Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Rishi Sunak U-turns on net zero climate proposals" video.

  1. What lies did the call out exactly? I heard them tell plenty of furphies of there own but didn't see them call out any lies from anyone else
    7
  2. Please stop talking about things you do not actually understand.
    5
  3. No one is "offended" by EVs.
    4
  4.  @JamesSmith-qs4hx  They hold on to this idea of charging their vehicles for free with home solar. And this gamblers fallacy leads them to ignore that they've signed their car up to what is effectively the same manufactured obsolescence model as mobile phones. H-FCEV solves all of these issues. It's just going to be a couple years before at scale hydrogen production supply lines are in place and existing petrol stations upgrade their pumps to hydrogen in sufficient numbers. But, it's absolutely happening. 30p/L and 1500-2000km of a single tank depending on the model. With efficiency improvements we may see H-FCEVs capable of 3000km on a single tank by 2040. I don't know why the battery EV people get so upset about H-FCEV either. An at home hydrogen generator costs 1/16th the price of solar.
    2
  5. I was pleased to hear Christian admit that Rhetoric is made up nonsense. So why then does he and his colleagues at CH4 continue to push rhetoric? This video really was an absurdist, rhetoric filled, jump up and down activist piece. ITVhave a piece out today about a family in the UK being evicted from their home every 8 minutes and you're here crying about Sunak giving people 5 extra years before they're forced to buy an EV? Which mind you will give the automotive industry the additional time to get H-FCEV infrastructure in place and rolling along so people aren't wasting money on worse environmental technologies like battery EV. I enjoyed that as much as you tried to rig your little poll and present it out of context it simply didn't swing in your favour. And I do mean little with a statistically insignificant sample size of just 2K people. I had to laugh when you followed it up with a man on the street bit and everyone asked whose job wasn't directly linked to renewables say it was perfectly fine and they didn't see a problem. Then after 3 of those people in a row your reporter goes "and there are millions of voices just like them all across the nation." 😂 Well yes, there are. Millions who don't see any issue with this, because there simply isn't one. Does Christian not realise that an exemption from being FORCED to do something, doesn't mean you can't CHOOSE to do it anyway? I ask because he seems to believe that people will have extraordinary gas bills because of an exemption and they won't have a remedy. No one is stopping anyone from buying an TV, installing a heat pump, or doing whatever other nonsense you want to tell yourself is going to have an impact as the population continues to grow. Companies already having made large scale investments aren't going to suddenly shift course because the plan has been graduated with a 5 year buffer. The ONLY thing that has changed, the ONLY thing, is the date things are forced to take place. And the ONLY reason for anyone to be upset with that is if they concede that the average person, the majority, are not on board with or do not have the means to, meet those targets. How does someone having to use a food bank to scrap by paying their exorbitant rents or mortgage payments, afford to buy a AA powered vehicle that will be a paperweight in 6 years anyway? How does someone choosing between heating and their medication afford to change their boiler? It's unrealistic pie in the sky nonsense that will not solve the problem. The science has been clear from the beginning, and there is clear scientific consensus on this today. Climate change, along with many other problems we face globally is caused by an artificial population boom that has extended many times beyond our populations natural limits, and ONLY managed depopulation can solve the problem. Net zero, which is NOT actually zero it's just creative accounting, is just an ever moving target in the race to the bottom. The official global population target is 1 billion people, and it has been since 1964. STOP HAVING CHILDREN.
    2
  6.  @diverguy3556  What on earth are you flapping on about? What do you believe some Yankville pundit you once heard has to do, at all, with Sunak giving people an extra 5 years to save for a new vehicle? Honestly, the empty headedness some you clowns.
    1
  7.  @DrewzerNI  That's a weird thing to be excited for and to communicate to a stranger, but each to their own and all that.
    1
  8.  @DrewzerNI  No, what is weird is this conversation. Apparently you aren't aware you could go buy a H-FCEV today if you were so inclined. I tried to be gentle in nudging you on that just now but apparently you didn't catch on and were determined to make a clown of yourself. Every major vehicle manufacturer either has a H-FCEV model currently on the market, or has one releasing next year. 🤣
    1
  9.  @DrewzerNI  False again. If you live in London there are currently 3 stations kitted out, or at least 1 within every major city in the UK. For a network that has only begun rolling out in the last 12 months that is miles ahead of where charging stations were. Indeed unlike charging stations they just utilise existing petrol stations. Pump conversations are fast and relatively cheap. Over the next 5 years you will see more and more petrol stations converting one or two of their pumps to hydrogen. Alternatively you can elect to install a hydrogen generator at home if you wish and be equipped to refill from the convenience of your own home. Your argument is feeble and childlike.
    1
  10.  @DrewzerNI  There is nowhere in England where that is the case. lol there's no sales pitch you clown, simply a demonstration that your argument is entirely baseless. The fact of the matter is that battery EV was only ever transitional and the transport landscape will be H-FCEV in 2035, some 12 years away.
    1
  11.  @shoelessjoe428  False. 97% of climate scientists, including the IPCC and the climate council agree that depopulation is what is required. It's featured in every major climate report since 1962, and has featured in every IPCC annual report since it's inception in 1987. Net zero is not actual zero. Instead it's a perpetually moving target, and a whole bunch of creative accounting. Climate change, along with many other global problems, is at it's essence the result of an artificial population boom which has seen our species grow global population to 16x it's real world natural limits. The official target population is 1 billion people globally, and it's been that way since 1964. Weather is NOT climate. Period. That people do not know what climate actually is, is a major part of the problem.
    1