|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 24, 2013 3:51:29 GMT
I think he is alarmingly ignorant, just like you, aubrey, but nonetheless totally opinionated on no sound foundation of either knowledge or understanding, just like you, too.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 24, 2013 3:58:17 GMT
Aubrey is just following where the Nazis led, Nick. They thought they could distinguish Aryan from Jewish science just as Aubrey thinks there is right and left wing science. You would have thought the example of Lysenko would have offered some warning about the politicisation of science, too.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 24, 2013 3:59:14 GMT
I'm glad to hear you like me, aubrey. i am rather irresistible when push comes to shove. I like you, too, lovey!
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Feb 26, 2013 16:58:03 GMT
Aubrey is just following where the Nazis led, Nick. They thought they could distinguish Aryan from Jewish science just as Aubrey thinks there is right and left wing science. You would have thought the example of Lysenko would have offered some warning about the politicisation of science, too. Oh, come off it. Most antis are right wing, and they're not scientists. Nick - do you think that Cartman is an admirable character? A lot of what I've seen from right wingers on MBs doesn't get much above his level of, say, wanting to throw stones at Kenny because he's poor. Oh, and I'm not going to go trawling through stuff to find proof of BP lobbying for relaxed safety laws. But they did. And those companies can fund anti AGW groups and lobbying groups and the like, for their libertarian political reasons. But why don't they be honest about it? Why don't they say we want to get rid of any restrictions on wages and working hours and safety because it will make bigger profits for us. You'd think they had something to hide.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 28, 2013 5:44:10 GMT
Aubrey is just following where the Nazis led, Nick. They thought they could distinguish Aryan from Jewish science just as Aubrey thinks there is right and left wing science. You would have thought the example of Lysenko would have offered some warning about the politicisation of science, too. Oh, come off it. Most antis are right wing, and they're not scientists. Ridiculous. You've not a scrap of evidence for such a farcical claim. I've pointed out to you several times already - whatever you think you mean by "antis", it's simply not relevant to what the science about climate change is. Whatever you think it is you're arguing about, it's not that - it's some paranoid political fantasy of your own. I can't say I think about him at all, really - or Bart Simpson, Scott Tracey, or Daffy Duck. I certainly don't draw any political lessons from them. You've come across people on MBs who you do not consider "right wingers", then? Intriguing. Exco, was it? Don't you believe it - I've never come across such an authoritarian fascist. Of course you're not. You know already, don't you? Rightwingers. Maybe, maybe not - I don;t see the relevance, frankly. Climate laws, was your claim. Whatever the hell you mean by that. What groups? I hope to hell there's someone lobbying against the insane "climate laws" we've signed up to, and I couldn't care less where they scrape whatever funding they might have to do it. And not just on libertarian grounds either - on sound economic and social justice reasons. You don;t seem to realise who's suffered from this new international "climate change" regime - it's the poor, the hungry, the cold. It's very conservatively (not that kind) estimated that over a hundred thousand people have died from needless starvation because of the biofuel bonanza alone. Where have your socialist solidarity principles gone? £600 on people's fuel bills because of windfarms - while millionaire aristocrats and the Royal Family and crooks like Al Gore rake in millions from the scam? And all your whingeing about government spending cuts - hasn't it occurred to you that most of the Western world is mired in a deep trough of zero-growth because business and industry isn't investing. and one big reason that aren't is because they're now burdened with a new carbon tax (which is why carbon credits have totally tanked on the market), as soon as they do anything? You don't think there's any connection between this prolonged slough and the fact that these "climate laws" have cost us two trillion dollars - more than our entire GDP - already? Your understanding of economics and what running a business is all about is as naive and politically neolithic as your understanding of science, I'm afraid. Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Mar 2, 2013 13:24:21 GMT
Not at all patronising. Maybe I shouldn't worry my pretty little head with things that don't concern me, eh?
Do you really imagine that companies (and right wingers) did not campaign and lobby against the a minimum wage before it came in, and don't want to get rid of it now? The same with maximum working hours limits, and safety standards?
I know that the non-naive idea is that we have to compete on a level basis with the rest of the world, but only on things like wages and working conditions: so, the realistic view is that we have got to accept wages that are impossible to live on and dangerous work - like the people we're supposed to be competing with do - and what then? All have to live in huge dorms with anti-suicide netting under the windows? And, you know, get rid of all benefits so as to force people to work in those places. Sorry if I'm being naive, like.
I know you don't accept the idea of right wing at all, or that there are anti AGW warming groupings - like Nigel Lawson's (though there are many more), that are full of right wingers. Right wingers do tend to believe that they're apolitical: that their views are just plain common sense. But they're really just views, opinions. And it's always more complicated than Common Sense imagines.
