lostboy

It is fun to watch all the 'blue collars' try to spin the words of the Great Laughingstock to preserve their fantasy fanboydom. Normal, education, south people know the meaning of schlong and do not utter the word in polite company.

Your panting fetishism is another characteristic of the Trump demographic, whether or not you are American. UKippers in the UK. One Nation cretins in Australia. PEGIDA in Germany and the rest.

Immigration makes our countries and I join those who welcome them.

Picking on Trump is one thing, feel free, he is a mainstream New Yorker, accustomed to rough talk, I have no plans to defend his lack of boundaries.

But you want to take Trump's New York mouth and liken him to the brilliant Nigel Farage of UKIP? Is Nigel Farage of UKIP indeed part of a great "blue collar" demographic?

Could you even hold a conversation with him?

Do you really think opponents of forced mass foreign influx simply lack enlightenment?

Do you want me to take your post seriously? I am not sure. Did you click like instead of quote? The post to which I replied provides context but you are not taking me to task on those issues. I also was not making broad generalised insults on the leaders of the mobs of bigots around the world, merely commenting on what seems to be a consistency in the demographic.

So I will assume you are not being ironic and so not take the post seriously and respond accordingly.

What makes you think I couldn't hold a conversation with Farage? I don't believe I would want to but I see no sign of higher intelligence or rationality. Merely an opportunistic show boater who appeals to the lowest common denominator of the little englander. Do I believe that no professional class of worker is part of the Trump demographic or the Farage demographic or whatever. No. I am not trying to formulate class war. It is after all the roots of my own class. However, how can anyone assume that an enlightened person would use such a phrase as 'forced mass foreign influx'. There are so many red flags arising from the use of such language to make me wonder if you want to be taken seriously. If you do, then there are a whole bunch of avenues to explore. I have recent experience in working in the country that contributes the 2nd largest of the nationalities in the current movement of people into Europe. I have some first hand knowledge and experience. I also have thoughts and views on military operations in various countries in the region that also informs my opinions on these issues.

Ready to discuss any of this. But my immediate response is that, no, the angry old white men, the powerless and disenfranchised who cannot deal with the impact of identity politics and the ideals and values of the new generation do not, in fact, indicate any presence of enlightenment. I define enlightenment as emerging from what is also called the Age of Reason and provides the underpinning of modern liberal democratic societies based on tolerance, equality, fairness, progress and all that other good stuff.

I am still in two minds about taking your post seriously so I hedged my bets.

I am all Trumpt out, nothing to say other than,

He is an embarrassment

Shlong ..........definition......." displeasing person " .. In Donald Tumps case he meant that she (Hilary) was surprisingly displeased... (remember Monica)

All of us Westerners should be praying every day for the good people of the USA to vote into power Mr Donald (wheres yoor troosers) Trump.... He is strong, he is honest, and he speaks the truth .... and Yes, the truth does hurt sometimes..... How does that saying go..? If you can't stand the heat....blah ,blah ,blah..... Rock on Donald... Stop immigrants destroying our countries now ..... Send them all to beautiful Somalia...... Problem solved...

It is fun to watch all the 'blue collars' try to spin the words of the Great Laughingstock to preserve their fantasy fanboydom. Normal, education, south people know the meaning of schlong and do not utter the word in polite company.

Your panting fetishism is another characteristic of the Trump demographic, whether or not you are American. UKippers in the UK. One Nation cretins in Australia. PEGIDA in Germany and the rest.

Immigration makes our countries and I join those who welcome them.

If you cannot see what Muslim immigration has done to the fine cities of Europe then you are definitely lost boy.

Thank you for your comment on my post. It gives me the opportunity to make a correction to an annoying piece of auto-corrected text. I meant to say, educated, couth people

That being said, now tell me what your comment on European cities has do with the length of your schlong. Or my schlong. Or Donald Trump's schlong?

I love these Trump threads. When the last ones petered out, World News got so boring. But here we are, the blue collar crazies are back out to play.

I have been to many of Europe's fine cities for work and pleasure. I am not at all disturbed to see brown skinned people there as you seem to be. Now can we get back to this particular topic which is the obvious notion that the Great Gasbag is patently unsuited to be the Republican nominee. Hilary will eat him alive.

I have taken the time to read a number of your inputs to The TVF, not just on this subject but also on threads completely unrelated. One thing that comes over is that what ever subject you are discussing and you disagree with another persons point of view, you usually resort to name calling,e.g Bigot racialist etc, I think that in itself says a great deal about you.

You say that your heritage is the same as mine, yet you fail to say if you are in fact British ( perhaps you left the UK as a young boy) apologies if I am wrong, but I come to this conclusion as you certainly do not seem to have any idea as to the feelings of the vast majority of the U.K. Population.

I have a fan! Why thank you. Really. Since your last few posts have been almost entirely about me, I have taken the liberty to delete the previous posts. Some glitch on your computer had messed up the quotes and it was annoying me. Since the subject of me is the one about which I am most knowledgeable, I am more than happy to engage in this little admiration society that you have begun. Although I do think that we will get shut down quite soon.

Firstly let me say that I have never, in my life, used the word racialist. Using this word signifies certain information about nationality, age, education and other things. I would not like to be mistaken for a person who uses the word racialist.

I would then like to point out, since you have indicated that you have read a number of my posts, that you will have noticed that I enjoy pricking the pompous and haranguing the hypocritical. Sorry if you are not pleased about being categorised as such but while you continue to write things like the 'vast majority of the UK population' agrees with your particular ideology, then my responses to you will be the same.

I think I already discussed the whole 'says a good deal about you' trope. Not much more to be said. Please continue this micro-aggression if you feel you must but it is pretty banal. Not really much in the way of slings and arrows I'd say.

Please feel free to continue your fandom and reading of my posts. I must say though that when I have done similar things, someone, known to you, didn't like it and made some nasty allegations. Pretty much a coward. But please be warned, some people go more than a bit stupid over things. You are entirely welcome to stalk me as much as you want.

I have probably gone too far and I could spend much longer talking about myself but I won't. Your assessment of me is entirely irrelevant. As is my assessment of you. I am always up for a debate. You may notice that serious people who disagree with me get respectful and considered responses. If you are up for the challenge, I welcome it. If not, I really do not suffer preciousness lightly. I also can be blunt in requiring antagonists to back up their statements and have the courage of their convictions.

As for my nationality, mind your own business. I have reveal enough direct information in other posts for anyone to see my nationality and a lot more about who I am and things that have happened to me. But I won't be baited by direct demands. I provide information to help support or elaborate what I am saying. I do not use this for points scoring. I tried to be more subtle in this with intelligent posters. However as you have noticed, with cretins I do not do subtlety.

Thank you for your interest in my humble life. I am quite flattered. Not flattered enough to make a new avatar out of the experience but flattered none-the-less.

