Yet more proof.

[papasmurf]

Boris said he would deal with mass immigration.  People bought it en masse.  Did he do that?  I can see no difference.

There have been more legal and illegal immigrants arrive in the last three years than came in the last 2000 years.

[Scott777]

The Russian people as a rule buy any old bull that they are given, that's how Putins regime keep going.

Fair enough, but you can't say we have voted for the right people in recent decades, can you?  Boris said he would deal with mass immigration.  People bought it en masse.  Did he do that?  I can see no difference.

[BeElBeeBub]

Nuclear weapons are a last resort, as I'm sure even you can understand.  He had to stop Ukraine putting NATO nukes on his border.  He had not been left alone, because Ukraine had undergone regime change by the US.  Stop shilling for NATO and the US empire, and maybe stop changing the subject which is about the funding of pro-AGW by the state and the rich.  Putin does not do this, because he needs energy for his economy and for war, and the Russian people would not buy that net zero shit.

You've swallowed Putin's load right down mate.

He "had to stop NATO nukes on his border ....had to do this because of regime change by the US...."

Do you listen to yourself?

In 2022 there was zero prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.

There were and are no NATO nukes on the russian border nor any plans to.

As for the "regime change" - weird regime change when 75% of the parliament voted to impeach the president who then fled (to Russia), then they held elections.

Russians will accept alot of crap. Currently they are happily sending tens of thousands of their people a month to die. I really don't think having more efficient heating and some electric cars would phase them.



As a side note, I do find it fascinating how certain views trend together.

It is entirely unsurprising that you are pro Brexit, soft on Russia and an AGW denialist.

If I was a betting man, I bet you use the word "snowflake" and "woke" as insults, are extremely concerned about unisex toilets and consider yourself a patriot.

[Nick]

Nuclear weapons are a last resort, as I'm sure even you can understand.  He had to stop Ukraine putting NATO nukes on his border.  He had not been left alone, because Ukraine had undergone regime change by the US.  Stop shilling for NATO and the US empire, and maybe stop changing the subject which is about the funding of pro-AGW by the state and the rich.  Putin does not do this, because he needs energy for his economy and for war, and the Russian people would not buy that net zero shit.

The Russian people as a rule buy any old bull that they are given, that's how Putins regime keep going. 

[Scott777]

The guy with the world's largest nuclear arsenal needs to be protected from the west?

The dickhead would have been left well alone if he hadn't decided to push his luck too far and try to invade the rest of Ukraine.

Now he's fucked around and found out.

But the fact you are shilling for him also explains why you are anti AGW theory, the two often go hand in hand.

Nuclear weapons are a last resort, as I'm sure even you can understand.  He had to stop Ukraine putting NATO nukes on his border.  He had not been left alone, because Ukraine had undergone regime change by the US.  Stop shilling for NATO and the US empire, and maybe stop changing the subject which is about the funding of pro-AGW by the state and the rich.  Putin does not do this, because he needs energy for his economy and for war, and the Russian people would not buy that net zero shit.

[BeElBeeBub]

Putin needs energy to protect Russia from the West. 

The guy with the world's largest nuclear arsenal needs to be protected from the west?

The dickhead would have been left well alone if he hadn't decided to push his luck too far and try to invade the rest of Ukraine.

Now he's fucked around and found out.

But the fact you are shilling for him also explains why you are anti AGW theory, the two often go hand in hand.

[Nick]

Maglev trains don't need lubrication.

How is that anything to do with what I said?

[Scott777]

the method of forcing the switch (inventing AGW) needs to be simpler than any other method of forcing the switch - a classic and well trodden path is to whip up fear of a particular group (let's say foreigners) then use that as a pretext to remove freedoms (let's say an international human rights court)

Why does it need to be simpler?  How about, more effective?  Fear of the "end of the world" is presumably a more powerful method to manufacture consent, than fear of foreigners.

we would expect the governments more bent on control and with record of doing so to be the most enthusiastic at embracing it.  Yet it seems that the most repressive regimes and politicians are the ones the most against any net zero type moves.  Putin, Salman Al Saud, Trump , Bolsonaro, Melei etc.

