The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

Eh, I don't think you will ever fix that in the "west", we are far too used to our conveniences.

And all you can eat bars..

I have an issue, but that issue is tempered by the value of that testing.

One thing i have often thought of doing is offering criminals in jail the ability to VOLUNTEER (they would have to rodger up and sign a paper indicating such, to avoid a prison PUSHING them into it), to give their body to medical testing for various drugs, for a reduction in their sentence..

But you have no brains

Neither do hillary supporters it seems..

Now THAT is a very good point. The local area should, as much as possible absorb the displaced people, but they refuse, which makes the whole issue a mess.

Glad we agree on there..

Do you deny those who need help (honestly need it) to make a point to those nations?

No, but i would also have rather done what was needed BEFORE it got to this level of a 5 yr civil war and millions of refugees.

People always ***** about the EU not taking in enough but you never hear them about Saudi not taking in any, despite being a rich nation.

I have heard quite a few people both on this site and in the media raise that question (mostly from fox though).. However the left often just ignores answering it.

[Falcon Horus]

ISIS bans burka in Mosul after commanders killed by women.

This requires a different smiley than -- even though applicable just the same.

LOL @ the irony --

[pookey]

Agree with FH hilarious irony

[SoulReaver]

I'll give you one word. Accuracy.

Ice Cores May Not Be Accurate Thermometers

It's an estimate. Not a measurement. And are these estimates accurate enough to accurately read a change as small as 1.7 degrees? I think not.
From the article:

The estimate is 10, plus or minus 5 ? I can probably do better on a dartboard.

At the end of the day, what we can see of conditions even hundreds, let alone thousands of years ago are ESTIMATES. unless someone goes back in time, with a modern, accurate device to measure temperature, that's all we can ever have.

convenient if you leave aside the time scale factor when comparing today with the stone age

[SoulReaver]

LOL @ the irony --

now they should declare a fatwa on themselves for going against their own religion

[Falcon Horus]

now they should declare a fatwa on themselves for going against their own religion

*snort*

They are the laughing stock of the terrorist organizations. No doubt.

[dipsofjazz]

Wow UK that's a bit over the top.. So people can get these put on them even without any conviction or charges.

Spoiler for space...

Spoiler:

That's just a little over the top.

I'd be fascinated to see what our US cousins think about the UK's Civil Sexual Risk Orders which have been, shall we be polite, somewhat controversial in recent months.

Upon application by the police or National Crime Agency to a Magistrate, they can impose restrictions upon people whom they deem to be a significant risk to the public from sexual attack. The conditions are of the same variety imposed upon the subject as those in a Registered Sex Offenders License (not to go places, not to access the internet, not to be alone in the company of certain people, notification of changes of address or trips abroad, etc). However, unlike a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, which is imposed following a conviction, or upon people who have been convicted of serious sexual assaults, the SRO specifically has been designed to be applied to a party who has not been convicted or cautioned for any sexual offence.

The most controversial case currently in the news is that of a man who, acquitted of rape (and never convicted or cautioned previously), has had an SRO application successfully imposed upon him by the police whereupon he has to give them 24 hours notice prior to sex, allowing the police the time to contact the prospective partner and inform them of their concerns about him. The SRO can be reapplied for or extended (as they have been in this case) almost indefinitely if the police can convince a magistrate that the suspected risk of the male to the public is enough to warrant infringing his Human Rights (Right to Private and Family Life - Article 9).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36481127

How many times do I have to tell you lot that the UK does NOT equal England!
Scotland, which is also part of the UK, has its own legal system therefore this article does not involve the whole of the UK.

[Annoyed]

convenient if you leave aside the time scale factor when comparing today with the stone age

In terms of age of a planet, the stone age was a second or so ago.

[SoulReaver]

In terms of age of a planet, the stone age was a second or so ago.

in terms of human civilization the stone age was an eternity ago

[Annoyed]

in terms of human civilization the stone age was an eternity ago

But the topic of discussion is climate change, and the fact that the Earth's climate has been changing since long before mankind showed up. On a planetary time scale, we've been here for a few seconds, at most.

[aretood2]

Hence the "i need 9 kids to support me in my old age". Except that with modern hygiene, medicine and understanding it shouldn't be all that difficult to make sure they do live past 5 in those regions.

In fact, humanity is multiplicating so fast *because* they still believe such things, even though mortality rates have gone down. So in stead of 2 kids surviving, 8 do.

Yet you don't normally see such high number of births in the Western Hemisphere or Europe.

Education.

So education is the issue, not a pope who said nothing that Catholics didn't already believe. Unless you mean all of the popes. You also have to have a good explanation for the non-Catholic Africans...

That depends. As it stands, countries like India and China are growing much harder (especially in absolute numbers) than western nations are shrinking.

China? Its growth is in trouble. India is, however, a real problem. But if India would focus on education and poverty a bit more they might make some headway with that.

Ok, first, another nail in the coffin of the credibility of these folks.

It seems that rather inconveniently, its seems that "global warming" ceased for 15 years or so; rather unpleasant data for the enviros and their agenda. This is apparently behind the change in the public discussion to call it "climate change", rather than global warming. So what's an enviro to do when the data doesn't support his agenda?

Simple. Have NOAA cook the books in order to support the agenda.
NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

I see your tabloid and raise you a factchecker
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’

To be honest, I didn't bother with breitbart. If I want to see Trump campaign statements, I'd look for his website or something. But here is a more interesting article from the National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle

Anthropogenic cause, no. Anthropogenic impact, most likely. Either way, I don't see how destroying ecosystems is doing us any good as far as prepping for ongoing difficulties presented by climate change.

Science requires accurate data. As I understand it, one of the claims is that Earth his warmed 1.7 degrees in the past couple of hundred years. How do they know? The thermometer was invented roughly 500 years ago. Prior to that, the best we could do is estimate. And I rather doubt that early thermometers were all that accurate; 1.7 degrees was likely well within the margin of error.
Yes, I know, we can estimate temperatures at various points in history via geological evidence, but that is just an estimate, that's all. And they're claiming accuracy to 1.7 degrees? Sorry, I ain't buying.

So your incredulity is in the ability of science to know stuff? I guess I can understand that at some level. But...I also find it hard to believe that flimsy wings can hold a plane in the sky yet it somehow does it.

And finally, legitimate science doesn't threaten to use criminal prosecution to silence the opposition. IT demonstrates its facts via experiments repeatable by anyone.

Again, are you talking about the activists or the scientists?

[SoulReaver]

But the topic of discussion is climate change, and the fact that the Earth's climate has been changing since long before mankind showed up. On a planetary time scale, we've been here for a few seconds, at most.

the topic's man-made climate change
the fact that the climate's been changing long before man isn't disputed. but there's also the fact that recently (relative to human scale not just planetary scale) the climate's been changing far more quickly & that's the whole problem

[jelgate]

In spirit of this conversation, I have decided gravity isn't real.

*walls off a bridge*

[SoulReaver]

*walls off a bridge*

why would you want to block access to a bridge? :/

[jelgate]

The same reason crazy people think climate change isn't real?