marshy Posted November 21, 2015 Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 20 minutes ago, chipdawg said: With the greatest of respect Marshy, that's one utterly useless 'fact' you've picked up from George Osborne. It's actually 7.4% btw, but our welfare spending is almost exactly in line with the OECD average. If we're looking for comparisons, we have the 5th largest economy in the world but only have the 15th largest welfare bill as a percentage of GDP. Stingy bastards... http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spending-across-the-oecd/ Anyhow, I believe we were talking about climate change You might call it 'useless' I would call it unsustainable. Admittedly there are countries with an even higher figure but I would argue that these are countries in relative decline globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 21, 2015 Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 15 minutes ago, Moloch said: I guess that you think our welfare spend is overly generous since, as a percentage of the world spend, it is double our GDP. However, you are not including the fact that countries like India and Nigeria have next to no government welfare support at all, which will obviously skew this comparison. It is a particularly useless statistic. I'd be interested to know what percentage of the world's welfare spend you'd be prepared to go to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 21, 2015 Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 29 minutes ago, marshy said: I'd be interested to know what percentage of the world's welfare spend you'd be prepared to go to. I don't think you've understood what I said. The UK's percentage seems high because countries like India only make up 0.59% of welfare spending (massive population and no spending on welfare). Norway reach 1.1% of world welfare spending (tiny poulation, large social welfare budget). This is a pointless and massively unhelpful statistic. Comparing welfare spending to national GDP is surely more sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 21, 2015 Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 Just now, Moloch said: I don't think you've understood what I said. The UK's percentage seems high because countries like India only make up 0.59% of welfare spending (massive population and very low spending on welfare). Norway reach 1.1% of world welfare spending (tiny poulation, large social welfare budget). This is a pointless and massively unhelpful statistic. Comparing welfare spending to national GDP is surely more sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 21, 2015 Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 1 hour ago, marshy said: You might call it 'useless' I would call it unsustainable. Admittedly there are countries with an even higher figure but I would argue that these are countries in relative decline globally. Then you'll have to agree to disagree with actual facts and I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 Most of our welfare spending is pensions, @marshy We, in line with most of the West, have a rapidly ageing population. Unless you advocate some sort of Logan's Run euthanasia policy, it's hard to see that bill not continuing to rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 8 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said: Most of our welfare spending is pensions, @marshy We, in line with most of the West, have a rapidly ageing population. Unless you advocate some sort of Logan's Run euthanasia policy, it's hard to see that bill not continuing to rise. Well like a lot of things it depends I believe on how you categorize certain items. The figure I recall is that just 12% of the so-called welfare spend is on the state pension. Other pensions paid to public employees should not really be entered as such. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to see them edge that 12 % in an upwards direction. The last time I raised this issue and asked how high people would be prepared to push the welfare spend there were replies along the lines of 'whatever it takes', 'whatever is necessary' etc. All very well meaning I'm sure but totally divorced from reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 32 minutes ago, marshy said: Well like a lot of things it depends I believe on how you categorize certain items. The figure I recall is that just 12% of the so-called welfare spend is on the state pension. Other pensions paid to public employees should not really be entered as such. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to see them edge that 12 % in an upwards direction. The last time I raised this issue and asked how high people would be prepared to push the welfare spend there were replies along the lines of 'whatever it takes', 'whatever is necessary' etc. All very well meaning I'm sure but totally divorced from reality. That doesn't square with what I read after the government decided to send out that useful little pie chart with your P60. You know, the one that told us that the largest chunk of our tax bucks went on welfare, implicitly inviting the reader to picture money being taken from their pockets and given to ****less mothers of 15 from Rochdale to subsidise their fags and wideecreen TV purchases. The government didn't break this welfare figure down, but the Independent usefully did. It showed about 60% of it was pensions, income support to the retired and other Age-related benefits. Housing benefit followed by illness and disability benefits came next. Unemployment benefits accounted for less than 5%. This country actually has not that many long-term unemployed. And the housing benefit bill could be slashed if we allowed councils to build affordable accommodation for poor people instead of allowing private landlords to fleece the taxpayer. We cannot do much about age-related welfare spending. *The starred word is something that rhymes with reckless but starts with an f! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 32 minutes ago, marshy said: Well like a lot of things it depends I believe on how you categorize certain items. The figure I recall is that just 12% of the so-called welfare spend is on the state pension. Other pensions paid to public employees should not really be entered as such. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to see them edge that 12 % in an upwards direction. The last time I raised this issue and asked how high people would be prepared to push the welfare spend there were replies along the lines of 'whatever it takes', 'whatever is necessary' etc. All very well meaning I'm sure but totally divorced from reality. