We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
So is your contention that Thatcher was good for the economy because, according to stats you mysteriously can't find, she had the UK become the 3rd largest economy by GDP for one month?! Even though, year-by-year or quarter by quarter (which I demonstrated with indisputable evidence) she oversaw it dropping relative to other countries? As I say- you're a joke pal. Funny how you couldn't share that evidence at the time and you still can't now...
Do you believe sharing the university and year you graduated would identify you? I guess you might think that if you'd never been to a graduation ceremony... This is too easy 🤣
Stack I can’t help you work out how to use an internet search engine to get month on month GDP data, you’re way too thick.
Why do you think I’m going to give you the information to identify me when you won’t do the same?
You’re a a Fanny. You claim to have more money than you can spend yet spend your life agitating on a board where you hold a paltry £50k worth of stock. You post nowhere else
Tesla, which country is responsible for 33% of the worlds CO2 emissions? Which country has 1100 coal power stations and opens a new one every single fortnight? Which country’s emissions are growing at the rate of one U.K. worth of emissions every year?
I’ll let you think about that one
Will the dog have eaten your degree certificate like it did that data you promised about GDP under Thatcher? You're a laughing stock, pal, but you can't see it. Made so much worse by your attempts at physical intimidation on an anonymous message board!
Name your carpark, big boy. I imagine you're more familiar with multistorey carparks than graduation ceremonies. Name your university and the year you graduated your 'science degree' (still chuckling) or everyone here will assume the same as me- you made some up like you do every time someone points out how dumb you sound.
1984
Which country brought on more solar power last year than the US have in total?
I’ll give you a clue this country also expect to hit peak oil and coal use this year……🤔
Triumph, upticked for spotting the elites contradicting their own policies but you still don’t understand the agenda.
BRICS don’t care, they want growth and they understand that cheap energy means prosperity. If they were concerned that their actions would destroy the planet they would be in a better place than us to row back given they’re not used to luxury and automation to the levels we are
My point about was kids was meant to raise contention. Do you feel one man’s right to breed new CO2 machines like a rabbit outweighs another man’s right to drive a six litre Bentley?
Because that is actually closer to the crux of what this is all about. It’s about exerting power and control over people on a false narrative. Rules for ye but not for me as the elites would put it.
Just as we saw Tories partying in Downing Street in the eyes of the storm that was a virus that could wipe mankind out, we see gates, soros, thunberg and Charlie on private jets gathering to tell us the rest of us are doomed if we don’t give up our cars and meat
To not be able to see the obvious is something that worries me about humanity right now
Carolina Orozco chairwoman of the CME(Mining Association) states in this video they had a busy January with the Ecuadorian National Assembly & parties agreed on scrapping 2 mining tax laws deemed enormously onerous for the mining industry. No details mentioned but GOOD news $SOLG
Curtesy of HH on X.
Absolutely, SM. To quote Wodehouse; " two mastadons bellowing across the primeval swamp."
So you lied about the university thing and now you've been rumbled about that too. Desperately sad that you can't just be happy being you, but I guess that's just the lot of your average tiny Tory incel. Keep pretending, champ. One day you'll be enough!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, keyboard soldier: you don't scare anyone, and you make people laugh when you try your hard man act. If I met you in a carpark I'd be worried about your safety around moving vehicles: you've probably read online that being hit by cars doesn't really injure people...
am i the only one wondering why two keyboard warriors who both claim they don't need anymore money are spending their time arguing about climate change, almost on a daily basis, on a lse investment board?
it is so beyond tedious. we are at a critical stage of solg's development and today's bizarre trading *might* imply something is afoot. please just swap emails and **** each other off elsewhere if you genuinely have nothing better to do.
I 100% agree 1984! But i dont think we are talking about climate denial anymore, rather what little we are currently doing to combat the issue, and the poor example those up the top are giving us and the fact that you are questioning why you should act if others are not.
The politicians who fly out on their private jets every year and preach to us as to how we need to turn our heating off and use public transport....i dont think anyone can disagree with the fact that this does nothing to help the cause and is
incorrigible!
