mistermack

I wouldn't worry too much about her well-being. There's a whiff of Nobel Prize in the air, and they are worth a lot of money these days. I'd vote for her. If Al Gore can get one, she deserves at least five.

I was replying to the post by Geordief that I quoted, about her being used by others. I made it clear I have no problem with her getting help and found her performance impressive. You really ought to read the posts you reply to.

I do get the impression that her speeches are written for her, and her delivery is rehearsed. Having said that, she's an astounding performer for her age, and I couldn't match her with all the help of the White House. And of course, whatever help she gets, she and her helpers have every right to make their case. On the other side of the coin, people are not doing more to cut carbon emissions because they are not CONVINCED by the rhetoric. Rhetoric and emotion, no matter how impressive, doesn't make the actual case more certain in the slightest. In the end, to change minds, it's evidence that doubters want. Not emotion. Greta is all emotion and rhetoric. I like the performance, but it adds nothing to my own view on the matter. That's just me. I'm sure others will be swayed by it all. It's easier than looking up evidence.

In countries with historically high infant mortality, it takes a few generations for social attitudes to catch up, when survival rates drastically improve. Education on family planning in those countries might make a real difference. The Pope is a real hypocrite, banging on about climate change, while staying totally inflexible on birth control. That's why I'd like to see Greta give him a tongue lashing.

It's not posted as a quote, it's clearly posted as my own opinion. (and I'm sure you're well aware of the difference) If you prevent a baby being born, you also prevent it's children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren etc which is actually a hell of a lot in countries with a high birth rate. In my opinion.

If all the extra money spent on renewables had been spent on free birth control in the poorest countries, it would have had a much greater effect on carbon release in the long term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate

One condom can prevent more CO2 emissions than any other low carbon choice an ordinary individual can make in their lifetime. i'd like to see Greta meet the Pope, and give him one of her tongue lashings.

Yes of course. The actual surplus oxygen that has built up over millions of years is the result of organics that turned into coal, or oil or gas etc, and was kept away from the microbes that would break them down using up the available oxygen in the cycle. If I remember rightly, there have been times when the oxygen levels were significantly higher, allowing giant insects like enormous dragonflies to exist. But there's just the one involved in producing it. In significant quantities anyway.

Of course 😊

You really have to twist everyday logic to the extreme to make that case. This thread is about the oxygen supply in the atmosphere. How much of that oxygen in the atmosphere do you calculate was generated WITHOUT the normal corresponding intake of CO2? Wikipedia must surely give a clue :

It's easy to understand. It's like shooting someone, and claiming you weren't involved, because all you did was pull the trigger, it was the bullet that killed him. The two actions are separate in time and space. I've never heard such rot. 😅

Those are not links.

It is, and my post doesn't claim otherwise. Indeed I made the point that nothing's going to change on immigration if we leave. They will just admit more people from other sources. The rest of your post is way off the mark. No links to your sources or for your quotes, and their article on housing is either not as portrayed, or a pack of rubbish. I suspect that they are saying that an influx of immigrants drives down house prices locally. That's hardly news. But if people are moving out of one area, then they are buying elsewhere, driving up prices there. That should be obvious to anyone. There is also a lucrative black market rental market in areas areas that have a high immigrant population, and that encourages buy-to-rent and prevents severe drops. There's no point in quoting that stuff, without a link to it. It's not worth commenting on.

There's a big difference in attitude to immigration between successive UK governments, and the UK people. The UK governments don't want to cut down immigration. The people do. Government after government have promised to cut it down, but they never have. Because they were lying, they never had any intention of restricting it at all. They lie to get elected, and then basically do nothing. Why do they want to keep the influx? It's for two reasons. Firstly, more immigrants shows up in the growth figures, which they use at election time to con the public that things are going great. Secondly, more immigrants keeps pressure on the housing market, and maintain the over-ripe housing bubble. Again, falling house prices hit them at election time. House owners usually vote. Renters, more often don't. So they rely on a certain feel-good factor when house prices rise, and hopefully get votes out of it at election time. Britain is different regarding immigration compared to other countries. We have a free health service for a start. People can come in with expensive ailments, and milk the system. We also have fairly universal benefits. Another cow ready for milking. That's why you have camps of migrants around the Channel ports, of people trying to get to Britain. You would think that getting to France would be enough, that they had made it to the fabled Europe. But no, they risk their lives getting OUT of France, to get to Britain. I'm perfectly sure that if we get out of Europe, the pressure at the ports will be relaxed, and the immigration figures will continue to climb. It's great for government figures, and great for rich people, if they keep coming. It's only the poor who suffer, and they don't exert much voter pressure.

