Been to a couple of hustngs lately.
Noticable how barking mad the Green party are on non-Green issues.
Some dopey woman promising the "end to austerity".
Only slightly madder than the labour woman in that respect.
They had formulated the logic that as we're the third richest (or was it
seventh?) economy in the world, we could afford it.
But how can we be rich with a £1.5T debt? Don't you subtract one from the
other (apart from in Lala Land)?

Seems to think money grows on trees.
The socialists in the crowd were lapping it up, clapping furiously thus
revealing how brain dead they all are.
(I expect they all have massive Wonga loans.)
Shows that telling people what they want to hear works (at least for the
brain dead)

Seems obvious that if Labour get in we'll be like Greece in a year or two.
But are they lying or just intend to carry on as they did last time (if
elected).
And would we be shipping shed loads of cash North of the border?

I think I should have stood as an independent, main policy, cancel all
Wonga and similar loans.
Could have a landslide victory.

harryagain wrote

Been to a couple of hustngs lately.
Noticable how barking mad the Green party are on non-Green issues.
Some dopey woman promising the "end to austerity".
Only slightly madder than the labour woman in that respect.

They had formulated the logic that as we're the third richest (or was it
seventh?) economy in the world, we could afford it.

But how can we be rich with a £1.5T debt? Don't you subtract one from the
other (apart from in Lala Land)?

The £1.5T debt is govt debt, not the debt of the entire country, stupid.

Seems to think money grows on trees.
The socialists in the crowd were lapping it up, clapping furiously thus
revealing how brain dead they all are.
(I expect they all have massive Wonga loans.)

Whereas you are a parasite on other electricity consumers.

Shows that telling people what they want to hear works (at least for the
brain dead)

Seems obvious that if Labour get in

Not a chance, you watch.

we'll be like Greece in a year or two.

How odd that that didn’t happen the last time they were.

But are they lying

All politicians lie, stupid.

or just intend to carry on as they did last time (if elected).

Seems a bit unlikely given that Milliband comes
from a different part of Labour than Blair and Brown.

And would we be shipping shed loads of cash North of the border?

Unlikely that there will be shed loads of cash to ship.

I think I should have stood as an independent, main policy, cancel all
Wonga and similar loans.

You wouldn’t even get the result Farage will get.

Could have a landslide victory.

Just another of your silly little parasite fantasys.

On 26/04/2015 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been to a couple of hustngs lately.
Noticable how barking mad the Green party are on non-Green issues.
Some dopey woman promising the "end to austerity".
Only slightly madder than the labour woman in that respect.
They had formulated the logic that as we're the third richest (or was it
seventh?) economy in the world, we could afford it.

According to a Green party leaflet for the local council elections this
will be achieved by nationalising the railways and all bus services and
subsidising the fares so that the poorest in society can afford them.
The same goes for the power and water utilities. There are a bit vague
on bank ownership except that the taxes on them will pay for their
policies.

Over a million jobs will be created for people to install loft
insulation and for installing solar panels. I assume that these are
short term jobs - if each of the million extra workers has just 23
installs they will run out of dwellings in the UK to work on.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

harryagain wrote:
They had formulated the logic that as we're the third richest (or was
it seventh?) economy in the world, we could afford it.
But how can we be rich with a £1.5T debt? Don't you subtract one from
the other (apart from in Lala Land)?

Not that really. It's the common trick of those who want more spending.
They use *total* GDP to argue we can afford more *per capita* spending.
Also used eg to argue that "the 7th richest country in the world can
surely afford free child care". Indeed, seems almost an obluigatory
argument from any Children's Commissioner. And those involved usually
know full well it's a con. But the public don't understand the
difference. And the BBC rarely if ever pick them up on it - which is
easy to do since by that measure China is the 2nd richest country in the
world and Inida the 9th.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Hi, well, its a bit like Tesco. They made a profit and a loss at the same
time. I have never really understood the kind of balance sheet that allows
this. One thing though, borrowing even for countries is cheap just now as
most of the world has low interest rates. The clever bit, which is normally
where Governments go wrong, is watching the signs and being in a position to
pay it off before they start to go too high.
I was watching tv, well listening to it, and noted that all these loan
companies have huge differences in interest when its overdue. One supposes
that an apr of over 6000 per cent as was on the one I heard is supposed to
frighten those away who cannot pay up at the slightly lower just rip off
aprs while within the terms of the loan.

