SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[SilverHood]

I'm fucked off by the left - because I think that if they actually got power they are much more likely to enact laws that benefit the environment than than the tories.

But their problem is they can't get in power because they're a bunch of oppressive cunts who can't say "OK - we'll ditch our deep desire to control everything and everyone because the prizes of social justice, equality and progress on environmental legislation and action are much much more important than us thought-criming the fuck out of everyone".


But it isn't. The thought-crime thing is the MOST important thing to lefties. So the environment is still getting shat on.

Edit:
The evidence on that is clear btw - look how much OUTRAGE there is over what people say on social media, as opposed to all the pollution, devestation and outright environmental criminality there is the world over.

Admit that you don't use the word fag any more though and you're a fucking cunt pariah.

It's not just a political problem with the left per se. You can se it in all aspects of life. People react strongly to certain things, and any discussion is impossible, because the stance that someone has taken borders on religious fanaticism. If you try to disagree, it's a personal attack on their belief system, and it will not stand.

Take nuclear power for example. As soon as you mention the n-word, people go completely nuts. "Not now, not ever!" they scream, and act completely irrationally. But it's one of the few technologies that could cut carbon emissions from electricity generation to zero, and could hypothetically be used all over the world. There are some pollution concerns, and they are valid for our current plants and currently accepted technology, but the Integral Fast Reactors designed in the 90's should alleviate these concerns. The oil lobby shot it down as a competitor to their oil and gas industry, not the environmental lobby. The other types of reactors being developed have similar benefits, but they are bogged down in regulation that make it prohibitively expensive to build new plants.

Animal testing brings similar concerns. And I get it, cute little beagles and monkeys getting used for medical experiments is not a good look, but how else do you test new products? Life sentence prisoners?

Global warming and climate change is another. You would think that the pro nuclear people and the environmentalist would be on the same side, but they are on completely opposite sides.
Environmentalists: We must cut emissions!
Pro nuclear lobby: OK, lets build nuclear reactors
Environmentalists: NO! Nuclear power is evil!
Pro wind lobby: OK, lets build offshore wind farms
Environmentalists: NO! It will disrupt the local sea life!
Pro solar lobby: OK, let's build solar power arrays
Environmentalists: NO! It will disrupt the local wildlife!

And then we're still burning coal, gas and oil for electricity 20 years later, while everyone is harping on about the danger of emissions.

Jews, Israel and Palestine... let's not go there

On and on it goes.

 

[Moriath]

View: https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/1423466109546602497

 

[Bodhi]

It's not just a political problem with the left per se. You can se it in all aspects of life. People react strongly to certain things, and any discussion is impossible, because the stance that someone has taken borders on religious fanaticism. If you try to disagree, it's a personal attack on their belief system, and it will not stand.

Take nuclear power for example. As soon as you mention the n-word, people go completely nuts. "Not now, not ever!" they scream, and act completely irrationally. But it's one of the few technologies that could cut carbon emissions from electricity generation to zero, and could hypothetically be used all over the world. There are some pollution concerns, and they are valid for our current plants and currently accepted technology, but the Integral Fast Reactors designed in the 90's should alleviate these concerns. The oil lobby shot it down as a competitor to their oil and gas industry, not the environmental lobby. The other types of reactors being developed have similar benefits, but they are bogged down in regulation that make it prohibitively expensive to build new plants.

Animal testing brings similar concerns. And I get it, cute little beagles and monkeys getting used for medical experiments is not a good look, but how else do you test new products? Life sentence prisoners?

Global warming and climate change is another. You would think that the pro nuclear people and the environmentalist would be on the same side, but they are on completely opposite sides.
Environmentalists: We must cut emissions!
Pro nuclear lobby: OK, lets build nuclear reactors
Environmentalists: NO! Nuclear power is evil!
Pro wind lobby: OK, lets build offshore wind farms
Environmentalists: NO! It will disrupt the local sea life!
Pro solar lobby: OK, let's build solar power arrays
Environmentalists: NO! It will disrupt the local wildlife!

And then we're still burning coal, gas and oil for electricity 20 years later, while everyone is harping on about the danger of emissions.

I agree with your post entirely, however mentioning that n-word to that particular poster is like saying "Beetlejuice" 3 times, you have no idea what you've just triggered.

 

[Aoami]

If they'd done "absolutely no dilligence" then it would be currently available on The Spectator website for us to read. As it isn't, it looks like their checks and balances are working, albeit a bit late.

As it is, the link you posted is basically "Publisher decides not to print story they find out isn't true". Weather at 11.

The diligence was Rashford calling them out on twitter because his team got wind of it. If he hadn't have said anything, they would've posted it.

 

[Bodhi]

The diligence was Rashford calling them out on twitter because his team got wind of it. If he hadn't have said anything, they would've posted it.

And I'm sure if that would have happened, when it became apparent they'd been baited by an unknown blogger who fabricated a story for the Lolz they would have pulled it.

Still not seeing how any of that makes The Spectator the bad party in all of this, but hey ho.

