The government is investing record amounts in green energy, approving record numbers of green projects and rewriting planning law so it can approve even more.
You’ve given me a list of nice-sounding ideas but no references whatsoever to demonstrate that what you’re saying is true. What has made you think that these things are happening?
Might not be obvious, but every highlighted word above is a different link to evidence that Labour is, in fact, all what I claimed on climate change - and more. Some repetition, inevitably, but I wanted to use multiple kinds of sources. And I could keep going!
I’m not especially keen on googling things for you
For me? Wow. There was me thinking that providing well-sourced opinions was for the benefit of the writer in their not being dismissed out of hand.
publicly available information
Firstly, a majority of these links are to the same story reported in different publications. They give the impression that you searched the web for something like “labour green transition” and then copied all the URLs as links. I didn’t ask for help searching the web.
Secondly, none of the articles are about anything Labour has actually achieved, only what they say they’d like to do, are planning to do, or have done only as a result of procedures that were already in place when they took power. If these links are all you have then you have nothing convincing.
I was asked to prove first that Labour are moving us away from oil dependence, and then that they are investing record breaking amounts, approving record numbers of green projects, that they have eased planning law to build more green infrastructure, and that they’re planning to do more.
The sources more than prove this. For example, when we have more solar power, we will be less dependent on oil. Labour are making this happen. I refer you again to the many different sources discussing other ways Labour are making this happen through the record investments that are also cited in the sources.
I acknowledged that there’s some repetition. One for each of the claims would suffice, but I added more because I felt that ‘record breaking’ is a bit vague (record for this country or for a fiscal year or…?) so I used more than one source to show that this was a valid interpretation of the facts.
Your latter critique, that all the sources discuss what Labour ‘will do’ is just false. Some of them do, of course - because that’s one of the things you asked me to prove.
I actually have a folder of saved tabs called ‘good things Labour are doing’ because I frequently have conversations with people determined to ignore these things. Could they do more? Yes, of course, and they should. Are they doing the things I’ve said they are doing? Yes.
This is a weird experience for me. Normally when I demonstrate that things are, in fact, the case, people just go very quiet. This is the first time I’ve had ‘that’s too much proof’ used against me, so you at least get some marks for originality.
I do indeed get my information about the news from the news; again, it hadn’t previously occurred to me to do it another way, so I guess I’m learning a lot! I’m not learning things like ‘Why does this person I’m talking to on a website think websites are objects of scorn?’ or ‘Where do they get their news if not from the news?’ but, still. It’s not nothing.
Nevertheless, you’re straying into ‘not even wrong’ territory, here. The things I said are happening, are happening, and while you can believe anything you like, including that things that are happening, aren’t happening, that doesn’t change the fact that they are, actually, happening. Since you’re not amenable to things like evidence (about the news… from the news), I hope you’ll forgive me for ending this conversation. Feel free to get in one last shot, but I don’t intend to reply.
Really? What makes you say that?
The government is investing record amounts in green energy, approving record numbers of green projects and rewriting planning law so it can approve even more.
You’ve given me a list of nice-sounding ideas but no references whatsoever to demonstrate that what you’re saying is true. What has made you think that these things are happening?
I’m not especially keen on googling things for you, as it’s publicly available information which is easy to find. I think a better question, given that these are straightforward facts widely reported in both the mainstream and specialist press, is why you don’t think they’re doing anything.
Might not be obvious, but every highlighted word above is a different link to evidence that Labour is, in fact, all what I claimed on climate change - and more. Some repetition, inevitably, but I wanted to use multiple kinds of sources. And I could keep going!
For me? Wow. There was me thinking that providing well-sourced opinions was for the benefit of the writer in their not being dismissed out of hand.
Firstly, a majority of these links are to the same story reported in different publications. They give the impression that you searched the web for something like “labour green transition” and then copied all the URLs as links. I didn’t ask for help searching the web.
Secondly, none of the articles are about anything Labour has actually achieved, only what they say they’d like to do, are planning to do, or have done only as a result of procedures that were already in place when they took power. If these links are all you have then you have nothing convincing.
I was asked to prove first that Labour are moving us away from oil dependence, and then that they are investing record breaking amounts, approving record numbers of green projects, that they have eased planning law to build more green infrastructure, and that they’re planning to do more.
The sources more than prove this. For example, when we have more solar power, we will be less dependent on oil. Labour are making this happen. I refer you again to the many different sources discussing other ways Labour are making this happen through the record investments that are also cited in the sources.
I acknowledged that there’s some repetition. One for each of the claims would suffice, but I added more because I felt that ‘record breaking’ is a bit vague (record for this country or for a fiscal year or…?) so I used more than one source to show that this was a valid interpretation of the facts.
Your latter critique, that all the sources discuss what Labour ‘will do’ is just false. Some of them do, of course - because that’s one of the things you asked me to prove.
I actually have a folder of saved tabs called ‘good things Labour are doing’ because I frequently have conversations with people determined to ignore these things. Could they do more? Yes, of course, and they should. Are they doing the things I’ve said they are doing? Yes.
I disagree.
Ah! So basically it’s just news articles on websites that have convinced you.
I disagree.
This is a weird experience for me. Normally when I demonstrate that things are, in fact, the case, people just go very quiet. This is the first time I’ve had ‘that’s too much proof’ used against me, so you at least get some marks for originality.
I do indeed get my information about the news from the news; again, it hadn’t previously occurred to me to do it another way, so I guess I’m learning a lot! I’m not learning things like ‘Why does this person I’m talking to on a website think websites are objects of scorn?’ or ‘Where do they get their news if not from the news?’ but, still. It’s not nothing.
Nevertheless, you’re straying into ‘not even wrong’ territory, here. The things I said are happening, are happening, and while you can believe anything you like, including that things that are happening, aren’t happening, that doesn’t change the fact that they are, actually, happening. Since you’re not amenable to things like evidence (about the news… from the news), I hope you’ll forgive me for ending this conversation. Feel free to get in one last shot, but I don’t intend to reply.
I’ve neither said nor implied that.
Interesting that you’re looking for information about the news rather than information about the government.
I disagree.