You should read this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...bout-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=770e699b12d6 Picking random bad weather events and then blaming it on humans is completely ridiculous. There have been extreme bad weather events as long as there has been an earth. There was a heat wave including forest fires in the UK in 1970s. There were plenty before that too. The thing with this climate hysteria is that we have only been accurately recording the weather for such a short timeline. Also here is a letter signed by 500 scientists and climatologists urging governments & the UN to review their harmful green policies and saying there is no climate emergency that warrants such reckless policies: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-press-briefing.pdf Are these scientists down a rabbit hole and mentally unwell too?
But they're not all scientists. You should read these "Investigations show that practically none of the signatories to the "World Climate Declaration" are climate scientists." "The two main Dutch actors behind the declaration are Guus Berkhout, a retired geophysicist who has worked for oil giant Shell, and journalist Marcel Crok. Both have been accused of receiving money from fossil fuel companies to finance their climate-sceptic work. They deny the allegations, When looking closer at the list of signatories, there are precisely 1,107, including six people who are dead. Less than 1% of the names listed describe themselves as climatologists or climate scientists. Eight of the signatories are former or current employees of the oil giant Shell, while many other names have links to mining companies. One of the signatories is Ivar Giaever, a joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for work on superconductors. However, he has never published any work on climate science." "According to an independent 2019 count of the declaration's signatories, 21% were engineers, many linked to the fossil fuel industry. Others were lobbyists, and some even worked as fishermen or airline pilots. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...ts-sign-declaration-denying-climate-emergency How about this from breitbart of all sources. "CLAIM 500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’.... More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a 'European Climate Declaration' to the Secretary-General of the United Nations" VERDICT please log in to view this image DETAILS Misleading: The article gives the impression that these 500 signatories are scientists or experts in the field of climate science, but in reality very few have any research experience related to climate change. Most of the signers are engineers, business professionals, or study non-climate topics in other academic fields: signatories in unrelated fields such as philosophy, medicine, and law together outnumbered climate scientists approximately six to one. Many are associated with advocacy groups that oppose the conclusions of climate science, like the Heartland Institute. Conflates factual statement and opinion: The article presents the unsupported opinions of these signatories as accurate facts about the science of climate change, but they largely ignore or contradict the evidence available in the published research. https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...-by-500-experts-on-climate-science-breitbart/
Some critiques of Shellenberger's publishing's. "An Ecomodernist Manifesto was met with critiques similar to Gelobter's evaluation of "Death" and Sze and Ziser's analysis of Break Through. Environmental historian Jeremy Caradonna and environmental economist Richard B. Norgaard led a group of environmental scholars in a critique, arguing that Ecomodernism "violates everything we know about ecosystems, energy, population, and natural resources," and "Far from being an ecological statement of principles, the Manifesto merely rehashes the naïve belief that technology will save us and that human ingenuity can never fail." Further, "The Manifesto suffers from factual errors and misleading statements." "Environmental and Art historian T.J. Demos agreed with Caradonna, and wrote in 2017 that the Manifesto "is really nothing more than a bad utopian fantasy," that functions to support oil and gas industry and as "an apology for nuclear energy." Demos continued that "What is additionally striking about the Ecomodernist document, beyond its factual weaknesses and ecological falsehoods, is that there is no mention of social justice or democratic politics," and "no acknowledgement of the fact that big technologies like nuclear reinforce centralized power, the military-industrial complex, and the inequalities of corporate globalization." "A 2020 Forbes article by Shellenberger, in which he promoted Apocalypse Never, was analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feedback fact-checking project. The reviewers conclude that Shellenberger "mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change." Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy for The Breakthrough Institute, wrote that Shellenberger "includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive." The Forbes article was later deleted for violating Forbes' policy against self-promotion. In response, Shellenberger called the deletion censorship and The Daily Wire, Quillette, and Breitbart News re-published all or parts of the article."
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/art...ate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues No sign of the scientific consensus claim being correct. Its incredibly dangerous to raise children to think that they are parasites on the earth and the very energy they consume to stay alive is evil. No wonder there is so much depression and mental health disorders increasing. The nihilism that these dangerous narratives produce is unbelievable. Just watching the extinction rebellion morons is enough to show that.
Who the **** is raising children to think that they are parasites! Hysterical overreaction. Linking the right wing libertarian institute with a stance of climate denial doesn't help your argument quite the opposite. https://www.desmog.com/fraser-institute/ The Fraser Institute has ties a wide range of high-profile climate change sceptics and proponents of the oil and gas industries. For example, as reported in the Vancouver Observer: Beth Hong https://www.desmog.com/ross-mckitrick/ "Stance on Climate Change Ross McKitrick is an endorser of the Cornwall Alliance‘s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,” which states: “We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.”
