https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:26:40?AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
Funny how many countries are seeing the light. Also funny how our Marxist government refuses to show any sense and persists withpolicies that are bankrupting our country...
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 15:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:26:40?AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
Funny how many countries are seeing the light. Also funny how our Marxist government refuses to show any sense and persists withpolicies that are bankrupting our country...
What other countries are you referring to, John Bowes?
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have
given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman,
and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple
search for the site however leads first to https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change
in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons
for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
On 2023-07-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
Same as their Covid response. It is not going to work and we can not mess >around with something that is not going to work.
Many other countries will back peddle when it is clear even to a fool that
it is not working. Sweeden, just being honest.
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 15:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:26:40?AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
Funny how many countries are seeing the light. Also funny how our Marxist government refuses to show any sense and persists withpolicies that are bankrupting our country...
What other countries are you referring to, John Bowes?
Germany I believe is another one. Mind you they embraced the green energy as >if it was gold.
Then we have recently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=645mCo-GZYI
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have
given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman,
and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple
search for the site however leads first to
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change
in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
So the article saying that the Swedish Finance Miniter made this
change in going green announcment in the Swedish parliament is false?
Once again it appears that you have focused on the human and not the pointSurely the point at hand is whether there is confirmation of a major
at hand.
BTW the above link lands us on COVID matters.Of course they do - there is no method of electricity generation that
Solar and wind have environmental issues. Read costs among other things.
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons
for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
On 3 Jul 2023 00:07:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have
given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman,
and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple
search for the site however leads first to
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change
in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
So the article saying that the Swedish Finance Miniter made this
change in going green announcment in the Swedish parliament is false?
I don't think we know that yet - it does seem a strange decision, but
the 'evidence' is not particularly compelling . . . I am sure if the
policy change has indeed been made there will be other reports than an >article from a suspect website repeated on the personal blog of an 80
year old ex-conservative Canadian provincial politician . . .
Once again it appears that you have focused on the human and not the point >>at hand.Surely the point at hand is whether there is confirmation of a major
policy change by the Swedish Government
Of course they do - there is no method of electricity generation that
BTW the above link lands us on COVID matters.
Solar and wind have environmental issues. Read costs among other things.
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons
for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
does not. The question is which methods are best for us - and I
believe that the continued use of expensive coal is undesirable for at
least that reason.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 12:41:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 3 Jul 2023 00:07:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have
given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman, >>>> and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple
search for the site however leads first to
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change
in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
So the article saying that the Swedish Finance Miniter made this
change in going green announcment in the Swedish parliament is false?
I don't think we know that yet - it does seem a strange decision, but
the 'evidence' is not particularly compelling . . . I am sure if the >>policy change has indeed been made there will be other reports than an >>article from a suspect website repeated on the personal blog of an 80
year old ex-conservative Canadian provincial politician . . .
Once again it appears that you have focused on the human and not the point >>>at hand.Surely the point at hand is whether there is confirmation of a major
policy change by the Swedish Government
First the Swedish Parliament website was down at the time I write
this:
https://www.riksdagen.se/en/
Secondly I found numerous media websites reporting along these lines:
https://tinyurl.com/2wm97whr
You really need to make a bit more effort to hide your ideological
bias before you post.
You should note that reneging on past agreements is more common than
you seem to be aware of.
does not. The question is which methods are best for us - and I
BTW the above link lands us on COVID matters.
Solar and wind have environmental issues. Read costs among other things. >>Of course they do - there is no method of electricity generation that
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons
for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
believe that the continued use of expensive coal is undesirable for at >>least that reason.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 13:48:15 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You have failed to look or have failed to do so competently.
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 12:41:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 3 Jul 2023 00:07:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have
given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman, >>>>> and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple
search for the site however leads first to
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change >>>>> in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
So the article saying that the Swedish Finance Miniter made this
change in going green announcment in the Swedish parliament is false?
I don't think we know that yet - it does seem a strange decision, but
the 'evidence' is not particularly compelling . . . I am sure if the >>>policy change has indeed been made there will be other reports than an >>>article from a suspect website repeated on the personal blog of an 80 >>>year old ex-conservative Canadian provincial politician . . .
