Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Probably started work whilst you were still cuddling your teddy mate 

 

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

By start work you mean clock on, go for breakfast? 

 

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Not sure what you mean. I was on the road for 0600 today.

 

42 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Not sure what you're getting at here. They may have finished 'pulling their finger out' at 5, after a days graft.

Unless, of course, you don't know your AM from your PM.

 

13 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

 

And here’s the problem summed up. On the road for 6am and actually thinking that’s hard work. This country is full of lazy work shy sloths. I worked 37 hours before lunch today and that’s why I’m voting reform. They’ll fix this country

Luxury!...

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

Honestly I'm crying here, Groby has been at this for what, 48 hours already? And still has them at the 'mmm I'm not sure' stage 

 

 

 

[The Year Of The Fox]

34 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

No I’ve seen lots of videos of lacy tradesman on twitter. If you did your own research you’d realise these peasants are killing this country 

Kinky

[grobyfox1990]

27 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

I have no idea whether you're joking, or off your head, being on here, the latter wouldn't surprise me tbh

Haha touché my friend. That was funny. Anyway better stop before I get banned. Touching on your actual point, be positive. Net zero is the biggest profit making opportunity of our generation, possibly ever. The new world will demand electrification of everything, at a huge scale. You think legacy fossil fuels will allow that? Obvs not, oil n gas is way too expensive and time consuming to extract, the fuels make no rational sense. There are plenty of investable opportunities in clean energy. Don’t go on Facebook and get angry, make some money instead 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Haha touché my friend. That was funny. Anyway better stop before I get banned. Touching on your actual point, be positive. Net zero is the biggest profit making opportunity of our generation, possibly ever. The new world will demand electrification of everything, at a huge scale. You think legacy fossil fuels will allow that? Obvs not, oil n gas is way too expensive and time consuming to extract, the fuels make no rational sense. There are plenty of investable opportunities in clean energy. Don’t go on Facebook and get angry, make some money instead 

Glad for the additional economic argument here to add to the manifold others for progress rather than Paleolithic regression on this matter. 

[ajthefox]

Getting to Net Zero will be difficult and costly that much I'm sure we can all agree.

 

What I don't understand is frothing at the mouth at the idea that as a country we should produce more energy than we use and that fossil fuels are our old mate and renewables are the fvcking boogeyman. 

 

Oh, and comparing the energy sec to peados, rapists and murderers. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Getting to Net Zero will be difficult and costly that much I'm sure we can all agree.

 

What I don't understand is frothing at the mouth at the idea that as a country we should produce more energy than we use and that fossil fuels are our old mate and renewables are the fvcking boogeyman. 

 

Oh, and comparing the energy sec to peados, rapists and murderers. 

And then taking some pisstaking in the opposite direction incredibly personally. 

 

Anyway, simply put; wanting to pursue fossil fuels for energy generation is at most charitable foolhardy hubris that will have a massive economic cost, and at least charitable flat-out death worship which considers the future death and suffering of a great part of both human civilisation and the biosphere as necessary in the name of satisfying one's own selfish short term desires. 

[HighPeakFox]

Absolute gold @grobyfox1990 - chapeau.

[grobyfox1990]

15 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Getting to Net Zero will be difficult and costly that much I'm sure we can all agree.

 

What I don't understand is frothing at the mouth at the idea that as a country we should produce more energy than we use and that fossil fuels are our old mate and renewables are the fvcking boogeyman. 

 

Oh, and comparing the energy sec to peados, rapists and murderers. 

