Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[dickymint]

kerplunk said:

I would dispute that AGW proponents here have used the phrase 'the science is settled' hundreds of times, but it has been projected onto us by sceptics hundreds of times!

The 97% consensus is just that increasing CO2 by humans is causing warming via an enhanced greenhouse effect so you can't use that to suggest what durbster said about the consequences is disingenuous. It would be true to say the survey results are used inappropriately by people all around though. You just did it, and for balance Obama's tweet “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” includes the words 'and dangerous' which isn't in the survey.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:46

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:51

Since when did Cooke's supposed consensus state that "97% of Scientists agree......."?

Edited by dickymint on Saturday 18th August 16:26

[LoonyTunes]

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?

Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

So, following your reasoning through to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s not anything to do with MMGW why is our Govt ‘targeting reducing CO2 emissions’?

Can’t wait to hear this

Another question instead of an answer , so predictable,
it's obvious you have no answers,
It's not me who believes in this rubbish, not the theory of the stupid attempts to mitigate it,
You support it, so it should be easy for you to explain to me the logical reasoning behind the actions.

Ok, I’ll answer only because I want to hear your answer which I suspect won’t come.

Our Govt are targeting reducing CO2 emissions in order to contribute to trying to reduce greenhouse gases. We have signed up to the Paris accord and various other agreements so are obliged to follow through with this.

Now, lets hear your reason...

I asked for a logical reason, that is not, as I pointed out it made no difference to global CO2 production , remember the global part in Man Made Global Warming, all the data was available,unless your telling me that they did something knowing that it made no difference,made UK electricity prices higher and nearly pushed us to blackouts when we had problems with gas supplies,only saved by coal ?
Try again and this time use some logic please.
Agreements are there to be broken it appears, many are pulling out.

So you'll not answer his question.

Pathetic.

[gadgetmac]

LoonyTunes said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?

Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

So, following your reasoning through to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s not anything to do with MMGW why is our Govt ‘targeting reducing CO2 emissions’?

Can’t wait to hear this

Another question instead of an answer , so predictable,
it's obvious you have no answers,
It's not me who believes in this rubbish, not the theory of the stupid attempts to mitigate it,
You support it, so it should be easy for you to explain to me the logical reasoning behind the actions.

Ok, I’ll answer only because I want to hear your answer which I suspect won’t come.

Our Govt are targeting reducing CO2 emissions in order to contribute to trying to reduce greenhouse gases. We have signed up to the Paris accord and various other agreements so are obliged to follow through with this.

Now, lets hear your reason...

I asked for a logical reason, that is not, as I pointed out it made no difference to global CO2 production , remember the global part in Man Made Global Warming, all the data was available,unless your telling me that they did something knowing that it made no difference,made UK electricity prices higher and nearly pushed us to blackouts when we had problems with gas supplies,only saved by coal ?
Try again and this time use some logic please.
Agreements are there to be broken it appears, many are pulling out.

So you'll not answer his question.

Pathetic.

You expected something different?

[LoonyTunes]

gadgetmac said:

LoonyTunes said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?

Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

So, following your reasoning through to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s not anything to do with MMGW why is our Govt ‘targeting reducing CO2 emissions’?

Can’t wait to hear this

Another question instead of an answer , so predictable,
it's obvious you have no answers,
It's not me who believes in this rubbish, not the theory of the stupid attempts to mitigate it,
You support it, so it should be easy for you to explain to me the logical reasoning behind the actions.

Ok, I’ll answer only because I want to hear your answer which I suspect won’t come.

Our Govt are targeting reducing CO2 emissions in order to contribute to trying to reduce greenhouse gases. We have signed up to the Paris accord and various other agreements so are obliged to follow through with this.

Now, lets hear your reason...

I asked for a logical reason, that is not, as I pointed out it made no difference to global CO2 production , remember the global part in Man Made Global Warming, all the data was available,unless your telling me that they did something knowing that it made no difference,made UK electricity prices higher and nearly pushed us to blackouts when we had problems with gas supplies,only saved by coal ?
Try again and this time use some logic please.
Agreements are there to be broken it appears, many are pulling out.

So you'll not answer his question.

Pathetic.

You expected something different?

At least wc98 attempted an answer. I'd ignore from now on.

[Diderot]

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

Remember it was a Labour govt. under Minigland , who foisted on us (or should that be fisted) with the Climate Change Act, an act which is a monumental waste of money, money that should instead be spent on the NHS and education.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

[kerplunk]

dickymint said:

kerplunk said:

I would dispute that AGW proponents here have used the phrase 'the science is settled' hundreds of times, but it has been projected onto us by sceptics hundreds of times!

The 97% consensus is just that increasing CO2 by humans is causing warming via an enhanced greenhouse effect so you can't use that to suggest what durbster said about the consequences is disingenuous. It would be true to say the survey results are used inappropriately by people all around though. You just did it, and for balance Obama's tweet “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” includes the words 'and dangerous' which isn't in the survey.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:46

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:51

Since when did Cooke's supposed consensus state that "97% of Scientists agree......."?