The drop in immigration as a priority is hardly surprising. Around the time of the vote, the tv screens here in the UK were full of constant pictures of people crossing the Med in small boats, and Angela Merkel had announced months before that Germany would take a million more, and was issuing instructions to everyone else to do likewise. I'm absolutely sure that Angela Merkel, just on her own, swung the referendum vote over the 50% mark towards Leave. It wasn't quite enough to swing me to vote leave, but it did convince me not to vote remain, which was my original voting intention. Now the UK press have gone suspiciously quiet on immigration, even though the story hasn't really changed. (Lesbos saw 3,000 new arrivals in August) https://www.dw.com/en/history-will-prove-merkel-right-on-refugees-eus-juncker/a-48855736 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/02/greece-moves-1400-asylum-seekers-crowded-lesbos-camp-migrant/ I don't believe our press is as independent as they like to make out. Someone is pulling the strings.

People do take sides, you know. You can always get quotes, from people on your own side of the argument. It means nothing. Having said that, I don't recall any claiming immense harm. They are generally more realistic. Try asking a drowning man.

I was replying to the previous post, where Strange claimed that leaving will cause immense damage. You would know that, if you followed the thread that you were commenting on. So why not ask Strange about his crystal ball and the lottery numbers? Your post makes the ridiculous assumption that staying in will hurt nobody. Without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It's a childlike view of a black and white world. In my opinion, the choice is between two imperfect alternatives. As it nearly always is in the real world.

It's funny. Years ago I used to like the idea of a United States of Europe. Then, even on referendum day, I was exactly fifty fifty for stay or leave, so I didn't vote. It's what I've seen since that has convinced me that it's better to leave. A United States of Europe is going to be run by dictat from Brussels, and the individual countries will have no say in anything. The countries are being slowly strangled. They might think they are doing their own thing, but they are like a struggling fish, being given a little bit of line now and then, but gradually being reeled in. If we don't leave now, it will only get harder. It won't do immense damage. That's just hype. WW2, that did immense damage. But we're still here. A few percentage points off growth? It's a bargain to get out.

Yes, because it's not leaving. You're just giving up your EU rights, with what gain? Anyway, it's academic. There's no chance at all of that getting through Parliament. I don't think you would even get all Labour MPs to back it, let alone the Tories. And the Libs would argue, with great justification, that it would be better staying in. I can't see who would vote for it. I personally feel that there are only two worthwhile options. Leaving fully, or staying in. What's in the middle is worth less than either.

I'm not disputing whether there are two different reactions. I'm disputing your assertion that they are not involved with each other.

There are no links for any of that, so there is no context available. I must say in all the discussions I remember, leaving the single market was considered fundamental to leaving. Even in discussions in the last few weeks, the same thing has been said and agreed. Staying in the single market is not leaving, in all but name. I fail to see the point in leaving, on those terms. It's like leaving the army, but still having to take orders and fight.

I think it's you that should be reading up on what the word "involved" means. 😊

The "cartoons" come from wikipedia's main page on photosynthesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

They've always said that. If you remain in the single market, you HAVE to obey it's rules. Both sides agreed, in the referendum debate, that leaving meant leaving the single market. If you don't leave that, there's no point in leaving at all. Like it or not, it was the free movement of labour that the public voted against in their millions. That was number one on the list. There would have been public outrage, if we had "left" but still kept that.

I would encourage you to explain your claim, and not dodge the issue with recommended reading.