Yes agreed defo costly. But that won’t be an income statement cost, it’ll be an investment on the balance sheet which I’m betting heavily will turn into a long term sustainable profit stream for our country. We need huge amounts of power to stay relevant during this Industrial Revolution. Legacy fuels won’t meet that demand. 
The problem is morons turn it into a political issue, and other morons believe them. Making money is apolitical and if we can make the world more habitable I’m further in 

[splinterdream]

23 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Haha touché my friend. That was funny. Anyway better stop before I get banned. Touching on your actual point, be positive. Net zero is the biggest profit making opportunity of our generation, possibly ever. The new world will demand electrification of everything, at a huge scale. You think legacy fossil fuels will allow that? Obvs not, oil n gas is way too expensive and time consuming to extract, the fuels make no rational sense. There are plenty of investable opportunities in clean energy. Don’t go on Facebook and get angry, make some money instead 

To understand what net zero means, you need.to understand what oil and gas has done for the world, everything you own, from the device you wrote your post on is thanks to oil and gas, it has enabled us to erradicate diseases and live a longer life, it has made the world a smaller place, it has brought us light in the darkness, and we want to end that to go down a path bases on spurious claims tha CO2 is to blame for warming the climate so we must eliminate all CO2 without any idea what it will do to the environment. We are looking to force technology on people and tax people.in the belief it will change the climate. 

There will be money being made, but it wont be working people that will see it, net zero will only make people poorer 

Its so ridiculous that the govt wants to buy farm land to install solar panels whilst at the same time spending millions to explore blocking the sun by cloud seeding particles, or capturing CO2 then burying it. 

The question is, do you trust the man who couldn't eat a bacon sandwich to keep the lights on?

Science is never settled, the telling thing about this is we don't hear the alternative views, its all a bit like covid, and its very difficult to get the facts. I happen to think society has a bigger more urgent problem it needs to address, and thats AI, and how it will effect society as a whole.

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Well it's really up to the government, we've been flip flopping around with nuclear reactors for years, if we'd plannned better then energy might be cheaper than it is today 

 

 This is the thing with direct oppositional governments. They will each reject or change what is a reasonable and a better choice because they are in "opposition".

 

It's infuriating. It seems the only time cross benches agree with each other is in time of war.

 

Get round the table together, propose ideas and solutions and get the f***ing job done and we'd all be better off.

 

I give you HS2. What a feck up that is.

Edited 22 October 2025 by Parafox

[splinterdream]

1 minute ago, Parafox said:

 

 This is the thing with direct oppositional governments. They will each reject or change what is a reasonable and a better choice because they are in "opposition".

 

It's infuriating.

 

Get round the table, propose ideas and solutions and get the f***ing job done and we'd all be better off.

Post 2009 with one nation tories in coalition with lib dems, you'd have thought if ever that were to happen, it would have been then. Now political opinion is getting ever more divided, i think most of the UK of to the left and to the right, but it govts forcing us to take sides

[grobyfox1990]

13 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

To understand what net zero means, you need.to understand what oil and gas has done for the world, everything you own, from the device you wrote your post on is thanks to oil and gas, it has enabled us to erradicate diseases and live a longer life, it has made the world a smaller place, it has brought us light in the darkness, and we want to end that to go down a path bases on spurious claims tha CO2 is to blame for warming the climate so we must eliminate all CO2 without any idea what it will do to the environment. We are looking to force technology on people and tax people.in the belief it will change the climate. 

There will be money being made, but it wont be working people that will see it, net zero will only make people poorer 

Its so ridiculous that the govt wants to buy farm land to install solar panels whilst at the same time spending millions to explore blocking the sun by cloud seeding particles, or capturing CO2 then burying it. 

The question is, do you trust the man who couldn't eat a bacon sandwich to keep the lights on?

Science is never settled, the telling thing about this is we don't hear the alternative views, its all a bit like covid, and its very difficult to get the facts. I happen to think society has a bigger more urgent problem it needs to address, and thats AI, and how it will effect society as a whole.

I understand what O&G has done for the world, but as you rightly say, science moves on. Why should I care about what O&G has done for me when a more profitable power source is available. I don't care about fossil fuels, there's no money in them, nostalgia won't change my opinion on that.

You shouldn't be so negative and victim-complex, be positive and get off social media. If you want to ignore industry, science, commerce and the smart money and stay stuck to the past, you're gonna get everything you deserve. Clean energy is an incredible investment opportunity, join the train or be a sucker and end up paying for it. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

I have a feeling the majority are up for this zero carbon crap until it involves them putting their hands in their pocket to make the changes to their own home or car purchase 

 

I mean, I’ve got a gas fired boiler at home. Haven’t even so much as serviced it in the 12 years it’s been installed. I open a tap, my hot water works. I’m cold- I put the CH on. It’s easy

 

Why on earth do rich people think I’m going to say to myself ‘oh I really don’t like my carbon footprint. I must do something about it’ 

 

Call up Eon and be told it’s going to cost me £15k for an air source heat pump, plus more to upgrade the heating system and pipework etc. Then extra on top to redecorate, which would be necessary.

