The General Political Thread

[Edwin]

And when talking about Labour’s policies I was referencing their left wing beliefs that counter those of Donald Trump, showing why they would oppose him rather than talking about the comments of the labour MP. I assume you vote UKIP though because they can do no wrong in your eyes.

Please stay within the context of this discussion. Jumping from one very specific case, that being attacking Trump if you've already forgotten, to 'left wing beliefs that counter those of Donald Trump' isn't very useful. What beliefs? And how do they counter Donald Trump's? Do you even read policy by any chance?
And no I did not in fact vote UKIP, sorry to disappoint you. It'd be a waste of a vote.

UKIP were influential in UK politics, no chance of getting into government but to say that they had no effect would be a lie. Donald Trump has a terrible approval rating. He won’t get re-elected. And in the UK the next government will almost certainly be a labour one.

A bold claim, one that is based upon the findings of the same pollsters that mislead millions during 2016. I'm glad you've learnt very little from such an education event.

[Toffee]

Do I read policy? How about the fact that labour are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum to Donald Trump and support equality over all when he stands for nationalism? What are you even talking about at this point? Who did you vote then Gordo?

That’s not a bold claim at all. Trump isn’t very popular at all tbh. Remember he won the election on the system rather than the popular vote and his approval rating has dropped since then if I’m not mistaken.

[Theodin]

He also once aired his scepticism about climate change

What a sin

Well it’s generally accepted that climate change is a thing..

..... i'm not even going to dignify this with a response as you clearly have no knowledge of the issue

[joer5835]

Well it’s generally accepted that climate change is a thing..

..... i'm not even going to dignify this with a response as you clearly have no knowledge of the issue

You obviously cared enough to take the time to type out that response. So please, go a bit further and put forward your arguements because I am now genuinely curious as to how one can deny climate change in itself.

[Theodin]

Well it’s generally accepted that climate change is a thing..

..... i'm not even going to dignify this with a response as you clearly have no knowledge of the issue

You obviously cared enough to take the time to type out that response. So please, go a bit further and put forward your arguements because I am now genuinely curious as to how one can deny climate change in itself.

Okay!

No serious skeptic of climate change denies its existence. It's a meme, created by eco-religious activists to denounce anyone who disagrees with them.

The core issue in the climate change discussion is how much the variance is caused by humans (since the climate has always changed, with and without humans), whether the measurements of global climate variations are accurate, whether the models for projection of future climate change are accurate, and if all of these things go as climate activists say, whether the solutions they present won't doom the third world to a future without reliable and affordable energy. Or whether it'll bankrupt the west further than the west has already bankrupted ourselves.

Note an important distinction that you're both guilty of:
The original quote from Toffee was "aired his skepticism about climate change" but yet you both switched from skepticism to denial. Denial of a phenomena is different than skepticism of its variances or implications, but to you people with a very dainty black and white political worldview it's either embrace my positions or be against them. Hah.

I don't know what the UKIP guy said, by the way. If he denies the climate changes, well, that's nice and very inaccurate, but if he's skeptical about the things at issue I presented then it's hilarious you present that as a sin.

[Toffee]

He also once aired his scepticism about climate change

What a sin

Well it’s generally accepted that climate change is a thing..

..... i'm not even going to dignify this with a response as you clearly have no knowledge of the issue

“I sympathise with the resignation of renowned professor Harold Lewis who has called global warming a money led scam”

Paul Nuttall wrote that himself, Theodin.

[joer5835]

Note an important distinction that you're both guilty of:
The original quote from Toffee was "aired his skepticism about climate change" but yet you both switched from skepticism to denial. Denial of a phenomena is different than skepticism of its variances or implications, but to you people with a very dainty black and white political worldview it's either embrace my positions or be against them. Hah.

The extreme wording you used in your response to Toffee led me to believe you sit in the denial camp. An incorrect assumption, you're right on that. And no, my world view isn't as black and white as you like to think. Criticism of climate change is always valid criticism since we don't understand the science behind the issue enough to really make one claim or another. I personally believe it is a natural process on its own that is now being increased and speed up by human actions.

Now, onto another topic I wanna know from you, seeing as you are an actual skeptic, what is your view on reneweable energy? If we just push aside the issue of climate change, we still face the possibility of running out of fossil fuels before the century is at it's end. That still means we have to invest in new sources of energy sooner or later. What do you think of that?