The fact Hillary had to take a poop break in the middle of this Democratic debate is further proof this woman is full of it. Viewing this debate was right up there with waterboarding or some other form of torture. Although, if anyone is having problems sleeping, if you watch five minutes of this debate you will be asleep.

The irrational stance in this post is incredible! So too that anybody would "like" it.

When a call of nature occurs, and you hold off till the ad break.....what's wrong with that? It's admirable that she waited for the break. How do you or Trump know what she was going through?

Trump calls going to the toilet "disgusting....disgusting...disgusting". What, he never craps? He's never been constipated? Never had a stomach problem?

I don't think he does, that's why he's so full of s---.

It's actually a very clever, though obviously low and mean attack, intimating that Clinton cannot hold her bowels, and do you want the leader of the free world to be someone who cannot control her faculties?

Not really clever. He is just talking to the level of his 'blue collars'. Old white powerless men who don't accept the idea of women having body parts like a urethra in the same place that they spend their monthly two and a half minutes performing their husbandly duties. Well lets say five minutes now that medical enhancements are available.

So the next and first female President of the United States is not allowed to take a piss? You really are taking the piss aren't you?

Controlling faculties would be applied to mental conditions or Heads of Teaching Departments. Not the evacuation of bladders.

What is it about these low class blue collars who just keep supporting the Giant Joke putting his foot in his mouth constantly. The Republican War on Women has reach a new low but given the lunacy of the blue collars, I am sure it will go much further down the mud pit.

I am all Trumpt out, nothing to say other than,

He is an embarrassment

Shlong ..........definition......." displeasing person " .. In Donald Tumps case he meant that she (Hilary) was surprisingly displeased... (remember Monica)

All of us Westerners should be praying every day for the good people of the USA to vote into power Mr Donald (wheres yoor troosers) Trump.... He is strong, he is honest, and he speaks the truth .... and Yes, the truth does hurt sometimes..... How does that saying go..? If you can't stand the heat....blah ,blah ,blah..... Rock on Donald... Stop immigrants destroying our countries now ..... Send them all to beautiful Somalia...... Problem solved...

It is fun to watch all the 'blue collars' try to spin the words of the Great Laughingstock to preserve their fantasy fanboydom. Normal, education, south people know the meaning of schlong and do not utter the word in polite company.

Your panting fetishism is another characteristic of the Trump demographic, whether or not you are American. UKippers in the UK. One Nation cretins in Australia. PEGIDA in Germany and the rest.

Immigration makes our countries and I join those who welcome them.

In an endeavour to stop this topic immediately descending into ill-informed commentary have a read of Australian gun laws.

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

I don't give a rat's turd about Australia's gun laws...if that's what they want that's fine. Americans will adopt gun laws in line with American law, cultural traditions, and historical experience.

Wasn't suggesting you should care about Oz gun laws, just an opportunity to review the reality of the Oz legislation. Out of curiously after reading the link what do you specifically object to in the US context?

So why post the link? And no I wouldn't waste my time reading up on Australia's guns laws because I'm not interested in them and I think America's are fine as is. (Well, actually they're far too strict in many places and I support efforts to roll-back allot of these unconstitutional laws.) As I said, Australians are free to govern and make laws on how they want to live. I don't have any problem with that. I just wish people would also give Americans and our laws and constitution the same respect.

It was troll bait. And it worked.

Simple1 merely posted information so that people have the chance to learn facts. Why is this a problem? The next President of the United States has said that she is looking at Australia's laws on registration and control of guns. Would it not make sense to know what you are talking about when you start saying how wrong you think this idea is? It really makes subsequent comments on the constitutionality of existing American gun control laws descend from the sublime to the ridiculous.

A true NRA poster boy.

In an endeavour to stop this topic immediately descending into ill-informed commentary have a read of Australian gun laws.

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

I don't give a rat's turd about Australia's gun laws...if that's what they want that's fine. Americans will adopt gun laws in line with American law, cultural traditions, and historical experience.

Would that be the cultural tradition to shoot everything that goes "bump" in the night or the historical experience of 355 mass shootings in one year?

It's the historical experience of settling a frontier, a cultural experience of fathers teaching their sons to hunt, and finally saving gun-fearing countries like Oz from an imminent Japanese invasion and rescuing a gun-hating continent like Europe from the clutches of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

And your figure for "mass shootings" is so bogus...what's it down to now...two or more injured or killed is now a "mass" shooting; and the majority of these so called mass shootings are drunken bar brawls wherein people get injured or killed by a gun. These are hardly the type of incidents most people associate as a "mass shooting" event.

What Japanese invasion of Australia? Got some Japanese Imperial documents that no-one else has ever seen?

The phrase generally used for those who fought in WWII is the 'greatest generation'. You stand on their shoulders. Don't mistake this for being better then them. They would be disgusted at the use of their sacrifice and their bonds with fellow soldiers of dozens of different countries, different races and different religions to score cheap political points in a grubby argument about guns.

This includes members of my own family.

Are you lost in your frontier culture? When was the last time there was a frontier in America? Not since the last indigenous American was slaughtered and the rest imprisoned on reservations in the 19th C. Or do you mean West of the Appalachians in the colonial times when Daniel Boone was scurrying around in his beaver hat. Time to put away childish things on this issue. The Eastern seaboard of the United States hasn't seen a frontier since before the Louisiana Purchase. Americans no longer need to carry guns to kill Indians. That period of history is over, even thought the disgrace remains.

The gun nuts really live in fantasy land.

UK voters have no say in executive appointments in the British civil service. Why do you then complain about being excluded from executive appointments in the EU equivalent?

The British civil servants are answerable to their elected political masters, whereas the EU Bureaucrats are non elected and are answerable to whom?

The principle of Ministerial Responsibility is part of the Westminster tradition. The EU is a multilateral organisation governed by various treaties and including many countries whose legal and administrative systems are not based on Common Law. Why would you expect the EU governance structure to mimic the UK governance structure. You lot had a few centuries of imposing your system on others. Now it is time for you to stop thinking you control everything and work as a proper treaty partner. The EU Parliament has supervisory responsibility for EU Institutions including dismissal power over Commissioners.

If you are at all interested and not just trying to score points, the Treaties that provide the supervisory powers of the EU Parliament are available here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00006/Supervisory-powers

Perhaps if the UK took the EU Parliament seriously and didn't send disruptive, opportunistic failed financiers like Farage and his gang of bigots to represent the UK, then UK citizens might have a stronger voice in shaping the institutions and policies of the EU. But I guess it is easier to sit outside the tent and throw stones rather than doing the hard work.

We don't take the EU so called parliament serious because1/ it is not democratic.2/ The British people never agreed to what the EU has now become.

