Having a “Thick Skin”. ?
That can’t B ALL Bad. These days.
AI. Is less penetrable. 
E
1 Like
Or rather it gets fact checked by thousands of scientists over the last 50 years and shown to be correct. Against that are a bunch of keyboard conspiracy theorists suggesting otherwise. So what you mean to say here is “have you noticed how CO2 and global warming fact checking never comes up with answer I want”.
That is definitely not something I have noticed, it seems to be fact checked all the time
1 Like
it’s impossible to fact check whether the measures we put into place such as renewables and recycling have any impact on global warming. Or whether some such as massive recycling facilities make things worse. Or whether anything we do at all will reverse something that has been building up for many decades.
The “net zero” label is a total con because this doesn’t stop expansion of production of stuff we don’t need and doesn’t stop the impact on the environment. We then have pointless wars that are causing massive shocks in the environment. The problem is there, the solutions are not effective in my view.
What is clearly evident is that we can change the impact of pollution and plastics / chemical waste on the ecology of our planet, flora, fauna and animal life all of which have a direct impact on human life in the here and now and all of which can and should be tightly controlled for that reason.
We also know we need renewable energy, not because of the net zero or trying to stop global warming but because we need energy security, particularly for the rollout of AI which nobody voted for but everyone will get nonetheless.
1 Like
Back to Brexit … lots of fact checking going on and none of it positive about Brexit. One economist even says the lies / false promises made by Farage & Johnson were crimes and they should be held accountable
Ha Ha ‘The Daily Briton’ isn’t that just like GB News except extreme left wing…?
The report was about a Channel 4 news interview. So did you mean ha ha channel 4 news, isn’t that just exactly like real news?
Science is just political manipulation these days.
Peer reviewed science, which is actually the only kind, is not manipulation. Selective extracts ir selective interpretations of science can be, and regrettably is, used for political ends. But that only works when you have a gullible, lazy audience who can’t be bothered reading up on the actual science.
I’m sure, on a local level, people were swayed by political rhetoric into supporting the Brexit campaign when they had no idea what the issues involved were and even regretted their decision afterwards. The politicians/members of parliament/civil servants are employed to make these decisions so why ask ordinary people?
1 Like
that’s no protection from bias or corruption these days. Perhaps it was always this way. After all early scientists were locked up or fell into disrepute when their discoveries conflicted with accepted teaching.
Science paper selective extracts seem to be much like those who throw Bible phrases at each other to justify actions.
2 Likes
Unfortunately the average person will be working for a living, spending time with their loved ones or persuing hobbies and living lives and not lazy at all. They will rely on good unbiased information and news for the limited time they have to validify something that they cannot influence, sadly these days unbised news and truthful documentaries are a rare commodity.
I kind of understand the “too busy” argument. But it is a dismal point of view, is it not? Compared to past decades it is so very easy to conduct a little gathering of insight and information. So easy and so quick. Sorry but folk you decide not to look beyond the politician spouted headline are truly thick, lazy, and end up being gullible.
It is a sad reflection on the post-truth, post-education, post-awareness world we live in.
I was looking back at the sterling - euro exchange rate. This is a good reflection of the economic prospects between two entities, as reflected in the market’s view of future prosperity and growth.
So before the 2008 crash the exchange rate bumped along at about 1.45 euros to the pound. After the crash the money markets recognised the relatively high exposure in the UK to the financial crisis - after all so much of the UK economy is in the finance sector. That exposure meant the markets down-valued sterling and for 2-3 years the rate fell to 1.15 euros to the pound.
The sterling crawled back up as the markets saw that the UK was recovering. It reach 1.40 euros to the pound again in 2015.
Then came the Brexit referendum. The exchange rate immediately fell to 1.16 euros to the pound. That is, the money markets (who invest heavily in research and assessments and really do understand the economies of different places) hugely down valued sterling. In short, they knew that Brexit would badly impact the prospects of the UK. And overall since then the exchange rate has never moved much above 1.20 euros to the pound. Even when the exit agreement was finalised the experts in the money markets rated the UK’s prospects as significantly worse than before 2016.
Well done Brexit fans.
You’re welcome. 
The Labour Party HQ?
1 Like
Why the happy laughing faces? Do you hate the UK that much?
Pesonallky, I have quite a lot of resentment for the way the UK is (currently) Run.
Even more resentment for the way it would be run if given back to the EU mob .
Looking back, however, over all of the postings, on here, it’s clear that some have nothing else worth worrying about.
2 Likes
Remind me, what aspect of UK governance, control and running was the EU responsible for? The UK was in the EU for many years so you should be able to give a clear answer.
This interesting. It appears that there were only significant misrepresentation on the impact on UK GDP from Brexit from one side. The forecasts of a negative impact were, by and large, correct. The wildly unrealistic pro-leave projection was … wildly unrealistic.
Looks like no-one has benefited from Brexit.