 

And not that you’d be told this, but knowing the probability that it won’t really work as well as a gas fired boiler either 

 

 

Whoever compared it all to what happened in Covid is absolutely bang on. There is no other narrative. The government and BBC have told us, and once again, sheep are following. At least following verbally, but not going as far as my example above. 

Edited 22 October 2025 by The Year Of The Fox

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I understand what O&G has done for the world, but as you rightly say, science moves on. Why should I care about what O&G has done for me when a more profitable power source is available. I don't care about fossil fuels, there's no money in them, nostalgia won't change my opinion on that.

You shouldn't be so negative and victim-complex, be positive and get off social media. If you want to ignore industry, science, commerce and the smart money and stay stuck to the past, you're gonna get everything you deserve. Clean energy is an incredible investment opportunity, join the train or be a sucker and end up paying for it. 

It's like some folks simply don't want our species to progress at all.

 

1 minute ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I have a feeling the majority are up for this zero carbon crap until it involves them putting their hands in their pocket to make the changes to their own home 

I wasn't aware that particular dichotomy was the only option available. There are many places all over the world that are actually planning for the future without putting an inordinate amount of financial strain on the individual. 

 

But let's just say that this dichotomy was indeed true - I wonder what the people who come after us would think if the generations that exist now wouldn't sacrifice anything to overcome a massive threat to their future - as many past generations have done? WWII cost the UK the remainder of its imperial possessions and a lot of cost to every citizen, but I don't reckon there were many folks then who said it wasn't a price worth paying. 

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

To understand what net zero means, you need.to understand what oil and gas has done for the world, everything you own, from the device you wrote your post on is thanks to oil and gas, it has enabled us to erradicate diseases and live a longer life, it has made the world a smaller place, it has brought us light in the darkness, and we want to end that to go down a path bases on spurious claims tha CO2 is to blame for warming the climate so we must eliminate all CO2 without any idea what it will do to the environment. We are looking to force technology on people and tax people.in the belief it will change the climate. 

There will be money being made, but it wont be working people that will see it, net zero will only make people poorer 

Its so ridiculous that the govt wants to buy farm land to install solar panels whilst at the same time spending millions to explore blocking the sun by cloud seeding particles, or capturing CO2 then burying it. 

The question is, do you trust the man who couldn't eat a bacon sandwich to keep the lights on?

Science is never settled, the telling thing about this is we don't hear the alternative views, its all a bit like covid, and its very difficult to get the facts. I happen to think society has a bigger more urgent problem it needs to address, and thats AI, and how it will effect society as a whole.

Lynas et al. 

 

There are next to no alternative views among those learned on the subject. This untruth is deeply frustrating, especially when it's then used to point to policy that will cause harm to us all. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

It's like some folks simply don't want our species to progress at all.

 

I wasn't aware that particular dichotomy was the only option available. There are many places all over the world that are actually planning for the future without putting an inordinate amount of financial strain on the individual. 

 

But let's just say that this dichotomy was indeed true - I wonder what the people who come after us would think if the generations that exist now wouldn't sacrifice anything to overcome a massive threat to their future - as many past generations have done? WWII cost the UK the remainder of its imperial possessions and a lot of cost to every citizen, but I don't reckon there were many folks then who said it wasn't a price worth paying. 

I don’t like your WWII comparison to be honest. The threat there was most definitely man made, and there WAS no alternative. Let’s not bracket those who are feeling flush and want to chuck money into a black hole with people who sacrificed their lives for man kind.

 

I mean, even if this IS more than the planets natural ‘cycle’ the climate changing is not half as much as an immediate threat as the Nazis were in 1940.