I cannot comment on the other politicians, but Trump and Putin are not more "bent on control" than the most powerful people in the world, like Bill Gates and George Soros, whose money influences our politicians.  It's those rich arseholes who want the control.  Many politicians are just a bit dumb or like the money.  Putin needs energy to protect Russia from the West.  That's more important than controlling his population.  Going green would mean economic destruction.  Trump is not into control.  If he were, he would be more of a warmonger.  It's Biden and Obama who were bigger warmongers.

Anyway, it's not the point, this is speculation on your part.  None of it proves anything about what our politicians promote.  So far, you have only the very weakest argument, and yet cannot admit the simple common sense fact, that without oil & gas, we have less control of our own energy and our own lives.  The fact you won't admit it only shows how deceitful you are in this debate.

[BeElBeeBub]

I'm sure he has an electric dildo.  Does that count?  🤣

Did your wife tell you?

(Gutter post deserves a gutter reply)

[BeElBeeBub]

That means us plebs being dependent on electric for our energy.  You've ignored my comment about the state preferring that, and wanting to fund pro AGW.  Are you running away?

You can bang the "they are pushing AGW as a reason to switch us to electric" as much as you like, but that doesn't make it true.

Your argument has multiple critical points, any of which make it unlikely.

1) the switch to electrification has to make it easier to control the population than the status quo - we disagree on this point.

2) if 1 was true, the method of forcing the switch (inventing AGW) needs to be simpler than any other method of forcing the switch - a classic and well trodden path is to whip up fear of a particular group (let's say foreigners) then use that as a pretext to remove freedoms (let's say an international human rights court)

3) if 1 and 2 were true we would expect the governments more bent on control and with record of doing so to be the most enthusiastic at embracing it.  Yet it seems that the most repressive regimes and politicians are the ones the most against any net zero type moves.  Putin, Salman Al Saud, Trump , Bolsonaro, Melei etc.

[Scott777]

At no point have I (¹or any gwa advocate) said we shouldn't use oil at all.
But we should stop burning it for things we can replace with electrification.

That means us plebs being dependent on electric for our energy.  You've ignored my comment about the state preferring that, and wanting to fund pro AGW.  Are you running away?

[BeElBeeBub]

Try lubricating anything with electricity.

Nice straw man there Wurzel.

At no point have I (¹or any gwa advocate) said we shouldn't use oil at all.

We'll need to keep using it for all sorts of things - aviation will be very hard to replace. Plastics, lubricants, chemicals etc.

But we should stop burning it for things we can replace with electrification.

[Scott777]

Try lubricating anything with electricity.

I'm sure he has an electric dildo.  Does that count?  🤣

[papasmurf]

Try lubricating anything with electricity.

Maglev trains don't need lubrication.

[Nick]

Electricity has 2 advantages. It's utility, it can be used for anything that requires power, whist fossil fuels cannot (for example) run your mobile phone.
The second advantage is that the basic resource (sunz wind, running water) is very commonly available.

This contrasts with fossil fuels where the basic resource(crude oil, coal, gas) is very centralised and requires large scale processing before it become useable to the household.

You argue that the government could track down if I had batteries and solar panels via shopping records etc.  True.

But fossil fuels are no better. They can not only track you done via your shopping records of buying a generator, oil tank or propane tank, but also every time you fill them up.

They could even track down your wood stove via your shopping records.

The argument about wood is more or less moot regarding control .  The government doesn't have to fabricate a reason to move the population away from wood as an energy source because the population has already moved away.

in fact with the exception of mains gas for heating and diesel /petrol for transport, the population has already moved away. Almost nobody still uses coal - the infrastructure to buy and deliver it is very sparse now. Heating oil and LPG are pretty niche.  Wood (as mentioned) almost zero for anything other than nostalgia.

So really, the argument is "are the government trying to move us away from gas boilers and ICE cars to make it easier to control us?"

Mains gas is irrelevant as you can't store it at home.

So we are down to fuel for transport.

Again, whilst you can store some fuel you can't store much and people generally don't store any.  The fuel strikes showed that.

A small electric car or (even better) ebike can be very much proof against any kind of fuel interruption, state sponsored or.otherwise.

I think your argument boils down to the clarkson argument - "I like my ICE car"

Try lubricating anything with electricity.