It would seem from reading through this thread,and a similar one that is also running, that the majority of non Brits are pro EU. This cannot be said of the majority of Brits, at least those who have bothered to post. I think it's fair to say most Brits on Thai visa would prefer to get out as soon as possible, but will that translate to the British electorate I don't know. I certainly hope so, though I suspect the powers that be will use every underhand method to do another 1975.

Since facts don't seem to matter to the dedicated UKipper, there is no point discussing the checks and balances of the EU Parliamentary system. Furthermore, you use terms like 'most British' with abandon. It might be better to seek out information from polls and surveys to inform your opinions. We went through all this before the British elections earlier this year. A mountain of insults were hurled by the UKippers against all and sundry. Your observation that most Brits on TVF favour exit says more about the type of Brit who is in Thailand and who posts on TVF than anything else.

I certainly support the idea of the EU. I would love to see informed debate about its development including the costs and benefits of participation by individual countries. Nobody presents anything close to coherent arguments of this type. Mostly it is bigoted and racist rubbish pushed by the little englander types. Not to be taken seriously.

A mountain of insults. Bigoted and racist rubbish by little englander.

Then you go on to insult those Brits who post on TVF.

When you make such remarks I think it sums you up.

I agree Brits here on TVF do not constitute the average UK voter, that's why it's best to look at polls and surveys carried out in the UK, if you were to do so, you will notice that the more informed the people become, the more they express a desire to leave this organisation. The main opinion polls, recorded a few months back, that approx 40% of the population backed the get out option, that figure is now 55%. So now you can go ahead and insult those people.

Thank you for permission to insult the Brits. I don't really need it. You are extraordinarily thin-skinned if you take umbrage at my previous post. I knowingly and purposefully insult the UKippers. If you align with them, then I think you should be prepared for the accusations of racism and bigotry. My heritage is the same as yours. I know very well the origins of my own racism that I inherited from the Mother Country and have tried hard all my life to over come it. So a bit less of the preciousness I think.

Do I insult the Brits who post on TVF? I make an observation, that the posts of many of the Brits seem to point to a certain demographic. I make no inference beyond that. If you choose to view this as an insult then that is your issue. The whole 'reveals more about you' or 'sums you up' tropes are boring. Little jabs. What they now call 'micro-aggression'. I make no apology for disparaging UKippers or others whose comprehension of complex, important issues is tainted by ideological and political agitprop.

I do not believe that anyone is in a position to make a claim that most Brits want to exit the EU. The polls seem to be evenly divided. Again, very little informed discussion, just the usual ideological rants from both sides. It will be the Scottish Referendum all over again. At least we will have plenty of opportunities to get in some jabs at the more intellectually closed anti-EU boosters.

In which case the little englanders are in for a big surprise when they discover the continentals can still come and go as they please. Why bother with a referendum?

Being a member of the EEA means you get all the rules that come with being in the common market without any ability to have a seat at the table to contribute to them. An even worse straight jacket than you think you are in now.

Immigration is not the only issue, there are also the concerns about democracy, or rather the lack ot it, that comes with being a member of the EU.

The executive arm of the EU (The Commission) is not voted in by the people, it is not accountable to the people, and it cannot be voted out by the people. The UK spends a lot of time going around the world bombing countries to 'bring them democracy'. It would be nice if it could bring democracy to itself.

In any case, It is unlikely that the UK would leave the EU and remain in the EEA.

As a side note, is it really necessary to continue with the puerile name calling? Why not just call people who you disagree with smelly poo heads?

UK voters have no say in executive appointments in the British civil service. Why do you then complain about being excluded from executive appointments in the EU equivalent?

The British civil servants are answerable to their elected political masters, whereas the EU Bureaucrats are non elected and are answerable to whom?

The principle of Ministerial Responsibility is part of the Westminster tradition. The EU is a multilateral organisation governed by various treaties and including many countries whose legal and administrative systems are not based on Common Law. Why would you expect the EU governance structure to mimic the UK governance structure. You lot had a few centuries of imposing your system on others. Now it is time for you to stop thinking you control everything and work as a proper treaty partner. The EU Parliament has supervisory responsibility for EU Institutions including dismissal power over Commissioners.

If you are at all interested and not just trying to score points, the Treaties that provide the supervisory powers of the EU Parliament are available here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00006/Supervisory-powers

Perhaps if the UK took the EU Parliament seriously and didn't send disruptive, opportunistic failed financiers like Farage and his gang of bigots to represent the UK, then UK citizens might have a stronger voice in shaping the institutions and policies of the EU. But I guess it is easier to sit outside the tent and throw stones rather than doing the hard work.

We don't take the EU so called parliament serious because1/ it is not democratic.2/ The British people never agreed to what the EU has now become.

It would seem from reading through this thread,and a similar one that is also running, that the majority of non Brits are pro EU. This cannot be said of the majority of Brits, at least those who have bothered to post. I think it's fair to say most Brits on Thai visa would prefer to get out as soon as possible, but will that translate to the British electorate I don't know. I certainly hope so, though I suspect the powers that be will use every underhand method to do another 1975.

Since facts don't seem to matter to the dedicated UKipper, there is no point discussing the checks and balances of the EU Parliamentary system. Furthermore, you use terms like 'most British' with abandon. It might be better to seek out information from polls and surveys to inform your opinions. We went through all this before the British elections earlier this year. A mountain of insults were hurled by the UKippers against all and sundry. Your observation that most Brits on TVF favour exit says more about the type of Brit who is in Thailand and who posts on TVF than anything else.

I certainly support the idea of the EU. I would love to see informed debate about its development including the costs and benefits of participation by individual countries. Nobody presents anything close to coherent arguments of this type. Mostly it is bigoted and racist rubbish pushed by the little englander types. Not to be taken seriously.

In which case the little englanders are in for a big surprise when they discover the continentals can still come and go as they please. Why bother with a referendum?

Being a member of the EEA means you get all the rules that come with being in the common market without any ability to have a seat at the table to contribute to them. An even worse straight jacket than you think you are in now.

Immigration is not the only issue, there are also the concerns about democracy, or rather the lack ot it, that comes with being a member of the EU.

The executive arm of the EU (The Commission) is not voted in by the people, it is not accountable to the people, and it cannot be voted out by the people. The UK spends a lot of time going around the world bombing countries to 'bring them democracy'. It would be nice if it could bring democracy to itself.

In any case, It is unlikely that the UK would leave the EU and remain in the EEA.

As a side note, is it really necessary to continue with the puerile name calling? Why not just call people who you disagree with smelly poo heads?

UK voters have no say in executive appointments in the British civil service. Why do you then complain about being excluded from executive appointments in the EU equivalent?

The British civil servants are answerable to their elected political masters, whereas the EU Bureaucrats are non elected and are answerable to whom?