 

I’m not anti establishment or anti authoritarian by any means, but I’ll be fcuked if I’m putting £15k+ of my hard earned cash into an alternative method of heating my already perfectly functioning heated home. Just because the government tell me to.
 

The council tell me to recycle, but won’t take out a stray fag packet thrown in the glass collection box by a passer by, so refuse to take the stuff I’m trying to recycle. 
 

It comes from the top. Don’t fly out 154 delegates for COP 26 on a bloody plane if you want to set an example of becoming ‘carbon neutral’
 

No doubt this will cause much derision in here, and I’m not particularly trying to create it either. 
 

I’m just pointing out that for every one person who’s well into the trendy ‘nett zero’ phrase, there’s another who simply wants to do whatever’s cheapest and most financially economical. 

[splinterdream]

15 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I understand what O&G has done for the world, but as you rightly say, science moves on. Why should I care about what O&G has done for me when a more profitable power source is available. I don't care about fossil fuels, there's no money in them, nostalgia won't change my opinion on that.

You shouldn't be so negative and victim-complex, be positive and get off social media. If you want to ignore industry, science, commerce and the smart money and stay stuck to the past, you're gonna get everything you deserve. Clean energy is an incredible investment opportunity, join the train or be a sucker and end up paying for it. 

Because they have set a timeline that they're going to pull it away, irrelevent of the consequences, so you need to know what it gives you, so you realise what taking it away is going to mean. Its fine for science to do its thing, but at the pace where it makes sense to move to something else, that time is not now.

If people are to scrap their combustion engine car or gas boiler, it needs to be an attractive proposition to do.so

[splinterdream]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Lynas et al. 

 

There are next to no alternative views among those learned on the subject. This untruth is deeply frustrating, especially when it's then used to point to policy that will cause harm to us all. 

I'm sorry but thats just not true, there have been scientists that have come out to dispute the narrative on man made climate change, but very few, because their careers depend on it 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I don’t like your WWII comparison to be honest. The threat there was most definitely man made, and there WAS no alternative. Let’s not bracket those who are feeling flush and want to chuck money into a black hole with people who sacrificed their lives for man kind.

 

I mean, even if this IS more than the planets natural ‘cycle’ the climate changing is not half as much as an immediate threat as the Nazis were in 1940.

 

I’m not anti establishment or anti authoritarian by any means, but I’ll be fcuked if I’m putting £15k+ of my hard earned cash into an alternative method of heating my already perfectly functioning heated home. Just because the government tell me to.
 

The council tell me to recycle, but won’t take out a stray fag packet thrown in the glass collection box by a passer by, so refuse to take the stuff I’m trying to recycle. 
 

It comes from the top. Don’t fly out 154 delegates for COP 26 on a bloody plane if you want to set an example of becoming ‘carbon neutral’
 

No doubt this will cause much derision in here, and I’m not particularly trying to create it either. 
 

I’m just pointing out that for every one person who’s well into the trendy ‘nett zero’ phrase, there’s another who simply wants to do whatever’s cheapest and most financially economical. 

The last paragraph here is spot on, which is why the thing has to be made financially appealing to help it be done. That's an important part of getting people on board. 

 

But that doesn't change anything about the fact that regardless it does have to be done and I'll happily use the WWII comparison freely and acceptably because firstly, if we wait until the threat is that immediate it will be too late, the vital resources of water and crops we rely on will be critically lowered, and there will be nothing left but got the shooting to start and count the bodies when it's all over, and secondly the scale of devastation this problem could cause, through both natural and man-made consequence (because warfare tends to happen when vital resources are at stake) would dwarf every single war in our past, WWII included. 

 

4 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

I'm sorry but thats just not true, there have been scientists that have come out to dispute the narrative on man made climate change, but very few, because their careers depend on it 

And so the accusation following from this is that pretty much the entire climate science corps is clueless or corrupt, again?

 

Well, I guess various corners of the Internet see this particular libel every day, why should here be an exception...