This is what many people are pushing. (Such as extinction rebellion, Greta etc.). They all get a disproportionate amount of airtime compared to sensible scientists because fear-mongering sells papers and grabs media attention. Their cult is saying that we are destroying the earth, and that we are all going to die in the next decade if we don’t immediately cease using all fossil fuels. I even saw headlines in mainstream papers saying the earth is over populated and we need to eradicate a billion people or words to that effect. It’s sheer lunacy, it’s harmful and it is worth talking about.
No snow, entirely unrelated to the hysterical climate change activists. https://www.connexionfrance.com/art...e-Snow-disappearing-from-Alps-France-included
So again the question. Who the **** is raising children to think that they are parasites! Hysterical overreaction. I don't see the disproportionate amount of airtime and who are the sensible scientists? The ones funded by oil companies, the Koch brothers and tobacco industry Feel free to post a link to mainstream overpopulation headlines saying we need to eradicate a billion people, they aren't there as far I can see. A few sensible articles saying overconsumption is as an important an issue to tackle as overpopulation. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-overpopulation-is-driving-the-climate-crisis https://theconversation.com/8-billi...population-is-often-futile-and-harmful-194369
There was a documentary aired just the other day featuring Paul Ehrlich who has been saying the world is overpopulated for decades, and is still getting airtime. He says “to maintain our lifestyles we would need 5 more earths”. It’s just sheer sensationalising nonsense. In actual fact there is a fantastic book called “Superabundance” which looks into how economic and technical innovation is actually increasing abundance not scarcity. This whole overpopulation agenda is intrinsically linked with the climate change hysteria. It’s why we see those loonies throwing paint and oil everywhere. They’ve been told over and over again that they’re destroying the planet.
So yet again the question. Who the **** is raising children to think that they are parasites! Hysterical overreaction. Superabundance the myth funded by the Cato institute that we are on an infinitely bountiful planet. Superbollocks. When did you last see loonies throwing paint and oil anywhere?
Do you have your head buried in the sand? Extinction rebellion and other groups have been doing exactly that all year. Blocking roads, throwing paint at famous art etc There is this Malthusian ideology that has crept into modern culture.
Good for them, more power to there elbows, but not so prolific as you would have as with your other hysterical posts from assorted American right wing institutes and authors funded by oil industries and other vested interests spreading lies and misinformation. No time to continue. We need to check whether England is a safe destination, it's not a place to get sick in without proper insurance. Means of transport also to be considered we usually use the trains.
It's worth noting that Paul Ehrlich isn't exactly well-loved on the left, and you won't find too many Malthusians kicking about anywhere other than Os' skull. Here's a recent podcast with a very left-wing bent (that I happen to listen to) shredding The Population Bomb for being i) wildly wrong, ii) generally stupid, and iii) reeeeeeally eugenics-y. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-population-bomb/id1651876897?i=1000590263802 For anyone curious, the reason that Os is talking about Ehrlich and "Superabundance" is that Jordan Peterson talked about both on the latest episode of his odd TV show. I suspect that, if one were inclined to listen to Peterson (and god, it's painful), they would notice that many of the points Peterson makes tend to crop up shortly thereafter in Os' arguments.
A decent breakdown of the NHS situation. A longish read but I think it reveals what the underlying causes of the many problems. The NHS has undergone a record funding squeeze since the Tories came to power in 2010. While the overall NHS budget has crept up, it has not kept pace with patient demand and the annual increases which have maintained standards since its foundation. The NHS’s historical average annual funding increase in real terms from 1948 to 2009 was around 4%. Such healthcare spending rises are the norm among Western nations to keep pace with demand from growing and ageing populations, as well as to fund new technologies. The austerity government of ex-Prime Minister David Cameron saw it drop as low as 1% around the start of the decade. The current annual rate of health spending has crept up to 3.3% according to the Health Foundation, accounting for inflation. The NHS Confederation estimated if healthcare spending had continued at its pre-2010 historical rate, funding would be almost £50billion higher in real terms by 2024/25. UK healthcare spending has also fallen further behind comparable European countries. Health Foundation analysis shows average day-to-day health spending in the UK between 2010 and 2019 was £3,005 per person. This was 18% below the average for the 14 original EU countries, which stood at £3,655. In the first half of the decade, the funding squeeze was mitigated by short-term fixes – such as the expensive use of temping agencies for staffing and delayed building repairs. The period since 2015 has been marked by a historic collapse in performance standards across the health service, which experts say has now reached a tipping point. STAFF Employee costs account for around two-thirds of NHS providers’ spending. A decade of real terms wage cuts has contributed to the NHS being unable to train, recruit and retain enough staff. The total NHS workforce has crept up but nowhere near enough to meet demand, with one in 10 posts unfilled in much of the country. The NHS has 133,000 vacancies in England alone, including 47,000 nurses and 11,000 doctor posts. The Government has only recently agreed to commission independent forecasts of NHS staffing need after refusing many attempts in Parliament to bring one about. HOSPITAL BEDS From the 70s, there have been moves to reduce hospital bed numbers as part of a drive to care for more people in the community. However, since 2010 these efforts to