Posts by codejunky

Re: Ha

@LionelB

"It seems that at this stage the only reasonable response to anthropogenic climate change denialism is "point and laugh" (or perhaps more appropriately "point and weep")."

Excellent. It is a better reaction against those who dont believe in your religion. We are all atheist, I just believe one less religion than you do.

"All the rest is cynicism, fatalism and defeatism masquerading as "realism"."

How is not wanting to starve in the cold and dark fatalism and defeatism? Reality is hard so believing a fantasy where you must atone for your sins by punishing yourself is sad. What is worse is inflicting it on the rest of us.

Re: Ha

@LionelB

"The problem is that your fossil fuel "reliables" are reliably causing effectively irreversible climate change, with reliably dire consequences."

"The sky is falling" yes I have heard it all and every time the weather changes its doom and when it doesnt its doom and so on. Models that are no use to the insurance industry as they cannot predict anything and have no value. The unreliables have pushed us back to coal (and Germany).

"I am in favour, as things stand, of a mix of sustainables and nuclear, and the fastest route to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels"

Ok thats fine. Sustainable is good, but needs to be fit for purpose. Nuclear is good but will take over a decade to bring online if we started right now. If the wet dreams of EV's, hydrogen power, heat pumps and moving people off gas are to be realised for net zero (they wont) then we need power now. Which means fossil fuels.

"Future technologies may, of course, may change the picture"

I expect they probably will, but to research the alternatives or even solutions relies on cheap, plentiful energy. That is why we outsource the manufacture of the green tech to China.

Re: Ha

@LionelB

"Because burning coal at scale has no drawbacks at all... oh, wait..."

So you are against the unreliables push then? Since thats the reason we had to keep the coal going? The drawbacks of not firing them up being a lack of energy. That has drawbacks too.

Re: Ha

@abend0c4

"Fossil fuels are scarce and expensive"

Are they? They are cheaper than renewables and not scarce. So in what way are they?

As for the rest of your comment about coal, you remember the lights being on? Its not due to 'coal' its due to energy generation. We have different ways of providing plentiful, reliable and much cheaper energy and have expressly chosen not to. And for our huge push for unreliables the truth was clearly demonstrated when the price of gas shot up... we rely on fossil fuels to keep the illusion of unreliables working.

"that alone should be a reason to abandon them as quickly as possible."

People can choose to do that at any time. They will starve in the dark and cold (or heat at the moment) but they can feel good about it

Re: Ha

@Lis

"Tax's?. I guess you are proof that more money needs to be spent on education."

I hear the education system actually improved a little since I left. I wasnt much of an academic as a dyslexic and nobody noticed until later in life while now the teachers seem to look out for it.

Re: Ha

@LionelB

"Maybe also something to do with increased demand for"

air-conditioning = Electricity

light winds = less energy being generated

a fault on the North Sea Link = Electricity

"maintenance at the Torness nuclear power plant = less energy being generated

"Seems our infrastructure is a bit creaky..."

No kidding. Surely the developed world solution of actually building reliable energy generation would make a big difference to all that. Such as our coal power plants which we rely on in summer and winter. One can dream

Re: Ha

@Peter2

On the energy front it seems the coal power is having to be fired up again because its too hot for solar panels to work.

Re: What I cannot understand ...

@alain williams

"is why he kept all of these files ? What advantage to him was there ?"

From my understanding there was some relation to him going after the crooks who tried to stitch him up in 2016. Since his opposition is so desperate to stitch him up on something, just anything they keep running into problems such as actually having to have a crime to prosecute him on. Yet for all the crying over the documents, suddenly it wasnt such an issue when they were found in Bidens garage!

Interestingly it seems these documents are ones the whitehouse dumped outside for Trump to take with him and the secret service who checked out his storage had no issues, they just requested an additional lock.

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid

"The local authority were responsible for enforcement of the regulations but effectively transferred that responsibility to the contractors, who failed to do so."

You could have stopped at "The local authority were responsible for enforcement of the regulations". https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-state-failures-that-led-to-the-grenfell-tower-fire/

But do go on and tell me its the free markets fault for the states actions (council and government levels)

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@AC

"Yes, a sad example of "The Market" cutting corners and killing people."

Really? Council run and the council was responsible for the cladding being chosen.

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@AC

"Maybe one should try asbestos to help when constantly being shot down in flames, hmm?"

As long as they dont use the approved cladding.

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@AC

"House building? Pesky rules on asbestos, hmm?"

Come back with the goalposts

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@AC

"But you say the market will decide such things Or people can make their own choice."

And informed of the risks people would make their own choices. But as this would bring about the situation of people not being informed and being exposed to a severe risk the regulation makes some sense. Yet it is regulation that stops the construction of enough homes in the UK. Increases energy costs and reduces the amount of energy we have. Costs jobs. Elsewhere in the world has caused food crises.

Government and regulation are necessary evils, but they are very destructive and need to be used with care.

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@AC

"Excellent point, Mr(s) 'junky. Bring back lead in petrol & paint while we're at it too!"

That would be moronic as we know better ways of doing it without the harm of lead.

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid

"I interpreted your comment as the free market solving the problem"

Yes, thats about right.

"Your examples for instance of driving, salt, computing and smoking. All things that people want to do, but where government action has to control negative side effects."

Within what limits? Workable rules to reduce 3rd party harm makes sense but if someone wants to consume salt or smoke why should they be stopped? As I said some would have regulated the car out of existence.

This is a new technology and we dont know what uses it may have. It could burn out as useless. But only by people working on it and trying things out will we find out.

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid

"That doesn't mean it's a wholly good thing free of negative side effects just because people are willing to pay for it. The tobacco industry is probably the biggest legal example I can think of."