Edited by dickymint on Saturday 18th August 16:26

The Cook paper was 2013 but I think that's not what you want to know. If you're questioning the survey's reported results or methodology then that's a tangent I'm not interested in spending my time on.

[DocJock]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

[gadgetmac]

DocJock said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

[DocJock]

gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

OK, I'll be tedious and respond to your reply piecemeal.

The £44Bn figure in the link is a fact, not a projection. The projected debt is a treasury projection, yes, I could just as easily have used last years definitive number of £62Bn but I was lazy and used the first link on Google. Mea culpa.

"Regardless of projected net debt"? Really? You think net debt is of no consequence when commenting on how taxation should be raised to pay off the debt? Do you honestly believe that the Government will stand up and say 'we are scrapping green taxes and increasing Income Tax by 25%"?

I am "accusing" the Government of nothing other than giving the impression that 'green taxes' are being used to in some way effect a benefit to the environment, when in fact they are using them as a substitute for raising Income Tax. So, you are misrepresenting me.

I have no idea of the Government members' beliefs regarding AGW. So again, you are misrepresenting me.

As an aside, you are not the first to label me "a denier". What exactly am I supposed to be denying?

ps, enjoy your night off

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

You demonstrate an alarming lack of understanding of politics in general and climate politics in particular. And to compound this, you attempt to cloak these lacunae by using strawmen, non-sequiturs and the lazy language of the dim-witted.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

Enjoy, the problem as I see it is it's a path chosen by millipede, that by its nature would be hard to get out of, it would require extra tax revenue from somewhere else, not a popular move, as apposed to the present situation where the population is conditioned to green taxes,
Who knows they might actually believe it, good to save the world you know,
it still doesn't take away from the fact that their actions are pointless and actually make no difference. The link is from last year but still relevant to the discussion.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-pari...

[dickymint]

kerplunk said:

dickymint said:

kerplunk said:

I would dispute that AGW proponents here have used the phrase 'the science is settled' hundreds of times, but it has been projected onto us by sceptics hundreds of times!

The 97% consensus is just that increasing CO2 by humans is causing warming via an enhanced greenhouse effect so you can't use that to suggest what durbster said about the consequences is disingenuous. It would be true to say the survey results are used inappropriately by people all around though. You just did it, and for balance Obama's tweet “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” includes the words 'and dangerous' which isn't in the survey.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:46

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:51

Since when did Cooke's supposed consensus state that "97% of Scientists agree......."?

Edited by dickymint on Saturday 18th August 16:26

The Cook paper was 2013 but I think that's not what you want to know. If you're questioning the survey's reported results or methodology then that's a tangent I'm not interested in spending my time on.

Nope no tangential thinking here. It was just a straight forward question that we both know the answer to! The answer being never - the "97%" does not apply to Scientists but to 97% of the papers (and even then only the abstracts) used in the survey.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

You demonstrate an alarming lack of understanding of politics in general and climate politics in particular. And to compound this, you attempt to cloak these lacunae by using strawmen, non-sequiturs and the lazy language of the dim-witted.

And you’re an idiot who prefers to live in the world of illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy with no grasp of the real world at all.

Happy now?

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

You demonstrate an alarming lack of understanding of politics in general and climate politics in particular. And to compound this, you attempt to cloak these lacunae by using strawmen, non-sequiturs and the lazy language of the dim-witted.

And you’re an idiot who prefers to live in the world of illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy with no grasp of the real world at all.

Happy now?

‘Illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy [...]?’ You’re beginning to sound like Durbster and his yawn-inducing memes. I was hoping for a vaguely enlightening disquisition on geo-politics and green tax policy but instead we have familiar diversionary tactics and a mediocre attempt at an ad hom. You still haven’t attempted to answer the question.

[LongQ]

DocJock said:

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

Apart from that, in core political terms (and despite the ping pong nature of inter-party barbs and insults) there has been very little to differentiate policies - especially for anything to do with raising tax revenue - between the various parties that have been somewhat close to wielding aspects of power and influence for the past 2 or 3 decades.

The excuse is, of course, "creating jobs" and "exporting technology and knowledge" in "unique" new opportunities.

Whether any of that rhetoric may apply AND stand the commercial tests it will face we will have to wait to discover. However how much of that opportunity, such as it is, will remain in UK ownership should the result be as predicted is open to question. Luckily for the current batch of senior politicians there is a better than even chance that they will have retired by the time the results are in, limiting their exposure to criticism or ridicule should that be the outcome but leaving them free to claim kudos if the numbers can be presented in their favour.