 

[Scouse]

Tree-planting: Why are large investment firms buying Welsh farms?

Plans to encourage more tree-planting are under fire for "destroying" rural communities.

www.bbc.co.uk

Welsh hill farms being turned into monocultural pine forests to skew carbon numbers.

Now, I see both sides here - they want them to remain farms, we need to plant trees. But these companies see an opportunity to buy huge swathes of land at a discount and turn them into pine forests, which are very nicely treated from a taxation point of view, harvestable in short-term and you can sell the wood - so it doesn't "lock up the carbon" - it just finds it's way into rich people's dirty log burners.

What needs to happen with this land is that we fuck over the farmers (that's a given - but fuck over means "buy their land") and welsh culture (that's a shame) but we need to plant deciduous woodland, which is really slow growing, not cut it down (locking in the carbon) and over the centuries will turn into the Welsh Rainforest of old.

As it is, we'll corporatise it for profit, package it and then not see any environmental benefit of note.


We don't make it.

 

[Wij]

And I'm sure if that would have happened, when it became apparent they'd been baited by an unknown blogger who fabricated a story for the Lolz they would have pulled it.

Still not seeing how any of that makes The Spectator the bad party in all of this, but hey ho.

From what I read it shows how desperate they were to get dirt on Rashford. Presumably because he criticises the Tories. But hey ho.

 

[Wij]

Also, WokeyLeaks?

Are they 12?

 

[Bodhi]

From what I read it shows how desperate they were to get dirt on Rashford. Presumably because he criticises the Tories. But hey ho.

See I try not to project onto stuff when I'm reading it. Rashford is a fairly big name in the press and if someone was offering interesting info on that big name, I'm struggling to think of a publication that wouldn't have run with it. The fact that person turned out to be trolling and a bit of an arse would have annoyed most of the other publications also.

However your mileage my vary.

 

[Moriath]

Tree-planting: Why are large investment firms buying Welsh farms?

Plans to encourage more tree-planting are under fire for "destroying" rural communities.

www.bbc.co.uk

Welsh hill farms being turned into monocultural pine forests to skew carbon numbers.

Now, I see both sides here - they want them to remain farms, we need to plant trees. But these companies see an opportunity to buy huge swathes of land at a discount and turn them into pine forests, which are very nicely treated from a taxation point of view, harvestable in short-term and you can sell the wood - so it doesn't "lock up the carbon" - it just finds it's way into rich people's dirty log burners.

What needs to happen with this land is that we fuck over the farmers (that's a given - but fuck over means "buy their land") and welsh culture (that's a shame) but we need to plant deciduous woodland, which is really slow growing, not cut it down (locking in the carbon) and over the centuries will turn into the Welsh Rainforest of old.

As it is, we'll corporatise it for profit, package it and then not see any environmental benefit of note.


We don't make it.

Ok we dont make it. So make the most of the time we have.

 

[Scouse]

Ok we dont make it. So make the most of the time we have.

Leave the hill farmers to it then - instead of wreck their communities for profit?

 

[Moriath]

Leave the hill farmers to it then - instead of wreck their communities for profit?

Or at least plant diverse habitats and not mono culture pine trees that allow now forest floor growth

 

[Tom]

We used to go to the New Forest for family holidays in the 70s and 80s, I loved camping there. Except for the water. Used to drinking lovely clear Lake District water (that's where Manchester's comes from, and the Peaks), the nasty chalky crap in the New Forest was bloody awful.

No wonder southerners are all miserable bastards - they've been drinking that crap all their lives. They must be bitter as hell.

 

[Tom]

Tree-planting: Why are large investment firms buying Welsh farms?

Plans to encourage more tree-planting are under fire for "destroying" rural communities.

www.bbc.co.uk

Welsh hill farms being turned into monocultural pine forests to skew carbon numbers.

Now, I see both sides here - they want them to remain farms, we need to plant trees. But these companies see an opportunity to buy huge swathes of land at a discount and turn them into pine forests, which are very nicely treated from a taxation point of view, harvestable in short-term and you can sell the wood - so it doesn't "lock up the carbon" - it just finds it's way into rich people's dirty log burners.

What needs to happen with this land is that we fuck over the farmers (that's a given - but fuck over means "buy their land") and welsh culture (that's a shame) but we need to plant deciduous woodland, which is really slow growing, not cut it down (locking in the carbon) and over the centuries will turn into the Welsh Rainforest of old.

As it is, we'll corporatise it for profit, package it and then not see any environmental benefit of note.


We don't make it.

I noticed on a drive up to Glasgow recently, my first in probably 10 years, that many of the hills past Carlisle are now much, much more heavily populated by random trees. I assume a lot of rewilding is going on up that M6 corridor?

 

[Scouse]

I noticed on a drive up to Glasgow recently, my first in probably 10 years, that many of the hills past Carlisle are now much, much more heavily populated by random trees. I assume a lot of rewilding is going on up that M6 corridor?

I'm not sure - I know that we should be rewilding generally but speaking to private forestry owners and seeing the woodlands up for sale - what I've seen is the Tories systematically putting public woodland into private hands since 2010 - privatising our woodland. And what they like to do is chop-and-monoculture.

