more sustainable and create less damage than the current proposals and please don’t give me the “5 minutes to midnight” shit which we all know is scare mongering.

ALEX JONES

Her Welsh accent hurts my ears!!!

Whitesince63 wrote:You see this is the problem, let’s set targets which we already know are impossible to reach. It doesn’t matter though, as long as we just have targets it won’t matter if we don’t achieve them. How utterly stupid is that. If what you were saying was true smutty wouldn’t it be better to consider alternative ways to achieve a well considered and achievable target for renewables? It may take longer but it will be both cheaper, more sustainable and create less damage than the current proposals and please don’t give me the “5 minutes to midnight” shit which we all know is scare mongering.

You quite clearly don't understand the concept of target setting (also known as goal setting).

Goal setting involves the development of an action plan designed in order to motivate and guide a person or group toward a goal.[1] Goals are more deliberate than desires and momentary intentions. Therefore, setting goals means that a person has committed thought, emotion, and behaviour towards attaining the goal. In doing so, the goal setter has established a desired future state which differs from their current state thus creating a mismatch which in turn spurs future actions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_setting#:~:text=Goal%20setting%20involves%20the%20development,behavior%20towards%20attaining%20the%20goal.

In simple terms it is stating WHERE we want to get to and making plans (and timescales) of how we aim to get there.

Nowhere does it say it is possible to do so, nor that the plans we make now are the the actual way we will get there - basically it is a desired 'mission' that 'we' set ourselves to achieve.

For example this is part of Presidents Kennedy's famous speech in 1962 about going to the Moon within that decade (and which as it turned out they did!).

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon#:~:text=%22We%20choose%20to%20go%20to,him%20safely%20back%20to%20Earth.

And it doesn't matter if I gave you the "5 minutes to midnight" 'shit' or not - the science will do what it does - and neither you, I or anyone else can stop it if we carry on the burning of fossil fuel as we have done.

Oh and thank you for calling me 'smutty' instead of Sluffy in your post above.

Whitesince63 wrote:The tell tale sign Sluffy is that when you can’t win an argument you have to resort to insults

Cajunboy wrote:ALEX JONES

Her Welsh accent hurts my ears!!!

It's not you the police are after is it...?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67935426

Sluffy wrote:

You quite clearly don't understand the concept of target setting (also known as goal setting).

Goal setting involves the development of an action plan designed in order to motivate and guide a person or group toward a goal.[1] Goals are more deliberate than desires and momentary intentions. Therefore, setting goals means that a person has committed thought, emotion, and behaviour towards attaining the goal. In doing so, the goal setter has established a desired future state which differs from their current state thus creating a mismatch which in turn spurs future actions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_setting#:~:text=Goal%20setting%20involves%20the%20development,behavior%20towards%20attaining%20the%20goal.

In simple terms it is stating WHERE we want to get to and making plans (and timescales) of how we aim to get there.

Nowhere does it say it is possible to do so, nor that the plans we make now are the the actual way we will get there - basically it is a desired 'mission' that 'we' set ourselves to achieve.

For example this is part of Presidents Kennedy's famous speech in 1962 about going to the Moon within that decade (and which as it turned out they did!).

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon#:~:text=%22We%20choose%20to%20go%20to,him%20safely%20back%20to%20Earth.

And it doesn't matter if I gave you the "5 minutes to midnight" 'shit' or not - the science will do what it does - and neither you, I or anyone else can stop it if we carry on the burning of fossil fuel as we have done.

Oh and thank you for calling me 'smutty' instead of Sluffy in your post above.

Ha, I think the “smutty” may have been yet another example of predictive text Sluffy which I absolutely loathe?

I think you should take into account that Traitor May actually committed our net zero attempts into law not just a goal. 

Either way, it’s surely ridiculous to set a goal you know full well you can’t physically achieve? It isn’t just the raw material required (copper) that makes it impossible but the fact that the population will not replace gas boilers with heat pumps, drivers will not replace ICE vehicles with EV’s in the numbers required and planners influenced by local people will decline the proliferation of both land based wind and solar farms. 

Even if everyone accepted your “Facts” Sluffy, it is not possible to achieve net zero by 2050. Surely even you can see that so why believe we should continue to press ahead with such a flawed plan rather than accept it isn’t viable, scrap it and rethink. 

Retain what works and invest the money saved in working with the likes of RR on developing their SMR’s in dormant power plants already plugged into the network and synthetic fuels that can be used in current or modified ICE engines? We get to the same end (net zero) but more simply with less disruption and much more cheaply but it takes a little longer and the money men behind the mad rush to wind and solar lose out. Aww, shame.

