Reply to: How the USA gets rid of Trump

[Mordac]

A myth, with as often, a nugget of truth. Thatcher (the first PM with a science degree, btw) gave an early warning of the problems in a strongly pro-science speech to the Royal Society in 1988



(The other two were the ozone hole and acid rain)



History of the UEA CRU

History of the Climatic Research Unit

Speech to the Royal Society | Margaret Thatcher Foundation



Another myth, The 'cooling' scare never really existed in the academic literature and was history by the mid 1980s.



And a Nobel at least and the gratitude and largesse of the oil companies and Governments relieved of the need to act awaits anyone who can falsify AGW. Exxon did extensive inhouse research during the 1970s and 1980s, then they stopped.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/



We need both, reforestation is comparatively low-hanging fruit though.

India Plants 50 Million Trees in One Day, Smashing World Record

Thankyou for a good contribution to an intelligent discussion.

[NotAllThere]

...
Most of all despite being an agent . I cannot stand bulls*t or hypocrisy

Good one.

[DodgyAgent]

We want quality, not quantity. The Rotherham sexual exploitation case, as I have already conceded, was a valid example of an incompetent council, since replaced, failing in its duty through fear of being branded racist. Whether this was a result of local factors or can be applied more widely I don't know. I suspect not.

The essay by Chamberland is just making the same 'tyranny' claim, but like you, lacks valid examples - he only gives a single one, from the blog of serial misinformer Tony Heller, and its wrong.

A Breitbart editor was 'banned' from addressing 200 sixth-formers. ... In fact the Head cited public safety fears after many people expressed disgust and an intention to protest. Here's an extract from an open letter from two former pupils



Personally I favour letting people speak wherever and whenever they want, however special safeguarding considerations do have to apply around schools. Of course we can rely on Milo, delicate snowflake that he is, to spin this 'ban' to the max ….. you can hardly describe him as lacking a platform for his views.

I was hoping for better.

Police 'covered up' violent campaign to turn London area 'Islamic' - Telegraph

[pjclarke]

We want quality, not quantity. The Rotherham sexual exploitation case, as I have already conceded, was a valid example of an incompetent council, since replaced, failing in its duty through fear of being branded racist. Whether this was a result of local factors or can be applied more widely I don't know. I suspect not.

The essay by Chamberland is just making the same 'tyranny' claim, but like you, lacks valid examples - he only gives a single one, from the blog of serial misinformer Tony Heller, and its wrong.

A Breitbart editor was 'banned' from addressing 200 sixth-formers. ... In fact the Head cited public safety fears after many people expressed disgust and an intention to protest. Here's an extract from an open letter from two former pupils

'Milo Yiannopoulos is not the “alt-right”; he is a twisted new incarnation of the far-right. His harassment and bullying of women, particularly black women, online is well documented, resulting in *him being permanently banned from Twitter for his actions. His invective is hate speech. A man who states 'feminism is cancer' is not interested in debate or nuance.' […] As former pupils of Simon Langton, we are extremely disappointed that Yiannopoulos has been asked to return to the school to talk to the sixth-form students there.

We are, of course, advocates of free speech, and believe people should be allowed to say what they want free from the fear of political incarceration or harassment. But*inviting*someone to talk is not the same thing as not censoring them.*Inviting Milo to talk is not an example of 'supporting free speech' it is actively encouraging him to spout his far-right views to young men. Simon Langton School is actively permitting and encouraging a proponent of hate speech to speak in their grounds.

Personally I favour letting people speak wherever and whenever they want, however special safeguarding considerations do have to apply around schools. Of course we can rely on Milo, delicate snowflake that he is, to spin this 'ban' to the max ….. you can hardly describe him as lacking a platform for his views.

I was hoping for better.

[DodgyAgent]

I would have said the 'difficult bit' is for you to provide actual evidence of real and influential people making the claims you're so oppressed by. They smack of Daily Mail reality parody probably mingled with fringe nutters coming up with fringe nuttery.

