Brown pledges extra £7.5 BILLION while at Copenhagen

[Seatherny]

I did read what you said, i've read what you have said everytime you have replied in thuis thread and the other thread - and i'm afraid its the same old nonsense about how sea levels are supposedly rising and how climate change is an issue yet it ignores every single point I have made about longshore drift, flood plains, pull of the moon, ice being pushed from the centre of the poles and the fact that ice melts in the summetime, hence all the pictures of melting ice.

On the scientists, not all scientists are saying this. It only seems to be the scientists who are on government/EU payroll who a group were found out to be fixing data to suit the idea that the climate is changing, when its clearly not.

Why are you not replying to my comments on ozone then? :S :S :S
Is it because you know that you know very little on it and are not aware of how it works?
I have replied to your ideas on the moon. You know little/nothing about the ozone hence you are unable to reply to it, hence you cannot really comment on anything.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why are you not replying to my comments on ozone then? :S :S :S
Is it because you know that you know very little on it and are not aware of how it works?
I have replied to your ideas on the moon. You know little/nothing about the ozone hence you are unable to reply to it, hence you cannot really comment on anything.

Yes it is, as I have said before I don't know much about the ozone layer so I really don't know why you are asking me it again when i've clearly said in the past I don't know all that much on the ozone layer.

Would you like to reply now to my points raised, points which actually make sense rather than this hypothetical version of events you are giving which seems to suggest that the oceans are rising. Oh and I don't know if you know this or not, but the Ozone layer doesn't have an effect on climate it seems to be, as the ozone is only a layer which stops radiation from the Sun hitting the Earth.

[Tash.]

Rebel because I disagree with you, Labour and the European Union? - well if i'm a rebel most of this country is for sure a rebel because most people on the streets don't want EU and don't believe in global warming, or as its called nowadays climate change.

No, not rebel because you disagree with me, but because you have one major chip on your shoulder when it comes to the leadership of this country. I've already told you before, it is impossible to please all the people all the time, and really UKIP aren't going to get a chance to run this country and i'm really glad because i'd be petrified of what would happen. You cannot say that "most people on the streets don't want EU and don't believe in globalm warming" because you have no proof at all to support that statement.

On the common sense, yes it would. If the ice caps are melting then my common sense would of detected a sea rise when i'm on the beach or at the docks at the River Mersey - no sea rise. As I said before, the others factors I mentioned are in play and not climate change.

So now your eyes can detect the change in the sea level now can they? Amazing. What utter tripe. It's obvious you aren't going to recognise the sea level rising right now, it's not drastic enough for you to see yet. However this does not mean it's not happening.

You have just said the Earth is warming right after acknowledging what I explained to you, even when I explain in a simple a) and b) way its ignored, but am I genuinely suprised? - not really.

I didn't ignore it, I simply think you stated the obvious. Just because I didn't directly reference them doesn't mean I ignored it. I actually tried to explain why I thought the earth was warming, but I think you didn't read it.

Oh so now you are saying the climate COULD warm, well that sums up the whole climate issue to anybody reading this that without a shadow of a doubt all the facts such as the ones I mentioned are ignored, and everything is based on what could happen. A lot of things could happe, a volcano could sprout up in my back garden overnight but we don't spend billions upon billions on 'preventing' it because its simply not a threat, just like climate change.

I've never said anything different? Of course it could. Science does not always have to be exact. Scientists cannot say exactly the date when the ice caps will have melted to an extent where we will begin to notice because it all depends on various factors. And yes, a volcano could pop up in your back garden, but here is a prime example of you resorting to stupidity. Climate change is a threat, whether you acknowledge it or not is simply irrelevant.

Yes, traditionally and even more so with the last government the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a lot of control over spending, as was said before; if the treasury would of refused funding for the Iraq war then the premiership of Tony Blair would of collapsed overnight.

Oh my, no it could not. Do you really think that would happen? Of course it wouldn't.. I aren't getting into the Iraq war with you as well, i'm fighting too many battles with you here and my head is spinning with you. I think you should consider being an MP in later life, you sure love to try and worm your way out of difficult discussions by resorting to things which are completely off topic.

On the downturn, Gordon sold our gold off at a stupendously cheap price, Gordon failed to see the collapse in financial capital coming which many were predicting (even I noticed in that summer before the collapse of major banks how the housing market was on its last legs) - something had to give. Gordons hands are all over it, especially when he funded a very wasteful state splashout during the last decade and continues to do so to this day, using our money to pay hundreds of thousands of buracrats in whitehall and across town halls in this country (not to mention the rising sums to the EU and tinpots like President Mugabe).

