Eleftheros

Even if this thread were about raffia weaving collectives in Burundi, someone would find a way to drag Trump into this in a negative light. It's like a sickness. Rather more relevant is that the Miss Universe Organization in one breath says that "providing a safe place for women" is a priority, and in the next breath, invites "transgender" women to compete, thus demonstrating the utter incoherent nonsense which is the hallmark of all these initiatives.

The Pink Line & the Yellow Line use the same rolling stock - the Bombardier Innovia Monorail 300. This system is also in use in countries as diverse as China, Egypt and Brazil. It seems unlikely that the technology itself is inherently bumpy and rattly, so it could be caused by imperfections in the concrete rail. This has already been noted in Brazil, where the imperfections were so bad that they caused a tire to actually explode and shut the whole system down for two months.

I wonder if the ride will be smoother than the Yellow Line. I took the Yellow Line the other day and it felt rickety, more like a fairground ride than a serious piece of mass transit. Still, it was clearly appreciated by the people who have to travel in and out of the Ladprao area, as the monorail was standing room only on that section. Looking forward to trying the Pink Line to compare.

Even the word 'transgenderism' is fake. No matter how much these people allow their bodies to be hacked around, or whatever hormones they take, they will never be able to become the other sex. Thus, a biological male can never become a functional woman, no matter how hard they try. Surgery and hormones can take away their ability to function as a man, but they can never get the ability to function as a woman. All they can do is turn themselves into a grotesque neuter, neither man nor woman.

You mean like the non-existent word and nonsense slur "Magadonian"?

I don't think so. Communists are generally opposed to bourgeois exploits such as horse racing, especially those run under National Hunt rules which require horses to jump over large scary obstacles.

Exactly. They use up electricity separating water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then they burn the hydrogen with oxygen to create electricity and claim they have found a great green 'solution'. Just more green feel-good fantasy nonsense.

This is what is known as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The prevalence of low-rent political hacks throughout the British parliament is an ongoing disaster with no end in sight. Perhaps the UK should join the Commonwealth of Independent States, so that its ramshackle incompetence and venality does not stand out.

Thunberg is far from irrelevant, and it is no secret that she was being handled. Everyone involved was proud of their association. Thunberg was deliberately placed at the centre of climate change publicity to influence young people, no different to using a celebrity to shill McDonald's or Diet Coke. She is therefore absolutely central to the climate change narrative. because policy responses are conducted at the political level, not the scientific one. And of course she was being handled - how many 16-year-olds get to meet the Pope and harangue the U.N. in a single year, then address the World Economic Forum in Davos? Her main handler in the early days was a woman named Jennifer Morgan, a lifelong activist who has worked for every rent-seeking environmental NGO in the book from Greenpeace to the WWF, Climate Action Network and the World Resources Institute. As I said, none of this is secret, they all felt it to be mutually beneficial to the cause to be seen to be acting in visible solidarity. It might make an interesting experiment to have the scientists in charge. But they are not. The politicians are in charge, the political and media narrative is all that counts, and it is the scientists who are largely sidelined, subordinated to political ends, or even, irrelevant.

No, she is not a climate scientist, by any stretch of the imagination. So, if we're supposed to take the "climate crisis" seriously, why has this ignorant teenager been made into the global public face of climate change activism, addressing the UN, the UK Parliament, and the EU? Precisely because her handlers agree with the argument you made earlier: "When the facts are against you, make it emotional instead."

Well, that's certainly the strategy of the people who are handling Greta Thunberg and organizing her weepy rants at evil capitalism.

I don't expect they'll win, but I always root for the non-mainstream teams such as Romania and Portugal. And especially Georgia, who used to have the 'Gorgodzilla' and another huge bloke who looked only about 2/3rds human. Looking forward to this tournament.

Ah, so we have one climate zealot complaining about posts from a "far right-wing media outlet" and then another climate zealot quoting as an authority the Desmog blog, which is about as far in the other direction as you can go. Still, I guess it all backs up what the Wall Street Journal said yesterday: Climate Change Obsession is a Real Mental Disorder. Better late than never, I suppose.

It just underlines the fact that beneath the dogma of climate science and Covid, lies the same kidnapper's demand: "Do as we say and you won't get hurt." The same people benefit, the same people suffer, and the tactics - censorship, repression, demonisation and threats - are identical. The political line is always: "If you don't agree with us, you are not just wrong, you are evil and dangerous." They are tactics that appeal to little totalitarians everywhere.

Not really, it was just that I couldn't make head or tail of the sentence. What is "the wandering of the arctic climate"?

Given that the US population in 1920 was 100 million, and today it is 330 million, that hardly comes as a surprise, does it?

If that's an example of current climatological research, I guess I'm better off staying away from it.

What makes you think there is a "tipping point"?

Fine. But that's very different from believing yourself to be incapable of error, which is what the self-styled "noble and wise" believe about themselves.

Yes, and they were wrong. Both on the lethality, and the various measures which made up their "caution". But as data emerged which clearly demonstrated that, the "consensus" didn't change.

I actually suggested that believing yourself to be "noble and wise" is a bad thing.

You offered the evidence yourself.

That's simply not the point, and never has been. We have known for thousands of years that human activity can affect climate. The points are: 1) How much is due to human activity? 2) Is it dangerous? 3) Can we do anything about it 4) Would the cure be worse than the disease? And that most certainly is not "settled science", even if we allow that phrase to mean something.

Once again, if you believe that, it merely shows how limited your reading has been.