People must be mega thick to actually take one out when the costs are
actually pretty obvious, especially if you default.
do they not teach basic home economics at school these days?
There were always costly loans about, as they will be lending to those who
have nothing to put up to cover the loan if they default, and of course the
organisation needs to turn a profit even if people default.

So why do people take these loans out? OK they need money, but its far
better to owe less to some people than to have aloan where the payments
increase exponentially.
Rocket science it is not.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
Been to a couple of hustngs lately.
Noticable how barking mad the Green party are on non-Green issues.
Some dopey woman promising the "end to austerity".
Only slightly madder than the labour woman in that respect.
They had formulated the logic that as we're the third richest (or was it
seventh?) economy in the world, we could afford it.
But how can we be rich with a £1.5T debt? Don't you subtract one from the
other (apart from in Lala Land)?

Seems to think money grows on trees.
The socialists in the crowd were lapping it up, clapping furiously thus
revealing how brain dead they all are.
(I expect they all have massive Wonga loans.)
Shows that telling people what they want to hear works (at least for the
brain dead)

Seems obvious that if Labour get in we'll be like Greece in a year or two.
But are they lying or just intend to carry on as they did last time (if
elected).
And would we be shipping shed loads of cash North of the border?

I think I should have stood as an independent, main policy, cancel all
Wonga and similar loans.
Could have a landslide victory.

On Sunday, 26 April 2015 13:06:22 UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:

I was watching tv, well listening to it, and noted that all these loan
companies have huge differences in interest when its overdue. One supposes
that an apr of over 6000 per cent as was on the one I heard is supposed to
frighten those away who cannot pay up at the slightly lower just rip off
aprs while within the terms of the loan.

No, its to take as much money off people as possible

People must be mega thick to actually take one out when the costs are
actually pretty obvious, especially if you default.
do they not teach basic home economics at school these days?

No!

So why do people take these loans out? OK they need money, but its far
better to owe less to some people than to have aloan where the payments
increase exponentially.
Rocket science it is not.

Simple stupidity. Anyone with a basic understanding of loans realises they'll make them poorer unless they can use the capital to generate greater profit than the interest.


NT

On 26/04/2015 10:59, Tim Streater wrote:

I already have loft insulation and I don't want solar panels as I don't
believe in sponging from other electricity users. So only 22 for my
chap, then.

I'm not really convinced it is 'sponging' from other users though.

By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for
energy companies to install generating capacity - that future cost will
obviously have to be paid for by electricity users in due course.

So, think of it as a down payment for a sustainable future electricity
supply.

On 03/05/2015 01:57, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 26/04/2015 10:59, Tim Streater wrote:

I already have loft insulation and I don't want solar panels as I don't
believe in sponging from other electricity users. So only 22 for my
chap, then.

I'm not really convinced it is 'sponging' from other users though.

By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for
energy companies to install generating capacity

The generating capacity will always be required. It is fallacy to
believe otherwise.

Utilisation of course will be lower but that doesn't mean its not required.

Bob Neumann wrote
Tim Streater wrote

I already have loft insulation and I don't want solar panels as I don't
believe in sponging from other electricity users. So only 22 for my chap,
then.

I'm not really convinced it is 'sponging' from other users though.

I am.

By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for energy
companies to install generating capacity

Only when peak demand actually happens
during the summer daytime and it doesnt.

- that future cost will obviously have to be paid for by electricity users
in due course.

Yes, but will have to be even without parasites like Harry.

So, think of it as a down payment for a sustainable future electricity
supply.

No thanks, because it isn't.

On 03/05/15 01:57, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 26/04/2015 10:59, Tim Streater wrote:

I already have loft insulation and I don't want solar panels as I don't
believe in sponging from other electricity users. So only 22 for my
chap, then.

I'm not really convinced it is 'sponging' from other users though.

By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for
energy companies to install generating capacity - that future cost will
obviously have to be paid for by electricity users in due course.

But you're not.

They still have to install peak capacity for winter evening when there
is no sun.

It's the same as wind generation - it solves very little and just
creates a new host of problems.

The only useful green energy is hydro.

So, think of it as a down payment for a sustainable future electricity
supply.

On Sun, 03 May 2015 01:57:45 +0100, Bob Neumann wrote:

By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for
energy companies to install generating capacity

Er no, the capacity *has* to be there and be able to supply all the
demand for the best part of 18 hours, in the winter, when it's cold,
when it's dark, which is when the biggest demands for power are.

