What is ignorant is pretending that there is no problem. Pretend the problem is too difficult therefore we shouldnāt act is common theme coming from (surprise!) American oil companies or the shills that they sponsor - it is an indirect way of preventing change.
As for your constant claims of communism - you really need to read more and understand what communism is and isnātā¦
Ye I agree. All in favour of electric cars etc. but this stifling of growth taxes really, how will this achieve the objective? Iām a believer in the Kardashev scale and I want us to reach new plateaus. Not the kardashian scale.
The earth will do its thing regardless of what anyone thinks they know. We canāt harness nature. Foolish to think you can
@Mike7 I did a degree in history Iām well aware what it is. Look at ocasio Cortezā green new deal. Her chief of staff stepped down because it was a communist grab is what he divulged to a Washington newspaper before he stepped down. Climate change as we know it now was created by Maurice strong an oil magnate! Couldnāt make it up.
Ad hominem attacks as per because you donāt have anything to say. Same as it always is. Show me the data of your said climate change
Whereās the data Grata
YouTube degree? Thatās a new one Iāve not heard that phrase 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
The debate last night surrounding government spending was disappointing and the discussion here prompts me to set a few things straight.
Banks are not intermediaries between savers and borrowers. Donāt believe me? Here is the BoE admitting as much.
Governments āspendā money by issuing bonds, not with taxes. Like with the repayment of bank loans, taxation removes this money from circulation. Taxes must always be paid in sovereign currency and this helps create demand for it, stimulating exchange. This also means if the public sector runs a continuous surplus the private sector will most likely be in deficit. The only limits on money creation are real ones (e.g. productive capacity).
All money is debt. I think we can do better than the reductive clown acts of āmoney treesā and the (yes Iām going there) factually incorrect Thatcher quote.
Treasury urged to take holistic approach to spending by former head of fiscal policy - FT
Great so youāve studied history and learned nothing.
Iām an environmental scientist and the science is damning. Go read some of the IPCC summaries for policy makers as you clearly donāt understand the difference between natural cycles and the impact that additional man made greenhouse gases have on an equilibrium. No one is trying to prevent normal weather/climate cycles but trying to reduce manās additional impact.
You complain about ad hom attacks yet youāre happy to label people who disagree with you as communists (without a shred of demonstrable understanding of the term).
You talk about taxes when in the EU we have largely a market based emissions trading system - given your supposed libertarian views I would have thought you would be all in favour of market based solutions.
Burden of proof is on people who espouse climate change show me the data. There are comments above saying nationalise everything. That is a sure fire way to communism and you canāt disagree with me on that. I debate the message not the man. On what Iāve seen is whatās prompted me to suggest that.
Yes Iām aware they started trading the emissions in Chicago. Itās a racket. Maurice strong who I mentioned, cass sunstein and al gore have made huge money off this exchange.
And youāre not in the EU anymore. Good on ya
The data is all around you. The world is heating up and cooling down in all sorts of ways we canāt anticipate. Natural disasters are worsening and becoming more common. To deny an empirical fact is just indefensible.
The New Yorker had a big profile on Slatās Ocean cleanup.
It requires taxes. Whoās going to pay for Ocean Cleanup? Itās going to be governments, if any. You might get one or two companies paying for it as a marketing stunt.
Taxes should pay to cover externalities. Government isnāt always good at setting them, such as when they promoted diesel cars for their lower carbon emissions, only to fuck up air pollution worse.
On nationalisation, I generally think itās a waste of money and will not achieve the desired aims. The exception is probably water. It is a monopoly, you have no choice, so what benefit is there to all these regional companies?
Is it global warming or global cooling now? Thatās just rhetoric nothing empierically factual in anything youāve said
The problem is, we could show you all the data and then some, and youād still deny it. Thatās how weāve ended up where we are despite companies and governments knowning about the dangers of climate change decades ago.
Nationalised industries do not equal communism! Go back to your history books!!!
Iāve shown you the data. The data is in the IPCC reports (and Iāve given you an easy summary) but I canāt force you to read it if youāre determined to be ignorant.
Well it is climate change. Winters become colder, summers become hotter and extremes become even more extreme. It does not bode well for humans in general.
Well, this threadās gone delightfully off-topic!
Thereās a certain irony to having people in the community for a stock-trading application advocating for some of Corbynās policiesā¦
I appreciate Socialism is popular again but itās a perfectly reasonable point of view to find these policies sinister.
Iām against delisting companies to punish them, I donāt think the govāt should have the power to say which companies are listed and which arenāt.
I would support nationalising certain public services, particularly the ones that have plainly been a disaster such as public transport. Itās less clear cut with something like energy, as you can now shop around and find cheap suppliers like Bulb who claim to be all renewable
Iāll probably vote labour as Boris Johnson is a complete muppet, and the conservatives are wholly responsible for the mess we are in now. But I do think he goes a little bit too far in some of his policies
Ye itās called weather Iāll read up on some of the IPCC reports that people are talking about. It does seem to me that the the research I have seen the conclusion was already made up before the results all to justify the narrative
@Andrewpclark ye thatās the part that struck me
Trolling, surely?
While we are talking about climate change, two questions:
Maybe youāre one of those people that believe in climate change and want your investment decisions to make a tiny contribution to making the world more sustainable. Or maybe you think green/renewables will do well in future. Or maybe you think that carbon-heavy assets (oil co stocks etc) are at risk of a sudden loss of value in future, so you donāt want to hold them.
The only research that has done that is research that tries to deny climate change.
Genuine research that has drawn conclusions from data (instead of trying to fit data to a conclusion) has if anything been too conservative.
No, weather and climate are different. Weather is what occurs within a climate. As the climate worsens so does the weather. This is not a simple case or āwell the world was cold and hot beforeā. We have made the world warm up faster than every before (again hard data to prove this exists). The changes this will bring are not fully understand. We do not know how bad storms will get, how fast sea levels will rise or how quickly parts of the world will become uninhabitable. All we do know for certain is that we desperately need to start taking climate change seriously to:
