Brexit Discussion Thread.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Claridge said:

S

Scientific consensus on climate change? You mean it's always happened and always will or the bollocks that people on either side who have vested interests come out with?

 

Bit of both, really.

 

It does always happen and always will, and there are a lot of vested interests trying to politicize it on both sides...but what gets me is folks trying either to ignore it because it might hit them in the wallet and because "hey, the Earth is ours" and/or disagreeing with the idea that it's happening at all.

 

Really don't like the idea of just folding our hands and waiting for the change to cause huge problems, not when we might - just might - be able to deal with it.

[Webbo]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, sorry.

 

Well, I've heard a lot of people, when talking about issues like climate change and pollution, that seem intent on arguing the minutiae rather than actually moving on and dealing with an issue in which scientific consensus is pretty much established.

 

Perhaps there's a certain parallel between the two debates, and both or neither should be "moved on" from, or hypocrisy is likely.

Personally I'm a bit sceptical about climate change, but that's for another thread.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Personally I'm a bit sceptical about climate change, but that's for another thread.

 

Even if you are, shouldn't the idea of using renewable sources for energy be something to aim for regardless? Is the notion of reducing the amount of smoke + chemicals going into the air not a reasonable goal all the same? Is there not a fantastic potential cost saving from producing more out of less raw material? 

 

I might add, you only have to take a walk through a wooded national trust area to feel the remarkable difference in the air quality - so even if you don't believe the claims being made for wider Climate Change, that doesn't instantly dismiss a lot of the environmental actions looking to be taken.

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Claridge said:

S

Scientific consensus on climate change? You mean it's always happened and always will or the bollocks that people on either side who have vested interests come out with?

 

I presume he means the consensus amongst peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change, a medium in which the idea that the notion that the climate is changing is unanimous and that it will be hugely detrimental to human life (unanimous as in it's not worth debating at all) and where the overwhelming majority conclude that climate change is caused or accelerated by human activity (as in it's less ridiculous to argue against than the previous points, but only slightly) and can be prevented, or at least softened, by taking the appropriate action.

 

Unfortunately the appropriate action is seen by certain industries as a threat to the balance sheet which is obviously a bigger priority.  After all, if you have enough money in the bank you can make sure your children are able to buy their way out of any negative effects of a changing planet.

 

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Personally I'm a bit sceptical about climate change, but that's for another thread.

Please start that thread, I'd be interested to hear your arguments against climate change.  But first quickly just as a simple thought experiment I want you to delve into your memories of what winters were like when you were a lad and compare them to your more recent experiences.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I presume he means the consensus amongst peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change, a medium in which the idea that the notion that the climate is changing is unanimous and that it will be hugely detrimental to human life (unanimous as in it's not worth debating at all) and where the overwhelming majority conclude that climate change is caused or accelerated by human activity (as in it's less ridiculous to argue against than the previous points, but only slightly) and can be prevented, or at least softened, by taking the appropriate action.

 

Unfortunately the appropriate action is seen by certain industries as a threat to the balance sheet which is obviously a bigger priority.  After all, if you have enough money in the bank you can make sure your children are able to buy their way out of any negative effects of a changing planet.

 

Please start that thread, I'd be interested to hear your arguments against climate change.  But first quickly just as a simple thought experiment I want you to delve into your memories of what winters were like when you were a lad and compare them to your more recent experiences.

But that won't be the case forever, thankfully. In time the effects would touch everyone equally. No money can stop that in the end.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, leicsmac said:

But that won't be the case forever, thankfully. In time the effects would touch everyone equally. No money can stop that in the end.

Not forever, no, but for long enough that the damage will be irreversible by the time it's considered more important than the shareholders.

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Even if you are, shouldn't the idea of using renewable sources for energy be something to aim for regardless? Is the notion of reducing the amount of smoke + chemicals going into the air not a reasonable goal all the same? Is there not a fantastic potential cost saving from producing more out of less raw material? 

 

I might add, you only have to take a walk through a wooded national trust area to feel the remarkable difference in the air quality - so even if you don't believe the claims being made for wider Climate Change, that doesn't instantly dismiss a lot of the environmental actions looking to be taken.

Atm it's not cheaper though is it? A lot of these renewable schemes seem to be a bit of a scam. The wood pellets burned at one of our power stations were supposed to be natural waste from timber yards in America but apparently they're making so much money from selling it that they're chopping down trees now just to turn into pellets, which sort of defeats the object.

