Hint: Every time you attempt to disparage climatology by mentioning "global cooling", all you are doing is admitting you get your scientific information from the mainstream media. That's it. You are not commenting on the science, its data, its methodologies, nothing - just sitting there saying "I don't read scientific papers, but here's why I think scientific papers are nonsense!". The fact you also mention a politician when discussing the veracity of climate change also reeks of someone who doesn't understand where science ends and politics begins. It appears your anger is greater than your respect for the truth, or at least greater than your ability to discern it.
Let me clear some things up for you: 1. The global average temperature is increasing = Global warming 2. This increase of energy causes the climate to change = climate change 3. The "global cooling" flap you seem to think defines climatology of the 1970s was a fringe belief held by few, with minimal evidential backing (which is being generous). You confusing it with being generally-accepted only condemns you, and nothing else.
It's not difficult. Either your educators failed you or you are being purposefully obtuse. Neither puts you in good stead in this discussion.
As long as we are throwing around epithets, you sound like an ill-educated 16-year-old. If that's all you can manage to point out, your problem might just be with how you see the world, not others.
It's because technology is advancing, not TV manufacturers' greed. They can't sell what doesn't exist. When 8K screens are possible, they will make them and sell them to whoever wants. They are not forcing anyone to buy these screens - clearly the demand is there.
No, it's science. The same scientific method that gave you the drugs that keep you alive, and the computer you used to tell the world how little you care about science. Sure - have problems with the politics, but to deny science because you don't like its implications is the act of an intellectually dishonest coward. Are you also a senior conspiracy theorist?
Did you lose your dictionary? The word has a very specific meaning, which is entirely applicable to its usage here. Wait, you're right - it's always better to denigrate people for using words you don't understand than to learn what words mean. Sorry.
You don't seem to grasp that it is still more efficient than having short-lived bulbs that constantly waste heat (when it's not snowing). Your smiley betrays your ignorance.
Because the vote was promised to stop the Conservatives losing too many votes to UKIP. The people in government who pushed for the referendum admitted they didn't want it to win, or even think it would. It's a side effect of the broken first-past-the-post system used in the UK, causing a political party to do something incredibly dangerous just to keep it relevant and in power. Referendums are never binding in the UK, so ignoring it would not be a step away from representative government, it would be a return to representative government where the people appointed to do what's best for the country actually do that, instead of pandering to whatever ill-informed opinion was most successfully vomited from newspapers (thanks, Murdoch!).
Bullshit. Areas with the least immigration are the ones that complain about it most. it's a cultural human thing - we are scared of "them" until we know they are more like "us" than we ever imagined. When we grow up not thinking of the various shades of skin around us as different, it stops mattering, as it should.
Your arguments about "most of the time" being spent on inter-EU relations is bizarre, as sure it sounds on the surface like a right-old damning of the EU, but on closer inspection you're not actually saying anything. Noting quantified, nothing explained, nothing cited, just arguments about "them" and "other them" and "us" and so on. It's childish and untrue.
What insanity? Of the one-million-plus people it rescued from danger (and shored up its ageing population with, ensuring a brighter future for anyone wishing to accept a state pension or rely on the state for assistance), the vast majority have been model citizens. The police statistics reflect this. Your argument is simply not grounded in reality. It seems you are not in Germany - I am, and have been since before this all kicked off. It might behove you to actually learn about what you speak of before vomiting hatred and fear everywhere. I didn't realise it took less than one 0.1% of a group of people to make you scared of the entire group! You sound scared.
You don't seem to understand just how much of Britain's standing is directly dependent on its membership of the EU. You seem to assume all the benefits of the EU will continue, and all the problems Britain will face are just abject scaremongering. You also seem to also think the EU and UK are similar in sizes, and that any hurt will be similar on both sides.You don't seem to well-informed about any of this. Your excuses might sound good to you, but to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this subject will see the utterances of a confused individual. I hope you didn't vote, as you clearly don't know what you voted for.
It's a bit more complicated than that, obviously. EU laws will have to be ripped from the lawbooks (which requires a lot of time and money), trade deals will have to be re-negotiated with all our trading partners, and a large number of EU workers will be debating leaving (which is rather problematic seeing as about 55,000 NHS workers in England alone are EU citizens).
You keep on saying things which make you sound completely ignorant of what's actually happening. You gloss over incredibly important, complicated parts of the process, and hand-waive away any criticism. Then you look lovingly into your crystal ball and perform the miracle of sooth-saying, and expect people to take you seriously. Your understanding of this is a joke.