The principle of Ministerial Responsibility is part of the Westminster tradition. The EU is a multilateral organisation governed by various treaties and including many countries whose legal and administrative systems are not based on Common Law. Why would you expect the EU governance structure to mimic the UK governance structure. You lot had a few centuries of imposing your system on others. Now it is time for you to stop thinking you control everything and work as a proper treaty partner. The EU Parliament has supervisory responsibility for EU Institutions including dismissal power over Commissioners.

If you are at all interested and not just trying to score points, the Treaties that provide the supervisory powers of the EU Parliament are available here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00006/Supervisory-powers

Perhaps if the UK took the EU Parliament seriously and didn't send disruptive, opportunistic failed financiers like Farage and his gang of bigots to represent the UK, then UK citizens might have a stronger voice in shaping the institutions and policies of the EU. But I guess it is easier to sit outside the tent and throw stones rather than doing the hard work.

You comment on the language of vilification used by what you call the alarmists. You cite numerous examples. This is not, however a one way street. I have seen posts by you and many other deniers that uses equally vilifying language on other threads. What you state in this and the previous post equally applies to you and other deniers.

Once again, you miss the point with breathtaking ease. I am not, of course, referring to what posters on this forum write about each other; it is of no importance whatever.

I am talking about people with power and influence in the real world, people who may be able to make good on their threats, or persuade others to take punitive action.

So here's a short list of "the language of vilification" from the Alarmists. Perhaps you would like to provide an equivalent list of vilification by skeptics.

(Professor Richard Parncutt, Graz University)

"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Even mass murderers like Breivik should not be executed, in my opinion. GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death."

(Talking Points Memo website)

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?

Robert Kennedy Jr.

“[Y]ou hear this from the oil industry and the coal industry and their ‘indentured servants’ in our political process that global climate stability is a luxury that we can’t afford,” said Kennedy. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm

“An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind [climate "deniers"] while you sleep in your beds,”

Grist

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

“Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler”

Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference."

Charles Larson, American University (2013)

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist."

George Monbiot, The Guardian

“…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”

Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”

Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity."

Aah, don't you just love that tolerance, the hallmark of the 'progressive' mindset?

Clearly missing the point through poor communication is the fault of the readers' comprehension. I can only take your words at face value. I am not a mind reader. Reading your posts on various threads that are clearly political and ideological rather than technical informs my view. Posts like #3 on http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/842324-world-mayors-at-vatican-urge-bold-climate-agreement/ where you indulge in a typical anti-Left diatribe. This seems quite broad brush. Not narrowly focussed on "those with power" as you claim.

You want a tit-for-tat on hate speech from the Deniers? Easy to find here and elsewhere online. I don't find such a game worth playing but since you asked, you can read a list of quotes from skeptics here http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html How many of these quotes contain the same political and ideological slants common in your posts and the posts of others? Use of words like scams, cult and alarmist. I appreciate reading the comments on technical issues. The political stuff is boring.

So I cannot see anyone calling for Denier Genocide or similar. But there are plenty of equally moronic and inflammatory statements and actions. Like Inhofe, Chair of the Environment Committee taking a snowball into Congress and claiming climate change is a myth because it was snowing outside. Or the use of political intimidation by Deniers in positions of power http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-s-bradley/the-house-committee-on-sc_b_8479612.html

I suspect that you will generally win an argument on the lunacy of climate change alarmists. You seem to track this far more closely than I or others do. Keep at it. Whatever floats your boat. Environmental issues impact on my professional life in terms of development and implementation of policy. That is where my focus lies. It allows me to not have to indulge in the political and ideological mud.

I don't buy your claim of purity and only aiming at the those with the influence to affect change in ways that you do not like. You are sullied by the anti-Leftist scrum and its attendant 'language of vilification' as the rest of the old grumps. I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

There is a phenomena of unearned expectations sweeping the entire world. It is a natural byproduct of the Liberal Western goal of equality in outcomes, not equality in opportunity. This phenomena is leveraged upon others by guilt, pejorative, social boycott, and demands for unearned due as if the demands were self evident; it is being utterly rammed down America's throat irrespective of the people's demands. Thus, those disparate groups and individuals all demanding the fruits of other's labors are in essence crippling every aspect of the polity and governance. This good is being inflicted upon the masses in a concerted, Machiavellian manner. Crippling the borders enables the wooden horses.

America, being the poster child for the slide into Western Socialism, and the biggest kid on the block, best exemplifies all the unintended consequences of its race to the liberal bottom (However, EU ably illustrates this bankruptcy of reason as well). From the universities to the FBI, from State and Federal government hiring practices, to the IRS tax code, winners and losers are now chosen every time based solely on multiculturalism engineering and preferred constituency. The end result of this is the realization that simply demanding "stuff" results in the likely obtaining of "stuff." Therefore, there is now no end to the demands and protests sweeping the US. It is actually an ugly, disgusting stain on the citizens that they participate in their own abuse. "Restricting the borders is bad because... because... we feel." "Feeling" is the modus operandi of America's Winter.

This thinking now infects the entire US policy machine, and is evident here in the "hostage taking" regarding the outrageous notion that the US would dare enact self preservation mechanisms toward a rationale immigration/border policy. A relation to this can be noted in Trump's statement that "muslims should be banned." I don't comment one way or the other on that volatile point but opponents offer the outrage that it is unconstitutional; of course it is not. In fact, there is actually no policy offerings to enact sensible rules for protecting Americans that is not now met with overwhelming derision, outright lies, protests, PC groups leveraging accusations, guilt, etc., to stifle America's self defense.

The issue of the OP is just not isolated. It is part of the same constellation of signs and symptoms of a nation self destructing. The most unfortunate aspect is that once America is deconstructed the individual parts or even collective whole of what seems to be replacing it (a hybrid socialist fascist corporatocracy) have not one redeemable characteristic.

Not one redeemable characteristic. Not so, such an American will finally achieve social justice.

Your uncompromisingly harsh ideology of an individual's duty to maximise their opportunity in a non existent utopia where those opportunities are never equal is straight from the evangelical Puritan preachers of the 17th and 18th Centuries who believed that God's salvation is only bestowed those who work hard and achieve great works.

Your zeal is as intense as that of a zealot in any religion but your religion seems to be Hoover-esque 'rugged individualism' of times gone past. It makes sense that your apocalyptic vision is so catastrophic because to such a zealot, any revisionism in the polity towards social justice must seem like the 'end of days'. Well, it is probably the end of your days and your "America" will be transformed into something unrecognisable to the wannabe yeoman farmer politicians of yesteryear.

Personally I don't think you need to fear a society that strives for social justice; that aims for equality of outcomes. Such a society recognises that there is never any equality of opportunity. Elites always capture and control the channels and instruments of power and the wealth that accompanies this power. The Ivy League. The Greek Fraternities and Sororities. Inherited wealth. The Old Boy Network. All of that. You have correctly identified that many countries in Europe strive for equality of outcomes. Education through tertiary level is free in Germany. Finland is giving Euro 800 a month to all its citizens. The UK and other countries have a nationalised health care system. Some experiments work. Some don't. But American Exceptionalism keeps America as an exception. I blame the Puritans, in part. They infested the culture with this Work Ethic thing that has become harshly inhuman and inhumane in the American polity.