 

I'll say just what I tend to say whenever this comes up and there's clearly no ground to be gained; I hope that those people are right and I am wrong, because if that's the case we can at least visit in a couple of decades in a world that is still comfortable, and if it's the other way round...I would hope that those "lucky" people left looking for someone to hold accountable for the horror they find themselves in would be merciful. But they would have no reason to be, or to forgive any of us. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

The reality of the situation with air source heat pumps is;

 

New build (5-15 year old houses) ARE sufficiently insulated to accommodate above. What these houses don’t have are walls large enough to site the radiator sizes required. Subsequently the existing radiators aren’t large enough for this kind of system. Neither is the 10mm pipework currently behind your plasterboard supplying each of the radiators

 

Old houses tend to have all the above concerning rads, pipes, walls etc, but are nowhere near sufficiently insulated enough 

 

When my boiler goes pop, I can pick up another for £800, stick it in and carry on heating and powering my home for £80 PCM.

 

If someone wants to supply and fit me an ASHP for less than that, and cover the cost of hiding 15 and 22mm pipework dropping down the walls to massive rads, AND redecorate for me, AND you can absolutely assure me I’ll be as warm in 15 mins as I would be if I stuck the heating on now, then I promise you I’ll rip the boiler out tomorrow 

 

[grobyfox1990]

21 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

Because they have set a timeline that they're going to pull it away, irrelevent of the consequences, so you need to know what it gives you, so you realise what taking it away is going to mean. Its fine for science to do its thing, but at the pace where it makes sense to move to something else, that time is not now.

If people are to scrap their combustion engine car or gas boiler, it needs to be an attractive proposition to do.so

I know what you’re saying but the world moves on rapidly. Get on board or get left behind and rot away. It will be an attractive proposition. Right now as the poster above says air source heat pumps are extortionate and maintenance is tough, as tech advances prices will come down sharpish. Those happy clappers stuck in their ways and unwilling to change because of a misguided belief will be punished, and I support that because that’s what Darwin intended. 
My old colleague got a 1st generation Tesla, £110k cash but free charging for life. Thats the kind of foresight a winner has. Whilst dense happy clappers were laughing at him for being too woke 

[The Year Of The Fox]

Both governments have led us blindly through this last 6-7 years in terms of committing to things that are completely unobtainable. Traditionally a Tory voter, my Tory hater mates were well up for Boris’ committal to eradicating gas fired boilers by 2030 whereas I was outraged.

 

I was dreading a Labour government, my mates were not, (I’m not enjoying it now either) but it was right for Starmer to push that deadline back almost as soon as he came into power. 
 

Each energy company, and boiler manufacturer are being given quotas of ASHP or GSHPs they need to sell annually. All are failing miserably. 
 

The last time I heard, hydrogen fired boilers were being looked at, where it’s almost (I think) like converting a natural gas appliance to LPG- it can be done fairly easily and is more cost effective. I think though there are doubts as to how successful they’d be. 
 

@splinterdream is bang on. Governments are making promises, acts, laws that are impossible to keep, scientifically and financially. Yet people are falling over themselves to do it, because it’s what the government are telling us to do. 

[leicsmac]

Anyhow, this thread seems have been a bit derailed, would be good to continue it on the Sci thread?

 

To get things back on track...

 

Donald Trump. No specific reason required.

[The Year Of The Fox]

8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I know what you’re saying but the world moves on rapidly. Get on board or get left behind and rot away. It will be an attractive proposition. Right now as the poster above says air source heat pumps are extortionate and maintenance is tough, as tech advances prices will come down sharpish. Those happy clappers stuck in their ways and unwilling to change because of a misguided belief will be punished, and I support that because that’s what Darwin intended. 
My old colleague got a 1st generation Tesla, £110k cash but free charging for life. Thats the kind of foresight a winner has. Whilst dense happy clappers were laughing at him for being too woke 

Is it foresight or is it being flash? Or both?

 

You could buy a very good second hand diesel car for £10k and it’d last you ten years. Imagine how many years gas and electricity you could pay for with the other £100k!

 

Speaking of Tesla’s- how much ‘carbon footprint’ is taken up by recycling/disposing of their batteries? 

Edited 22 October 2025 by The Year Of The Fox