Your argument would make sense if every voter was well-informed. As that is demonstrably not the case, your argument can be safely ignored. The fate of the UK is not in its own hands - it relies massively on the EU for trade, and now has to abide by EU rules without having any say. It also will be entering trade negotiations with other countries on a much weaker standing (being a relatively small country compared to a leading member of the world's largest single market), having to deal with their demands to get a trade agreement. So your "nice thing about it" doesn't even exist, as it's a fantasy used to sway the opinions of people who put nebulous ideas of identity before fact. You appear to be one of those people. Thanks for your intellectual laziness.
It doesn't work that way, though. Britain spends a lot of money on the EU, but gets back far more in indirect returns (benefits from the single market, free labour to shore up industries, banking passports allowing London to be the financial capital of the world, etc.). You are suggesting that Britain somehow makes some money out of thin air to make up for the money it no longer receives from the EU. Scientists are always begging for scraps from everyone - EU, Westminster, it doesn't matter. Don't pretend that it's simply because it's the EU that this is changed in any way. Your understanding of this is strangely lacking.
But naaaah - instead of improving our situation within the EU, let's just stomp around and blame all kinds of nebulous "ills" on Brussels, weaken our voice in Europe, and still be almost entirely beholden to their whims. You're so clever! Yay you!
You are ignoring the trade deals currently in the making. It's rather difficult to negotiate trade deals between the largest single market in the world, comprising of many member states, and anyone else. This is not difficult to understand. The EU is demonstrably not a complete disaster. You claiming it is then listing a few bizarre claims does not an argument make.
What? Cameron was negotiating a better deal with the EU until right up to the referendum taking place. That deal was immediately shit-canned. "Enact a policy on arrangements" - that means precisely nothing. Or do you mean "policy" like "drop out of the world's single market and re-apply for a worse position"?
Slashdot Mirror
Hint: Every time you attempt to disparage climatology by mentioning "global cooling", all you are doing is admitting you get your scientific information from the mainstream media. That's it. You are not commenting on the science, its data, its methodologies, nothing - just sitting there saying "I don't read scientific papers, but here's why I think scientific papers are nonsense!". The fact you also mention a politician when discussing the veracity of climate change also reeks of someone who doesn't understand where science ends and politics begins. It appears your anger is greater than your respect for the truth, or at least greater than your ability to discern it.
Let me clear some things up for you:
1. The global average temperature is increasing = Global warming
2. This increase of energy causes the climate to change = climate change
3. The "global cooling" flap you seem to think defines climatology of the 1970s was a fringe belief held by few, with minimal evidential backing (which is being generous). You confusing it with being generally-accepted only condemns you, and nothing else.
It's not difficult. Either your educators failed you or you are being purposefully obtuse. Neither puts you in good stead in this discussion.
You are admitting that you don't bother learning the whole story. Should we really be expected to pay attention to folks like that?
So you apparently didn't do very well in biology at school. I notice you didn't bother to attribute your baseless claims to your username - so brave.
As long as we are throwing around epithets, you sound like an ill-educated 16-year-old. If that's all you can manage to point out, your problem might just be with how you see the world, not others.
It's because technology is advancing, not TV manufacturers' greed. They can't sell what doesn't exist. When 8K screens are possible, they will make them and sell them to whoever wants. They are not forcing anyone to buy these screens - clearly the demand is there.
That's not at all what "security theater" means. Not even close.
You are confusing "sexconker" with "everyone". It's true the two concepts overlap, but not the way your hubris seems to think.
That's a synthetic benchmark from 6 months ago. That's not exactly "recent", but I guess if it agrees with you, best play that down...
Those things might not have a benefit to you, but they do to some people. Please stop speaking for the entire world - we don't appreciate it ;)
I know! You were very busy! You made your dad proud.
The past tense of "bet" can be either "bet" or "betted". Both are correct.
No, it's science. The same scientific method that gave you the drugs that keep you alive, and the computer you used to tell the world how little you care about science. Sure - have problems with the politics, but to deny science because you don't like its implications is the act of an intellectually dishonest coward. Are you also a senior conspiracy theorist?
Did you lose your dictionary? The word has a very specific meaning, which is entirely applicable to its usage here. Wait, you're right - it's always better to denigrate people for using words you don't understand than to learn what words mean. Sorry.
You don't seem to grasp that it is still more efficient than having short-lived bulbs that constantly waste heat (when it's not snowing). Your smiley betrays your ignorance.
Or maybe Musk is a better entrepreneur than you are. Naaah - can't be! We all know you are way better at making electric cars and rockets.
