BBC Bullied by Climate Change Activists
- Thread starter Muncher
- Start date
people running for election, under, "I will stop you and your children burning alive in the hellish inferno of global warming" ticket.
So he changed his story in the last 16 minutes of the email conversation because WMO - the source rang him in the last 16 minutes at exactly at the same time the activist was telling him to change the article.
A bit convenient if you ask me
Rich
The mayor of London has made "climate change" (lol it's getting colder, hence the change in terminology, owned) his main agenda for election.
I'm so glad you know, because i couldn't give a dam about silly immigration, taxes, schooling, healthcare and benefits system, protect the dolphins!
Politicians, fringe political groups, scientists who study certain things...
Or have you not noticed all the campaigning, tax rises and class warfare based on climate change?
I hear they banning dark coloured clothing in the UK. This apparently is due to the dark pigments in the clothing absorbing the suns harmful rays, then expelling them into the atmosphere.
Thus forth, a steady program of dark clothing removal will take place, starting with pink and yellow t-shirts being sold tax free. The move will focus primarily on black clothing, eventually leading to Goth's, nuns and Priests being culled; ironically badgers are safe as they offset their black stripes with white stripes.
However, MP's are discussing what impact this will have on the population of bradford.
(Ha, my brain is stupid when bored
)
Thus forth, a steady program of dark clothing removal will take place, starting with pink and yellow t-shirts being sold tax free. The move will focus primarily on black clothing, eventually leading to Goth's, nuns and Priests being culled; ironically badgers are safe as they offset their black stripes with white stripes.
However, MP's are discussing what impact this will have on the population of bradford.
(Ha, my brain is stupid when bored
)"Politician elected on popular vote". OK, so democracy works. Should I should be concerned by this?
Or do you have a proper example?
Hitler was elected by popular vote, as was George W Bush, Thatcher and Blair, does that mean they were perfect?
What if Nick Griffin was elected by the popular vote?
And that's not to mention that just because you can be popular, it doesn't make you right.
"Politician wins vote of people who agree with him!" Pardon me for not being shocked. It's hardly a sinister "secretive society slowing gaining power over the nation through global warming propaganda", is it?
Politicians don't have power. Civil servants have power. Politicians are just a bunch of spoilt scroungers on a taxpayer-funded ego trip.
"Power" my ****.
And they gain "power and money" how, exactly? Can you name six such groups?
Could you be a little more precise? Actual names of actual scientists who "study certain things" might help. I'll take half a dozen, along with the evidence that they've gained "power and money" from the global warming message.
Yep.
Nope. Can you give me a list of green taxes introduced over the past... oh, I don't know... say, 4 years? The higher tax on large-engined cars is the only one I can think of. Petrol prices have been driven up by market forces; nothing to do with "green taxes".
Nope. Class warfare based on climate change? Pffft. What a load of cobblers. I'm guessing that you mean "People with large-engined cars paying higher car tax". Which has nothing to do with "class wafare", since large-engined cars are driven by people from all walks of life and society. This isn't the 19th Century anymore (well... only just).
Are you hoping to be selected for the staff of the next conspiracy movie? Zeitgeist, the Movie II: the ******** Just Never Stops, perhaps?
Wow, the bad language makes your argument so much more convincing...
Are you trying to say that politicians, greenpeace et al and so on are not using the climate change bandwagon for political gain?
Are you trying to say that Ken Livingstone's attacks on the wealthy of london are actually proven to be beneficial, thereby justifying their existance?
What about the scientists on the gravy train that is the IPCC, funded by those who have the most to gain from keeping the population in a healthy fear of climate change....
Are you trying to say that politicians, greenpeace et al and so on are not using the climate change bandwagon for political gain?
Are you trying to say that Ken Livingstone's attacks on the wealthy of london are actually proven to be beneficial, thereby justifying their existance?
What about the scientists on the gravy train that is the IPCC, funded by those who have the most to gain from keeping the population in a healthy fear of climate change....
No it doesn't; what's your point?
I'd phone you from Australia and say "Well, what do you expect from a country which still retains all the attitudes, prejudices and inequalities of the 19th Century?"
If Nick Griffin was elected, that would be deplorable. Nevertheless, it would be democracy in action. Surely you're not suggesting that some sort of "green Nick Griffin" is standing to benefit from the global warming message?
Of course.
But again - did you have a point to this? One which related to the claim originally made?
That popular politics and democracy is far from perfect, especially when combined with a means for politicians to create a culture of fear about an issue to gain votes and expand the state's influence. (see jews, terrorism, communism and the green movement as examples)
You know, I do wonder why you're here if you hate it so much...
You've not seen the green party's attitudes towards social liberty then I take it?
Yes, that simply because a lot of politicans are making political capital out of an issue, it doesn't make it free from bias or more likely to be correct. History would suggest quite the opposite in fact...
It doesn't; but it is cathartic.