It is natural for old men to feel afraid of new things. You don't need to worry. American socialism will not result in guillotines being erected in Washington DC's equivalent to the Place de la Concorde. It will be a slow and tortuous process given the self interest of the rich, white families that have controlled American for so long.

I now see you with a beard. In the manner of John Cotton the Puritan Minister. Your writings against socialism make sense to me when I do that.

In any case, I really don't think that your anticipated socialist doomsday will be expedited by lose visa controls on foreign tourists. Being a frequent user of the ESTA visa waiver program, I really can't see how this may be contributing to the slide into Western Socialism.

You want me to dumb it down for you?

To dumb down what you wrote is a logical impossibility.

<snip>

<snip>

"...these arguments quickly turn to insults on both sides..."

<snip>

lostboy:

I honestly believe you lost the insult battle.

An objective an unbiased opinion of course. The 'honestly' marks it thus.

You want me to dumb it down for you?

To dumb down what you wrote is a logical impossibility.

But to restate the point for those smart enough to get it, virtually all of the vitriol and abuse and certainly all the calls for trial and execution of opponents comes from the tolerant totalitarians of the progressive Left.

These dim bulbs only have a handful of tired old refrains on their jukebox : Bad, Bad Fox News; You're a Denier; Evil Big Oil; The Greedy Koch Brothers, The Debate is Over; Those Beastly Wingnut Republicans, and the old favourite That Well-Funded Vicious Climate Denialist Machine (lyrics: ME Mann).

Such is their emotional attachment to these limited and infantile ideas, that any criticism sends them into a terrible tantrum, hence the calls for prosecution, trials, and executions.

OK. I will reply to the literal points you made instead of going off on tangents.

You comment on the language of vilification used by what you call the alarmists. You cite numerous examples. This is not, however a one way street. I have seen posts by you and many other deniers that uses equally vilifying language on other threads. What you state in this and the previous post equally applies to you and other deniers.

I engaged with you some time ago because I did not understand. Once I realised this is nothing to do with environmental protection and merely a proxy for the Liberal/Conservative clash of ideologies, I withdrew from the debate.

So again we come to pots and kettles and their colour.

You at least have sufficient grounding and technical knowledge to actually make an argument on a number of issues but these arguments quickly turn to insults on both sides and there is an intransigence that does not allow any acceptance of points made by the other side in case of seeming weak.

My solution is to avoid using the code words and engage with like minded people in an effort to learn. Those occasions have been and will continue to be quite rare on TVF. I do reserve the right to comment though on some of the more egregious hyperbole from the deniers when it is blatantly hypocritical.

Nothing of substance, if you say so. He is bored, apparently you're not if, as you have alleged, you have disseminated the information contained in my posts, there are a few of them. Like everything else the alarmists are on about, if they cannot answer anything, then the name of the game is deflect. So you want everything handed to you, why so, you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed. I normally wouldn't but on this occasion I will, here is the link to your so called 1000 scientists silliness.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284 .

Are you referring to the consensus at the latest gabfest. So it was the vast majority was it, then who are the minority that did not go along with the consensus, answer me that? Provide the percentages please. There is no binding agreement because no one has signed, there's still another two years before this is required. So where is the consensus? Me thinks a consensus to do nothing. Nearly every country has adopted their own approach and have stuck their fingers up at the UN and the so called agreement.

But wait, I can see where you are coming up with your responses, it is from the bible of the alarmists, and here is the link.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

It provides the alarmists with the teachings so that they can stifle debate of those who object to the falsehoods, changing of data, twisting of words and quotes, misinformation and deliberate falsifying of percentages, as well as the failure of the world press to publish both sides of the science. Insults and wait for it the big one, supercilious insults. Show me where. I can show you where some from your side have turned nasty but that wouldn't interest you, would it? But because we are of opposing views, it is ok for your side to sling it. I think most of us try our hardest to be civil despite what some dish out.

As for climate, look it up and you will see that it and weather are in correlation and what I posted has nothing to do with what my grade school teacher taught me because at that time there was none of the BS going round. The reason students of today are being taught about climate change, global warming or whatever other name has to be thought up is because most of them are from the far left, are believers and alarmists.

I have never said that climate change is not real because scientists cannot predict the weather for up to 3 days. You have put into print an absolute falsehood, completely changed what was said, so if you want to lie then get your facts down pat before coming on here and making yourself look foolish and highlighting the extent that your lot will go to in your attempts to discredit those who have differing opinions

Here is my quote so all those who come on here to get an insight into both sides of the debate can see the lengths that some will go to in their attempts to discredit another. The weather forcasters cannot accurately predict weather patterns two or three weeks in advance, yet these believers want us to accept that they can predict changes 10, 20 40 or 50 years into the future. If you believe that then what can one say. I have never denied climate change or global warming, just the misinformation, the cheating, falsehoods, fabrication of evidence and data, as well as the sccare tactics and scams initiated to make certain alarmists very wealthy people..

As for other substantiations, there are ample on here so I won't waste time in duplicating anything, I will just suggest you have a good read and view the videos, the latter will give you a real insight into why we do not accept the proganda you and the others are touting.

Your insults directed towards me and my words are offensive.

It is silly to claim that I have been disseminating your information when I clearly argue against what you have said. To whom am I supposed to have disseminated your silly statements and on what forum?

It is silly to argue that only 52 scientists wrote the IPCC paper in 2009 and 1000 scientists do not agree with it without including the number of scientists who do agree with it. Providing such information would have substantiated your argument. You present a logical fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy in the guise of debate.

It is silly to argue that the 1000 scientists who did not agree wth the 2009 IPCC report indicates that there is not a consensus of scientists on the issue of climate change. You demand figures? Why, so you can go ad hominem against the sources? How about NASA which says 97% http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ or Wikipedia that provides a justification for the 98% figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change. It is just silly to keep saying that everyone else is wrong and only you and a few others are correct. Particularly when you don't rebut the arguments. Just dish out insults.

It is silly to claim that the agreement at COP21 was not an agreement. Apart from demonstrating that you are quite ignorant about multilateral program development and administration, it is just silly to deny that there was an agreement when that agreement has been reported.

It is silly to accuse an academic publication that seeks to provide material that explains a complex issue as a propaganda device just because you don't like what it says. In comparing the credentials of the Yale University Climate Change Communication Project in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies including the staff, the affiliates and the sponsors against your credentials - I think silly doesn't really cover it.