Yes Gordon did sell off the Gold, clearly this was a bad move. I can't see how you can say that he didn't see the collapse in financial capital coming unless you're inside his head? Have you ever thought that he may have realised it was too late to stop it happening? Another question for you, how is he bankrolling Mugabe now? I'm not sure I understand this one?

I have one question for you; how (tell me how and what) did the Thatcher government ruin this country?

You obviously have not heard of the winter of discontent, the strikes, Sunny Jim, the Kinnocks, Aruther Scargill, Derek Hatton and our good friend Michael Foot whos manifesto was perhaps the most famous (and absurd) manifesto in history.

Here it goes:
Thatcher stopped free milk to school age children, something which was not well recieved and still is not till this day. This is not as important as some of the things I am about to list, but something that is nonetheless acknowledged as a bad move. She privatised many national institutions such as British Rail (which is in a very very bad state right now, and has arguably never been right since) and British Gas to name just two. She sold off council houses which resulted in a serious lack of affordable housing. She closed hundreds of mines across the country which resulted in furious protests and clashes between miners and the police. She became so hated, even by those within her own party, that she was forced to resign as PM before they overthrew her. I think maybe you have forgotten about all of these things. Oh and on a final note, just so that you get the message of how wrong you are here. Mrs Thatcher is the one who joined the EC, now known as the EU or the route of all evil in you mind. But i'm guessing you forgot or just glossed over that fact

I do not want a complete halt to immigration, yet again you (the left) shows it cannot accept the fact that people want simple controls our immigration to stop our country turning into a crime-ridden racial ghetto, but hey as I have said before, i'm not suprised.

Yes you do? I've seen you write it several times over the past month on these boards. You and UKIP wish to halt all immigration for 5 years.. how is that not a complete halt to immigration? Again, please stop presuming my political leanings, i've never discussed my politics so you do not know what I stand for, kindly stop pushing the left upon me.

Thanks for proving my point.

You and Tash have both ignored my points in sea levels, ice pushing from the poles, pull of the moon, longshore drift and others, so it is infact me who is unable to understand how you can argue about this point and not the other way around.

And finally, I did not ignore you. As Saurav has said you fail to understand our points, so you keep saying we ignored you when infact we haven't.

[Seatherny]

Yes it is, as I have said before I don't know much about the ozone layer so I really don't know why you are asking me it again when i've clearly said in the past I don't know all that much on the ozone layer.

Would you like to reply now to my points raised, points which actually make sense rather than this hypothetical version of events you are giving which seems to suggest that the oceans are rising. Oh and I don't know if you know this or not, but the Ozone layer doesn't have an effect on climate it seems to be, as the ozone is only a layer which stops radiation from the Sun hitting the Earth.

Oh my. Lack of Ozone causes the Earth to warm up. Of course that isn't changing the climate ... :rolleyes:
I wonder if you are really saying such things ...
Like I said, if you dont know about the O-Zone, you cannot argue on this as that is the cause of Global Warming. You cant just go into a debate not knowing one of the most fundamental causes :S Earth warms up, sea level rises and that causes flooding. Is it really that hard to understand?

Where have you come up with the moon story? Because a non-British/USA government had it done by one of their scientists? :rolleyes:

[Grainger@CUFC]

Is it me, or is Gordon Brown the only short sighted leader out there? He goes on that it's for the 'greater good'. Well yeah, it may be for the 'greater good' of the world in the very long-term, which is good, but getting his own country out of debt before pledging that much money would be better.

I'm all for making change to help the environment, but we need to do it when we can afford it, not when it plunges us all deeper into the red.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, not rebel because you disagree with me, but because you have one major chip on your shoulder when it comes to the leadership of this country. I've already told you before, it is impossible to please all the people all the time, and really UKIP aren't going to get a chance to run this country and i'm really glad because i'd be petrified of what would happen. You cannot say that "most people on the streets don't want EU and don't believe in globalm warming" because you have no proof at all to support that statement.

I have a chip on my shoulder because people like you (the left) who do not mirror what the people of this country want are running this country, and running it into the ground. Of course you are afraid of UKIP getting into power, and so are the ruling elite and that explains why they are firmly opposed to voting reform despite pledging to reform it everytime whilst in opposition.

Where is my evidence? - polls and the refusal of the ruling elite to give us a referendum on the European Union, there is your evidence.

So now your eyes can detect the change in the sea level now can they? Amazing. What utter tripe. It's obvious you aren't going to recognise the sea level rising right now, it's not drastic enough for you to see yet. However this does not mean it's not happening.