Countries like china, brazil, india ect...they must do more, but they wont act first without the west acting. And you are correct in saying a country like UK becoming net zero by 2050 is, on a global scale is physically worthless. But i think the point is more political. If the west are ready to make big sacrifices, then developing countries are more inclined to also.
You have just highlighted the current global incohesion regarding climate change. But this is not a reason to deny that the climate is changing, and that we are causing the change.
your point re children i dont understand. Our goal (in the natural world) is to not die out. By not having offspring means we die out. I am hoping any children i have in the future can adapt and invent their way out of this mess previous generations have left us in. Thats what we must do to survive.
Of course I understand temperatures, data sets and functions applied to them. What I’m telling you (but you’re way too thick to understand) is that sometimes data is not additive or is semi-additive and sometimes it is meaningless.
What use is an average knob size across 50 Somali men to a Chinese man who is below par?
I’ve got a little challenge for you too. It involves a car park and a bit of bottle if you have any
Triumph…If you feel it’s 100% certain that humans are saying climate change, isn’t it your duty to leave the planet, take your children with you and stop them having further children? After all each person on this planet is a polluter (we breathe out 3% CO2) so aren’t those with the most children technically the biggest polluters
Totally aware this feeds into Gates’ depopulation fantasy (everyone but him of course) but isn’t it logical that having kids is a “threat” to the planet so we should all stop?
Quady the science is anything but solid. It has been bought by those with the agenda that are being pushed. All they need do is say “peer reviewed” or “scientists say” and fools like you are completely hooked in.
You still couldn’t tell me why we had ppm 5x what we have today a million years ago when man wasn’t even here.
I have a first class degree In maths. I defer itself do understand it. I also see propaganda a mile away and can think rationally.
How many of you idiots have had your latest covid shot? I see you all refuse to answer when I ask but by not answering, you’re answering. The conspiracy theory became fact.
How many of you still can’t see that unfettered immigration, worldwide conflicts, progressive left weakening of our society and destruction of our economy by ludicrous green policy are all designed to get us to accept the national ID and CBDC “for our own safety”?
Even scientists are able to debate all eventualities. Sure, their outcome is paid for these days but they are still trained in the same ways. Prove or disprove something by repeatable and observable experimentation
How can we prove that man made CO2 is changing the climate? It’s never been done because it can’t be done
Triumph, I am right. If a problem is global and needs a global response giving up our money and freedoms then you can be certain it’s a hoax.
How many of the preachers flew to Davos on private jets? Are they truly fearful that their emissions are deadly to life on Earth yet willing to use a jet to get to a jamboree?
Then look at China. Do they not see this apparent danger? A country whose emissions are growing at the rate of one full UK worth of emissions every single year must surely be fearful that their future generations are at risk?
If we got to net zero by 2050, our efforts would be undone by the Chinese next year. And then they’d double it the year after, every subsequent year an extra UK worth of emissions belched into our climate
So do Chinese people not love their children? Do Indians not? Do Brazilians not?
Surely if this was the existential threat that all of these eco loons have us believe it is, we’d have to get nato to take out China?
It’s utterly ridiculous, and the same muppets hoodwinked over covid have fallen for it again.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
You are never in a million years going to convince a climate change denier through scientific facts and consensus, as these are entities, in their worldview, controlled by governments. And the argument re data can easily be countered. we have around 200 years of pretty accurate data. Before that, the data is extrapolated and inferred through geology. Therefore we can only create models. Pretty darn accurate models, yes. but models none the less, and we are always discovering new things and adjusting our models.
I dont believe all climate deniers are stupid, so calling them stupid completely closes dialogue. just misinformed and have interpreted things wrong. A little knowledge is dangerous ect ect. I dont need convincing on the overwhelming scientific evidence to support the theory that humans are causing climate change (note 1984 i said theory)...and to be fair, and lets be strictly scientific, it is not 100% certain by definition, but its as close to certain as we can get without actually letting the predictions of inaction to play out. But thats the rub...something that is not 100% certain can always be interpreted as uncertain despite the fact of being as humanly certain as we can get without the event taking place.
Its important therefore to find middle ground. Yes, it is not 100% certain that humans are causing climate change. But then lets discuss what 100% certain actually means. Lets discuss irrefutable trends (assuming you are talking to a rational person) and then lets discuss in the face of probability, the risk of doing nothing. The asteroid analogy is valid.