It is silly to double down on your claim that climate change is not real because forecasters cannot predict the weather up to 2 - 3 weeks. You are correct that I was mistaken in saying 2 - 3 days. It is even sillier for you to demand that I find the quote and then provide it yourself, when it proves exactly what I said. Climate and weather are not the same thing. Every student, except you, learned this at school. Weather refers to atmospheric conditions over a short period of time. Climate refers to atmospheric trends over a long period of time. Very easy to find the definition. Keep doubling down on this please. It reminds people that there is no basis for your spin.

What is most offensive though is your diktat that I read the ramblings of the various old grumps on this thread who rant against climate change because you can't be bothered to post information. Factual information I presume. You don't have any. Otherwise you would use it to counter arguments. I have read this and other threads. I have posted on many. If you are too lazy or intellectually challenged to post information that disproves my statements and just want to be offensive, then go for it. This exercise merely passes the time.

You make no response to my statements on energy efficiency. Unsurprisingly.

Playing the victim now are we?. No one has insulted you nor have any offensive words been directed toward you. Taking the "I'm Precious" bit a little to far aren't we. I am able to take the pugnacious manner in which you elect to respond all without complaining but maybe my skin is thicker than yours. I will not reiterate anything previousy posted as it is obvious you have closed your eyes and no one else is entitled to a view. if they do, it is silly, silly, silly and they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I will ask you though what don't you understand about the following? I have not and never will claim that climate change is not real, yet you keep on keeping on about this. My response was to ask if the weather forcasters, who are also scientists, cannot accurately predict weather over a 2 to 3 week peiod, then how can the scientists, who are on the alarmists side, predict changes in climate many years in advance. Do you understand that. But maybe you believe this is a silly and irrelevant question.

I note that even at the end of your post you continue with your repugnant responses yet you have the hide to criticise me. I will let you know that I do not have to resort to your level and as for being lazy, your the one who wants matters to be substantiated so if this is your need, I would say to you there are many sites that you can direct your research to becasue I'm no lacky of yours. So it is most offensive for you to be directed to posts where you will have an alternate argument but you refer to these as rants by various old grumps against climate change. What do you call you description of those posters? I would say very offensive.

Now back to climate and weather. Climate is the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period whilst weather is the state of the atmosphere

at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. You use other words, atmospheric conditions atmospheric trends to distinguish between the two, well how about synonyms, a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. So if the synonym for weather is atmospheric conditions whilst the synonyms for climate are weather pattern, weather conditions, weather and atmospheric conditions, you still insist they are different and have no relevance to each other.

As for the energy efficiency, I would have thought that by not listing a response, then it would be sufficient that I agree wth savings, if genuine, and getting rid of pollution, not carbn dioxide, which isn't. Od do you need that spelt out to you as well? It's funny how your posts started of as benign but as time goes on it has become more confrontational, which may suggest you are a troll and just looking for someone to take you on so you can have your dose of daily jollies. Sorry if I do oblige you further.

Your own words from the topmost quote "you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed". You directly accuse me of lying. Your insults are offensive.

I tell you that climate and weather are not the same thing and you give me a lecture on synonyms. Like I said, keep up the silliness on this issue. You entirely discredit anything you say by doubling down on your moronic statement about weather forecasters.

You are the first to play the troll card. You lose. Godwin's Modified Rules.

Please continue with your supercilious analysis of my writing style. It certainly lets you avoid making any statement of substance. Funny you don't like the insults you throw at others to be returned. Please continue to be repelled. It is intentional.

Will you be returning to the topic any time soon?

Anyway, I will ask for the item to be put on the agenda for the next meeting and get back to you.

No need -- you completely missed the point anyway.

Really?

You want me to dumb it down for you? The fun has now gone out of it for me.

Disappointing. But there are still a few on TVF who can keep up. I will play with them instead.

You can use anything you want. When are you going to answer my question?

I'll repeat the question in case you forgot it.

What race are Muslims?

Simple and obvious answer - Non White.

As you well know, racists use code words. Your pedantry is being deliberately obtuse on this issue. Racism is a contributing factor in the hate speech against muslims.

"Simple and obvious answer - Non White."

While it might seem simple and obvious to you. To me it is so patently absurd it is laughable.

For instance, how would you explain the three Americans I had working on my program that were Muslims and were white as the driven snow?

I played golf regularly with two other Americans that were just as white as myself, but they married a Muslim and changed religion for that reason.

Further, how would you explain Iran? Iranians are Aryans. Aryans are Caucasians.

Iranians are Muslims, therefore Muslims can be Caucasians.

What you people need to do is come up with something a little more accurate than "racist" to insult those you disagree with. Your current insult of the day isn't working.

Just caught me on the way to my evening exercise.

You did not mention the Chechens. I was sure you would when I posed my argument. I accept everything you have said about white Muslims. I also accept that a more accurate word is needed. Islamophobe doesn't quite cut it.

However, I do not think you can deny that racism contributes to the current anti-Muslim hysteria. It is blatant. You are deliberately being a literalist on this matter I think.

Now off for a few spins around the park.

Funny how Iran is on the list, and Saudi Arabia isn't.

Number of terrorist attacks on American soil performed by Iranians: Zero

Number of terrorist attacks on American soil performed by Saudi Arabians: Remember 9/11?

Simple solution: Never visit the USA. Iran seems like a much friendlier option.

By all means, please go to Iran and do not come to the USA.

Iran the friendly option...how funny...their favorite past time is carrying banners and chanting "Death to America".

Apparently you were too young to remember the Iran Hostage Crisis.

... and you are too young to remember why they hated Americans? Remember 1953? They had a very popular, democratically elected prime minister until then.

I worked and lived in Iran nearly five years, departing when the Ayatollah returned and told the US we were no longer welcome in Iran.

During my time there, I met thousands of Iranians casually and knew a number of them quite well.

Not one single Iranian mentioned Mohammed Mossadegh to me during the time I was there.

The reason some Iranians hate the US is because that is who the various Ayatollahs have told them to hate. Nothing more and nothing less.

The Embassy was taken over by the Revolutionary Guard because they could...and an Ayatollah told them to do so.

If you have personal experience to the contrary, please let us know.

I know you have intimated that only those with personal experience should contradict you but I have not yet visited Iran and so cannot qualify.

However, I would venture to suggest that the reason no-one talked to you about their political views was one word - SAVAK. I have not yet reached your advanced years but I am old enough to remember the reports of the activities Iranian intelligence agency in support of the US backed Shah. In the 70's it was a by-word for terror. Even surpassing the stories of the Stasi and KGB and others.

I did enjoy the James Clavell book 'Whirlwind' published in 1986 but set in the Iran of 1979, contemporaneous to you. I would be interested to know if you believe his fictional account was accurate or not. It is, however, the closest I got to Iran in the 70's apart from reading the news coming through the telegraph in far off Australia.

