Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 182

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2099087 1-Oct-2018 09:05

Rikkitic:
And maybe she believes with all her heart and soul that climate change is this generation's nuclear-free moment, and the move away from fossil fuels has to happen regardless of how vested interests feel about it, and because of that any formal consultation would just be a farce with a pre-determined outcome so better and more honest just to move forward and not to pretend. I don't know. But I do know there are different ways of looking at it.

Apart from that, the affected parties have 30 years to make the adjustment. That seems reasonable to me.

Please, please, please, please, please stop trying to make a link between this and climate change. I may sound like a stuck record, but YOU are sounding very hollow, and almost brainwashed. Or feel free to point out how this will make a TANGIBLE difference to carbon emissions, or just admit that there won't be and admit it's just virtue signalling.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2099090 1-Oct-2018 09:09

Fred99:
Aredwood:

Also very interesting, is that the usual group of people who are strongly in favor of reducing carbon emissions. Seem to have gone all quiet in relation to my posts.

Probably because you're posting in a politics forum - not in the cars bikes and boats forum where there's a high level of enthusiasm for EVs.

@aredwood it looks like u hit the nail on the head.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15472

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2099092 1-Oct-2018 09:13

Rikkitic:

Apart from that, the affected parties have 30 years to make the adjustment. That seems reasonable to me.

You are kidding yourself if you think the effects from this will be almost immediate. Why would any company continue to invest in an area that has no long term benefits to them? If you don't think Bean Counters are already looking at the bottom line and trying to work out how to make cuts as a result of this decision, I am not sure what to say to you.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2099094 1-Oct-2018 09:21

rjt123:
Rikkitic:

And maybe she believes with all her heart and soul that climate change is this generation's nuclear-free moment, and the move away from fossil fuels has to happen regardless of how vested interests feel about it, and because of that any formal consultation would just be a farce with a pre-determined outcome so better and more honest just to move forward and not to pretend. I don't know. But I do know there are different ways of looking at it.

Apart from that, the affected parties have 30 years to make the adjustment. That seems reasonable to me.

Please, please, please, please, please stop trying to make a link between this and climate change. I may sound like a stuck record, but YOU are sounding very hollow, and almost brainwashed. Or feel free to point out how this will make a TANGIBLE difference to carbon emissions, or just admit that there won't be and admit it's just virtue signalling.

Like you Rikkitic is entitled to an opinion. Stop the bullying and discuss with respect.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2099119 1-Oct-2018 09:30

MikeB4:

Like you Rikkitic is entitled to an opinion. Stop the bullying and discuss with respect.

If she wants to spout her opinions as fact she also needs to back them up. Something she has failed to do in this respect.

To discuss requires more than respectful silence.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2099121 1-Oct-2018 09:33

rjt123:

Please, please, please, please, please stop trying to make a link between this and climate change. I may sound like a stuck record, but YOU are sounding very hollow, and almost brainwashed. Or feel free to point out how this will make a TANGIBLE difference to carbon emissions, or just admit that there won't be and admit it's just virtue signalling.

You can't seem to get your head around the fact that this is about more than immediate returns. It is about setting an example, charting a new direction, finding a different and better way of doing things. Never mind that no limits are being placed on current exploration permits so your point doesn't have a point anyway. You can merrily carry on burning gas and petrol and poisoning the planet for decades yet.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2099122 1-Oct-2018 09:34

rjt123:

MikeB4:

Like you Rikkitic is entitled to an opinion. Stop the bullying and discuss with respect.

If she wants to spout her opinions as fact she also needs to back them up. Something she has failed to do in this respect.

To discuss requires more than respectful silence.

No Rikkitic does not need to seek your approval on opinions and posting style. It could also be said that your posts are very light on fact.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2099126 1-Oct-2018 09:41

networkn:

You are kidding yourself if you think the effects from this will be almost immediate. Why would any company continue to invest in an area that has no long term benefits to them? If you don't think Bean Counters are already looking at the bottom line and trying to work out how to make cuts as a result of this decision, I am not sure what to say to you.

Here is something I happened across the other day. I think it presents a reasonable and balanced view. Some of the links are also worth following. There is a lot of ego in some of these discussions and the lack of it in this paper is refreshing.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2099167 1-Oct-2018 09:55

Rikkitic:
rjt123:

Please, please, please, please, please stop trying to make a link between this and climate change. I may sound like a stuck record, but YOU are sounding very hollow, and almost brainwashed. Or feel free to point out how this will make a TANGIBLE difference to carbon emissions, or just admit that there won't be and admit it's just virtue signalling.

You can't seem to get your head around the fact that this is about more than immediate returns. It is about setting an example, charting a new direction, finding a different and better way of doing things. Never mind that no limits are being placed on current exploration permits so your point doesn't have a point anyway. You can merrily carry on burning gas and petrol and poisoning the planet for decades yet.

So I take that as a tacit agreement that it has no positive impact on emissions, and by extension, that setting examples (i.e. virtue signalling) is more important than reducing emissions.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2099172 1-Oct-2018 10:00

MikeB4:
rjt123:

MikeB4:

Like you Rikkitic is entitled to an opinion. Stop the bullying and discuss with respect.

If she wants to spout her opinions as fact she also needs to back them up. Something she has failed to do in this respect.

To discuss requires more than respectful silence.

No Rikkitic does not need to seek your approval on opinions and posting style. It could also be said that your posts are very light on fact.

Not asking for approval, merely for explanation. As for facts, this is not a thread on statistics and data analysis, it is a political thread where political opinions of the day are discussed, facts are only required to justify opinion.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2099175 1-Oct-2018 10:07

Aredwood:

Also very interesting, is that the usual group of people who are strongly in favor of reducing carbon emissions. Seem to have gone all quiet in relation to my posts. Are NOx emissions some sort of taboo subject? Or are there alot of people who are in favour of carbon emissions reductions. But who only support means of reducing carbon emissions that either won't directly affect them, or will only have very minor effects on their personal situation. As surely they would regard methods of reducing carbon emissions which can be implemented quickly, and for a very low cost as a good thing.

I haven't responded to your point because I don't know enough about it to make an informed comment, but this article may interest you. According to the research cited, air pollutants including NOx may be making people dumber (no surprise there). It may blow away in most parts of New Zealand but concentrations in big cities like Auckland and Christchurch could still be problematic.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80661 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41078

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2099177 1-Oct-2018 10:08

rjt123:

As for facts, this is not a thread on statistics and data analysis, it is a political thread where political opinions of the day are discussed, facts are only required to justify opinion.

This is the funniest statement I've read for a while. Facts are optional when talking politics now?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2099180 1-Oct-2018 10:11

rjt123:

So I take that as a tacit agreement that it has no positive impact on emissions, and by extension, that setting examples (i.e. virtue signalling) is more important than reducing emissions.

You are just trolling. Either that or maybe you have been inhaling too much air pollution. This line of discussion is silly and I won't pursue it any further.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2099182 1-Oct-2018 10:14

freitasm:

This is the funniest statement I've read for a while. Facts are optional when talking politics now?

Maybe he is referring to alternative facts, a la Kellyanne Conway.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2099205 1-Oct-2018 10:24

freitasm:
rjt123:

As for facts, this is not a thread on statistics and data analysis, it is a political thread where political opinions of the day are discussed, facts are only required to justify opinion.

This is the funniest statement I've read for a while. Facts are optional when talking politics now?

Duh! How many facts in your post? Zero.

Not every post needs a statistic. If every single post was a fact there would be no discussion. Honestly, you have the reasoning and the sense of humour of a five year old.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 182