Once again it appears that you have focused on the human and not the point >>>>at hand.Surely the point at hand is whether there is confirmation of a major >>>policy change by the Swedish Government
First the Swedish Parliament website was down at the time I write
this:
https://www.riksdagen.se/en/
It appears to still be having issues
Secondly I found numerous media websites reporting along these lines:
https://tinyurl.com/2wm97whr
That url required me to pay a subscription to see more than the
headline. The headline does not indicate that Sweden has dropped
energy targets, just one method of achieving them.
You really need to make a bit more effort to hide your ideological
bias before you post.
You should note that reneging on past agreements is more common than
you seem to be aware of.
All I was seeking is confirmation or evidence that the claim was not
true. I have not found that evidence, nor haas anyone found it.
believe that the continued use of expensive coal is undesirable for at >>>least that reason.
BTW the above link lands us on COVID matters.
Solar and wind have environmental issues. Read costs among other things. >>>Of course they do - there is no method of electricity generation that >>>does not. The question is which methods are best for us - and I
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons
for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have
given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman,
and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple
search for the site however leads first to >https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major changeThe article stands on its owen. We shall see what transpires.
in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasonsThe article is not about nuclear power in this country, the article is not about New Zealand. Do try to keep on topic.
for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
On 2 Jul 2023 23:45:29 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I have no intention of justifying anything, I have nothing to justify.
On 2023-07-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Same as their Covid response. It is not going to work and we can not mess >>around with something that is not going to work.
Many other countries will back peddle when it is clear even to a fool that >>it is not working. Sweeden, just being honest.
You may be jumping to a conclusion here that is not correct, Gordon.
Yes there is a lot of deliberate misinformation around, and there are
a lot of fools that believe it without checking. I have asked Tony to
see if he can find any evidence that this is not dis-information; in
the meantime it is appropriate to remain cautious but to withhold
judgment. Regarding Covid, Sweden did indeed make a mistake and
changed their initial response - they paid for that with higher deaths
after they weakened controls but still did not experience as bad a
Covid experience as other countries such as the USA and UK.
So I believe it reasonable to give Tony a bit of time to justify his
initial post - yes it does appear to be wrong, but I can understand
why they could be considering using nuclear power rather than some
other means of power generation.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 13:48:15 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You have failed to look or have failed to do so competently.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 12:41:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On 3 Jul 2023 00:07:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have >>>>>> given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman, >>>>>> and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple >>>>>> search for the site however leads first to
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change >>>>>> in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
So the article saying that the Swedish Finance Miniter made this >>>>>change in going green announcment in the Swedish parliament is false?
I don't think we know that yet - it does seem a strange decision, but >>>>the 'evidence' is not particularly compelling . . . I am sure if the >>>>policy change has indeed been made there will be other reports than an >>>>article from a suspect website repeated on the personal blog of an 80 >>>>year old ex-conservative Canadian provincial politician . . .
Once again it appears that you have focused on the human and not the point >>>>>at hand.Surely the point at hand is whether there is confirmation of a major >>>>policy change by the Swedish Government
First the Swedish Parliament website was down at the time I write
this:
https://www.riksdagen.se/en/
It appears to still be having issues
Secondly I found numerous media websites reporting along these lines:
https://tinyurl.com/2wm97whr
That url required me to pay a subscription to see more than the
headline. The headline does not indicate that Sweden has dropped
energy targets, just one method of achieving them.
You really need to make a bit more effort to hide your ideological
bias before you post.
You should note that reneging on past agreements is more common than
you seem to be aware of.
All I was seeking is confirmation or evidence that the claim was not
true. I have not found that evidence, nor haas anyone found it.
There are many mentions of Sweden abandoning the net zero goal - just ask >someone to show you how to use google. Anybody will do.
BTW the above link lands us on COVID matters.
Solar and wind have environmental issues. Read costs among other things. >>>>Of course they do - there is no method of electricity generation that >>>>does not. The question is which methods are best for us - and I >>>>believe that the continued use of expensive coal is undesirable for at >>>>least that reason.
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons >>>>>> for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 13:48:15 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 12:41:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 3 Jul 2023 00:07:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have
given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman, >>>>> and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple
search for the site however leads first to
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change >>>>> in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
So the article saying that the Swedish Finance Miniter made this
change in going green announcment in the Swedish parliament is false?
