2019 General Election

First topic message reminder :

Now it's confirmed for December 12th (pretty much), I thought we should have a shiny new thread for the fourth and final UK GE of this tumultuous decade; a decade which has also included three referendums and four (maybe five) different Prime Ministers.

News this morning that Amber Rudd won't be defending her seat. Oh well.

Opinion polls currently have the Tories in a double digit lead, but it's anticipated to be a lot tighter than that by the time we reach the actual polling day.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Looks like the BBC told Corbyn that Andrew Neil was doing an interview with Claudius and the resultant car crash 30 minutes happened under false pretences...Johnson isn't doing one..

For sure Corbyn didn't help himself...But....

How disappointing to know the State Broadcaster is using my money to edit videos and lie for the Governing Party..

I'll never moan about Fox News again.

Well it is only to be expected of Andrew Neil - a man with clear Conservative connections.

The BBC does have form. The amount of times a person called Billy McGhee (a UKIP supporter and pro-unionist) gets onto Scottish Question Time and gets to ask a question every time came to light recently and they were outed for it.

I'd suggest the BBC are, on balance, probably spot on with their position - they're pissing all sides off. People accuse them of leftist bias, Tory bias etc etc. Trouble is, most people don't like it when they read/hear something they don't agree with. 'Twas ever thus I guess.

How, exactly, is it spot on to have a 'plant' in a Question Time audience?

Evidence please. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17434213.billy-mitchell-will-not-be-returning-to-bbc-question-time/

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3853746/bbc-under-fire-failed-billy-mitchell-scots-ukip-question-time/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/bbc-probe-former-coatbridge-ukip-13987763

There are similar reports out there.

Thanks; I do appreciate that, but it doesn't remotely support your assertion that he's a BBC 'plant'. So he's been on 4 times in ~6 years? Maybe that's a lot (I have no idea), but he's hardly that regular.
You just don't like what he says (which is fine) but that doesn't mean the BBC put a 'plant' in the audience.

Of course it does. Hence as to why it is said he won't be back. The matter was brought to the BBC's attention and this is their response. If he was not a 'plant' then they'd say their process at vetting people who appear was foolproof and they'd continue to have him back.

You do know what, you know, evidence is, don't you?

Can you tell me why then the BBC have said he won't be allowed back on? After all he has a wonderful record of applying and getting on and on top of that getting to ask a question.

CaledonianCraig wrote:You said you are a proud Scotsman. Okay.

Well I do not see how saying you think Scotland is fecked without England's help. Is that something you are proud about? That does not strike me as a pride packed thought process. Just an observation.

And you say without Taxes from the English population. Okay but you do realise it would then mean ALL Scottish Taxes remain in Scotland. Yes a lot less money but also a lot less people to spread that tax spending.

You're confusing me with someone else!

“All the young people I know – ie those under 30 – are just as avaricious as we flinty Thatcherite yuppies of the 1980s in fact, they have an almost Nigerian interest in money and gadgets of all kinds.”

Appalling.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/johnson-accused-of-racial-stereotyping-with-view-on-nigerians

The man's a racist.

superflyweight wrote:The man's a racist.  

Calling him a racist implies that he singles out certain sections of society. I think it more likely he's a sociopath who has no consideration of anybody.

He isn't a sociopath....Sociopath's can't empathize with other People..

Seems he has plenty of empathy for rich White bigots...

'Racist bigot' is a more apt description....

The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

lostinwales wrote:

superflyweight wrote:The man's a racist.  

Calling him a racist implies that he singles out certain sections of society. I think it more likely he's a sociopath who has no consideration of anybody.

Would agree with this sort of description. He's a prat. He speaks poorly of everyone except Bullingdon types, thinks it's somehow clever and is apparently too dumb to know (or care?) that it's no longer acceptable language from anyone, let alone our PM. Then again, where was the anger and offence in '99 (or '95 for that matter re. the other one brought up today)? Was there any?
Times have changed. Is ~20 years (or more) ago far enough back (and when he wasn't a politician) to wonder if we're applying modern mores too much to what he said in a news column agitating for readers?

I'm curious; any Londoners out there? What was Johnson like as Mayor? Discriminatory? Sexist? Are these words we keep hearing that he's said/written, supported by his actual actions as Mayor? Or did he not really actually do anything very much except have a good jolly? Yes, I already know about the silly bridge...