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/ Welfare covers a number of benefits, and many people don’t realise that the largest amount is actually spent on state pensions at £83 billion (33% of total welfare spending). Another £20 billion is spent on public service pensions which mainly go to public sector workers. We also spend £28 billion on ‘other pensions spending’. This includes winter fuel allowance, disability allowance, housing benefit and more. https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886 If you have other information please post a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 12 minutes ago, Moloch said: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/ Welfare covers a number of benefits, and many people don’t realise that the largest amount is actually spent on state pensions at £83 billion (33% of total welfare spending). Another £20 billion is spent on public service pensions which mainly go to public sector workers. We also spend £28 billion on ‘other pensions spending’. This includes winter fuel allowance, disability allowance, housing benefit and more. https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886 If you have other information please post a link. Yours is a figure given as a % of welfare spending, my 12% is the figure given as a % of total government spend, not what I stated originally, admittedly. Let's just put it down to having a senior moment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29898083 Figure is in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 1 minute ago, marshy said: Yours is a figure given as a % of welfare spending, my 12% is the figure given as a % of total government spend, not what I stated originally, admittedly. Let's just put it down to having a senior moment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29898083 Figure is in there somewhere. 49 minutes ago, marshy said: Well like a lot of things it depends I believe on how you categorize certain items. The figure I recall is that just 12% of the so-called welfare spend is on the state pension. Other pensions paid to public employees should not really be entered as such. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to see them edge that 12 % in an upwards direction. The last time I raised this issue and asked how high people would be prepared to push the welfare spend there were replies along the lines of 'whatever it takes', 'whatever is necessary' etc. All very well meaning I'm sure but totally divorced from reality. No. You said welfare spend. It's right there. Senior moment yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said: Most of our welfare spending is pensions, @marshy We, in line with most of the West, have a rapidly ageing population. Unless you advocate some sort of Logan's Run euthanasia policy, it's hard to see that bill not continuing to rise. Yes and was the first part of the welfare bill that was savagely cut and of course as usual the Westminster elite just in the main sat on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 7 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: Yes and was the first part of the welfare bill that was savagely cut and of course as usual the Westminster elite just in the main sat on their hands. Were pensions cut? I thought that the state pension went up by 2.5%. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2860701/State-pension-rise-2-5-115-95-week-April.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 6 minutes ago, Moloch said: Were pensions cut? I thought that the state pension went up by 2.5%. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2860701/State-pension-rise-2-5-115-95-week-April.html You don't believe that pushing back peoples state pension by up to 5 years is a cut?, ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 26 minutes ago, Moloch said: No. You said welfare spend. It's right there. Senior moment yourself. Too aggressive Moloch. If you read my comment I was admitting to having made a mistake in the figure I quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: You don't believe that pushing back peoples state pension by up to 5 years is a cut?, ok. Got you. That is clearly a cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 Marshy -I'm sorry. I misread your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 11 minutes ago, Moloch said: Got you. That is clearly a cut. i'm glad you got it Mrs Bung was about to book a passage and was sharpening her best secateurs. She missed the cut by 6 weeks and saw her state pension deferred by 4 years 11 months and the projection she has received is an insult considering the job she did for most of her working life, it's not even 50% of the spending money currently given to asylum seekers who live in hotels and receive 3 square meals a day. Let's see that get twisted. PS:- I don't recall the labour party or any other political party getting their knickers in a twist over that cut, but of course why should they 40 to 50k will die this winter because they cannot afford heating anyway and to keep it into context of this thread, doing their bit for global warming as they freeze to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 2 minutes ago, Moloch said: Marshy -I'm sorry. I misread your post. Two things you don't often see on an internet forum: 1). Someone admitting they made a mistake 2). Someone apologizing. Love and Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 27 minutes ago, marshy said: Two things you don't often see on an internet forum: 1). Someone admitting they made a mistake 2). Someone apologizing. Love and Peace. What the **** are you talking about? It is unprecedented! He should be given the OTIB medal for humility. Uncle TFR P.S. Back onto climate change - can I assume anyone who claims to be worried about this has sold their cars, triple-insulated their homes, and stopped taking Ryanair flight five times a year? Good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 1 hour ago, Taxi for Rennie said: What the **** are you talking about? It is unprecedented! He should be given the OTIB medal for humility. Uncle TFR P.S. Back onto climate change - can I assume anyone who claims to be worried about this has sold their cars, triple-insulated their homes, and stopped taking Ryanair flight five times a year? Good! I want one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghornred Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 