The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

People are only opposing it because they are PAID to do so, and they are lying.

And you are certain those in favor of it are NOT equally being paid to do so??

[Gatefan1976]

And you are certain those in favor of it are NOT equally being paid to do so??

Unless you think some 97% of scientists are paid for shills, umm, no?

Or are 97% of scientists "lefties"?

Quite simply, you have no legs here. I could throw up pages and pages of reports, independent studies, peer reviewed research from around the world, but the only response I will get is some dork in congress hold in a snowball, or "it's not settled" and that would be "conclusive proof" for you, or at least "reasonable doubt".

Opinions about who can piss where, or who is a man or a woman, or is there really a god are fine debates to have, in fact, I would say they are essential for the growth of people and society as a whole, but this is not an abstract issue like morals or feelings. These are separate, independent facts that have nothing to do with what we may or may not want, and they are not "unique" to an individual or group. If we make this planet uninhabitable for human life, we will all die, and no one will be "saved".

[Womble]

If we make this planet uninhabitable for human life, we will all die, and no one will be "saved".

The problem is that whoever handicaps their economy for the sake of future generations will not have saved the planet; they will have handed over control over future generations to those societies who did not handicap themselves and pushed full-steam ahead, environment be damned.

[Gatefan1976]

The problem is that whoever handicaps their economy for the sake of future generations will not have saved the planet; they will have handed over control over future generations to those societies who did not handicap themselves and pushed full-steam ahead, environment be damned.

That's -exactly- why I said the "solutions" being put forth like "carbon tax" and other measures by the left are BS as well Womble, I'm not so blind as to not realise that.

The world still revolves around money, and that's the paradigm we have to work within. What I find stupid is throwing solutions, even ones that could offer potential in the "too hard" basket. If we were at war, and the solution was viable solar panels to replace coal, we would have had them decades ago. Windmills, Off shore turbines, long term batteries for vehicles, ALL of these things could provide viable, non coal, non oil based energy replacement programs. Advancing energy transmission technology to make sure that we could get these energy sources moved around with minimal degradation would help as well, but ALL of this get's thrown away for short term gain.

You can damn the environment all you want, you can even "win" that way, at least against other people, but against nature? You will lose -every time-.

[Coco Pops]

I find the cigarettes thing interesting.

They are so bad for you, even governments advertise that.

YET they are a legal product. Which is it?

[Womble]

Will you donate to Hamas?

[thekillman]

That's -exactly- why I said the "solutions" being put forth like "carbon tax" and other measures by the left are BS as well Womble, I'm not so blind as to not realise that.

Agreed.

We need an energy transition to renewables. Not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would almost immediately lead to tax cuts, since the worst offenders could never pay for it.


We don't have to take super drastic measures; infrastructure renews itself automatically. If we banned Coal power plants now, in about 30 years we live in a fully renewable world. (since that's roughly the renewal time of infrastructure). Coincidentally 2050 is named by numerous article to be a feasible target for 80-100% renewable energy.

Oil and coal is going to run out anyway, and we need oil for many more things than just burning.

[Falcon Horus]

We keep hoping the same thing happens to California.

You don't like California?

A quote that is common in the US comes to mind. I think it is attributed to Thomas Jefferson and goes along the lines of "That government is best which is closest to the people."

Except that the European Union is not the same as the United States of Europe. The latter doesn't exist. Although, the EU does have a president -- just to make it all the more confusing for outsiders (and insiders).

But IS climate change reality, or is it the political agenda the left is saying is settled reality?

Yes, climate change is a reality, and so is money-making.

If the UK only has its OWN problems to fix, not all the EU's as well as their own, then it stands to reason that they should have a much better chance of getting it fixed..

Except if you can't work together with other people, fixing problems is the least of your problems.

What exactly is 'unhealthy' about rewarding those who actually STRIVED for excellence, by giving them an award at the end of the year??

No such thing exists over here -- yes, awards are given to graduating students, ranging from Best at Math to Best at Getting In Trouble.

Awesome
*Throws G-man off a 50 story building*
Tell me when you reach the bottom, I'm sure gravity and rapid stop of momentum won't turn you into a pancake, because I believe the science isn't settled yet.

Actually it will be a bloody mess, not really resembling a flat pancake.

Or the existence of the Platypus.

One of my favorite animals.

[Annoyed]

As far as I'm concerned, the Climate change debate was permanently settled with the following:

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

As far as I'm, concerned, game over, and the enviros lose, and lose bad.

[SoulReaver]

speaking of wealth actually actually the climate change debate was settled long before that - ever since...the oil industry was a trillion-dollar one. case opened & closed
no argument beats $

[Falcon Horus]

The thing is even when Arab countries start working on other sources of income, other than oil, I'd say chances are quite good for the "enviro's" to have made an impact.

[Ian-S]

Doesn't mean you can gratuitously make stuff up and then claim "well, you weren't there in the 1930-s so you can't prove me wrong".


I'm not sure why it should be surprising that many of the people who fought the Nazis were themselves Jew-haters. There isn't a contradiction. The subject is pretty well covered in George Orwell's essay "Antisemitism in Britain".