I don't think we know that yet - it does seem a strange decision, but
the 'evidence' is not particularly compelling . . . I am sure if the >>>policy change has indeed been made there will be other reports than an >>>article from a suspect website repeated on the personal blog of an 80 >>>year old ex-conservative Canadian provincial politician . . .
Once again it appears that you have focused on the human and not the point >>>>at hand.Surely the point at hand is whether there is confirmation of a major >>>policy change by the Swedish Government
First the Swedish Parliament website was down at the time I write
this:
https://www.riksdagen.se/en/
It appears to still be having issues
Secondly I found numerous media websites reporting along these lines:
https://tinyurl.com/2wm97whr
That url required me to pay a subscription to see more than the
headline. The headline does not indicate that Sweden has dropped
energy targets, just one method of achieving them.
You really need to make a bit more effort to hide your ideological
bias before you post.
You should note that reneging on past agreements is more common than
you seem to be aware of.
All I was seeking is confirmation or evidence that the claim was not
true. I have not found that evidence, nor haas anyone found it.
believe that the continued use of expensive coal is undesirable for at >>>least that reason.
BTW the above link lands us on COVID matters.
Solar and wind have environmental issues. Read costs among other things. >>>Of course they do - there is no method of electricity generation that >>>does not. The question is which methods are best for us - and I
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons
for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as
cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 03:09:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyI posted the original link, I do not need to post any more.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 13:48:15 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:You have failed to look or have failed to do so competently.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 12:41:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On 3 Jul 2023 00:07:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I don't think we know that yet - it does seem a strange decision, but >>>>>the 'evidence' is not particularly compelling . . . I am sure if the >>>>>policy change has indeed been made there will be other reports than an >>>>>article from a suspect website repeated on the personal blog of an 80 >>>>>year old ex-conservative Canadian provincial politician . . .
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:26:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Indeed, if true it would be a surprise, Tony. The article you have >>>>>>> given a reference to purports to have been written by a Frank Bergman, >>>>>>> and to come from ''Slay News'', which may be slaynews.com; a simple >>>>>>> search for the site however leads first to
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/slay-news/
Perhaps you could try to find any conformation of such a major change >>>>>>> in policy by the Swedish government . . . . .
So the article saying that the Swedish Finance Miniter made this >>>>>>change in going green announcment in the Swedish parliament is false? >>>>>
Once again it appears that you have focused on the human and not the pointSurely the point at hand is whether there is confirmation of a major >>>>>policy change by the Swedish Government
at hand.
First the Swedish Parliament website was down at the time I write
this:
https://www.riksdagen.se/en/
It appears to still be having issues
Secondly I found numerous media websites reporting along these lines:
https://tinyurl.com/2wm97whr
That url required me to pay a subscription to see more than the
headline. The headline does not indicate that Sweden has dropped
energy targets, just one method of achieving them.
You really need to make a bit more effort to hide your ideological
bias before you post.
You should note that reneging on past agreements is more common than >>>>you seem to be aware of.
All I was seeking is confirmation or evidence that the claim was not >>>true. I have not found that evidence, nor haas anyone found it.
There are many mentions of Sweden abandoning the net zero goal - just ask >>someone to show you how to use google. Anybody will do.
And yet you cannot post any such link - your claim, but not your >responsibility - "Right", Tony?
BTW the above link lands us on COVID matters.
Solar and wind have environmental issues. Read costs among other things. >>>>>Of course they do - there is no method of electricity generation that >>>>>does not. The question is which methods are best for us - and I >>>>>believe that the continued use of expensive coal is undesirable for at >>>>>least that reason.
In the meantime, New Zealand has of course other legitimate reasons >>>>>>> for avoiding the use of nuclear power, and good reasons (such as >>>>>>> cost!) for trying to avoid the use of coal.
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 15:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John BowesGoogle is our friend Rich. Pity your technical skills don't make it so for you...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:26:40?AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/
Sweden eh! Who would have thought?
Funny how many countries are seeing the light. Also funny how our Marxist government refuses to show any sense and persists withpolicies that are bankrupting our country...What other countries are you referring to, John Bowes?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 111:18:40 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,948 |