Who said free of any negative side effects? You eat salt? Drive? Have a computer? And what is wrong with smoking? You do realise that people voluntarily take up smoking?

Re: the UK has set out on a different path with its outcome-based approach.

@Howard Sway

"And I'm sure that all the companies ploughing billions into developing this software are going to spend lots of time and money making completely different systems specifically for the UK market, on it's different path with its different approach....."

Why? Instead they develop it outside the EU with their different approach. It is the EU walling itself off.

"Or maybe, you know, if you want to play at the global level, you have to meet the strongest standards"

No you dont. We dont apply the Chinese standards here. India's standards. Russia's. North Korea's. If the EU wants to wall itself off it can do, their choice.

Re: Typical UK conservative approach

@Andy The Hat

"Sod regulation and possible issues with AI if a few, very rich people can make more money out of it (or sausages)."

Aka not a bad thing. Those rich people only make money if they offer something the rest are willing to pay for. Some would have regulated the car out of existence. And you would be walking through horse muck when you crossed the road

Re: Erm

@Casca

"Oh we know what camp you are in..."

You are so close to the point. I am guessing you just generally dislike my opinions in general.

So what organisation should decide what is the truth? What happens when (not if) someone with some of my opinions takes charge of the organisation? What if your opinions are flagged as misinformation because it is not the chosen narrative?

And this applies whatever your opinions, No matter what you believe. No matter the truth of your beliefs.

Re: Erm

It seems there is a lot of disagreement with my question. So for whichever polarized position you hold, pro/anti-Trump, MMCC co2 theory, Bidens sanity or his sons laptop, Ukraine, Covid, left vs right etc. Whatever your deeply held position how do you ensure that the arbiter of truth is impartial and not under the influence of the person on the opposite side of your belief?

Imagine the government having such control. As they do(or did) in China, North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany. For the Trump haters, he became president. Musk has taken over twitter and obliterated the FBI back channel for blocking and mislabelling. Or an MMCC co2 theory sceptic labelling every bad weather event accusation on MMCC as a lie. Remember it was intelligence experts who all signed a statement that the laptop story was a lie.

Re: Erm

@H in The Hague

"Curious to know (despite normally avoiding to feed trolls). These of course are just my opinions/questions, not facts. Other opinions are available?"

Actually desht is really quite spot on when he calls it- "facetious, condescending, and a sign that the poster is a fucking twat.". Look at my original post and look at Casca's reply. Simply returning the level of his comment.

"Or are you unfamiliar with normal, polite British political discussions?"

And of course this made me laugh. What polite British political discussion. Read their comment. Not polite, not political, not discussion.

Re: Erm

@Casca

"Sure, you are one who peddles disinformation here constantly..."

Guessing I have upset you at some point. Diddums

Re: With two-faced "friends" like Dyson, Britain doesn't need enemies

@anonymous boring coward

"Anyhow.. I didn't believe the £350m for a second"

Great. Just as I didnt believe the remain lie that NHS funding would drop due to brexit.

"I'm merely observing that many did believe it. And it was a lie, no matter how you trie to cover it up with semantics."

I am guessing you missed the bone I threw to you. But both campaigns lied and lied hard. The remain campaign had the weight of government behind it and actually used it to threaten the population. Neither official campaign was good.

Re: With two-faced "friends" like Dyson, Britain doesn't need enemies

@anonymous boring coward

"Yeah.. Guess Leavers aren't very good with language. Guess defrauding them is ok then?"

Not fraud just because you aint very good with language and mistake could for must.

"I'm sure a court of law would be able to explain this and put the fraudsters in the slammer if this was a regular financial fraud."

Gonna throw you a bone because you seem to be struggling. It seems the idiot Boris actually did say it would go to the NHS. The good news is the NHS is getting that money and more so your crying is for nothing.

Re: It's not THAT hard!

@AC

"Nurses. And bricklayers."

Whatever you are reading into my comment is not what my comment says. It says the jobs dont need a degree. I never said anything about banning them and if someone wants to take some academic course in it, whatever. But it is not necessary. The job requires training.

Re: It's not THAT hard!

@AC

"Who should be allowed to study for a degree then? In your view. Hmm?"

What garbage are you typing? Who did I say ban from studying a degree? Are you too young to remember before everyone needed a degree for all these careers?

Re: It's not THAT hard!

@AC

"One doesn't need a degree for IT either, is that one's case too, Hmm?"

Yes. It really doesnt need a degree.

Re: It's not THAT hard!

@Roland6

"That will because they believe nursing is an unskilled job and thus lower pay…"

Why does a lack of degree mean unskilled? This is the insane grade inflation. If we need nurses we need people to be trained to be nurses. If we need brickies we need people to be trained as brickies. This does not require a degree it requires training. As with a lot of non-academic jobs they need training.

As for pay, what is with the pay scales? Get a job, earn some pay and if you 'believe' you are worth more go get another job that pays you more. Forget this public sector secure job, pay scales based on seniority and pension benefits but earn the money just like the rest of us do. I know this will get downvotes because criticism against the religion isnt allowed even if some people started to realise problems over covid.

Re: "years of arguable underfunding2

@airbrush

"the NHS was pretty good a decade ago but we've not really had a government since then and either they don't care or are incapable but still the problems pile up!"

A decade ago the NHS was riding high on labour spending like drunken sailors beyond what we can sustain. The tories have continued to spend even more than Brown even in the years they claimed 'austerity'. The problems always pile up. Throwing money at the issue doesnt resolve the problems, targeted spending can do. But this is where people trying to bribe votes out of people might not be best placed for deciding the care of people.

Re: "years of arguable underfunding2

@Spanners

"It is not in the smallest bit arguable."

Of course it is arguable. The NHS is not underfunded, it gets about OECD average with below average results.