scally
-
Posts
472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by scally
-
-
6 hours ago, buctootim said:
Duh. London used to be the biggest financial centre in the world before Brexit, now its only No1 in Europe. Before Brexit only one EU financial centre was even in the top 20 - Frankfurt at No18 because London was the undisputed EU hub. Now London has fallen to second globally as it has haemorrhaged business to EU cities. Paris, Amsterdam, Munich, Luxembourg and Frankfurt are all now top 20 in only 7 years. Way to go Brexit. And it's a process which is only going to get worse. Big institutions generally do not try to force their top performing senior managers to relocate - but when they retire or leave the vacant post is moved to the new city.
Not quite as bad as you'd like to make out
-
8 hours ago, buctootim said:
Yeah. Imagine if something real had happened instead of scaremongering - like financial services vancancies being down 60% compared to Q1 2017
.
Ye imagine
-
-
-
-
6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:
How many Governments around the World were taken in by Pfizer and others making their fake virus to cure a hoax pandemic ?
Or have I misunderstood your previous forays onto this thread ?
So no conspiracy in that video, not sure I've said anything about a fake vaccine either
-
25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:
You cannot have Global Conspiracy Hoax bollocks without Scally.
Can you explain where the Global Conspiracy is in that video?
-
-
-
1 hour ago, SaintsLoyal said:
I think the bottom line for Le Tissier is that he has no idea on the sort of things he said and promoted on twitter during 2020/2021
It was simply horrendous during a public health crisis.
Bill Gates, the Great reset, the WEF make him a full blown conspiracy theorist.
-
-
13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:
Then again, he was so many times.....
It's not really about Trump though, it's about Hunter and Joe Biden
-
-
13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:
I have done 'research', and have formed my opinion accordingly without 'immeciately' dismissing anything. How anybody can trust Rudy Giuliani is beyond me, but you are entitled to believe whatever you want. Just remember to keep wearing your tinfoil hat.
You've done no research, the New York Times who denied it at the time are now admitting it's not Russian disinformation. You keep your head buried in the sand though
-
2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:
I refer you to my previous post. I wouldn't trust Sky Australia to tell me the sun is in the sky.
How about the New York Times 😅 Try doing some research, this story shows just how much the mainstream media and big tech lie. Because it doesn't suit your narrative you immediately dismiss it
-
On 20/03/2022 at 21:24, badgerx16 said:
Oh, that fairy tale.
Some fairy tale
-
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:
Which has what to do with Trump ?
Quite a lot
-
4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:
Don't get too cocky. I had a bad crash on my bike last week and suffered unconciousness and memory loss, which might explain my above comment.
Sorry to hear that but I'm glad you're coming around to my way of thinking 😁
-
17 hours ago, badgerx16 said:
I originally saw the story on the BBC, but checked it online and saw that the Guardian and other sources including the NYT, and even Rolling Stone were running with it, so assumed it had been verified. When Red Army posted his response I saw that the whole thing seemed to have feet of clay. I expect to be fallible myself on occasion when passing on "news" stories, I don't expect a whole raft of 'serious' outlets to be so easily taken in en masse.
I'm worried that Scally may be right.😟😷
😆😆
-
3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:
That's because there doesn't need to be that debate anymore. The climate is warming, and human activity is overwhelmingly responsible. You need to accept that and move on.
I've answered that question for you before Scally, and presented you with various links to explain it, but you have obviously just completely ignored that.
Sydney-Saint - I have very much enjoyed reading your posts on this, but do yourself a big favour and give up. This guy is not worth wasting any more of your time on. No matter how much credible evidence you provide he will just never take it on board accept that his 'sources' could be wrong.