It seems like Iranian history before 1979 no longer exists for Americans. A pity. We can now see the results of that point of view.

Then why all the anger, ranting and breast beating?

That is a question you should be asking all your fellow progressives who want climate change skeptics -- or anyone who disagrees with the urgency for taking action on the climate -- executed, branded, gassed, or imprisoned.

Very well. I will ask at the next club meeting. You don't find passion in the next generation a good thing? Their zeal to address the issue could mean that certain bad practices can be addressed.

I actually have a healthy respect for skepticism. I don't believe the deniers are skeptics. I think they are mostly ideologues. If they were skeptics, then they wouldn't resort to insults.

I studied a little of Pyrrho in Classics but was more intrigued by the Stoics and particularly the Epicureans.

Interestingly skeptics question un-empirical knowledge, which I guess explains the zeal to discredit climate data.

Anyway, I will ask for the item to be put on the agenda for the next meeting and get back to you.

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Nothing of substance, if you say so. He is bored, apparently you're not if, as you have alleged, you have disseminated the information contained in my posts, there are a few of them. Like everything else the alarmists are on about, if they cannot answer anything, then the name of the game is deflect. So you want everything handed to you, why so, you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed. I normally wouldn't but on this occasion I will, here is the link to your so called 1000 scientists silliness.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284 .

Are you referring to the consensus at the latest gabfest. So it was the vast majority was it, then who are the minority that did not go along with the consensus, answer me that? Provide the percentages please. There is no binding agreement because no one has signed, there's still another two years before this is required. So where is the consensus? Me thinks a consensus to do nothing. Nearly every country has adopted their own approach and have stuck their fingers up at the UN and the so called agreement.

But wait, I can see where you are coming up with your responses, it is from the bible of the alarmists, and here is the link.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

It provides the alarmists with the teachings so that they can stifle debate of those who object to the falsehoods, changing of data, twisting of words and quotes, misinformation and deliberate falsifying of percentages, as well as the failure of the world press to publish both sides of the science. Insults and wait for it the big one, supercilious insults. Show me where. I can show you where some from your side have turned nasty but that wouldn't interest you, would it? But because we are of opposing views, it is ok for your side to sling it. I think most of us try our hardest to be civil despite what some dish out.

As for climate, look it up and you will see that it and weather are in correlation and what I posted has nothing to do with what my grade school teacher taught me because at that time there was none of the BS going round. The reason students of today are being taught about climate change, global warming or whatever other name has to be thought up is because most of them are from the far left, are believers and alarmists.

I have never said that climate change is not real because scientists cannot predict the weather for up to 3 days. You have put into print an absolute falsehood, completely changed what was said, so if you want to lie then get your facts down pat before coming on here and making yourself look foolish and highlighting the extent that your lot will go to in your attempts to discredit those who have differing opinions

Here is my quote so all those who come on here to get an insight into both sides of the debate can see the lengths that some will go to in their attempts to discredit another. The weather forcasters cannot accurately predict weather patterns two or three weeks in advance, yet these believers want us to accept that they can predict changes 10, 20 40 or 50 years into the future. If you believe that then what can one say. I have never denied climate change or global warming, just the misinformation, the cheating, falsehoods, fabrication of evidence and data, as well as the sccare tactics and scams initiated to make certain alarmists very wealthy people..

As for other substantiations, there are ample on here so I won't waste time in duplicating anything, I will just suggest you have a good read and view the videos, the latter will give you a real insight into why we do not accept the proganda you and the others are touting.

Your insults directed towards me and my words are offensive.

It is silly to claim that I have been disseminating your information when I clearly argue against what you have said. To whom am I supposed to have disseminated your silly statements and on what forum?

It is silly to argue that only 52 scientists wrote the IPCC paper in 2009 and 1000 scientists do not agree with it without including the number of scientists who do agree with it. Providing such information would have substantiated your argument. You present a logical fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy in the guise of debate.

It is silly to argue that the 1000 scientists who did not agree wth the 2009 IPCC report indicates that there is not a consensus of scientists on the issue of climate change. You demand figures? Why, so you can go ad hominem against the sources? How about NASA which says 97% http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ or Wikipedia that provides a justification for the 98% figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change. It is just silly to keep saying that everyone else is wrong and only you and a few others are correct. Particularly when you don't rebut the arguments. Just dish out insults.

It is silly to claim that the agreement at COP21 was not an agreement. Apart from demonstrating that you are quite ignorant about multilateral program development and administration, it is just silly to deny that there was an agreement when that agreement has been reported.

It is silly to accuse an academic publication that seeks to provide material that explains a complex issue as a propaganda device just because you don't like what it says. In comparing the credentials of the Yale University Climate Change Communication Project in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies including the staff, the affiliates and the sponsors against your credentials - I think silly doesn't really cover it.

It is silly to double down on your claim that climate change is not real because forecasters cannot predict the weather up to 2 - 3 weeks. You are correct that I was mistaken in saying 2 - 3 days. It is even sillier for you to demand that I find the quote and then provide it yourself, when it proves exactly what I said. Climate and weather are not the same thing. Every student, except you, learned this at school. Weather refers to atmospheric conditions over a short period of time. Climate refers to atmospheric trends over a long period of time. Very easy to find the definition. Keep doubling down on this please. It reminds people that there is no basis for your spin.

What is most offensive though is your diktat that I read the ramblings of the various old grumps on this thread who rant against climate change because you can't be bothered to post information. Factual information I presume. You don't have any. Otherwise you would use it to counter arguments. I have read this and other threads. I have posted on many. If you are too lazy or intellectually challenged to post information that disproves my statements and just want to be offensive, then go for it. This exercise merely passes the time.

You make no response to my statements on energy efficiency. Unsurprisingly.

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Of course everyone should aim to save money and reduce emissions that pollute the environment, who doesn't want a cleaner planet?

But the debate is around how much GW is caused by mankind and whether we can alter nature all that much if temperature and climate change is a natural and cyclical turn of events. It's not about denial per se but skepticism. Added to the mix is politics and the disallowing of any scientific opinion no matter how educated, that might be contrary to the established doctrinal order

The debate is about how much GW is caused by mankind... To what end? Why attempt to politicise science. The scientific method is a tried and tested process. It goes back at least as far as Aristotle in the 4thC BC who relied on observation to inform his theories. The politicisation of climate science is clearly a political attempt to discredit the work of scientists and the processes they use.

Minimising the impact of people on the environment is a desirable objective in itself. Attaching blame to people for that impact and all the subsequent ideology is irrelevant from an environmental and scientific point of view. Redistributing wealth from the countries who have caused pollution due to industrial and economic growth to countries who have not gone through this phase of development is also worthwhile. It can allow them to access knowledge and technologies that can contribute to their development with less environmental impact. As they develop more, they contribute more to global GDP and therefore to wealth generation. A fundamental principle of environmental economics is Polluter Pays. Global Environment Funds are merely an international, multilateral expression of this principle.