Every climate denier that begins to see reason is a victory.
Triumph1 to say the data only goes back 200 years is to misunderstand the science.
Yes we only have a couple of Hundred years of data, but we have the geological record, we have various forms of dating that can work out what the co2 was in relation to the temperature.
You have to remember that when co2 in the past was higher, methane and other green house gases was lower.
Hence the man made element.
The rise of global temperature is a fact that is backed up by the science.
Don't be taken in by the likes of Slug, who is by far the most unintelligent poster on here.
He cannot even understand basic maths and science.
Or he just remains wilfully ignorant and only gets his opinions off the internet that suits his own world view.
The science is solid.
To be clear, you expect is to believe you have a science degree and you didn't know that temperature measures kinetic energy of particles, you think car engines can 'run on water ' and the other day you confused carbon (the element) with carbon dioxide (the compound) in a fashion very similar to a terrible climate conspiracy theory website that reads like it was written by an illiterate toddler.
But pray tell, which esteemed institution let you graduate? And what science did you study? Did your thesis involve the excretions of male bovines?!
Genuinely the funniest attempt at being intelligent you've made so far, and there's a long list of you waving your tiddler about for attention
This nearly made me fall off my chair laughing. Where's your science degree from, slug?! Didn't know the early learning centre had degree awarding powers? What year did you graduate?! Absolutely hilarious.
Seriously, a 2 minute Google will teach you everything you need to know about conspiracy theories and climate. Lots of agencies have been good enough to take the time to correct the nonsense you're posting here. Rather than embarrassing yourself, why not educate yourself? The data is of excellent quality, you don't need to worry about that, and the trend it shows is beyond discussion.
I see what you are saying 1984. Our data only goes back a couple of hundred years, thermometer accuracy, natural earth weather cycles over geological timescales ect ect we cant possibly understand all that, right?....so are humans that arrogant to think that we can impact weather on a global scale?
Its all about risk. Are humans causing global warming? On the balance of probability yes. Its too much of a coincidence that average global temperatures are increasing (and they definitely are) vs our output.
Hey, maybe you are right. Its not caused by humans. But the question is, do you want to take that risk? The evidence produced already is more than enough to warrant a change in our behaviours. Only because it is not 100% fact that humans are not causing global warming, doesnt mean that we do nothing until it becomes 100%. Darn, i would say 50% is good enough! If we wait for 100%, it is already too late!
If there was 50% chance of an asteriod the size of the Chicxulub hitting earth, what would you do? Deny until it became 100% certain??? Because 100% certain is the moment of impact....BOOM
Chill Red. You’ve been banging the same top up/auto bots/copper price/imminent bid drums for years. We will all be aware when something tangible happens here, so creaming yourself daily for years on end on no news is becoming ever so slightly tiresome.
Of course the notion of a global average temperature is meaningless. It is more a political concept than a scientific one. The earth and its atmosphere is large and diverse, no single location is meaningfully average.
Add to that that our temperature data is imprecise, endlessly fiddled with and adjusted and comes from totally arbitrary locations. Of course it’s hot at the end of a runway where fighter jets take off. We also have nothing meaningful to compare it to such as accurate temperature data from a thousand, ten thousand or a million years ago.
Most readings are done in populated areas,
Much of the earth isn’t populated at all. It is implausible to characterise earths temperature in single average number, especially when we don’t really know what that number is today let alone millions of years ago.
Silly fools are taken in by mere use of the word “science” as if that’s a contract signed and sealed that it must be right. Whilst the woketards continue to deify “clever scientists”….realise that they are just people. People who went to uni and studied science degrees, exactly as I did.
Wtf just happened? Up 11% then we close where we started, sub 7p.
Well, at least red and the happy clappers are happy with the management and the way they are spending our cash
So you don't understand averages. Saying you do and then proving you don't by failing to appreciate what average global temperatures can tell us is embarrassing. Do you think the data used to track climate problems is the same idea as your 'take an average of two days points' idea? I can explain if you need me to?
I can't spend what I do make. No need to trade here 👍