Are you a thin skinned ninny ?

[TestMangler]

TM you are such a Jooooeeeyyyyyyy

That's not very PC NLUK. I'm offended I find your comment baby kangarooist.

[pjclarke]

But there certainly does seem to be a link between climate change denial and a right wing or conservative political perspective, which is interesting. Some have estimated that the efforts of the deniers and 'Merchants of Doubt' have delayed action on the problem by as much as a decade. It seems to be a refusal to believe that their beloved free market has failed and a fear that the problem will require international co-operation and a common provision, hence the paranoid and fevered language about imposition of 'control ', and dark warnings of a world socialist government.

Clarkson, though is a denier of the vanilla variety.

[Dactylion]

I don't despise him.

HTH.

Does that make you a denier?

[SueEllen]

Political Correctness is simply the placing of your own opinion beyond any question,
blah blah blah.

So you like being offensive to people? Are you surprised if someone beats the crap out of you for insulting their mother?

[DodgyAgent]

But there certainly does seem to be a link between climate change denial and a right wing or conservative political perspective, which is interesting. Some have estimated that the efforts of the deniers and 'Merchants of Doubt' have delayed action on the problem by as much as a decade. It seems to be a refusal to believe that their beloved free market has failed and a fear that the problem will require international co-operation and a common provision, hence the paranoid and fevered language about imposition of 'control ', and dark warnings of a world socialist government.

Clarkson, though is a denier of the vanilla variety.

The solution that I suggested some months ago which is a geotechnical method of using photosynthesis to remove CO2 las year was instantly dismissed by you without you even bothering to consider the science - until I pushed you. This of course is because by removing the problem you and your ilk would have to find some other way of "controlling" the freedoms of people. As for the "beloved free market" that you are so keen to sneer at, I ask is this the same "free market" that enables you to sell your skills to the highest bidder and enable you to be amongst the richest 1% of people on this planet?

[DodgyAgent]

So you like being offensive to people? Are you surprised if someone beats the crap out of you for insulting their mother?

He is right. the tactic is to set a narrative (new word for me ) that in itself is sacrosanct. Once you own the narrative you can impose anything as long as you can loosely link it to the story. For example if you criticise someone who happens to be black for carrying out FMG, it can be linked to racism and thus stamp out any debate.

[pjclarke]

The solution that I suggested some months ago which is a geotechnical method of using photosynthesis to remove CO2 las year was instantly dismissed by you without you even bothering to consider the science - until I pushed you. This of course is because by removing the problem you and your ilk would have to find some other way of "controlling" the freedoms of people. As for the "beloved free market" that you are so keen to sneer at, I ask is this the same "free market" that enables you to sell your skills to the highest bidder and enable you to be amongst the richest 1% of people on this planet?

More fantasy. The method you Googled up, was a variant on a Ocean Fertilisation, which I knew had been thoroughly investigated and found inadequate for the task.

If the aim is to control the narrative, then the Right have been hugely successful, dating back to the notorious Frank Luntz memo to George Bush and earlier,

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

they knew they could not win the popular/political debate on the science, they set out to cast doubt on it, by means of propaganda, fake grassroots organisations and experts, tactics borrowed from the tobacco lobby. Indeed, many of the same 'experts' lent their name$ to both lobbies. Deniers for hire. They, and their 'useful idiots' created a political environment that delayed action by 10-20 years, time we could ill-afford.

Markets are fine in their place, but they are not infallible.

Frank Luntz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Zero Liability]

The lines between simply being polite and taking offence on behalf of others at every conceivable turn do seem to have blurred...

[SueEllen]

He is right. the tactic is to set a narrative (new word for me ) that in itself is sacrosanct. Once you own the narrative you can impose anything as long as you can loosely link it to the story. For example if you criticise someone who happens to be black for carrying out FMG, it can be linked to racism and thus stamp out any debate.

That narrative presumes that no one who fits into group you are criticising will turn up and agree with you.

In your example an Indonesian could turn up, agree with you and argue FGM is wrong. Neither you or the black person you are criticising would probably know that FGM happens in that part of the world as well.

I've done similar on a few occasions and the first response is you or the other person who is introduced doesn't know what they are talking about. Once it's is explained to confirm you/they do, the next response is either silence or saying that it's "culture" then a refusal to talk.

To be fair people who want to keep their narrative sacrosanct try to argue in places where they think no one will be bothered to point out they aren't making sense.