What then is the objective of the politicisation of climate science? Nothing new. Just the same repetitive arguments between the progressives and the conservatives. I am a progressive. I support multilateralism in trade, environmental protection, economic activity and the movement of people and goods. I support the reduction of income inequality primarily through wealth generation but also through redistribution if necessary. The only reason I care if the climate scientists data and models are accurate is to know the anticipated impact of climate change and the timing. I would prefer that they be left alone to work through the scientific process of this task. Governments fund scientific enquiry into all sorts of 'useless' areas. They co-fund expensive space missions for astronomy. They co-fund missions to maintain expensive human presence in Antartica. The co-fund people to go and find and classify new species of insects. What is unusual about confounding efforts to reduce the impact of humans on the environment and to conserve resources for future generations?

You claim that the climate change deniers agree with the objectives of environmental protection. Fine. Then why all the anger, ranting and breast beating? If the efforts to achieve environmental protection are framed in the ideology of the progressives, then who cares. The outcomes are still desirable. I really think that the deniers are just a bunch of stick in the mud old grumps who don't like being told what to do.

No, it is not why alarmists don't engage, it's because they can't, and I assure you that most people are waking up to your lot for what they are, scaremongers who are governed by greed. So what majority are you referring to, those governments who want to wreck their countries economy and the 40,000 free loaders who went to Paris for their almighty but ineffectual gabfest that will come to nothing. It hasn't even been signed off on, two years to go, yet your lot are off on your happy endings. Sorry that should be happy days. Give me a break please.

Through your post you have proven my point. You have no answers to what was asked and just revert to the old adage of you couldn't be bothered. No wonder people are waking up to the rubbish being uttered. So it's not the science after all, it's because it's politically accepted that it must be right. Who said anything about an ETS being a redistribution of wealth, I certainly didn't. That's an addition on your behalf. The negative effects outway the positives, can't even express yourself here, just a total generalisation which means absolutely nothing. All the governments of the world, another falsehood. Typical of the alarmists, taking remarks out of context, adding things that were never mentioned, exaggeration, misleading statements, falsifying reports to downright lies. There's an old saying which it looks like you lot have adopted, do whatever it takes to win. You certainly have the left leaning reporters on your side.

Given what you have written only highlights that you're unable to quantify anything you say but I know why, it's because you have nothing to say. What page of your bible did you turn to for this response. So we can see now where you're coming from, it's all about making money, nothing to do with any of sciences you try to shove down our throats. What an astonishing remark, weather has nothing to do with climate. When I went to school I was taught that climate related to the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. You are certainly getting yourslef in a kerfuffle. One last matter for you to ponder, if it's not wealth redistribution, what do you call the UN green climate fund, who wants to have 100 billion from western countries' funds to give to 3rd world developing countries by the year 2020.

It is just way too boring for me. After you have debated the same old boring Climate Denial 200 times it just becomes mind numbingly boring. If you are interested to learn about the actual scientific facts on GW / CC there is a very good site called Skeptical Science that starts with the Basics and depending your educational background you can step up to Intermediate or Advanced. It is run by John Cook the guy who published the 97% Consensus paper Cook et al 2013. Yes 16 years AFTER the Zimmermann Paper you referred to earlier. It will explain the difference between weather and climate for you. You may want to check out Powell et al 2015 for the latest research on consensus.

Sorry but your understanding of GW / CC is very basic and dated nearly 20 years.

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Chicog:

You live and work in the Middle East.

What race are Muslims?

If I can't use that then I am allowed to say that antisemitism applies to all semites.

Over to you, big boy.

In other news, Trump is live on Fox telling everyone how China takes advantage of the US and how he's going to bring jobs back from China.

*snigger*

You can use anything you want. When are you going to answer my question?

I'll repeat the question in case you forgot it.

What race are Muslims?

Simple and obvious answer - Non White.

As you well know, racists use code words. Your pedantry is being deliberately obtuse on this issue. Racism is a contributing factor in the hate speech against muslims.

I just can't wait to see the look on the little englanders faces when they find out, no longer part of the EU, find the French gendarmes at Calais shrugging their shoulders and pointing out to the refugees that 'angleterre is over there'.

Cooperation gone: It will be one way to lessen the EU's migrant load, that is for sure.

Dear Samran,

Just to point out that freedom of movement, right to work and border controls are not part of the EU agreement.

Britain leaving the EU would make no changes to the existing problems.

Nobody in Britain is currently suggesting leaving the EEA.

In which case the little englanders are in for a big surprise when they discover the continentals can still come and go as they please. Why bother with a referendum?

Being a member of the EEA means you get all the rules that come with being in the common market without any ability to have a seat at the table to contribute to them. An even worse straight jacket than you think you are in now.

Immigration is not the only issue, there are also the concerns about democracy, or rather the lack ot it, that comes with being a member of the EU.

The executive arm of the EU (The Commission) is not voted in by the people, it is not accountable to the people, and it cannot be voted out by the people. The UK spends a lot of time going around the world bombing countries to 'bring them democracy'. It would be nice if it could bring democracy to itself.

In any case, It is unlikely that the UK would leave the EU and remain in the EEA.

As a side note, is it really necessary to continue with the puerile name calling? Why not just call people who you disagree with smelly poo heads?

UK voters have no say in executive appointments in the British civil service. Why do you then complain about being excluded from executive appointments in the EU equivalent?

The use of Ellipsis in modern online forum posting emulates conversational style ... too bad you live in an outdated world along with your outdated politics...

It is grammatically acceptable to use ellipses in written speech to indicate a pause, although the primary use of this punctuation is to substitute for words edited from text to reduce length of quotations. Use or more importantly over use in discourse detracts from the effectiveness of prose. Discourse is, of course, primarily composed of words, not the lack of them. Think of it like self-abuse, occasional use can be effective but over-use is the sign of a deeper problem.

The wonderful thing about Grammar is that it is timeless. Never goes out of date. I have had my Fowler's Modern English Usage for decades. It was first published in 1926. For people who care about such things, this is the most authoritative reference on the subject available.

You need to Evolve in online Grammar and in your old socialist politics

As much as I would like to engage with an old school American right winger in the vein of Ayn Rand and Teddy Roosevelt, it would be quickly ruled off topic since this is a thread about Trump's Muslim ban.

Traditional socialism emerges from the view that people are altruistic. Traditional capitalism as a political and not economic construct emerges from the view that people are self interested. Neither are fully correct. Neither are fully incorrect. Consequently, political systems based on these views are not entirely satisfactory. But I do not think that the Intellectually Closed can discuss this issue. So we will just have to return to taking pot shots occasionally, although I and a few others will be back after the collapse of the Trump 'Populist' uprising and quite a lot of crow will have to be digested I am sure.