Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
PeanutButter

House prices will be impacted...

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

Yes, the economic implications are going to be a bit more than just being slightly out of pocket and inconvenienced as btd1981 put it. The implications of worldwide zero CO2 emissions are huge for starters. And probably very unlikely to ever happen. So a bit of realism is needed.

Yes. The energy needs of the developing world are enormous.  really hard to see how they will be met in a carbon neutral way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly "climate scientists" must be charged with determining  the safe daily  amount of  fossil fuel consumption and everyone on earth must be allotted a coupon allowing them to purchase their share. These could of course be traded on the open market.

I wonder what those coupons would be worth and how many "important" people would demand that they not be required to obtain them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sexton said:

 how many "important" people would demand that they not be required to obtain them.

That's the thing. I see the cost of any big govt solution being far greater than the benefits. Most if not all global warming alarmists have very strong statist/left wing persuasions. I've met them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Si1 said:

That's the thing. I see the cost of any big govt solution being far greater than the benefits. Most if not all global warming alarmists have very strong statist/left wing persuasions. I've met them.

There's definately a link between being stupid enough to think 'climate change' caused by us is real and being stupid enough to be left wing. The two stupid forms of thinking are somehow linked. They also usually support remaining in the EU which is also stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bear.getting.old said:

There's definately a link between being stupid enough to think 'climate change' caused by us is real and being stupid enough to be left wing. The two stupid forms of thinking are somehow linked. They also usually support remaining in the EU which is also stupid

Are you saying I think anthropogenic climate change is not real? I personally think someone's a bit lacking, or made a big mistake, to think it isn't real; the weight of evidence is enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Are you saying I think anthropogenic climate change is not real? I personally think someone's a bit lacking, or made a big mistake, to think it isn't real; the weight of evidence is enormous.

It's exasperating but don't bother - it's not worth fighting with individuals. I've tried it on here and you get nowhere. The fight needs to be with government and large organisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is not real, its 100% horse manure. There's a whole billion dollar 'green' industry based around this great global warming con. Its very sad that it's become a religion for people, and now we have these people on this great forum.

We really are not interested. You people are the equivalent of jevhovas witnesses. Take yourself and your book of doom away from this HPC doorstep and let's get back to discussing house prices.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bear.getting.old said:

Climate change is not real, its 100% horse manure. There's a whole billion dollar 'green' industry based around this great global warming con. Its very sad that it's become a religion for people, and now we have these people on this great forum.

We really are not interested. You people are the equivalent of jevhovas witnesses. Take yourself and your book of doom away from this HPC doorstep and let's get back to discussing house prices.

 

 

 

It's peer reviewed science, it's not religion. Enormous vast difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Si1 said:

 

It's peer reviewed science, it's not religion. Enormous vast difference.

I am glad you said that.  Climate change, in whatever direction, is a well recorded set of events.  Look at human records, ice cores, tree rings, varves (lake sediments); they all tell the same story and that is that climate changes.

Edited by dougless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bear.getting.old said:

We really are not interested. You people are the equivalent of jevhovas witnesses. Take yourself and your book of doom away from this HPC doorstep and let's get back to discussing house prices.

Yes, Jehovah's witnesses. That's what it reminds me of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dougless said:

I am glad you said that.  Climate change, in whatever direction, is a well recorded set of events.  Look at human records, ice cores, tree rings, varves (lake sediments); they all tell the same story and that is that climate changes.

The weather is a bit up in the air today though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

Yes, Jehovah's witnesses. That's what it reminds me of.

You mean the Jehovah's witnesses that reject Darwinism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a lot of sympathy for people who'd like things to be different to how they are - heaven knows I've got enough loathing for the current world and an awful lot of people in it, but the step from there to pretending things are actually how they'd like to be that the deniers engage in really is nuts. It's especially amusing / ironic when they talk about a climate change "religion" when they themselves display all the hallmarks of zealots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Si1 said:

You mean the Jehovah's witnesses that reject Darwinism?

I don't know much about them other than they were always coming around when I was younger. They would show you a picture of the apocalypse and ask if you thought God intended the world to look like this. A loaded question looking back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Captain Kirk said:

I don't know much about them other than they were always coming around when I was younger. They would show you a picture of the apocalypse and ask if you thought God intended the world to look like this. A loaded question looking back.