This whole story is Tory policy writ large.

In 2010 they embark on a programme to privatise our forests, all our publicly-owned forests.
Big companies now want to chop em down and burn them for "renewable energy".

It's not fucking renewable. Trees are a fossil fuel. Biofuels are one of the world's biggest con jobs. And the Tories are, once again, putting publicly owned assets (our forests) in the hands of private individuals.

I moaned about it in 2010 but got facepalmed because I mentioned Tories in a bad light.

Que sera sera eh?

 

[Scouse]

Here's what cryptocurrencies will look like in 50 years according to experts

It's getting harder to imagine a future without cryptocurrencies. Here are some experts' visions for the digital coins.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Tom]

Most forests in the UK are privately-owned anyway, I don't think the ownership is the issue, rather the stewardship. But I do think we should be considering buying large tracts of land, evicting all the sheep, chucking a few wildcats and things in there, and leaving them be.

 

[Tom]

In fact if I won the Euromillions I think I'd sneak over to Russia, buy a vanload of wildcats and things, and just drive over to the Highlands and dump them randomly one night.

 

[Gwadien]

In fact if I won the Euromillions I think I'd sneak over to Russia, buy a vanload of wildcats and things, and just drive over to the Highlands and dump them randomly one night.

'Man wastes Euromillions by spending it on thousands of wildcats, he only bought males.'

 

[Scouse]

stewardship

Isn't even a thing being considered. It's pump and burn.

 

[Bob007]

Wet this weekend so put the roadie away and i'll be playing on this.

 

[Wij]

This man has a remarkable way with words:


View: https://twitter.com/mylesdavies/status/1423472232475418629

 

[Moriath]

I'm not sure - I know that we should be rewilding generally but speaking to private forestry owners and seeing the woodlands up for sale - what I've seen is the Tories systematically putting public woodland into private hands since 2010 - privatising our woodland. And what they like to do is chop-and-monoculture.

This whole story is Tory policy writ large.

In 2010 they embark on a programme to privatise our forests, all our publicly-owned forests.
Big companies now want to chop em down and burn them for "renewable energy".

It's not fucking renewable. Trees are a fossil fuel. Biofuels are one of the world's biggest con jobs. And the Tories are, once again, putting publicly owned assets (our forests) in the hands of private individuals.

I moaned about it in 2010 but got facepalmed because I mentioned Tories in a bad light.

Que sera sera eh?

Didnt think the government owned any land to sell.

thats what the right to roam was all about cause it was all owned by private holders that kept the public off of it.

could be wrong though.

 

[Scouse]

Didnt think the government owned any land to sell.

thats what the right to roam was all about cause it was all owned by private holders that kept the public off of it.

could be wrong though.

Jeesus. When you're presented with the Tories doing fucking awful things - selling off our publicly owned forests - you come down on their side again.

What does it take for you to acknowledge that the tories are a bunch of fucking self-interested cunts?

What forestry land remained the public domain is being privatised wholesale by the tories.

 

[Moriath]

View: https://twitter.com/Scientits/status/1423693981691559939

 

[Moriath]

Jeesus. When you're presented with the Tories doing fucking awful things - selling off our publicly owned forests - you come down on their side again.

What does it take for you to acknowledge that the tories are a bunch of fucking self-interested cunts?

What forestry land remained the public domain is being privatised wholesale by the tories.

I said i might be wrong. i am not aware of any publically owned land. I thought if it wasnt owned by an individual it was owned by the crown.

get yr head out of yr ass

also that article says its considered

Forests sell-off abandoned as Cameron orders U-turn

Plans scrapped after furious backlash and Ed Miliband jibing about PM changing the Conservative emblem to a tree

www.theguardian.com

that one shows a u-turn and the plans were abandoned.
something changed since?

 

[Raven]

There is very little public owned land.

That is not to say most landowners actually care about people wild camping on their land (for example) because wild campers leave no trace. Cunts on the other hand, leave a mess.

 

[Moriath]

There is very little public owned land.

That is not to say most landowners actually care about people wild camping on their land (for example) because wild campers leave no trace. Cunts on the other hand, leave a mess.

but @Scouse was ranting that the tories have been selling it off since 2010 and they patently havent been. There was speculation in a coalition government in dec 2010 and by feb 2011 less than 2 months later the issue was dead.

 

[Moriath]

There is very little public owned land.

That is not to say most landowners actually care about people wild camping on their land (for example) because wild campers leave no trace. Cunts on the other hand, leave a mess.

Cunts leaving mess all over dartmoor in lockdown. people have been asked not to go into wistmans wood now cause they want to take bits of moss home with them

 

[Raven]

Some people shouldn't be allowed to leave their street.

Also, privately owned forest is no real issue if it has conditions. Lots of people buy themselves a bit of land to chill on. The problem is land that is then developed, which absolutely need to be stopped. We need to stop all changes to land usage. Woodland/wetland/wildland of any size should be off-limits for development.