But the main reason may be that it is simply a subject that can be a distraction from much more mundane national politics for which most of the people in "power" (at least for the European countries) seem to have no clue about how to operate after several decades of being managed by an EU bureaucracy to which they must refer for all decisions, simple or the more challenging ones.

Anything with a very long projection of time scale before possible success or failure of political policy can be assessed and which also offers the safety net of "everyone agreed to do what we did" must be far too attractive for the average politician to ignore in the sphere of Global Grand Gestures.

[LongQ]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

You demonstrate an alarming lack of understanding of politics in general and climate politics in particular. And to compound this, you attempt to cloak these lacunae by using strawmen, non-sequiturs and the lazy language of the dim-witted.

And you’re an idiot who prefers to live in the world of illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy with no grasp of the real world at all.

Happy now?

‘Illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy [...]?’ You’re beginning to sound like Durbster and his yawn-inducing memes. I was hoping for a vaguely enlightening disquisition on geo-politics and green tax policy but instead we have familiar diversionary tactics and a mediocre attempt at an ad hom. You still haven’t attempted to answer the question.

Must give credit for consistency in that respect.

A bit like a Big Mac (or so I'm told). Whatever it is it's consistent most of the time.

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Gadgetmac: a nice steady source of tax revenue and probable multifarious geo-political advantages.

But this is a Tory Govt. A party whose whole economic ethos is based on low(er) taxation.

Why would they burden business and their own hard-hit middle class supporter base with billions in taxes for something they didn’t actually believe in?

Your answer, whilst honest I’ve no doubt, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as it also implies that the Conservative government (ministers and backbenchers including the much loved denier Mr Rees Mogg) are involved in a conspiracy to tax for dubious and/or hidden reasons.

Not really credible is it.

I think you are being mischievous Gadgetmac.

You are surely smart enough to know that we have a projected net debt of £52Bn by March 2019.

Just how do you propose to reduce that figure if the Government scrapped all 'green taxes'? That's a £44Bn hole in their budget straight away* taking the deficit to £96Bn. .
Successive Govt's have used these taxes so that they can claim to have not increased Income Tax.

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...

But again, regardless of projected net debt (although the irony of a denier using a projection as part of their argument isn’t lost on me ) you are also accusing everyone from May to Boris to Rees Mogg of being complicit in raising taxes on their supporters for something they don’t really believe is true. Certainly in Rees Moggs case.

Really?

Right, I’m off to see Ant Man.

You demonstrate an alarming lack of understanding of politics in general and climate politics in particular. And to compound this, you attempt to cloak these lacunae by using strawmen, non-sequiturs and the lazy language of the dim-witted.

And you’re an idiot who prefers to live in the world of illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy with no grasp of the real world at all.

Happy now?

‘Illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy [...]?’ You’re beginning to sound like Durbster and his yawn-inducing memes. I was hoping for a vaguely enlightening disquisition on geo-politics and green tax policy but instead we have familiar diversionary tactics and a mediocre attempt at an ad hom. You still haven’t attempted to answer the question.

Must give credit for consistency in that respect.

A bit like a Big Mac (or so I'm told). Whatever it is it's consistent most of the time.

Unfortunately consistency is not something the deniers on this thread can ever claim. Their position shifts like the wind.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

‘Illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy [...]?’ You’re beginning to sound like Durbster and his yawn-inducing memes. I was hoping for a vaguely enlightening disquisition on geo-politics and green tax policy but instead we have familiar diversionary tactics and a mediocre attempt at an ad hom. You still haven’t attempted to answer the question.

This from the person who used the term "dim witted"? No irony there at all.

So the question is "How would the Govt plug the hole a reduction in environmental taxes would open"?

Why would they need to if they actually believe in what they are doing?

Here's Amber Rudd from your link: “We promised people clean, affordable and secure energy supplies and that’s what I’m going to deliver. We’ll focus support on renewables when they’re starting up - getting a good deal for billpayers is the top priority.”

Are you saying she doesn't actually believe in MMGW when she talks about clean energy and renewables but just goes along with it in order to keep the hole from opening?

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

‘Illusory perceptions, secret societies, scandals and conspiracy [...]?’ You’re beginning to sound like Durbster and his yawn-inducing memes. I was hoping for a vaguely enlightening disquisition on geo-politics and green tax policy but instead we have familiar diversionary tactics and a mediocre attempt at an ad hom. You still haven’t attempted to answer the question.

This from the person who used the term "dim witted"? No irony there at all.

As it happens that post content just multiplied the irony. Dramatic irony is reaching a tipping point. Presumably you understand what dramatic irony is.

Meanwhile, moving on, here's climate politics doing its job of spanning not spamming of course, together with some linked research. See "The world in which young people now live..." (at the first link).

Global Warming is Cooling and Warming Linked to a Rise of SEMH Needs in Young People
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/105952214/...

Trigger Warnings Inadvertently Undermine Aspects of Emotional Resilience
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...