 

I've nothing against cutting down on pollution, cutting down on energy use reduces my bills, that's a good thing, no argument there. I just find the climate change bit a little dodgy . Any lobby that's that defensive has to have something to hide.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

 

Please start that thread, I'd be interested to hear your arguments against climate change.  But first quickly just as a simple thought experiment I want you to delve into your memories of what winters were like when you were a lad and compare them to your more recent experiences.

Don't be a bore Carl.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Not forever, no, but for long enough that the damage will be irreversible by the time it's considered more important than the shareholders.

Oh, no doubt. My point though was that they wouldn't escape the mistakes they made on this one, not in time. That's the small comfort I draw from such a scenario.

 

But this is indeed veering a bit off topic (I brought it up as a point to illustrate the hypocrisy of considering one established matter settled and another not based on political leanings) so I'll leave it at that. Perhaps I'll kick off another thread about it specifically so there can be debate there. Perhaps one for lots of different contentious science issues?

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, no doubt. My point though was that they wouldn't escape the mistakes they made on this one, not in time. That's the small comfort I draw from such a scenario.

 

But this is indeed veering a bit off topic (I brought it up as a point to illustrate the hypocrisy of considering one established matter settled and another not based on political leanings) so I'll leave it at that. Perhaps I'll kick off another thread about it specifically so there can be debate there. Perhaps one when for lots of different contentious science issues?

I wouldn't bother, after all we live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to hold any view whatsoever and if anyone tries to ask you to show your working it's apparently acceptable to respond with something like: 

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Don't be a bore Carl.

 

The information age is over, welcome to the misinformation age where the dominant religion is personal opinion.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I wouldn't bother, after all we live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to hold any view whatsoever and if anyone tries to ask you to show your working it's apparently acceptable to respond with something like: 

 

The information age is over, welcome to the misinformation age where the dominant religion is personal opinion.

Save it for another thread. And try an put over an opinion of your own instead of just snidey remarks.

[Foxxed]

On 29/12/2016 at 19:32, Webbo said:

I never saw the EU as illegitimate. We voted to stay in now we've voted to leave.

 

It didn't encourage any far right groups that didn't exist before. All this talk about xenophobia and hate crime is just bollox propagated by sore losers.

And the increase in hate crime? You think this is not fact, but propaganda reported by the police?

 

We voted around issues of immigration, mainly, and disagreement with the system of treaty agreements, lesserly, from polls done. The referendum was not on an increase of verbal and physical hate crime. And Brexit did not create new far right parties or groups: the demonising of minorities and foreigners by EDL, Britain First, BNP, etc existed long before. Those with honourable EU concerns, and those who bought the fear of the above, although on the same side, were not the same.

Many Brexiteers are horrified by the permanent increase in verbal and physical abuse. The leading Brexiteer's suggestion to take to the streets violently was not taken up by them. However, the honorable Brexiteer and the verbally and physically abusive Brexiteer benefited from something together: assumed national validation. Both said, "Yes! The country agrees with me!" The average Brexiteer would be happy that the nation agreed that treaty negotiated laws would no longer apply. The verbally abusive Brexiteer, encouraged by the assumed national vote of confidence, felt they could finally publicly shout: "We voted you out: go home!" (Something that has happened to far too many of my England born friends.)

Is this the fault of the honorable Brexiteer? No. But did their vote inadvertently encourage the verbally abusive Brexiteer? And the permanent increase in hate crime? Unfortunately, yes. And now British values of fair-play, tolerance and politeness are being eroded: because if you publicly speak a foreign language, or have a different hue, prepare to be verbally abused on our streets. And, if the verbally abusive have been encouraged by the assumed national validation, what of the physically abusive?

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

And the increase in hate crime? You think this is not fact, but propaganda reported by the police?

 

We voted around issues of immigration, mainly, and disagreement with the system of treaty agreements, lesserly, from polls done. The referendum was not on an increase of verbal and physical hate crime. And Brexit did not create new far right parties or groups: the demonising of minorities and foreigners by EDL, Britain First, BNP, etc existed long before. Those with honourable EU concerns, and those who bought the fear of the above, although on the same side, were not the same.

Many Brexiteers are horrified by the permanent increase in verbal and physical abuse. The leading Brexiteer's suggestion to take to the streets violently was not taken up by them. However, the honorable Brexiteer and the verbally and physically abusive Brexiteer benefited from something together: assumed national validation. Both said, "Yes! The country agrees with me!" The average Brexiteer would be happy that the nation agreed that treaty negotiated laws would no longer apply. The verbally abusive Brexiteer, encouraged by the assumed national vote of confidence, felt they could finally publicly shout: "We voted you out: go home!" (Something that has happened to far too many of my England born friends.)