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate. The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

It's not about that. Britain is already doing more than virtually all other developed countries in the world, and politicians and crackpot environmental groups spreading hysteria with ridiculous claims is not helping the situation and makes it appear we are doing nothing at all.
We've never had more green power than now, our emissions are going down, energy consumption per capita is going down. Britain is in a very good place compared to most countries so putting so much emphasis on a topic which is already undergoing lots of positive action is taking attention away from more important things like Education, Health and homelessness.

Could Britain do better? Of course. Is it facing an emergency? No.

Britain and these groups are often targeting the wrong sources, well not wrong, but sources of CO2 which are far more insignificant than others. For example. The Airlines have a terribly bad reputation and are constantly attacked by climate idiots, however they are only responsible for 2% of global emissions, buildings are responsible for 40% of emissions. Where are the protestors complaining about that?

It's the lack of consistency in the argument and the lack of education that bothers me.

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

super_realist wrote:It's not about that. Britain is already doing more than virtually all other developed countries in the world, and politicians and crackpot environmental groups spreading hysteria with ridiculous claims is not helping the situation.
We've never had more green power than now, our emissions are going down, energy consumption per capita is going down.

Could Britain do better? Of course. Is it facing an emergency? No.

Britain and these groups are often targeting the wrong sources, well not wrong, but sources of CO2 which are far more insignificant than others. For example. The Airlines have a terribly bad reputation, however they are only responsible for 2% of global emissions, buildings are responsible for 40% of emissions. Where are the protestors complaining about that?

It's the lack of consistency in the argument and the lack of education that bothers me.

Tell that to the people that just lost their homes in Yorks.

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:It's not about that. Britain is already doing more than virtually all other developed countries in the world, and politicians and crackpot environmental groups spreading hysteria with ridiculous claims is not helping the situation.
We've never had more green power than now, our emissions are going down, energy consumption per capita is going down.

Could Britain do better? Of course. Is it facing an emergency? No.

Britain and these groups are often targeting the wrong sources, well not wrong, but sources of CO2 which are far more insignificant than others. For example. The Airlines have a terribly bad reputation, however they are only responsible for 2% of global emissions, buildings are responsible for 40% of emissions. Where are the protestors complaining about that?

It's the lack of consistency in the argument and the lack of education that bothers me.

Tell that to the people that just lost their homes in Yorks.

There's no evidence that was caused by climate change. Floods are not new. The majority of flooded properties are caused by properties being built in areas which are susceptible to flooding.
Building on a floodplain is not a climate change issue. It's moronic planning and virtually every flooded property in the UK is because it has been built in low lying areas. Rivers have not evolved to cope with much more than 1 in 5 events. Those are events which happen regardless of climate change. Building on the floodplains surrounding them and then being surprised when they flood  is absolutely retarded.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

Positive contribution again eh, TRUSS? Your last dozen or so have been evidence-free rants about Daily Mail/Sun readers. Along the same lines, maybe you should read more than the Socialist Worker? You're welcome .

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

Exactly my thought when I read it. Responsibilities end at the border. Whichever border you choose, as long as you are alright.

Afro wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

Exactly my thought when I read it. Responsibilities end at the border. Whichever border you choose, as long as you are alright.

I didn't say that....... Again.
Britain is doing more than most and our CO2 contribution is minimal in global terms.
Putting environment in the UK above more serious issues is the problem.
Climate is important globally, but on a UK basis its not as important as other aspects. Don't you get that?

super_realist wrote:

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

Should the UK do as much as they can to help out a global issue? Yes.

Even if others are doing less? Yes

Even if they won't see any direct impact themselves? Yes

As a human, I feel I have a moral obligation to help less fortunate people than myself as much as I can, and that is not limited by physical or man-made lines on a map.

super_realist wrote:

Afro wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

Exactly my thought when I read it. Responsibilities end at the border. Whichever border you choose, as long as you are alright.

I didn't say that....... Again.
Britain is doing more than most and our CO2 contribution is minimal in global terms.
Putting environment in the UK above more serious issues is the problem.
Climate is important globally, but on a UK basis its not as important as other aspects. Don't you get that?

I understand exactly what you are saying. I just completely disagree with you. Where climate sits as a world problem, it sits as exactly the same priority on a UK basis IMO

And if Britain is already doing massive amounts to counteract their contribution then why continue to place it above issues where the UK has significant problems?
Why have a climate debate on C4 when education and NHS are far more important.

super_realist wrote:And if Britain is already doing massive amounts to counteract their contribution then why continue to place it above issues where the UK has significant problems?
Why have a climate debate on C4 when education and NHS are far more important.