I despise ignorance, but I particularly loath wanton ignorance.Not at all! Of course they are in it for political gain (or in the case of lobby groups, political influence). Some, however, are in it because they truly believe in it. And the extent of the political gain that politicians stand to obtain from it, is negligible; it will have no negative impact on my own life. So why should I care?
When Alex Salmond was elected to the Scottish Parliament, did your life change? No, neither did mine. When George Galloway was elected MP of Bethnal Green, was your life impacted in any way? No, neither was mine. When Greenpeace won their battle over the Blair government's plans to build ten new nuclear power plants, did you notice any difference to your everyday life? No, neither did I.
You bandy the word "power" about as if it implies some sort of hideous totalitarian regime; as if it forbodes disaster and the end of civilisation as we know it. This petty scaremongering is utterly nonsensical; take it to the Yanks. They love that stuff. I'm not sufficiently uneducated to be swayed by this sort of argument.
We've already had this debate, in another thread. What "attacks on the wealthy of London"? I don't recall any such attacks. What I do recall is that residents of areas affected by the congestion charge, receive a 90% discount; and some are exempt from paying the congestion charge altogether. As, indeed, I pointed out in the aforementioned thread.
So yes, I believe that his congestion charge policy is beneficial; yes, I believe it is proved to have been beneficial; but no, it is not an attack on the wealthy of London, because they receive a 90% discount on the congestion charge, and in some cases, complete exemption. That doesn't sound like an attack to me, Dolph. That sounds like jolly good treatment.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooh... LOOK OUT, THE EVIL GOVERNMENT IS COMING TO KILL US ALL IN OUR BEDS!!!!
The IPCC is funded by governments around the world, who do not actually "have the most to gain from keeping the population in a healthy fear of climate change" since (a) climate change policies are often unpopular, (b) climate change policies require more work for the government, (c) climate change policies can be more expensive, but (d) while climate change policies are often expensive, they do rarely generate more revenue in the form of taxation.
You talk about governments as if they're actual people, Dolph; as if the money paid to them in taxes is actually pocketed by a shadowy committee in a secret backroom of Parliament somewhere. In reality, that money stays in the Treasury until it is spent by the government - often on the very "green" initiatives for which it has called.
So what "gain" do they actually receive? Another term in power, perhaps. But if that's what the people want, then what's wrong with it? Democracy in action, Dolph.
Incidentally, Bush was elected against Gore's "climate change" platform; he had campaigned on a propaganda campaign which instilled the climate of fear necessary for maintaining his illegal war. And the obedient American people dutifully voted him in.
Personally, I found this abhorrent. But hey - that's democracy, warts and all. Bush is in power because the Americans wanted him power.
Last edited:
On that point, we are in total agreement.
But I don't hate it, Dolph. Whatever gave you that idea? Of course, I probably would hate it if Nick Griffin was in power. Because that would be the ultimate triumph of rhetoric over reason. And I've seen their manifesto; the country would be utterly ruined. So it wouldn't be worth staying in, tbh.
Which particular green party? Do tell! Considering that green parties tend to be highly liberal (campaigning for the defence of social liberties in all forms) I would be very surprised if they took a facist view.
I agree!
Fortunately, the global warming issue is not being decided by political capital. It is being proved by science.
We're noticing the difference now though because we're several years behind on the much needed powerstations, and it's going to get worse...
That's your (rather radical) interpretation of my stance, seems a little over the top to me. The key issue with climate change, like other fear tactics, is that it's providing a means to implement measures that would be unpopular without the unproven fear factor. Try raising taxes just because you want to and they'll be uproar, but if you can convince them that it's for their own good (even if there's zero evidence for it), they might accept it.
You don't remember it very well, because the 90% reduction does not work if you're in the £25 band. It is very much an attack on the wealthy, it does nothing else.
Except, of course, that they don't.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/7394.aspx
In case you need a reference.
Explain to me again how this is not an attack on the wealthy?
Erm, can I have some of what you're smoking, because what you're replying to has no bearing to what I've actually posted...
Again, you seem very up on democracy, yet blind to it's problems. Democracy isn't about what people want, it's about what people are led to believe they want.
Exactly, I found Bush's campaign abhorrent too, but I see all smear or fear campaigns the same, your posts suggest it's ok when you agree with the ends...
Every time it comes up you seem very willing to have a go at the UK or compare it unfavourably to Australia.
Actually, a quick look at the green party manifesto shows some rather authoritarian leanings in terms of how much control they want. They are very supportive of the civil liberties they like, but they want close control of the economy, businesses and people in a variety of areas, higher rates of taxation for higher earners and punishment of behaviours they don't like. The UK green party has at least dropped their family size restriction policy of a few years back. A true liberal stance allows the freedom for good and bad choices, something the greens are unwilling to do.
It's not been proven by any reasonable scientific standard, climate change seems to work in isolation of normal accepted scientific practices regarding error limits and accuracy.