Best Of

The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

@MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

Okay. You’ve succinctly holed the first argument below waterline, what about the second one?

“pledge to remove 750,000 migrants under borders plan”

I might be missing something with some of the questions asked - so I thought you could help out by putting answers next to them.

How realistic is this policy to implement?
Who exactly is being deported? If The undocumented, the Windrush Scandal says hi.
Where are the deportees? How will they be found, rounded up, at what financial cost?
Are deportees entitled to due process and a hearing?
If so, where are they waiting for their due process to play out - locked in detention centres?
Will they get a hearing from a judge, before detained?
And to where, and how, are they being deported?
Will families be ripped apart?

The question you didn't ask ties in with HYUFD's point.
What are these people doing now?
I suppose the answer will be they are non essential.
Personally I look forward to being cared for in my dotage not by a foreigner with empathy and experience, but by a white person with a string of minor convictions who has spent five years out of work on a mental health waiting list.
Others may differ.

I've had carers much of the time for the last three years. They have included 'traditional' Brits, and immigrants. One was the daughter of a US serviceman who'd preferred it here .... he was Afro-American. Two others were Polish who'd stayed here after Brexit. Another was Ecuadorean who'd been here for years. I've had a Filipino and a Thai, a Zambian and a Zimbabwean. I've had 'good' British and 'poor' British, 'good' immigrants and 'poor' immigrants.

The Tories had a conference? Who knew?

I did, and I bothered to follow it. Especially with us both coming from areas of Scotland that have been devastated by poor SNP governance for years and now Labour policies that have really affected our areas too?! I am sorry, but that kind of cheap dig really gets me when I think of the fact that the only real effective opposition to the SNP & SGreens has been the Scottish Conservatives!! Thank god for Scottish Conservatives and the last Conservative government at Westminster when it came to protecting women's rights. And also after just a few days ago when Douglas Ross's Right to Recovery bill all about promoting wider drug rehabilatation was voted down by the SNP and SGreens in Holyrood and in the country with the biggest drug deaths, particularly in Dundee!

Also coming from the North East of Scotland, I remain really angry at the impact of the SNP, SGreens and now the Labour Government at Westminster's devasting impact on the North Sea Gas and Oil Industry here. So your flippant lads together comment really jarred with someone else who actually lives in the North East of Scotland right now! I am fed up watching the only Opposition party in Scotland knocking its head against a brick wall and getting dismissed in this way by a long time dismissive snobbish group on here! When I arrived on this site twenty years ago, I was out loud and a proud female Scottish Conservative and I remain so thanks to their bloody hard work protecting my rights as a biological woman here in Scotland!!

So Kemi, you go girl!

As @Richard_Tyndall has explained, one effect of the Climate Change Act is that, instead of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, we import it instead. That is perverse.

Not at all, the legislation's working exactly as intended.

May got to feel self-righteous. The current Government gets to feel self-righteous. We outsource the pollution, and the profits.

It's entirely against the national interest, of course, but that's not the purpose of the legislation.

It's almost the legislative equivalent of when someone buys you a birthday present, only they've given a donation to charity instead and just add your name to it with a tag of: "Your gift is a donated school desk to a third world child". With the potentially dubious charity taking a nice fat cut.

The hard part of achieving Net Zero will be decarbonising domestic heating. Do we go with air source heat pumps, or convert the gas network to hydrogen?

The former requires most folk to rip out their entire central heating system, and most likely freeze their bits off on the coldest winter days.

The latter has people shouting "Hindenberg!" and fleeing in terror. (The two proposed 'hydrogen village' projects were cancelled due to opposition from the residents.)

Unsurprisingly, the decision on what to do is not one that governments wish to take.

I agree - a very simple change would be to decrease taxes on electricity while bumping them up on gas. A progressive policy that will help to accelerate the transition.

However, I'm very much a low-hanging fruit kind of person so electric vehicles has to be the focus for now - particularly as it mitigates our problem with renewable energy intermittency.

I’ve discovered in the last few weeks the real meaning of low hanging fruit. It’s the grape bunches the pheasants eat first on my vineyard, before moving on to the rest.

The rise in sea temperatures is largely due to the banning of sulphur in maritime fuels. This is widely recognised - part of Ed's crazy carbon capture scheme (a part that I support) is 'cloud brightening', to counteract the effects of this fuel change on the skies over the sea.

@MoonRabbit's attempt to use the rise in sea temperatures to defend Net Zero (which will do absolutely nothing to cool the seas), is fundamentally dishonest - something sadly very common in the Net Zero lobby.

Talking of fundamentally dishonest, here’s a global SSTA history from the 19th century to now.



The banning of marine sulphates occurred in 2020. It’s clearly had a very impressive retrospective effect on temperatures since 1900.

1900-2020 being of course a period during which marine sulphate emissions increased exponentially. Yet still the oceans warmed. Weird, eh! I wonder what on earth might have caused that?