You Decide but I think that we are being fed a lot of bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmNick Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 41 minutes ago, foghornred said: You Decide but I think that we are being fed a lot of bull. Why would you trust a youtube video from an electrical engineer with no peer reviewed research papers, who is a known conspiracy nut (jewish banking families, presidential assassinations etc.) over a mountain of peer reviewed independent scientific research, just out of interest? I could create that video on any topic tomorrow and people would believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 It does make a good point that if the planet gets hotter, it will evaporate more water, this will then surely create more cloud cover, which should in fact cool the earth because less sun light will reach the ground. The theory makes sense to me but I aint no expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloch Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 2 hours ago, screech said: It does make a good point that if the planet gets hotter, it will evaporate more water, this will then surely create more cloud cover, which should in fact cool the earth because less sun light will reach the ground. The theory makes sense to me but I aint no expert. This is not how it works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/01/climate-change-models-underestimate-likely-temperature-rise-report-shows Essentially, the short version is that the increase in evaporation will reflect more heat back to earth than it blocks. More water vapour = more temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 The Earth and its climate is a series of highly complex and interdependent feedback loops, one can not be altered without the others being affected. Essentially, anthropogenic activity is not driving climate change but it's ******* up those feedback loops The classic feedback theory related to climate change is sea ice. Sea ice is thought to reflect energy/light/heat from the sun and as the earth warms, sea pack ice reduces (at a rate of up to 13000 square miles per year at some estimates), less energy is reflected a warming accelerates. Elsewhere there is similar anthropogenic interference in the aforementioned cloud feedback. Not only does increased water in the water cycle lead to the potential for more rain, industrial emissions create particulate matter which facilitates more cloud formation, hence increasing the warming The increased water present in the surface of the earth itself effects climatic systems- water, land and ice all absorb and radiate heat at different rates and so as the ratios between the three change, so does the climate All this is complicated by other anthropogenic activity. For example, it's recently been estimated that 7-10% of sea level rises could be down to a transfer of ground water into the water cycle. It is also complicated by physics and chemistry. Different ice formations melt at different rates due to chemistry while the maximum rate of that melting is constrained by physics And all of that is just scratching the surface. Despite billions of dollars of research into climate change prediction and explanation, no one really knows what is going to happen to our climate. Certainly the bloke in that video has less idea than most. The only thing that we can say with any certainty is that every aspect of modern life has the potential to create a 'ripple' which may change the course of our climate. I appreciate that sounds very melodramatic, but to some extent it's entirely true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 One theory that does the rounds, all this extra Co2 in the air actually helps plant growth therefore can increase our food production.... Seems mad, also sounds like it has some truth to it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 34 minutes ago, screech said: One theory that does the rounds, all this extra Co2 in the air actually helps plant growth therefore can increase our food production.... Seems mad, also sounds like it has some truth to it too. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/ Again, complex systems give complex results. CO2 will boost the growth of some plants, but other limiting factors will level the 'system'out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 George Carlins view on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 27, 2015 Report Share Posted November 27, 2015 9 hours ago, screech said: George Carlins view on it. Whenever I see George Carlin clips, I always think of that episode of The Simpsons where Krusty The Clown becomes an angry, alternative comedian (and then endorses a wildly unsafe and poorly made SUV to make some money) I think he's right in one sense; there is a particular kind of arrogance to be found in the thought process that because we are the dominant species on Earth, all environmental problems must be down to us and only we can possibly save the earth (Flash! FLASH! I love you, but we only have 14 hours to save the earth!). The Earth has dealt with massively elevated levels of various gases in the past; the aforementioned Deccan Traps eruptions released staggering concentrations of CO2, much more than anthropogenic activity has and the earth survived. However, the global climate and ecosystem were changed forever and there is now increasing evidence that these eruptions caused the Cretaceous extinction event, i.e. Killed the dinosaurs. And that was CO2 (and SO2 actually) released over 100,000 years. We've released our CO2 over a couple of hundred years. I have no doubt that the earth will survive much of what we throw at it, but the question for us is, will human civilisation as we know it? If it's arrogant to think we are both the root cause and saviour of the environment, is it not also arrogant to assume that we'll fare better than the species that went before us? Especially as very tiny amounts of money are actually spent on preparing and mitigating the effects of climate change One thing I do unreservedly agree with George Carlin on is that every animal has to be saved because it's 'our fault'. Thousands of species have gone extinct since the dawn of modern man without ever coming into contact with another human being. And yet millions and millions of dollars have been spent saving ******* pandas, who did their best to evolve there way out of existence before we decided they needed saving. Stupid ******* pandas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.