Try this to begin with

Rotherham abuse didn't happen because of political correctness. It happened because of racism - Telegraph

here is another
http://climatechangedispatch.com/the...-of-consensus/

Here is another

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ot-brexiteers/

and another

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...7#.WDRVMLKLSUk

One from Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...ce-refuse-act/

and another where someone has actually been banned

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/1...choolchildren/

This list is growing bigger than my Penis

[pjclarke]

So instead of doing the difficult bit like proving me wrong the usual trick is to smear them as "daily mail" articles

I would have said the 'difficult bit' is for you to provide actual evidence of real and influential people making the claims you're so oppressed by. They smack of Daily Mail reality parody probably mingled with fringe nutters coming up with fringe nuttery.

[pjclarke]

I heard some years ago from a source I have no reason to doubt, that one of the original drivers of the whole climate change circus was Maggie herself. She wanted a plausible reason to deprive the mining unions of all their political power, and proceeded to do so by creating a fear of coal-based emissions using iffy science (or a dodgy dossier, if you like).*

A myth, with as often, a nugget of truth. Thatcher (the first PM with a science degree, btw) gave an early warning of the problems in a strongly pro-science speech to the Royal Society in 1988

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led someto fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope.

(The other two were the ozone hole and acid rain)

As it became clearer in the 1980s that the world was warming, a question that was asked with increasing frequency was how much, if any, of the warming was a consequence of human activity? CRU had made an important contribution to the posing of that question, so was in an excellent position to address it. The UK Government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s, following a meeting between Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and a small number of senior climate researchers, which included Tom Wigley, the CRU director at the time. This and other meetings eventually led to the setting up of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, within the Met Office.

History of the UEA CRU

History of the Climatic Research Unit

Speech to the Royal Society | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

Interestingly, the main objection to the principle was from scientists warning of an impending mini ice-age (anyone remember that?)

Another myth, The 'cooling' scare never really existed in the academic literature and was history by the mid 1980s.

Bottom line is, scientists will say anything if there's a fat research grant in the offing,

And a Nobel at least and the gratitude and largesse of the oil companies and Governments relieved of the need to act awaits anyone who can falsify AGW. Exxon did extensive inhouse research during the 1970s and 1980s, then they stopped.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/

I would be concentrating far more on deforestation than emissions.

We need both, reforestation is comparatively low-hanging fruit though.

India Plants 50 Million Trees in One Day, Smashing World Record

[DodgyAgent]

Ah, I see. The objection is not to actual liberals, or real liberal opinions. it's the Daily Mail cartoon version that has DA so excised. Strange way to spend your day, but each to his own.

So instead of doing the difficult bit like proving me wrong the usual trick is to smear them as "daily mail" articles

[OwlHoot]

Do you really want me to run through the list of left wing liberal orthodoxies again?

OK here we go:

...

Many of those are in one form or another "championing the weak", or what might be widely considered as the weak, even if they are not.

So deep down, as I've often said here, the conceited desire underlying a lot of virtue signaling is that we should be persuaded of not only the signaler's virtue but their superior position.

[DodgyAgent]

By DA reasoning loads of Tories were/#are liberal lefties including his beloved Thatcher.* This is why I pointed out he doesn't understand what liberalism means.

Now if DA had pointed out there is an issue with politicians e.g. our ruling elite some of his ranting would have made sense.

*Thatcher did things like vote for abortion rights and to decriminalise homosexuality.

I don't have a problem with liberalism at all. I have a problem with how liberalism is exploited to suppress debate.

[Mordac]

By DA reasoning loads of Tories were/#are liberal lefties including his beloved Thatcher.* This is why I pointed out he doesn't understand what liberalism means.

Now if DA had pointed out there is an issue with politicians e.g. our ruling elite some of his ranting would have made sense.

*Thatcher did things like vote for abortion rights and to decriminalise homosexuality.

