@goat our political system is far from perfect, but the Europeans who act like they have it figured out are sorely mistaken
Britain heads for its sixth prime minister in seven years, an unprecedented period of political turbulence in the world’s fifth-largest economy
If you asked me which system was better back when David Cameron was PM, I would have said, "Easy, parliamentary, no question." But they've been nothing but dysfunctional ever since the referendum.
Andy gets it. Plans to focus his new government on attacking the cost of living in every which way possible. First act in office: tax cut on electricity.
This is Western politics right now. It's not that immigration and crime and gender rights and global warming don't matter. They do matter. But the cost of living decides elections.
Andy gets it. Plans to focus his new government on attacking the cost of living in every which way possible. First act in office: tax cut on electricity.
This is Western politics right now. It's not that immigration and crime and gender rights and global warming don't matter. They do matter. But the cost of living decides elections.
Europe has warmed at twice the rate of the rest of the world since the 1980s, resulting in deadly heat waves that environmental activists and politicians have attributed to carbon emissions. But according to the study, the opposite is true: Much of the increase in temperature can be attributed to Europe’s recent success in reducing the amount of airborne particulate matter, since such pollution acts as a sunshade.
Andy is pushing a huge agenda of decentralization and devolution, but now he's suggesting the UK should have a written constitution. He's doing an end run around the nationalists in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. They like devolution, but a written constitution would pretty much end independence movements entirely.
Europe has warmed at twice the rate of the rest of the world since the 1980s, resulting in deadly heat waves that environmental activists and politicians have attributed to carbon emissions. But according to the study, the opposite is true: Much of the increase in temperature can be attributed to Europe’s recent success in reducing the amount of airborne particulate matter, since such pollution acts as a sunshade.
Environmental activists be like...
What an embarrassing claim by the National Review. Pretending "carbon emissions" and "particulate matter" are the same thing. Shame on anyone who falls for this bullshit.
Europe has warmed at twice the rate of the rest of the world since the 1980s, resulting in deadly heat waves that environmental activists and politicians have attributed to carbon emissions. But according to the study, the opposite is true: Much of the increase in temperature can be attributed to Europe’s recent success in reducing the amount of airborne particulate matter, since such pollution acts as a sunshade.
Environmental activists be like...
What an embarrassing claim by the National Review. Pretending "carbon emissions" and "particulate matter" are the same thing. Shame on anyone who falls for this bullshit.
Did they do that?
I read it as them delineating between the two and reportin that a lowering of particulate matter is theorized to be the main cause of Europe's warming, not increasing carbon emissions that the UK is blaming it on. If one is increasing and the other decreasing, aren't they saying they are not the same thing?
Europe has warmed at twice the rate of the rest of the world since the 1980s, resulting in deadly heat waves that environmental activists and politicians have attributed to carbon emissions. But according to the study, the opposite is true: Much of the increase in temperature can be attributed to Europe’s recent success in reducing the amount of airborne particulate matter, since such pollution acts as a sunshade.
Environmental activists be like...
What an embarrassing claim by the National Review. Pretending "carbon emissions" and "particulate matter" are the same thing. Shame on anyone who falls for this bullshit.
Did they do that?
I read it as them delineating between the two and reportin that a lowering of particulate matter is theorized to be the main cause of Europe's warming, not increasing carbon emissions that the UK is blaming it on. If one is increasing and the other decreasing, aren't they saying they are not the same thing?
I mean:
resulting in deadly heat waves that environmental activists and politicians have attributed to carbon emissions. But according to the study, the opposite is true