The statement is complete horse manure. Hitler did not support Zionism; there's nothing whatsoever on record to suggest it and the logic of people saying so usually boils down to the fact that before Hitler began the campaign to exterminate the Jews within German-controlled territory, he made efforts to squeeze the Jews out of the country and any destination was good for him so long as it meant they went away. If that's supporting Zionism, then I am a very passionate supporter of the neo-Nazis, ISIL and Al-Qaeda.

The interesting part, however, is why Livingston would make such a claim. If you have even a minimal amount of brain power to process the logic of the claim, you might notice that this is not a statement about Hitler; this is pure Jew-baiting. It is actually an vaguely euphemized restatement of the kind of anti-Jewish prejudice that Orwell quoted in the aforementioned essay ("Chartered accountant, intelligent, left-wing in an undirected way: “These bloody Yids are all pro-German. They'd change sides tomorrow if the Nazis got here. I see a lot of them in my business. They admire Hitler at the bottom of their hearts. They'll always suck up to anyone who kicks them.”).

Modern-day leftists have learned the trick of euphemizing - don't say "Jews", say "Zionists" and you've got enough plausible deniability to stay off the hook. But it's not that hard to see through this.


I call nonsense on this one, my friend. Are you really saying that one needs to be completely and utterly savage and blatant in order to be counted as a racist, and being smart enough to add a minimal amount of obfuscation should grant absolution? In the case of Muslims or Black people, the standard for counting as racism is not set this low.


Boris did not use his exaggerated rhetoric to target a people, for one....

If we employ you method of assuming what was meant, as you did with Livingstone's comments, then Boris targeted everybody living in the EU by comparing them to Hitler.

[garhkal]

Opinions about who can piss where, or who is a man or a woman, or is there really a god are fine debates to have, in fact, I would say they are essential for the growth of people and society as a whole, but this is not an abstract issue like morals or feelings. These are separate, independent facts that have nothing to do with what we may or may not want, and they are not "unique" to an individual or group. If we make this planet uninhabitable for human life, we will all die, and no one will be "saved".

But that's where i scratch my head. HOW is it that gender/sex issues are 'not settled', where 'global warming, i mean climate change is??

The world still revolves around money, and that's the paradigm we have to work within. What I find stupid is throwing solutions, even ones that could offer potential in the "too hard" basket. If we were at war, and the solution was viable solar panels to replace coal, we would have had them decades ago. Windmills, Off shore turbines, long term batteries for vehicles, ALL of these things could provide viable, non coal, non oil based energy replacement programs. Advancing energy transmission technology to make sure that we could get these energy sources moved around with minimal degradation would help as well, but ALL of this get's thrown away for short term gain.

I do agree, we need to get MORE alternative energy sources, but looking how several solar power comanies went under after getting govt funds, many are 'scared to invest'..

As for wind farms, i have no issues, but i see lots of environmentalists getting in a tizzy cause of all the birds killed..

I find the cigarettes thing interesting.

They are so bad for you, even governments advertise that.

YET they are a legal product. Which is it?

IMO the ONLY reason it has not been banned is one thing..

They get way too much tax revenue from it to ban it!

[Annoyed]

I do agree, we need to get MORE alternative energy sources, but looking how several solar power comanies went under after getting govt funds, many are 'scared to invest'..

Well, many (most?) of the solar and other alternative energy firms were never intended to become a functioning business with a viable product to sell that could replace petrochemical energy sources, they were simply political payback for supporting the LSoS in 2008.

The base problem is that we do not yet posses an energy storage and transportation technology which can replace gasoline and oil. Nothing can match the energy density. As I understand it, a Tesla electric car can go 250-300 miles before a recharge. Many gasoline cars have about the same range limit, but 10 minutes at a gas station and they're at full energy storage again, whereas you have to charge the electric car 8 hours or so. What kind of idiot buys a car like that? And that is just to move the car. What if you have to tow a heavy load with it? Like it or not, the tech to replace fossil fuels for portable use does not yet exist, at least not outside of laboratories.

As for wind farms, i have no issues, but i see lots of environmentalists getting in a tizzy cause of all the birds killed..

The enviros get into a tizzy over nuclear, hydro and any other energy source you can think of as well. The ONLY solution they approve of involves the western democracies (read: United States) using less energy and / or driving the cost of it up, therefore rolling back our standard of living. At least for the average working stiff. The rich promoters of these schemes such as Al Gore aren't bothered or even impacted by this at all. That particular moron once WASTED half a million gallons of fresh water for a photo op. for one of his campaigns.

[Starsaber]

The base problem is that we do not yet posses an energy storage and transportation technology which can replace gasoline and oil. Nothing can match the energy density. As I understand it, a Tesla electric car can go 250-300 miles before a recharge. Many gasoline cars have about the same range limit, but 10 minutes at a gas station and they're at full energy storage again, whereas you have to charge the electric car 8 hours or so. What kind of idiot buys a car like that? And that is just to move the car. What if you have to tow a heavy load with it? Like it or not, the tech to replace fossil fuels for portable use does not yet exist, at least not outside of laboratories.

It depends on your use case. It could probably be feasible for me since I live in a large city and most of the places I go are within 10/15 miles of home and my longest regular car trip is about 150 miles to my aunt & uncle's house for Thanksgiving.

Even if we can't fully replace fossil fuels, it would be good to move away from them where we can to reduce the demand on them for the things where we can't move away from them yet.