Fair enough :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I've a lot of sympathy for people who'd like things to be different to how they are - heaven knows I've got enough loathing for the current world and an awful lot of people in it, but the step from there to pretending things are actually how they'd like to be that the deniers engage in really is nuts. It's especially amusing / ironic when they talk about a climate change "religion" when they themselves display all the hallmarks of zealots.

It has been hijacked by the left however as if it's all to blame on capitalism and statism is the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I've a lot of sympathy for people who'd like things to be different to how they are - heaven knows I've got enough loathing for the current world and an awful lot of people in it, but the step from there to pretending things are actually how they'd like to be that the deniers engage in really is nuts. It's especially amusing / ironic when they talk about a climate change "religion" when they themselves display all the hallmarks of zealots.

I don't think being a skeptic of a theory of runaway global warming leading to an extinction event makes you a zealot. Especially when it is a theory arising from the predictions of models, and the measurements show much less warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

I don't think being a skeptic of a theory of runaway global warming leading to an extinction event makes you a zealot. Especially when it is a theory arising from the predictions of models, and the measurements show much less warming.

(1) the allegation it's an extinction event is a separate hypothesis. It's bad form from the science community to mix them up. (2) the theory didn't arise from the models, it was the other way round. In fact the theory is much more robust then the models as  per your observation that they've misestimated recent warming.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour plans for a National Energy Agency. 👍

http://www.labour.org.uk/bringing-energy-home

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/15/corbyn-to-reveal-labour-plans-to-nationalise-uks-energy-network

Quote

The Labour Party will announce plans on Thursday to seize back control of Britain’s energy network from private shareholders in an effort to fight climate change and end fuel poverty.

Jeremy Corbyn and the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, are expected to say that heat and electricity should be a human right for all and nationalisation of the network is key to decarbonising the economy.

Under Labour’s plan, companies that control the UK’s £62bn energy infrastructure – the pipes and cables that supply homes and businesses with gas and electricity – would be taken back into state control soon after a Labour election win.

This would include National Grid, and the network arms of Scottish Power and SSE, with the existing investors in those companies to be reimbursed with government bonds at a price determined by parliament.

Nationalisation of the energy networks forms a central part of Labour’s plans to address climate change, with the party arguing that the profits generated from the infrastructure should be invested in the green economy rather than given to shareholders in the form of dividends.

Long-Bailey will say energy customers have been “ripped off” by the privatisation of the UK’s energy grid, with shareholders paid £13bn in dividends over the past five years.

“It’s an insult and an injustice to our people and our planet for companies operating the grid to rip customers off, line the pockets of the rich and not invest properly in renewable energy,” she will say.

“Only by taking the grid into public ownership can we decarbonise the economy at the pace needed to secure the planet for our children and grandchildren while ending the rip off, creating good jobs in local communities and making heating and electricity a human right.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Si1 said:

(1) the allegation it's an extinction event is a separate hypothesis. It's bad form from the science community to mix them up. (2) the theory didn't arise from the models, it was the other way round. In fact the theory is much more robust then the models as your observation that they've misestimated recent warming.

OK, but models do tend to give you the answer you want to see though by the time you've tweaked them enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

I don't think being a skeptic of a theory of runaway global warming leading to an extinction event makes you a zealot. Especially when it is a theory arising from the predictions of models, and the measurements show much less warming.

You're moving the goalposts there - where has the discussion been limited to predictions about runaway warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Si1 said:

It has been hijacked by the left however as if it's all to blame on capitalism and statism is the answer

There's certainly some mileage in that but it's depressing to see that some people can't differentiate between the science and the hijacking of the science for political reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You're moving the goalposts there - where has the discussion been limited to predictions about runaway warming?

It has always been about that. Why would we need to drastically cut CO2 emissions if nothing is going to come from it?

That's why I said the term 'climate change' has been hijacked. Skeptics are labeled climate change deniers because they deny the apocalyptic theory and the need for drastic action.

No one denies the climate is changing or that CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

It has always been about that. Why would we need to drastically cut CO2 emissions if nothing is going to come from it?

There's a big area between "nothing" and "runaway" that would still be very unpleasant for us. "One extreme or the other" is generally only of any use for establishing that a line needs to be drawn somewhere in between. Arguing as if they are the only possible options is all too common and tends to make sensible discussion grind to a halt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 221 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.