Yes they can, thats what eyes are for. If houses near the sea are underwater then maybe i'll give the climate change lobby some of my time and could even be persuaded to believe in it, but as no water levels have increased I can't lie to myself about the issue as I used to before I started realising what a big myth the whole thing is and what a joke it is.

I didn't ignore it, I simply think you stated the obvious. Just because I didn't directly reference them doesn't mean I ignored it. I actually tried to explain why I thought the earth was warming, but I think you didn't read it.

Of course you have ignored them, I have given all the reasons why natural events such as flooding occur but you continue to ramble on with how the seas are apparently rising and how the climate is changing.

I've never said anything different? Of course it could. Science does not always have to be exact. Scientists cannot say exactly the date when the ice caps will have melted to an extent where we will begin to notice because it all depends on various factors. And yes, a volcano could pop up in your back garden, but here is a prime example of you resorting to stupidity. Climate change is a threat, whether you acknowledge it or not is simply irrelevant.

A stupid example has just shown how stupid the climate change saga is, everything is a threat but you don't throw billions and billions on something which all the evidence points to is not happening.

Oh my, no it could not. Do you really think that would happen? Of course it wouldn't.. I aren't getting into the Iraq war with you as well, i'm fighting too many battles with you here and my head is spinning with you. I think you should consider being an MP in later life, you sure love to try and worm your way out of difficult discussions by resorting to things which are completely off topic.

Yes it could, its widely talked about on the BBC and co. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the second most powerful man in government, perhaps on par with the Prime Minister himself. If a Chancellor refuses to fund a government program then it would spark a crisis, especially over a war.

Yes Gordon did sell off the Gold, clearly this was a bad move. I can't see how you can say that he didn't see the collapse in financial capital coming unless you're inside his head? Have you ever thought that he may have realised it was too late to stop it happening? Another question for you, how is he bankrolling Mugabe now? I'm not sure I understand this one?

The financial collapse would of happened no matter who was in government, and call me crazy or what ever, but in the long run a financial crash is healthy for the economy. Capitalism needs collapses to run and function. What I am contesting and what everyone has contested is the fast that Gordon Brown and this government refused to cut public spending when it was already over the top and continue to do so to this day.

How is he bankrolling Mugabe? - this money that he has just given (my money, your money) is going towards poor countries, now we know what happens when financial aid reaches poor countries don't we? - the corrupt leaders take it and bank it. That is why Mugabe, ZANU-PF and all the dictators of Africa are minted.

If you think President Mugabe is going to spend that money on wind turbines or his own people then you are living a dream.

Here it goes:
Thatcher stopped free milk to school age children, something which was not well recieved and still is not till this day. This is not as important as some of the things I am about to list, but something that is nonetheless acknowledged as a bad move.

OH MY GOD. Despite the country being bankrupt and having to go to the IMF, with millions in poverty the sick COW took away their milk. Well now you have truly convinced me what an evil cow she was.

She privatised many national institutions such as British Rail (which is in a very very bad state right now, and has arguably never been right since) and British Gas to name just two.

Do you know why she privatised industry? - because they were owned by the state and were making severe losses, which we the taxpayers had to pick up the bill. The country was already in dire straits and this was one of the main problems. This is the difference between socialist/communist economies; North Korea, USSR, China under Mao (disgusting poverty) and capitalist economies; United States and the western world.

She sold off council houses which resulted in a serious lack of affordable housing.

Do you know how many people that helped?. For the FIRST TIME EVER in peoples lives they could afford to buy their own house, something they could achieve and work towards. The shortage was the fault of governments which followed (Major and Blair) and not the Thatcher government.

She closed hundreds of mines across the country which resulted in furious protests and clashes between miners and the police.

Do you know why this is? - the mines were making SERIOUS losses which again were being put on the country which was sinking under its own debt. Please, I beg you as I did, to read on Militant tendancy and the Unions and then come back and say that.

She became so hated, even by those within her own party, that she was forced to resign as PM before they overthrew her. I think maybe you have forgotten about all of these things.

Do you know why? - see below.

Oh and on a final note, just so that you get the message of how wrong you are here. Mrs Thatcher is the one who joined the EC, now known as the EU or the route of all evil in you mind. But i'm guessing you forgot or just glossed over that fact

Indeed she did, and do you know why and what forced her from office? - The Europe issue. Europhiles within the Conservative Party got increasingly angry at her for refusing to adopt the Euro as the new currency and her continued attacks on the European Project. Again, please read up on Michael Heseltine.

Yes you do? I've seen you write it several times over the past month on these boards. You and UKIP wish to halt all immigration for 5 years.. how is that not a complete halt to immigration? Again, please stop presuming my political leanings, i've never discussed my politics so you do not know what I stand for, kindly stop pushing the left upon me.