Is this the fault of the honorable Brexiteer? No. But did their vote inadvertently encourage the verbally abusive Brexiteer? And the permanent increase in hate crime? Unfortunately, yes. And now British values of fair-play, tolerance and politeness are being eroded: because if you publicly speak a foreign language, or have a different hue, prepare to be verbally abused on our streets. And, if the verbally abusive have been encouraged by the assumed national validation, what of the physically abusive?

Is that you Fif?

 

Do the EDL and BNP still exist? I've not heard anything about them for years.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

Save it for another thread. And try an put over an opinion of your own instead of just snidey remarks.

Erm, what?  I gave my opinion, including explaining the logical process behind reaching it (you know, the whole scientific consensus stuff), in my 2 posts immediately prior to your post calling me a bore.  You even quoted part of one of those comments where I "put over an opinion of [my] own" to do so.  I'm very confused.  But I will take your advice and save it for another thread.

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Don't be a bore Carl.

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Save it for another thread. And try an put over an opinion of your own instead of just snidey remarks.

My irony meter has just exploded!

[Webbo]

28 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

 

My irony meter has just exploded!

I was responding to a snidey remark.

[Buce]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I presume he means the consensus amongst peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change, a medium in which the idea that the notion that the climate is changing is unanimous and that it will be hugely detrimental to human life (unanimous as in it's not worth debating at all) and where the overwhelming majority conclude that climate change is caused or accelerated by human activity (as in it's less ridiculous to argue against than the previous points, but only slightly) and can be prevented, or at least softened, by taking the appropriate action.

 

Unfortunately the appropriate action is seen by certain industries as a threat to the balance sheet which is obviously a bigger priority.  After all, if you have enough money in the bank you can make sure your children are able to buy their way out of any negative effects of a changing planet.

 

Please start that thread, I'd be interested to hear your arguments against climate change.  But first quickly just as a simple thought experiment I want you to delve into your memories of what winters were like when you were a lad and compare them to your more recent experiences.

 

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I was responding to a snidey remark.

 

I don't see anything snidey there, Webbo.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

I don't see anything snidey there, Webbo.

Quote

 I want you to delve into your memories of what winters were like when you were a lad and compare them to your more recent experiences.

What's that supposed to mean, how is it relevant?

[Buce]

Just now, Webbo said:

What's that supposed to mean, how is it relevant?

 

It's for Carl to say what he meant by it, and to explain its relevance.

 

Regardless, it doesn't fit any definition of snidey that I'm familiar with.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snidey

[Carl the Llama]

Tbf I'll hold my hands up that the remark "as in it's less ridiculous to argue against than the previous points, but only slightly" is a bit snide but it's a brief lapse in a larger comment where I'm putting my opinion forward and explaining why I believe it, something Webbo's clearly a bit anxious about doing himself, but that's fine.

 

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What's that supposed to mean, how is it relevant?

I thought it might give you a helpful personal reference point to draw on with regards to whether the climate's in flux or not.  I'm not claiming it's in any way scientifically submissible evidence but if you come on over to the thread I made about it we can discuss it and better evidence there.

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Tbf I'll hold my hands up that the remark "as in it's less ridiculous to argue against than the previous points, but only slightly" is a bit snide but it's a brief lapse in a larger comment where I'm putting my opinion forward and explaining why I believe it, something Webbo's clearly a bit anxious about doing himself, but that's fine.

 

I thought it might give you a helpful personal reference point to draw on with regards to whether the climate's in flux or not.  I'm not claiming it's in any way scientifically submissible evidence but if you come on over to the thread I made about it we can discuss it and better evidence there.

On second reading it isn't as bad as I thought, it sounded a bit "tell us your boring war stories grand dad". I realise now that it wasn't meant that way. I apologise.

[Claridge]

Is climate change a foregone disaster? For some I suppose it will be, but for others won,t it be a benefit?

for a population of 7 billion is there any reliable evidence that it is a negative? We and other creatures will adapt and others won't .Darwinism and all that. 

[Carl the Llama]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

On second reading it isn't as bad as I thought, it sounded a bit "tell us your boring war stories grand dad". I realise now that it wasn't meant that way. I apologise.

I suppose I did do a rather poor job of framing the question and explaining why I was asking it, glad we're all back on the same page.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Children!

[Foxxed]

5 hours ago, Webbo said:

Is that you Fif?

 

Do the EDL and BNP still exist? I've not heard anything about them for years.

The EDL definitely do exist. I've seen a fair few marches in town centres.

 

You didn't answer the first question though. Do you believe the increase in hate crime is real? Or propaganda?