You lost the argument as soon as you said there doesn't need to be debate anymore. Some thing as complex as the climate is never going to be a settled debate.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:
There absolutely are debate in climate change. Loads in fact. Come to a climate conference- it is full of the shit. What are our best emissions reduction pathways? Should offsets be used? What role do we allow market factors and what role do we use legislation? Are companies or their suppliers responsible for their emissions? How do we decouple economic growth from emissions? I can keep going with the various debates that are happening
What we don't have anymore is the debate you want. Which is, is it happening? And the reason is - because there is tonnes of evidence it is- and no evidence to disprove it. I asked you twice now and you keep ignoring it. But if there was evidence that it wasn't happening, or not happening to the extent that you think- why aren't the oil and gas industry all over it?
What you are wanting is like two gasmen coming to fix my boiler. I could go up to them and try and start a debate that it isn't broken. They tell me it is. They then try to talk to each other about the best way of fixing my boiler. I keep peppering them away telling them it isn't broken, they assure me it is, and demonstrate it isn't working. I ignore them and keep asking question about whether it is working so eventually they turn around and ignore me cos I ain't listening to them and it is wasting their time and the boiler needs fixing.
I can argue all I like it isn't broken. Fact is- it is.
There is no debate, people who all have the same view at a climate conference is not debate. So what is the ideal average temperature of the earth and why did the earth cool between 1940 and 1975?
-
3 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:
Lol this is the equivalent of you going up to Ralph and saying this is a football, those are goalposts. Yes I know how they are produced. Without wanting to rude, I daresay working in the industry for over a decade possibly gives me more insight into renewables than watching a 90 minute show by Michael Moore. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So are you a climate scientist or an engineer? Michael Moore has been an envoromentalist all his life, why would he make a documentary like that unless he'd done his research and believed it 100%. How much land would we need to use to produce enough energy to fuel a country the size of America?
-
2 hours ago, sydney_saint said:
If your claims are correct. And that climate change can be proven to overstated. Why isn't the multi trillion dollar Oil and Gas industry running with it? Why aren't they walking up to the next COP with their dicks out saying we have demonstrated proof that your claims are absolutely incorrect?
Pretty much everybody who I've ever debated with about climate change has said anybody who doesn't agree with the world coming to an end anytime soon is paid for by the oil companies. There is no debate on climate change, if there was then we'd get to see both sides of the argument
-
54 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:
Hmm I disagree about the fronts for government. I work with a number of very large companies such as H&M on climate change strategies and they are doing their own thing really. If anything trying to lobby governments for more support rather than the other way around. Truth is, so many companies are simply too big and transnational to be bound to any singular government.
The short term approach though is sadly true and you are bang on. It is classic tragedy of the commons. Why should I do something if no other country is? And then we all get fucked because of that approach.
Reality is whether we do something now, or just focus on adaptation, it is gonna come at a price. We are already seeing cotton prices rise for example. Part of that is driven by demand, and part of it is changing weather in countries such as India and Pakistan which is impacting output. This is only getting worse. So we can't escape costs.
But there are also benefits to use green tech that just don't get talked about enough. For example it was long suggested that solar and wind were super expensive and we shouldn't touch them. Well the levelised cost of energy (which is generally one of the fairest way of determining cheapest energy per kwh), shows that wind and solar have massively reduced in price. This is from a UK report last year for new energy added
With further learning and scale, renewables are gonna keep dropping in price. So that is undoubtedly better for us. Where the UK has messed up in my opinion is that it should/could still take a leadership position. It should have been a leader in innovation and production in wind energy and sell it around the world. Sure, it costs more in short term, but it is an investment that would pay off.
If you look at something like circularity, that is another one that requires a fair amount of up front investment. But would pay off long run. Products use raw materials that go to many countries before it gets to us. It would make more sense to develop the systems to recycle and reuse materials with only small amount of raw material to top up, especially as raw resources are likely to go up in price.
So I personally don't see green tech as something that cripples us, but can be something that can make things cheaper and better.
Watch Planet of the Humans or read Apocalypse Never, wind and solar are not that green. Where are we going to put all these wind and solar farms? Also how much subsidies do they get?
Brexit - Post Match Reaction
in The Lounge
Posted
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/1779434/UK-economy-growth-prediction-OECD