Because the vote was promised to stop the Conservatives losing too many votes to UKIP. The people in government who pushed for the referendum admitted they didn't want it to win, or even think it would. It's a side effect of the broken first-past-the-post system used in the UK, causing a political party to do something incredibly dangerous just to keep it relevant and in power. Referendums are never binding in the UK, so ignoring it would not be a step away from representative government, it would be a return to representative government where the people appointed to do what's best for the country actually do that, instead of pandering to whatever ill-informed opinion was most successfully vomited from newspapers (thanks, Murdoch!).
Bullshit. Areas with the least immigration are the ones that complain about it most. it's a cultural human thing - we are scared of "them" until we know they are more like "us" than we ever imagined. When we grow up not thinking of the various shades of skin around us as different, it stops mattering, as it should.
Your arguments about "most of the time" being spent on inter-EU relations is bizarre, as sure it sounds on the surface like a right-old damning of the EU, but on closer inspection you're not actually saying anything. Noting quantified, nothing explained, nothing cited, just arguments about "them" and "other them" and "us" and so on. It's childish and untrue.
What insanity? Of the one-million-plus people it rescued from danger (and shored up its ageing population with, ensuring a brighter future for anyone wishing to accept a state pension or rely on the state for assistance), the vast majority have been model citizens. The police statistics reflect this. Your argument is simply not grounded in reality. It seems you are not in Germany - I am, and have been since before this all kicked off. It might behove you to actually learn about what you speak of before vomiting hatred and fear everywhere. I didn't realise it took less than one 0.1% of a group of people to make you scared of the entire group! You sound scared.
You don't seem to understand just how much of Britain's standing is directly dependent on its membership of the EU. You seem to assume all the benefits of the EU will continue, and all the problems Britain will face are just abject scaremongering. You also seem to also think the EU and UK are similar in sizes, and that any hurt will be similar on both sides.You don't seem to well-informed about any of this. Your excuses might sound good to you, but to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this subject will see the utterances of a confused individual. I hope you didn't vote, as you clearly don't know what you voted for.
It's a bit more complicated than that, obviously. EU laws will have to be ripped from the lawbooks (which requires a lot of time and money), trade deals will have to be re-negotiated with all our trading partners, and a large number of EU workers will be debating leaving (which is rather problematic seeing as about 55,000 NHS workers in England alone are EU citizens).
You keep on saying things which make you sound completely ignorant of what's actually happening. You gloss over incredibly important, complicated parts of the process, and hand-waive away any criticism. Then you look lovingly into your crystal ball and perform the miracle of sooth-saying, and expect people to take you seriously. Your understanding of this is a joke.
Your argument would make sense if every voter was well-informed. As that is demonstrably not the case, your argument can be safely ignored. The fate of the UK is not in its own hands - it relies massively on the EU for trade, and now has to abide by EU rules without having any say. It also will be entering trade negotiations with other countries on a much weaker standing (being a relatively small country compared to a leading member of the world's largest single market), having to deal with their demands to get a trade agreement. So your "nice thing about it" doesn't even exist, as it's a fantasy used to sway the opinions of people who put nebulous ideas of identity before fact. You appear to be one of those people. Thanks for your intellectual laziness.
It doesn't work that way, though. Britain spends a lot of money on the EU, but gets back far more in indirect returns (benefits from the single market, free labour to shore up industries, banking passports allowing London to be the financial capital of the world, etc.). You are suggesting that Britain somehow makes some money out of thin air to make up for the money it no longer receives from the EU. Scientists are always begging for scraps from everyone - EU, Westminster, it doesn't matter. Don't pretend that it's simply because it's the EU that this is changed in any way. Your understanding of this is strangely lacking.
But naaaah - instead of improving our situation within the EU, let's just stomp around and blame all kinds of nebulous "ills" on Brussels, weaken our voice in Europe, and still be almost entirely beholden to their whims. You're so clever! Yay you!
You are ignoring the trade deals currently in the making. It's rather difficult to negotiate trade deals between the largest single market in the world, comprising of many member states, and anyone else. This is not difficult to understand. The EU is demonstrably not a complete disaster. You claiming it is then listing a few bizarre claims does not an argument make.
What? Cameron was negotiating a better deal with the EU until right up to the referendum taking place. That deal was immediately shit-canned. "Enact a policy on arrangements" - that means precisely nothing. Or do you mean "policy" like "drop out of the world's single market and re-apply for a worse position"?
So the best way to fix a broken EU is to leave it and still be beholden to its laws and regulations? Hurrrrrrrrrrr