General Discussion
I have a sense of humour, I just don't see why it has to be a hoax. Understanding of natural phenomena changes all the time. People may be poorer because of austerity, but it doesn't mean they can't get even poorer. Government schemes tend to have that side-effect. It does say discuss and debate on the home page. Happy to end the chat here too. Hopefully I've provided a less gloomy ...
Moon landings? You seem to be grasping at straws. I've only stated obvious facts. Nothing I’ve said is a belief. Anyone genuinely concerned about the climate would be relieved that the climate catastrophes predicted every decade since the 70s were all wrong. It's only bad news for those hoping to use the climate hysteria to further their ideological causes. People are going to be even poorer ...
Well it's not a belief, it's a scientific fact that the climate was changing long before humans ever existed on the planet. What is a belief is that humans are now responsible for weather events and the government is able to fix this if we all pay more taxes. I never said all academics were on the left. I mentioned celebrities since they often tend to display that same arrogance as leftist ...
I don't believe I'm in the minority. I don’t know anything about the global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change except that scientific communities are made up of fallible people with political biases. Most people in academia are on the left of politics because, like celebrities, they don't understand economics. Some scientists even lie believe it or not. ...
You said, "There's a consensus on anthropogenic climate change being fact" . No, I don't trust consensus. You mentioned “global conspiracy” even though I only correctly said that the climate, etc. has been changing since the dawn of time. I never said anything about a hoax . You’ve mentioned it several times now. I don’t think anyone else has. I’m interested in why you think it may be ...
Facts are not determined by consensus. Ideology and politics are. Saying the climate has been changing since the dawn of time is not a conspiracy. You can’t deal with corruption in politics because it is human nature. You can only mitigate its impact. The bigger the government the more the corruption. The individual is actually best suited to decide how their income should be spent.
Because those are the ones with the rooftop space. Subsidies always end up benefiting wealthiest. Take the yearly £30bn housing benefit bill as an example. That's basically a landlord subsidy costing each taxpayer around £800 every year. The climate, weather, polar ice caps, forests and deserts have been changing since the dawn of time, long before man even existed. Trying to blame it now on ...
So those that own detached houses and bungalows with large rooftops would get the subsidy. If it means the poor having to pay for it, then I'm sure it's a sacrifice those wealthy homeowners are willing to make to save the planet. This is what has been happening for decades anyway. The wealthiest get the subsidies. Landlords get taxpayers money to insulate their rental properties and replace ...
Who is doing the subsidising if everyone is meant to have it? You can't subsidise yourself. If the technology represented value for money then everyone would adopt it. It doesn't so they continue getting their energy cheaper from the energy companies. And millions of workers own those shares in their pension funds.
The big energy companies aren't stopping anyone from putting solar panels on rooftops or carparks as far as I am aware.