I heard some years ago from a source I have no reason to doubt, that one of the original drivers of the whole climate change circus was Maggie herself. She wanted a plausible reason to deprive the mining unions of all their political power, and proceeded to do so by creating a fear of coal-based emissions using iffy science (or a dodgy dossier, if you like).
Replace the coal fired power stations with gas, nuclear, anything-but-coal quite frankly, thereby removing the demand for coal, and bye bye Scargill. An innovative solution to a messy political problem, as anyone who remembers the power cuts of the 1970s will testify.
Interestingly, the main objection to the principle was from scientists warning of an impending mini ice-age (anyone remember that?)
Bottom line is, scientists will say anything if there's a fat research grant in the offing, I would be concentrating far more on deforestation than emissions.

[vetran]

Back then people didn't get research grants as a matter of course, often the scientists were those wealthy enough to do this without needing a job.

And not being allowed to do science is not the same as disputing accepted EVIDENCE. Which was the key word in the dictionary definition. It didn't say a denier is someone who disputes the accepted view.

If it's about winning and losing then you've lost before you start. But that's a strange view to take because the Holocaust is something we can learn a huge amount from and absolutely not something to sweep under the carpet.

And in this context, talking about "deniers", the holocaust is THE example. That's where the charged use of the word surely comes from? And, my differentiation of denying it happened before the evidence was found and afterwards is entirely sensible... the former case you are denying rumour and speculation it and that's a plausible position, the latter case it is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[11] though Copernican theories were used to reform the calendar in 1582.[12]

Its not a strange view to suggest that using the holocaust to strengthen your case is not appropriate. No intention to brush it under the carpet but your usage to support climate change is like "popping work will set you free" on the front of a document selling sweeties to suggest millions of deaths is somehow linked and increase sales.

[DodgyAgent]

Do you actually mix with anyone who would identify themselves as liberal-left DA? i.e. not people who vote Tory but you call lefties because you're more right than them.

Since you have such clear disdain for these views and the people who hold them it seems unlikely you'd have many friends in those demographics, and the sector you work in as well as your level of wealth suggests your colleagues and neighbours are similarly going to be skewed to the right.

If you only get your understanding of what left and left-liberal people think from the media then you're going to get a very biased picture because these are the extreme views/people otherwise they wouldn't be newsworthy. Just as 'lefties' who get their understanding of what Tories are about by reading the Daily Mail.
And even that's assuming you read a spectrum of media i.e. not just confirmation bias reading the papers who take a stance you agree with.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eral-news-feed

I fear you'll just make some quick sneering rejoinder rather than enter a civilised discussion but it is a real question. Are you sure you aren't being blinkered by the media and your own bias to believe all left-liberals adhere to the stereotypes you suggest? Because those I know are open for discussion on such topics though of course they have their own biases.

I do not consider myself right wing. I strongly identify with the politics of people like Brendan O'Neill, Rod Liddle on the left but also many on the right.
I believe in the positive redistribution of wealth not as a punishment for being rich nor as something to signal my own virtue but as something as a practical way of making society a better place. I am also very patriotic and liberal in my views and attitudes to others. I am however prepared to argue them rather than suppress others rights to make them. I do not pretend to speak for other people (the classic virtue signaller leftie).
Most of all despite being an agent . I cannot stand bulls*t or hypocrisy

[pjclarke]

Here is the list:

Climate change - anyone who doubts any fact, argument, prognosis of the liberal left is a "denier"
Migration Anyone who questions membership of the EU because they are concerned about immigration - racist
Homosexuality - anyone who refuses to marry a gay couple or bake a cake - homophobe
Rape - Rapists defined or identified on the basis of race or religion - racism
Victim - anyone with an axe to grind, seeking attention is taken at face value. If you are being bullied on social media then don't go on it.
The worlds problems - no matter how societies organise themselves all problems are the fault of British and American imperialism/empires.

Ah, I see. The objection is not to actual liberals, or real liberal opinions. it's the Daily Mail cartoon version that has DA so excised. Strange way to spend your day, but each to his own.

[SueEllen]

By DA reasoning loads of Tories were/#are liberal lefties including his beloved Thatcher.* This is why I pointed out he doesn't understand what liberalism means.

Now if DA had pointed out there is an issue with politicians e.g. our ruling elite some of his ranting would have made sense.

*Thatcher did things like vote for abortion rights and to decriminalise homosexuality.