But that doesn't alter the fact that the percentage of votes cast in favour of Green candidates at each election has remained steadfastly microscopic. The Greens receive almost unlimited access to establishment media, unprecedented for a party with no mass base and on a par with that given to the three main parties, and yet almost no one votes for them.
32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”
- Thread starter bigfish
- Start date
But that doesn't alter the fact that the percentage of votes cast in favour of Green candidates at each election has remained steadfastly microscopic. The Greens receive almost unlimited access to establishment media, unprecedented for a party with no mass base and on a par with that given to the three main parties, and yet almost no one votes for them.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
If you are claiming that anyone said otherwise, or promoted the green party, provide a citation. Otherwise your appeal to popularity is entirely without merit.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Unlimited access to mainstream media whatnow? On a par woth the other parties when? Gimmee a break!
But where are these people who deny that people kill each other and engage in full scale wars etc? Show me.
otherwise your comparison isn't very useful.
You're possibly taking me a little too explicitly (and I'm possibly not the greatest at explaining myself). It can be just an expression of optimism that 'mother nature always balances things out so there's nothing to worry about' or similar. You don't need to be relgious to say these kinds of thing which are based on nothing but faith, but it amounts to the same as 'god wouldn't allow it'.
I didn't even come near to say that. And my comparison stands, obviously.
No it doesn't "amount to the same" at all.
Which religious person(s) made such a claim to underscore assumptions that global warming isn't happening?
salaam.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I'm not denying anything. I'm asking that all the science be looked at, and that sound decisions get made on a scientific and economic, not an emotional basis.
I'm also suggesting that those who accept anthropogenic climate change, stop attempting to demonize those who have questions, and that they also stop trying to stifle debate.
It's the stifling, and the demonization, that begin to look like a religious crusade, instead of a scientific discussion.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Just the opposite: I want all the science and economics to be thoroughly aired and discussed, and I want the demonization of any dissent to stop, as being totally anti productive.
As for my track record, part of an admission of having been wrong, involves a later assessment of one's former position in the light of new facts, and coming to an objective conclusion.
Far as I can tell, you've never done such a thing, or at least have never admitted it here.
But there's one thing I am sure of: you aren't omniscient, and being a mere human, you have been wrong, in the past, about things. Have you ever come to that realization on your own?
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
What shit is Jim talking now?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I
let's see what response ICM got when they actually did a proper survey of the british people to find out what they thought (June 27th-29th 2008, so about as upto date as you're likely to get)
so 52% think tackling environmental issues including global warming is more important than the economy, 63% support the introduction of Green taxes - or 66% if they were delayed until the economic situation improved.
and in case anyone's still under the mistaken impression that this is just a middle class liberal issue - the working classes were the most strongly in favour of environmental action of any class, and second most strongly in favour of green taxes.
over to you bigfish... fancy presenting us with some evidence for a change?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/international/index.html
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
let's see what response ICM got when they actually did a proper survey of the british people to find out what they thought (June 27th-29th 2008, so about as upto date as you're likely to get)
so 52% think tackling environmental issues including global warming is more important than the economy, 63% support the introduction of Green taxes - or 66% if they were delayed until the economic situation improved.
and in case anyone's still under the mistaken impression that this is just a middle class liberal issue - the working classes were the most strongly in favour of environmental action of any class, and second most strongly in favour of green taxes.
over to you bigfish... fancy presenting us with some evidence for a change?
Funny how some people will enlist and endorse the opinion of the great British public.....on some issues, but not on others.
http://migratione.blogspot.com/2007/05/hostile-uk-fails-to-see-benefits-of.html
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Here are more opinions of the british public, as revealed by polls.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
So, free spirit, you seem prepared to accept that the british public is fully informed on issues of climate change, such that the poll results mean something.
I suppose that they are equally informed on issues of immigration, minority crime, gun laws, and capital punishment, such that the above polls should be given equal weight to yours?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
So, free spirit, you seem prepared to accept that the british public is fully informed on issues of climate change, such that the poll results mean something.
I suppose that they are equally informed on issues of immigration, minority crime, gun laws, and capital punishment, such that the above polls should be given equal weight to yours?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There was lots of 'support green taxes' here too, right up to the time that the govt brought in a carbon tax on gas, at which point it turned into an issue that threatens to bring down the govt.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I've provided lots of evidence that the media emphasises the 'worst case' science, and downplays or ignores the rest, while demonizing those who dissent.
Do you want more examples?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
You can answer till you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that Ellen Goodman for one equated climate dissenters with holocaust deniers, that a prominent weather channel [I may have the channel name incorrect] meteorologist called for the stripping of accreditation for any climatologist or meteorologist who didn't toe the line, that the Bishop of Brussels equated climate dissenters with pedophiles, etc.
All those things are right there in black and white. All your 'explaining' doesn't change the truth.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Classic bait-and-switch.
You said "I'm asking that all the science be looked at, and that sound decisions get made". The "media" are not responsible for either the science or the decision making.Yes, we are aware of your tactics by now.
Explain why I or anyone else here should answer for what any of those people said.
To me it amounts to the same - an exuberant faith in some invisible protecting force of nature. I'm barely interested in why you think it doesn't amount to the same and even less interested in discussing "religious person(s)" with you.
I think religious people can be just as good adherents to scientific method as anyone else if that helps.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Classic bait-and-switch.
.
No, politicians are, and they are responsive to their electorates. Therefore, the level of information made available to the electorate, becomes very important. They receive their information, for the most part, via the media.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
.
.
Uh-oh, here come the rolleyes!
The acolyte is getting worked up, and correspondingly incoherent.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
To repeat, the debate stretches beyond what you and your buddies say. What the media says and does is important in terms of public knowledge and attitude.
JC I hadn't read the whole thread when I posted that but I've read more now and I withdraw the denial comment aimed at you. This 'True Believer' stuff - I've had plenty of that on another forum and has coloured my perception of people who use that line.
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
It's called shit.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Coming from a deep thinker such as yourself, I'll take this seriously to heart.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Politicians are not responsible for the science. I'm not going to defend their decision making, since I don't agree with them. The question of the correct response to climate change should go in a separate thread IMO.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Poisoning the well.
Which bit didn't you understand?and correspondingly incoherent.
I think you mean the Bishop of Stafford, who in a perhaps unfortunate analogy compared people who don't do enough about climate change to Josef Fritzl - as in not caring for the future of their children.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
The pseudo impatience and disapproval. Aren't you able to discuss something without letting your emotions get the best of you?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
^ More well poisoning.
It's an honest question: aren't you able to discuss something without the rolleyes and the emotionality?
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Similar threads