Whitesince63 wrote:Ha, I think the “smutty” may have been yet another example of predictive text Sluffy which I absolutely loathe?

I think you should take into account that Traitor May actually committed our net zero attempts into law not just a goal. 

Either way, it’s surely ridiculous to set a goal you know full well you can’t physically achieve? It isn’t just the raw material required (copper) that makes it impossible but the fact that the population will not replace gas boilers with heat pumps, drivers will not replace ICE vehicles with EV’s in the numbers required and planners influenced by local people will decline the proliferation of both land based wind and solar farms. 

Even if everyone accepted your “Facts” Sluffy, it is not possible to achieve net zero by 2050. Surely even you can see that so why believe we should continue to press ahead with such a flawed plan rather than accept it isn’t viable, scrap it and rethink. 

Retain what works and invest the money saved in working with the likes of RR on developing their SMR’s in dormant power plants already plugged into the network and synthetic fuels that can be used in current or modified ICE engines? We get to the same end (net zero) but more simply with less disruption and much more cheaply but it takes a little longer and the money men behind the mad rush to wind and solar lose out. Aww, shame.

Well to start off, they aren't 'my' facts, they are the facts - the science of what is happening and what will happen.

Kennedy, in his 'we choose to go to the moon' speech set a target which everyone though was impossible to achieve at that time - but it was achieved!

It was achieved because it was a goal that everyone wanted to achieve and worked towards - unfortunately the same can't be said of quitting the use of fossil fuels.

The saying 'if there's a will, there's a way' is often true - but unfortunately not everyone has vested interested in the move away from fossil fuel usage.

Maybe in time they will bow to the inevitable perhaps?

And the target is just that 'a target'.

If it is reached on time then brilliant, if it is reached 5 years, or 10 years or even 30 years later, then it is still better than not being met at all - the target that is being aimed for being that everyone is focused on the same goal and works towards achieving it, and even if it is not met within the ideal timescale, it is hugely better than not meeting it at all.

The thing though is that the later the target is met, the more toxic the planet will have become - and your children and theirs will have to live with the consequences.

Who are these money men behind "the mad rush" to wind and solar you talk about, as I suspect it's just part of the right wing rhetoric you seem so fond of?

For example we are all moving to electric cars, which of course need electric batteries to power them, so would these same "money men" want to get a piece of that action - surely you'd think they would if they existed?

But no, the proposed £4 billion company who was supposed to manufacture them collapsed into administration and the last I heard they had stopped paying the staff their wages...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64303149

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britishvolt

As for May and the legislation I'm sure they will find a way around it somehow, what can anybody do about it if the targets are missed?

Where's the crime, who are the plaintiffs and what loss would they have suffered?

End of the day global warming is happening and the effects can now be seen throughout the world.

It is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and it will only get worse the longer we keep using them.

The science says we need to be on top of it by 2050, so it's up to the people of the world to do so or our children and grand children and every generation thereafter will have to live with the consequences of our fuck up.

It's as simple as that.

Sluffy, I’ve never denied that CO2 levels have increased, nor have I ever denied that burning fossil fuels hasn’t increased the levels. I may not agree with your vision of a shrivelling world if we don’t suddenly convert to renewable energy but I do agree that we should investigate alternatives because at some point we know that oil and gas reserves will expire. If we can all enjoy cleaner air in the process then that’s fantastic. Like you I remember the winter smog we used to suffer just 50 years ago, now thankfully a thing our kids don’t have to suffer but for me there are much bigger worries that world leaders have not addressed and which I believe are much more threatening to our kids and grandkids than CO2 levels and that is population growth.

This to me is the single biggest failure of all our world’s governments. The world’s population has quadrupled, yes quadrupled, in just the last 100 years. How much has that affected the planet and CO2 levels. All of these people need to be fed, housed, heated or cooled. They buy cars we need more plastics more mined resources, including coal and gas. We need to build on previous farmland, we have countries hacking down forests, again to feed and house this ever growing explosion of people yet as far as I’m aware I’ve not heard one politician or government discuss a meaningful way to control it or link it to global warming. Until we get our priorities right this won’t change and you can bang on as much as you like about net zero because it’s not going to happen and certainly not within the ridiculous arbitrary timescales our governments are trying to force upon us. Sadly I believe we’ve already passed the point of no return Sluffy because unless governments are going to seriously address this issue whatever we do on fuel will matter not one jot.