Because it's the most important problem facing the world right now. Bar none. If we bugger this one up, that's it. No more education, no more NHS, no more anything.

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

Should the UK do as much as they can to help out a global issue? Yes.

Even if others are doing less? Yes

Even if they won't see any direct impact themselves? Yes

As a human, I feel I have a moral obligation to help less fortunate people than myself as much as I can, and that is not limited by physical or man-made lines on a map.

Yet I bet you drive a car, have central heating, use plastic, fly on planes etc, so in real terms your efforts are purely token

super_realist wrote:

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

Should the UK do as much as they can to help out a global issue? Yes.

Even if others are doing less? Yes

Even if they won't see any direct impact themselves? Yes

As a human, I feel I have a moral obligation to help less fortunate people than myself as much as I can, and that is not limited by physical or man-made lines on a map.

Yet I bet you drive a car, have central heating, use plastic, fly on planes etc, so in real terms your efforts are purely token

That's it. Play the man, not the ball. Good boy.

I know I'm not supposed to be surprised by anything these days but I find ignorance like this simply staggering.

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:And if Britain is already doing massive amounts to counteract their contribution then why continue to place it above issues where the UK has significant problems?
Why have a climate debate on C4 when education and NHS are far more important.

Because it's the most important problem facing the world right now. Bar none. If we bugger this one up, that's it. No more education, no more NHS, no more anything.

How do you work that out? Do you actually believe we will become extinct? You really have bought the hysteria haven't you. Don't you think humans have lived through changes in climate before with less science and technology

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

Should the UK do as much as they can to help out a global issue? Yes.

Even if others are doing less? Yes

Even if they won't see any direct impact themselves? Yes

As a human, I feel I have a moral obligation to help less fortunate people than myself as much as I can, and that is not limited by physical or man-made lines on a map.

Yet I bet you drive a car, have central heating, use plastic, fly on planes etc, so in real terms your efforts are purely token

That's it. Play the man, not the ball. Good boy.

I know I'm not supposed to be surprised by anything these days but I find ignorance like this simply staggering.

So what are you doing?

super_realist wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:And if Britain is already doing massive amounts to counteract their contribution then why continue to place it above issues where the UK has significant problems?
Why have a climate debate on C4 when education and NHS are far more important.

Because it's the most important problem facing the world right now. Bar none. If we bugger this one up, that's it. No more education, no more NHS, no more anything.

How do you work that out? Do you actually believe we will become extinct? You really have bought the hysteria haven't you. Don't you think humans have lived through changes in climate before with less science and technology

I'm not qualified enough to make a credible judgement on whether humans might become extinct as a result of climate change. I'll leave that up to scientists. Not that you appear to pay too much attention to what they say.

Look at it this way. For humans to die out through climate change it would need to kill one million people per day for 20 years.
Obviously it's an absurd claim for these groups to make.

For your information I completely accept that climate change is real and that there is a human element to it. I just don't accept the hysterical claims made by non scientists about extinction etc

super_realist wrote:Look at it this way. For humans to die out through climate change it would need to kill one million people per day for 20 years.
Obviously it's an absurd claim for these groups to make.

For your information I completely accept that climate change is real and that there is a human element to it. I just don't accept the hysterical claims made by non scientists about extinction etc

I won't even address how moronic that assertion is

What about the claims from actual scientists about extinction? Do you accept those?

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:Look at it this way. For humans to die out through climate change it would need to kill one million people per day for 20 years.
Obviously it's an absurd claim for these groups to make.

For your information I completely accept that climate change is real and that there is a human element to it. I just don't accept the hysterical claims made by non scientists about extinction etc

I won't even address how moronic that assertion is

What about the claims from actual scientists about extinction? Do you accept those?

There haven't been any. All the claims of extinction have come from campaign groups.
How do you expect an entire species like the human race could be wiped out?
Besides scientists have made claims on the environment for decades and have never been right. According to 1990 claims we should be underwater by now

How about if it kills only half of the human population? Would that be ok with you? How many deaths are acceptable, in your opinion?

Pr4wn wrote:How about if it kills only half of the human population? Would that be ok with you? How many deaths are acceptable, in your opinion?

How/why would it. Do you not understand what the term extinction actually means?
What possible event could kill half the population in a generation based on current climate change models?

You should be sceptical at all times. Seems you've swallowed the ridiculous claims of extinction rebellion hook, line and sinker.

A large-scale ice age would make the majority of the earth uninhabitable and, crucially, it'll be impossible to grow any kind of crops. All human civilisation has occurred during the current interglacial period.