So, think of it as a down payment for a sustainable future electricity
supply.

Solar PV sustainable? OK you run your house on Solar PV only. No
import.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 03/05/15 01:57, Bob Neumann wrote:
By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for
energy companies to install generating capacity - that future cost will
obviously have to be paid for by electricity users in due course.


Unfortunately, due to the lack of sun in the winter and at night, that
statement is completely false.

You need exactly as much conventional capacity to cover the times when
renewables let you down as you always did.

The main difference is that renewables steal its income, so the price
of conventional electricity has to rise to cover the fixed overheads and
capital paydown costs.

So the net effect of renewables is to massively increase electricity
price without actually replacing a single conventional power station.

It is also debatable whether the modus operandi those power stations are
forced to adopt actually results in any less fuel being burnt.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/15 02:29, Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/05/2015 01:57, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 26/04/2015 10:59, Tim Streater wrote:

I already have loft insulation and I don't want solar panels as I don't
believe in sponging from other electricity users. So only 22 for my
chap, then.

I'm not really convinced it is 'sponging' from other users though.

By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for
energy companies to install generating capacity

The generating capacity will always be required. It is fallacy to
believe otherwise.

Utilisation of course will be lower but that doesn't mean its not required.
Just that its more expensive...

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with
renewables.
However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions, so renewables have to
be part of the mix. Micro generation makes perfect sense.

On 03/05/15 21:14, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with
renewables.
However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

No, actually we don't know that. A lot of people with commercial and
ideological agendas SAY that, but we don't actually KNOW it.

so renewables have to be part of the mix.

No, they don't. Pound for pound, nuclear buys you far more elecrtricity
of far higher quality than 'renewables' do.

Micro generation makes perfect sense.

No, It doesn't make any sense.


So it seems that even starting from tyhe wrong conclusion, you then make
a second false statement, and use that to justify a third statement
which is not the logical conclusion of either of the previous two.

So 0 out of three for facts and logic.

I guess that makes you a 'Green'

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article , Bob Neumann
writes
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with
renewables.
However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions, so renewables have to
be part of the mix. Micro generation makes perfect sense.
It makes no sense at all in the UK Maybe it does in parts of Africa with
long reliable predictable hours of sunshine and such small domestic
demand that a battery can supply enough overnight power - bit like
running a caravan with one light a small TV and the fridge on gas.
--
bert

On 03/05/2015 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 21:14, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with
renewables.
However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

No, actually we don't know that. A lot of people with commercial and
ideological agendas SAY that, but we don't actually KNOW it.

Oh dear; did you work this all out for yourself, or you have fallen for
the lies of the people with commercial and ideological objections to the
science?

Let me guess...

On 03/05/15 22:31, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 03/05/2015 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 21:14, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with
renewables.
However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

No, actually we don't know that. A lot of people with commercial and
ideological agendas SAY that, but we don't actually KNOW it.

Oh dear; did you work this all out for yourself, or you have fallen for
the lies of the people with commercial and ideological objections to the
science?


I worked it out for myself, yes.

Let me guess...

Well that seems to be your forte.

I prefer to do the rational and mathematical analysis.

But I agree, its a lot more work, thinking for yourself, than 'recieved
wisdom'...


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Bob Neumann" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with
renewables.
However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

We dont actually. Increased CO2 levels may improve things.

so renewables have to be part of the mix.

No they dont, even if you do want to reduce CO2 emissions.

Nukes do that much better and dont have the variability problem.

Micro generation makes perfect sense.

No it does not. None of it makes any sense essentially because
it hardly ever happens at time of peak demand so you need the
baseload power generation for times of peak demand when the
micro generation isn't generating.

The only advantage with micro generation is that you dont have
to pay for the fuel when they are generating with most of them.
But the fuel cost with nukes used for the time when micro generation
is useful is tiny.

On 03/05/15 22:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

On 03/05/2015 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 21:14, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with
renewables. However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

No, actually we don't know that. A lot of people with commercial and
ideological agendas SAY that, but we don't actually KNOW it.

Oh dear; did you work this all out for yourself, or you have fallen
for the lies of the people with commercial and ideological objections
to the science?

Let me guess...

Guess? Ah, you must be a climate "scientist". The "science" is largely
guesswork, I'm afraid. The scientific method was certainly not applied.