[Theodin]

Note an important distinction that you're both guilty of:
The original quote from Toffee was "aired his skepticism about climate change" but yet you both switched from skepticism to denial. Denial of a phenomena is different than skepticism of its variances or implications, but to you people with a very dainty black and white political worldview it's either embrace my positions or be against them. Hah.

The extreme wording you used in your response to Toffee led me to believe you sit in the denial camp. An incorrect assumption, you're right on that. And no, my world view isn't as black and white as you like to think. Criticism of climate change is always valid criticism since we don't understand the science behind the issue enough to really make one claim or another. I personally believe it is a natural process on its own that is now being increased and speed up by human actions.

Now, onto another topic I wanna know from you, seeing as you are an actual skeptic, what is your view on reneweable energy? If we just push aside the issue of climate change, we still face the possibility of running out of fossil fuels before the century is at it's end. That still means we have to invest in new sources of energy sooner or later. What do you think of that?

Very impressive first paragraph, someone like Toffee would just respond with a boiler plate "you're just wrong" so kudos.

The question of fossil fuels is interesting. It seems like you're referring to peak oil, but I have serious doubts that the world supply of oil will run out by the end of the century unless there is an extreme natural disaster or world war that eliminates all the oil reserves and stops every pump.

Currently natural gas seems to be the energy source of at least the next 50 years - cheap, widely available, and with a very insignificant environmental impact, or as least within reasonable impact levels. The technology behind renewable energy sources is rapidly expanding and the price of these energy sources are declining, but these sources are not at the level where they can provide reliable or affordable energy supply to grids. An excellent case study is Ontario - tripling energy prices for no environmental impact and limited energy production. Some environmentalists think we should just cut coal and fossil fuels and switch right away to renewables, but energy costs are one of the only costs everyone pays and this switch would shoot the prices up.

If you were to put me in charge of the worlds energy production, I'd let coal plants run until they're unprofitable or retrofit them to be clean coal plants, maintain existing nuclear facilities around the world and expand natural gas pipelines and production, making the fuel even cheaper. I'd sell the natural gas at a low price to poor countries, giving them reliable and cheap electricity, and cut subsidies to renewable energy measures while waiting for investor confidence in renewable energy to increase. Sure renewables are the future but they're not the present, and especially in the west where air pollution isn't a problem anyways it makes no sense to dump public funds into these ventures.

[Toffee]

“Someone like Toffee”. Kind of a stupid statement since I proved exactly what I wanted to prove by quoting Nuttall. Didn’t mention that in your essay though did you?

I wasn’t denying that there was a discussion to be had on climate change, merely that to disregard in the way that’s Nuttall has come across is stupid. Maybe I should have worded my original paragraph better so as to not trigger your superiority complex, Theodin.

[Theodin]

“Someone like Toffee”. Kind of a stupid statement since I proved exactly what I wanted to prove by quoting Nuttall. Didn’t mention that in your essay though did you?

I wasn’t denying that there was a discussion to be had on climate change, merely that to disregard in the way that’s Nuttall has come across is stupid. Maybe I should have worded my original paragraph better so as to not trigger your superiority complex, Theodin.

I don't know what the UKIP guy said, by the way. If he denies the climate changes, well, that's nice and very inaccurate, but if he's skeptical about the things at issue I presented then it's hilarious you present that as a sin.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ reading is hard sometimes
not only did you misconstrue what he said as skepticism, but you attributed my essay as a defense of Paul Nuttal when I specifically mentioned that

[Toffee]

Okay scepticism was the wrong word, he straight up sympathises with someone who doesn’t believe in  climate change. Why try and be so picky over a single word when you know the point I’m making about him is correct? If you don’t know what he said then don’t start an argument over it. I didn’t want a discussion over climate change, I was making a point about Nuttall.

[Theodin]

Because word choice matters, especially on this issue, and you're flippant about your use of it. If you can't see that then I'm glad you don't want to discuss it, because you probably shouldn't

[Toffee]

Because word choice matters, especially on this issue, and you're flippant about your use of it. If you can't see that then I'm glad you don't want to discuss it, because you probably shouldn't

Word choice does matter, which is why I corrected myself. But you acknowledged previously that you knew I was talking about denial rather than scepticism and yet you still continued to press me over it. It seems you may be slightly pedantic Theodin, as well as slightly stuck up.

[Theodin]

at least i dont use words like pedantic

[Toffee]

at least i dont use words like pedantic

Wait...what?