sidneybear

Aside from your usual childish jeering, you didn't address the point I made about Larry Fink, the Blackrock chief, channelling investment into ESG related businesses and away from fossil fuels, rebutting your assertion that "banks" aren't showing favouritism.

The place you came from, which is why you're here 😄

Good riddance. They wanted to make Thailand like the west.

That's the direction it's heading, yes. Investment funds are divesting fossil fuel assets to satisfy the green creed. Larry Fink was well known for shareholder activism, insisting that ESG was an integral part of board decisions in exchange for shareholder cash.

That's the crux of the problem. Lefty Nut Zero politics and so called unreliable "renewables" (which need back up base load or expensive and polluting batteries) are inflicting poverty onto average people.

You didn't answer my question. If renewable energy is so cheap and available, why are consumer energy costs skyrocketing? And a follow on question, how will batteries provide sufficient base load when there's no wind?

Good observation. These big consulting houses sell their souls for cash. Look at how Arthur Anderson was in bed with Enron, headed up by 'Fred the Shred'. The rest is history.

It's fantastic that renewable are so cheap like you say, and all these windmills have saved personkind from nasty weather. You must feel very pleased with yourself. If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

That's what the nihilistic warmist faith wants and demands of the rest of us.

But the report on Wikipedia deleting a list of scientists who were questioning the warmist faith. It had screen shots and all. Media bias fact check boasts impartiality but since it's obviously disparaging of a right wing viewpoint, who do you think donates to it? I recently did a bit of digging around on the purportedly impartial factcheck.org. Turns out its donors included the National Endowment for Democracy, a supposedly impartial NGO that's actually funded by the US state, of the Democrat persuasion. If in doubt, follow the money trail. No single media outlet is impartial, so it's important to read all sides and draw conclusions. Scepticism is a healthy trait, and protects us from the evil of those who wish us harm.

People really are motivated by money. Scientists are people. The money back just one side of the debate. What could possibly go wrong?

Define it then. Tell me in your own words what you think it means.

What's political standpoint would you describe as "far right"? Is far right anything to the right of Chairman Mao, who also inflicted poverty and famine on millions? Or is it anyone who questions what's on the telly?

So contribute something to the discussion then. Show us how smart you are.

The hilarious part of all this is that Canada chops down its forests to make wood chips or "biomass" as they're euphemistically called. These chips are then put on carbon belching ships and are transported across the Atlantic to the Drax power station in the UK, where they're burned to generate electricity. The UK then pretends that this electricity is "carbon neutral" because it wasn't generated using locally produced coal. The green industry is a gigantic con job that relies on a powerful lobby group, an amazingly crafty marketing team, the media, censorship, and gullible folks of the kind we see on this forum.

Massively isn't a very scientific word, now is it? It's the kind of emotional word a zealot would use to defend an indefensible point.

I understand thermodynamics, and that energy can't be created or destroyed, but you're making the assumption that the earth is a closed system and that the sun progressively warms the oceans. What actually happens is that heat is radiated back into space. It's true that CO2 reduces that radiation, but CO2 is produced by more than just the burning of fossil fuels. Limestone rocks emit it, oceans emit it, decomposition emits it, volcanoes emit it, animals fart it, loss of forests doesn't absorb it, etcetera. If you look back through the ages, there are times when CO2 was much higher than it is now - times when neither humans nor use if fossil fuels existed. The earth does its thing in very long and shorter cycles. Blaming it all on humans and asking people to live in poverty to control the weather is, well, antihuman.

That's a woke dictionary. It's obvious were the term denier originated, and the definition is incomplete.

Hypocrite isn't a slur. It merely describes one who doesn't live by his stated beliefs https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

Got any evidence to support this?

Denier is most definitely a personal slur, because it's common usage originated as an adjective to describe those evil folks who deny the holocaust. To call someone a denier of a conmonly held belief equates them with that same evil. Those who promote the belief of climate change are clearly hypocrites if they fly, because flying depends on fossil fuels and produces high CO2 emissions.

Got any evidence to support this?

Links...

https://reclaimthenet.org/wikipedia-deletes-list-of-scientists-who-disagree-with-the-consensus-on-climate-change Keep reading what the censors let you read

"Denier" is likewise a personal slur, which you stated using because you were caught out supporting the groupthink.