General Discussion
@Steve I was just pointing out you're in the minority. It's up to you what you trust or not. But if you come on discussion forums questioning climate science I assume you're looking to discuss it. So you don't trust the global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change. Do you trust the scientific and medical fields on their cancer research? I mentioned global conspiracy in ...
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." I never said they were. If you don't trust climate science do you trust any science at all? "Saying the climate has been changing since the dawn of time is not a conspiracy." I never said anything to this effect, you're misinterpreting. "You can’t deal with corruption in politics because it is human nature. You can ...
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.
@Steve There's a consensus on anthropogenic climate change being fact. The rate of change is unprecedented - 200 years worth of industrialization and burning fossil fuels is having an impact. Your voice is in the minority as is those of a few others on here who believe in some global conspiracy. And why should anyone take you seriously? what's your background? What do you do for a living? Are we ...
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 ...
Teignmouth Lloyds Bank closed. Including the ATMs which had more functionality that regular ATMs. A bit of a shame. Are we really expected not to use cash at all? A few months ago the card payments at major supermarkets went down, could only use cash. Doesn't make sense.
@Steve Why would owners of detached houses and bungalows with large rooftops get a subsidy? That's not what I'm suggesting at all, in fact it'sd better if not approcahed from the perspective of individual private homeowners, but rather from a community perspective and their collective needs. And I agree with you about subsidies going to those who can afford it, landlords, etc, many of whom are ...
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 ...
@Steve I see what you mean on subsidizing. But ss everyone meant to have what? Solar panels? Not everyone has a suitable rooftop aspect, so looking at it from the individual homeowner perspective means roll-out would be limited, plus not everyone would be able to invest heavily up front even if the tech resulted in lowered bills in the long-term. Anyway I'm approaching this from a climate change ...