There is also the risk of conflict due to dwindling resources, an extinction of natural pollinators, extreme heat affecting some of the world's most populous cities. Could go on but I fear that I'm just responding to the bait of a troll at this point.

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

Simple reality, China and India are the only two countries that can make a real difference.

So we might as well do nothing?

Pr4wn wrote:A large-scale ice age would make the majority of the earth uninhabitable and, crucially, it'll be impossible to grow any kind of crops. All human civilisation has occurred during the current interglacial period.

There is also the risk of conflict due to dwindling resources, an extinction of natural pollinators, extreme heat affecting some of the world's most populous cities. Could go on but I fear that I'm just responding to the bait of a troll at this point.

First of all, climate models are not positing an ice age and even if there was one it wouldn't be man made.
All human civilisation has not existed in the current interglacial period. Human existence has been around 200k years. The ice age ended 10-12000 years ago. Also large portions of the world were not even ice covered.

You haven't given me any evidence there could be a human extinction event.

super_realist wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:A large-scale ice age would make the majority of the earth uninhabitable and, crucially, it'll be impossible to grow any kind of crops. All human civilisation has occurred during the current interglacial period.

There is also the risk of conflict due to dwindling resources, an extinction of natural pollinators, extreme heat affecting some of the world's most populous cities. Could go on but I fear that I'm just responding to the bait of a troll at this point.

First of all, climate models are not positing an ice age and even if there was one it wouldn't be man made.
All human civilisation has not existed in the current interglacial period. Human existence has been around 200k years. The ice age ended 10-12000 years ago. Also large portions of the world were not even ice covered.

You haven't given me any evidence there could be a human extinction event.

You might want to look up the definition of civilisation.

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:A large-scale ice age would make the majority of the earth uninhabitable and, crucially, it'll be impossible to grow any kind of crops. All human civilisation has occurred during the current interglacial period.

There is also the risk of conflict due to dwindling resources, an extinction of natural pollinators, extreme heat affecting some of the world's most populous cities. Could go on but I fear that I'm just responding to the bait of a troll at this point.

First of all, climate models are not positing an ice age and even if there was one it wouldn't be man made.
All human civilisation has not existed in the current interglacial period. Human existence has been around 200k years. The ice age ended 10-12000 years ago. Also large portions of the world were not even ice covered.

You haven't given me any evidence there could be a human extinction event.

You might want to look up the definition of civilisation.

You might want to look up ice age.
I asked you to give me an event which could wipe out humans and you give me one which isn't even being considered as a possibility and one which wouldn't be human made even if it did happen.

Glad we've cleared up the civilisation point. The ice age was merely an example. I'll retract it if you like.

What about the others that you ignored? Inhospitably hot temperatures in major cities? Mass human conflict over scarce resources? You can also throw in mass pollution of the water table, if you like.

None of these places any sort of risk of making the human species extinct.

How do you think the water table is going to become polluted?  What's going to cause it to become polluted? You do realise there isn't just one water table right?

By the way there are civilisations older than the interglacial period

Inhospitable hot cities? Like where? We already inhabit some of the hottest places on earth in cities. Other places will simply adapt to it through science and technology.

super_realist wrote:

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

Should the UK do as much as they can to help out a global issue? Yes.

Even if others are doing less? Yes

Even if they won't see any direct impact themselves? Yes

As a human, I feel I have a moral obligation to help less fortunate people than myself as much as I can, and that is not limited by physical or man-made lines on a map.

Yet I bet you drive a car, have central heating, use plastic, fly on planes etc, so in real terms your efforts are purely token

Yes to all, but I do whatever I can to minimise it, and will continue to do so, however small an impact that has. Your argument is we already do more than our fair share and that it is a small problem from a UK perspective compared to NHS and Education. I believe that from a world perspective, the climate issue far outweighs our 1st world problems with our (free) health service and our (free) education.

We are miles apart on what we think is important. I respect your right to what you believe, I just disagree.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

Simple reality, China and India are the only two countries that can make a real difference.

We can influence them with our own actions though

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

Should the UK do as much as they can to help out a global issue? Yes.

Even if others are doing less? Yes

Even if they won't see any direct impact themselves? Yes

As a human, I feel I have a moral obligation to help less fortunate people than myself as much as I can, and that is not limited by physical or man-made lines on a map.

Yet I bet you drive a car, have central heating, use plastic, fly on planes etc, so in real terms your efforts are purely token

Yes to all, but I do whatever I can to minimise it, and will continue to do so, however small an impact that has. Your argument is we already do more than our fair share and that it is a small problem from a UK perspective compared to NHS and Education. I believe that from a world perspective, the climate issue far outweighs our 1st world problems with our (free) health service and our (free) education.

