Donate SIGN UP

Answers

21 to 40 of 95rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Avatar Image
There would be no hypocrisy as far as I am concerned, Jim,. Let other nations do as they wish (which is pretty much what those outside the EU – and even some within - do anyway and we’ll do likewise. I don’t know who first put forward the bathtub explanation. I was (and indeed still am) struggling to understand how small variations in the 4% of global...
17:04 Wed 23rd Sep 2015
Fracking will keep the lights on.
Question Author
sandy: "..what we do, apart from trying to set a good example, is of little consequence." - mankind has control of 4% of carbon at any one time, what anyone does is of little consequence.
ummmm: you are so niaive, those are deliberate misunderstandings to make a point.
Naive? How so? For thinking your constant use of rhyming slang is tedious and often confusing?
TTT - //ummmm: you are so niaive, those are deliberate misunderstandings to make a point.//

Let's not get into an off-thread spat shall we? We know how they end up!
Question Author
Use your loaf china! For believing that 2 regulars really didn't understand rhyming slang, near the start of this thread.
And posts like yours, Andy, just makes them worse!
To be quite honest I hadn't heard of septic tank until quite recently and don't understand the need to use it.
ummm - //And posts like yours, Andy, just makes them worse! //

Only if you perpetuate them - and perpetuate the reason for them - which you have done, and I am now doing, so it rather proves my point.
Al Gore has historically been a leader on trying to spread the message about the threat of Climate Change. Hardly unreasonable that he should want to continue speaking on it. And the UK's policy has appeared to be somewhat static of late. Gone are the days when Cameron's promise of "the greenest government ever" (or words to that effect) might have meant something.
jim360 - //Al Gore has historically been a leader on trying to spread the message about the threat of Climate Change. Hardly unreasonable that he should want to continue speaking on it. And the UK's policy has appeared to be somewhat static of late. Gone are the days when Cameron's promise of "the greenest government ever" (or words to that effect) might have meant something. //

Indeed jim - Mr Gore is a multi-millionaire with a soapbox, and Mr Cameron is a politician with a party to look after - it's easy to see where their respective positions - advised in my previous post - come from.
I take it you're not so convinced by Climate Change induced by human activity, then, AH? Ah, well.
jim360 - //I take it you're not so convinced by Climate Change induced by human activity, then, AH? Ah, well. //

You take it absolutely correctly jim.
Like Gore, I can't understand why Britain is backtracking on its commitment to cut emissions.

But Gore is far from a sceptic on this subject, so I'm not sure of the point of your question TTT ?
septic [tank = Yank], not sceptic.
It's all a load of old pony.
Question Author
you see ummmm? mikey is joining in now!
Oh lor' - for the unitiated are you talking about septics or sceptics? I still don't understand.
It's clear why the Government is scaling it back. It simply is not economically viable and the renewables are simply not ready yet.

Huge eyesore wind farms onshore and offshore are a reminder to the public who to vote for, since the majority really dont want them.
Question Author
the point that most seem to have missed is that Gore has the brass neck to criticise us when he's a citizen of probably the most polluting country per capita in the world.
Personally I think the septics would do far better to keep their noses out of it.

Unless of course they are market leaders - which they are not.

The same goes for their comments on the EUSSR. They dont have to live under Rainbow rule like we have to.

Ok, that's enough. I'm off for a Barclays.

21 to 40 of 95rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

An Inconvenient Rant?

Answer Question >>