That is not a complete halt to immigration, its called a temperory measure so we can sort the current mess out and find out who is and is not in this country. On the left, you are left; you dispute the fact that people do not want the European Union yet I assume that you would not support a referendum on the EU which shows the hypocrisy of that argument. You oppose everything to do with Conservatism and the right of the individual to create his own business (Thatcherism). If socialism is so good, go and live in North Korea and see how you like it then.

And finally, I did not ignore you. As Saurav has said you fail to understand our points, so you keep saying we ignored you when infact we haven't.

You have not raised any valid points, the sea levels are not rising and the temperature has not changed. There is no point you are making.

Oh my. Lack of Ozone causes the Earth to warm up. Of course that isn't changing the climate ... :rolleyes:
I wonder if you are really saying such things ...
Like I said, if you dont know about the O-Zone, you cannot argue on this as that is the cause of Global Warming. You cant just go into a debate not knowing one of the most fundamental causes :S Earth warms up, sea level rises and that causes flooding. Is it really that hard to understand?

You obviously do not understand longshore drift, pull of the moon and all the other things I mentioned hence why you haven't responded once to what I have said on those points. The ozone layer does not hold in toxic gases but keeps out harmful radiation from the Sun, it has no link from what I have read with the climate.

The greenhouse effect has no link with the ozone, otherwise if there was a depleting ozone layer would be good as it would be allowing CO2's and so on to escape into space.

Where have you come up with the moon story? Because a non-British/USA government had it done by one of their scientists? :rolleyes:

It is scientific fact, you know like the way we were taught in primary school about the effect of the moon on the tides? (the moon causes the tides).

[Seatherny]

You obviously do not understand longshore drift, pull of the moon and all the other things I mentioned hence why you haven't responded once to what I have said on those points. The ozone layer does not hold in toxic gases but keeps out harmful radiation from the Sun, it has no link from what I have read with the climate.

The greenhouse effect has no link with the ozone, otherwise if there was a depleting ozone layer would be good as it would be allowing CO2's and so on to escape into space.

It is scientific fact, you know like the way we were taught in primary school about the effect of the moon on the tides? (the moon causes the tides).

Read my reply in my previous posts about the Moon. Radiation heats up the Earth. How hard is that to understand :s
Greenhouse gases have no link on the ozone? Are you crazy? Its whats causing a depletion in the O-Zone layer, especially over Australia.
Go read up on O-Zone as you obviously have no clue what you are on about. Like I have said earlier, you cannot comment on climate change if you do not understand this fundamental part.

The financial collapse would of happened no matter who was in government,

So UKIP would have failed too, so why are you moaning about Gordon Brown selling gold cheaply and hinting that caused the financial crisis :rolleyes:
Make your mind up and go read up on the ozone. We were taught about this in primary school :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Read my reply in my previous posts about the Moon. Radiation heats up the Earth. How hard is that to understand :s
Greenhouse gases have no link on the ozone? Are you crazy? Its whats causing a depletion in the O-Zone layer, especially over Australia.
Go read up on O-Zone as you obviously have no clue what you are on about. Like I have said earlier, you cannot comment on climate change if you do not understand this fundamental part.

Radiation from the Sun does not heat up the Earth. I have just read up on the Ozone layer, and nothing was linked to global warming and why should it be? - the Ozone protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, it does not trap greenhouse gases. Therefore it has no link. It is you who cannot comment on climate change because you have no given one reply to the pull of the moon, longshire drift or building next to a river. Give a decent reply and maybe you'll have some weight behind what you are saying.

On what I said above about temperatures, there is no consistent rise in temperatures, temperatures will change and always have, as when the Roman Empire was about, the Province of Britannia used to grow grape vines, but now that is nearly impossible as it is now too cold to grow them on such a large and successful scale.

[Seatherny]

I edited my post just before you replied, please reply to that too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So UKIP would have failed too, so why are you moaning about Gordon Brown selling gold cheaply and hinting that caused the financial crisis :rolleyes:
Make your mind up and go read up on the ozone. We were taught about this in primary school :rolleyes:

I didn't say Gordon Brown caused the financial crisis, and neither have I said that Gordon Brown selling our gold stocks caused the financial crisis. I am making the point about how Gordon Brown and Labour handled the crisis and the economy generally from 1997 onwards to this very point in time which will lead to dire economic consquences last seen in 1979 under the last Labour government.

I have read the Ozone dear, just as I said above. It shows no link with the climate. Now I suggest that you go and read on longshore drift, ice age, pull of the moon and
rivers.