We are miles apart on what we think is important. I respect your right to what you believe, I just disagree.

What potential climate events are you seeing as so important that we haven't already been dealing with for centuries?
If your children were dying in hospital because the NHS hasn't been funded properly in favour of funding some climate change action I'm sure you might not be so flippant.

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

Simple reality, China and India are the only two countries that can make a real difference.

We can influence them with our own actions though

Of course we can, the past 40 years have taught us that China in particular is really open to Western influence.

If that is the case why are these Extinction Rebellion idiots blocking the electric train system instead of campaigning at Indian, American, Russian and Chinese embassies?

Seems to me they've got their priorities wrong. Why target an electric train system and not the countries which have the biggest polluters?

super_realist wrote:

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Afro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Is the climate important globally? Yes, is the UK contribution to global climate massively significant? No.

Should the UK do as much as they can to help out a global issue? Yes.

Even if others are doing less? Yes

Even if they won't see any direct impact themselves? Yes

As a human, I feel I have a moral obligation to help less fortunate people than myself as much as I can, and that is not limited by physical or man-made lines on a map.

Yet I bet you drive a car, have central heating, use plastic, fly on planes etc, so in real terms your efforts are purely token

Yes to all, but I do whatever I can to minimise it, and will continue to do so, however small an impact that has. Your argument is we already do more than our fair share and that it is a small problem from a UK perspective compared to NHS and Education. I believe that from a world perspective, the climate issue far outweighs our 1st world problems with our (free) health service and our (free) education.

We are miles apart on what we think is important. I respect your right to what you believe, I just disagree.

What potential climate events are you seeing as so important that we haven't already been dealing with for centuries?
If your children were dying in hospital because the NHS hasn't been funded properly in favour of funding some climate change action I'm sure you might not be so flippant.

Don't patronise me. Disagreeing with you is not being flippant and claiming so just demonstrates your absolute ignorance towards views other than your own.

My children are already in a privileged position to be in a country where they don't have to pay for health care and it is on their doorstep, whether it is fully funded or not.

Yes, in an emotional situation I would want the very best for them, but in the position of rational thought I would recognise that they are already in a much better place to help them than most of the rest of the children in the world.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

super_realist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The worst thing about his column stuff is that it's not even intended to be nasty, it's intended to be funny. It's funny to him because it's not about him. Even if he was brought to apologise for any of it, it would be with a smirk on his face. This is what privilege can do. You can come to believe there are no negative consequences to what you do. Hasn't his life thus far taught him that?

If you're rich and connected, you can't go wrong.

Probably hit the nail on the head. Do I want him as PM? Nope. Do I want Corbyn? Nope. Neither are in any way fit. May as well ruin my ballot...

Obviously things like the NHS...Climate change and Homelessness aren't important then..

What a lamentable post !!

In the UK, climate change isn't really that significant in that the effects will not cause significant damage or disruption and we have the knowledge and engineering capabilities to deal with the effects of any change in climate.  The important thing to remember is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. For most, in Europe certainly the effects are pretty minimal. Far too much is made of it as a pressing issue as a threat, and in European terms there's certainly no crisis or emergency.

Did anyone else run the maths on Corbyn's 2bn trees? Effing hilarious.

This post probably best sums up the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude that is so prevalent in UK politics these days. Utterly depressing.

Simple reality, China and India are the only two countries that can make a real difference.

We can influence them with our own actions though

Of course we can, the past 40 years have taught us that China in particular is really open to Western influence.

If they found that no one was buying Chinese products or services, they would soon change their approach

How is that patronising? Don't pretend to me that you care more for the rest of the world than you do for those closest to you.
That would be patronising and a complete lie.

super_realist wrote:How is that patronising? Don't pretend to me that you care more for the rest of the world than you do for this closest to you.
That would be patronising and a complete lie.

Calling me flippant when you know nothing about me is patronising.

And I don't pretend I care more about the world than those closest. I just believe that I am not just English/British, but part of the whole world and that I have responsibilities beyond where I live.

Why determine your priorities based on lines on a map or being an island. That is worrying most about what effects you directly or is closest to home. That is the epitome of looking after yourself first and worrying about everyone else after that, which I personally don't prescribe to

Anyway I'm done. I respect your right to your views, but don't feel I'm getting the same back, so this will just end up in me getting frustrated