cut bed numbers have come with no equivalent increase in funding to care for people in the community. Hospital bed numbers fell by 8.3% between 2010/11 and 2019/20 in England as the average daily total of available beds fell by nearly 13,000 from 153,725 to 140,978. NHS bed capacity regularly exceeds safe levels and lack of beds is why the health service in Britain has been hit harder than other nations. Latest data showed average bed occupancy in England was 93%, compared with 86% this time last year. The number of beds per 1,000 people in OECD EU nations is five, while the UK has just 2.4. Germany has 7.8. SOCIAL CARE The thorny issue of social care reform has been neglected by consecutive governments and the consequences have infected the entire system. The decade-long NHS funding squeeze was accompanied by even bigger cuts to council budgets – which fund many citizens’ social care. Most major private social care providers are structured in a way that allows profits to be syphoned overseas. Many providers, large and small, are withdrawing from areas of the UK where it is no longer profitable to operate – leaving a huge unmet need. When an elderly or vulnerable patient comes into NHS care, they cannot be discharged until there is somewhere safe for them to go. If not reinstated, the patient must remain in NHS care until alternative arrangements can be made. In England, there are 13,000 to 15,000 patients stuck in hospitals each day despite being medically fit to leave. PATIENT DEMAND Developed nations are all working to cope with a huge increase in healthcare demand from their ageing populations. People are living longer and modern lifestyles are contributing to them having more complex care needs. The number of people living with long-term conditions will continue to increase. Covid-19 delivered a massive shock to population health that it will take decades to properly understand, with many of us harbouring mental and physical ailments due to or worsened by the pandemic. WHAT COULD BE DONE? Substantial increases to NHS and public health budgets could be implemented as part of a catch-up programme aimed at levels seen in European nations. Such a programme could be paid for out of general taxation or a specific health and social care tax. It would mean more money to run the NHS but could focus on building capacity, and boosting early diagnosis and treatment. Short-term fixes that create a number of false economies should be reduced or eradicated, such as spending billions of pounds on locums. Substantial funding would need to accompany the long-awaited NHS workforce plan to ensure it trains and directly employs the amount of staff needed to match demand. Measures to tackle issues such as obesity and unhealthy lifestyles could be prioritised ahead of cost-of-living and “nanny state” concerns. Finally, social care reform could be finalised and capacity increased – ideally involving cross-party consensus.
Big problems in education, with 50% of all teachers considering leaving the job within 5 years. SCHOOLS are facing their “greatest crisis” as one in three new teachers quit the profession within five years of qualifying. Amid warnings that teachers are over-worked and under-paid, government data shows almost a quarter who qualified in the last five years have already quit the classroom. The Government is being urged to start negotiating with teaching unions to prevent a strike, with the ballot closing on January 13. Department for Education figures show 26,443 teachers who qualified in the last five years have already left the job. More than 20,000 new recruits join the profession every year, but around one in eight leave within their first year. After three years almost one in four have quit. Christopher McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: “This is the greatest crisis in our broken education system. “Without high-quality teachers schools fall apart. They are the lifeblood of learning.” Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the National Education Union said: “It is a scandalous waste of talent, time and taxpayers’ money for successive Conservative governments to simply sit back as so many teachers leave the profession. “The reasons are obvious and have been staring Education Secretaries in the face for many years. It is high workload, persistently under-inflation pay, and the excessive accountability that clogs up teachers’ daily lives. “The NEU ballot for strike action for a fully funded, above inflation pay rise closes on January 13. “Government needs to start negotiating in good faith with the education unions to ensure children get the education they deserve, and teachers and support staff are fairly paid for the vital role they play. This would make an immediate difference to their livelihood. “We don’t want to have to take this action and we are calling on the Government to negotiate.” The latest figures for state schools in England show 116,532 new teachers started work in schools in the last five years, but only 90,089 are still there. It means more than 100 newly qualified teachers leave every week. An NEU survey earlier this year showed half of all teachers planned to quit within the next five years, half complaining about their workload. Mr McGovern said: “We need to direct more of the current budget to recruiting and retaining great teachers. The Department for Education does not seem to realise that it is staring into the abyss.” The Department for Education said: “We are investing an extra £2billion in our schools next year and the year after whilst also providing a real terms pay increase of 8.9% for new teachers and 5% for experienced teachers.”
My first house was around that price in the mid 70's. People may look at the prices and think how much easier it was back then but it still took two salaries to pay the mortgage. I was on about £50-£60 a week if I remember correctly.
I remember the celebrated case of Sir Gerald Nabarro, a Tory MP, who was seen to drive round a roundabout the wrong way in the Calmore estate in 1971. He claimed it wasn’t him driving, but his secretary. So presumably the Calmore estate was already at least partially built by then.
Granted, but at £60 per week the advertised house price is 3 and a bit times your annual wage. People are looking at, what, 8,9, 10 times their wage now? Plus a massive deposit.