Given the attempts to silence the naysayers, to deny air time to them,
to get them fired from their jobs, to deny them research grants, to
treat any naysayer as some kind of loony rather than engaging in any
sort of debate, I'd certainly say "not proven".

The significance of '18 years of no statistically significant warming'
has been brushed under the carpet by the warmists. Its true significance
is that it gives a 97% confidence that CO2 does NOT cause appreciable
global warming after all.

And any scientists who understands statistics and the basic shape of the
IPCC models knows that.

Does CO2 cause warming? Almost certainly.
Does CO2 account for the global warming in the late 20th century and the
absence of it in the 21st? Definitely not. There must be something else
in play.
Is the climate system sufficiently complex to cause its own warming and
cooling periods via long term pseudo random feedback induced
oscillations in the major components like ice, sea currents, and winds
and water cycles? Almost certainly.
Is that all that's going on? Possibly, but the jury is still well out on
all that stuff.

So far 40 years of climate science have only reached one firm
conclusion. CO2 is not having a major effect.

That's the REAL science.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 22:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

On 03/05/2015 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 21:14, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place
for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able
to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just
with
renewables. However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

No, actually we don't know that. A lot of people with commercial and
ideological agendas SAY that, but we don't actually KNOW it.

Oh dear; did you work this all out for yourself, or you have fallen
for the lies of the people with commercial and ideological objections
to the science?

Let me guess...

Guess? Ah, you must be a climate "scientist". The "science" is largely
guesswork, I'm afraid. The scientific method was certainly not applied.

Given the attempts to silence the naysayers, to deny air time to them,
to get them fired from their jobs, to deny them research grants, to
treat any naysayer as some kind of loony rather than engaging in any
sort of debate, I'd certainly say "not proven".

The significance of '18 years of no statistically significant warming'
has been brushed under the carpet by the warmists. Its true significance
is that it gives a 97% confidence that CO2 does NOT cause appreciable
global warming after all.

And any scientists who understands statistics and the basic shape of the
IPCC models knows that.

Does CO2 cause warming? Almost certainly.
Does CO2 account for the global warming in the late 20th century and the
absence of it in the 21st? Definitely not. There must be something else
in play.
Is the climate system sufficiently complex to cause its own warming and
cooling periods via long term pseudo random feedback induced
oscillations in the major components like ice, sea currents, and winds
and water cycles? Almost certainly.
Is that all that's going on? Possibly, but the jury is still well out on
all that stuff.

So far 40 years of climate science have only reached one firm
conclusion. CO2 is not having a major effect.

That's the REAL science.




Heretic?

On 03/05/2015 23:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 22:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

On 03/05/2015 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 21:14, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place
for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able
to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just
with
renewables. However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

No, actually we don't know that. A lot of people with commercial and
ideological agendas SAY that, but we don't actually KNOW it.

Oh dear; did you work this all out for yourself, or you have fallen
for the lies of the people with commercial and ideological objections
to the science?

Let me guess...

Guess? Ah, you must be a climate "scientist". The "science" is largely
guesswork, I'm afraid. The scientific method was certainly not applied.

Given the attempts to silence the naysayers, to deny air time to them,
to get them fired from their jobs, to deny them research grants, to
treat any naysayer as some kind of loony rather than engaging in any
sort of debate, I'd certainly say "not proven".

The significance of '18 years of no statistically significant warming'
has been brushed under the carpet by the warmists. Its true significance
is that it gives a 97% confidence that CO2 does NOT cause appreciable
global warming after all.


Let's start with a simple question:
How do you get that 97% confidence figure?

In article , Simon Brown
writes


"Bob Neumann" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 13:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Neumann
wrote:

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for
forward thinking.

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding
any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar
PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just
with renewables.
However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions,

We dont actually. Increased CO2 levels may improve things.

so renewables have to be part of the mix.

No they dont, even if you do want to reduce CO2 emissions.

Nukes do that much better and dont have the variability problem.

Micro generation makes perfect sense.

No it does not. None of it makes any sense essentially because
it hardly ever happens at time of peak demand so you need the
baseload power generation for times of peak demand when the
micro generation isn't generating.

Don't forget you need generating capacity on hot standby all the time
burning fuel and producing CO2. So you may as well have CO2 free nukes
and run them all the time.
The only advantage with micro generation is that you dont have
to pay for the fuel when they are generating with most of them.
But the fuel cost with nukes used for the time when micro generation
is useful is tiny.


--
bert