With views on AGW, you can usually tell, if you know a person's other views, what they'll think about AGW. So, someone who is anti-immigration, thinks that most people receiving benefits are lazy malingerers, that Trades Unions are full of greedy bastards, that all drugs are evil and equally bad, etc etc, then they will usually be AGW deniers. It doesn't always hold, but it does mostly. And it's nothing to do with science: the opinion comes first, the science afterwards.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Mar 11, 2013 10:15:20 GMT
I have a hot water bottle tucked inside my dressing gown, thanks.
That's exactly the point. Why is the denier camp full of right wingers? Because they have their own "Politically Correct" answers. Yes, I know there are exceptions: but the ideas that there is no such thing as Global Warming, and that there is Global Warming but it has nothing to do with us (which seem contradictory views, but they're really pretty interchangeable) mainly come from right wingers.
You can't say that your side is full of apolitical good sense, while those who agree with you are just politically correct leftwingers without an original thought between them, not when your lot are nearly all right wingers.
(Actually, denying the idea of left and right wing, as you and Nick do, is pretty convenient in itself. But you can't do it when you characterise those who disagree with you as left wing (Politically Correct Stalin/Mao/Gadafi/Pol-pot worshippers). You can't have Left without Right.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 11, 2013 11:07:24 GMT
Snowing today here in Leeds, aubrey. I guess you don't see much snow in Central London, though, thanks to the Enhanced Urban Heat Island Effect.
Not much "political correctness" about real observations like these, I'm afraid, just pretty undeniable, normal, scientific, empirical data collection.
But what would you know about that? "Opinion" is your forte, isn't it, not fact?
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Mar 11, 2013 17:01:45 GMT
Snow!? And they talk about Global Warming!
(Yes - we have had some snow.)
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Mar 15, 2013 2:17:57 GMT
Not at all patronising. Maybe I shouldn't worry my pretty little head with things that don't concern me, eh? I think you should learn at least a little about the subject you're pontificating about. If you don't, the nonsense you consequently spout is liable to receive a response you consider patronising, yes. And so it should. No, I don't. I understand fully why they did so, on the other hand. I also understand that none of this has anything to do with the science of climate change. Nothing to do with the science of climate change. Huh? No - what I don't accept is that I'm rightwing, or that "most anti-AGWs" are rightwing. I've explained to you several times before - Lawson's group is not anti AGW. I've also asked you - who are these other groups you're so worked up about? Who are you talking about? The Marshall Institute? Who? The we might be able to see whether your paranoid accusations have any merit. Bollocks. Define "Right wingers" according to your understanding, please. As I've pointed out to you, insofar as there's any truth in this the "views" you're referring to have nothing to do with the science of climate change and the debate that's raging about it. You're talking about the politics that the debate has engendered. And as I've tried to explain to you twice already, if there are more rightwingers who are sceptical about AGW, that's very adequately explained by the self-evident fact that the CAGW theory has been welcomed with open arms by the liberal-left and exploited for all it's worth to pursue their own political ends. That's what most "rightwingers" are naturally sceptical about. That would be Beatrice and Sidney Webb. For the above reason. Nothing to do with climate science or the debate about it. It's just the same reason that you and most people on the left believe in AGW, that's all. No - the science doesn't come afterwards. Not if you're interested in the truth of the matter. Not if you want to follow the actual debate, rather than pseudo-psychological estimations of people's political allegiances. The fact that this question is of vital importance and can only be assessed by rational judgements about the scientific evidence seems to have escaped your notice entirely. Well - for most "antis" it hasn't, I assure you. For every political rightwing hack you might propose, or every oil-funded "lobbying group", I'll direct you to - err, let's say twenty, so it's not too lengthy a task - serious scientists and forums where no political allegiance is in evidence whatever, and would rightly be considered totally out of place if it were. I'd like to be able to say the same about the AGW side of the debate, actually, but the truth is I can't. They're openly and vocally politically motivated.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Mar 15, 2013 2:27:50 GMT
I have a hot water bottle tucked inside my dressing gown, thanks. That's exactly the point. Why is the denier camp full of right wingers? Because they have their own "Politically Correct" answers. Yes, I know there are exceptions: but the ideas that there is no such thing as Global Warming, and that there is Global Warming but it has nothing to do with us (which seem contradictory views, but they're really pretty interchangeable) mainly come from right wingers. Jeez. You really are completely ignorant about all this, aren't you? Not the first idea of what the debate's about. Why are you discussing it? This idee fixe is just false, Aubrey. It's wrong. That's why despite being asked several times all you can think of as evidence is an ex-Tory minister and a few rightwing newspaper columnists. This for you is "most deniers"! You will be able to find not a single reference supporting such a ludicrous slur. Not that that will bother you in the least, I know. If you're still referring to me, you won't find support for that either. You can have truth without bias, though. It's called science - or used to be.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Mar 16, 2013 10:42:16 GMT
You've never accused me of supporting Stalin (and the rest of them)? You've never gone on about however million dead it was, when I mention my being a socialist?
God, you are a slithery one.
The thing is, asking for evidence about right wing involvement in AGW denial campaigns, and then saying that what I give you - right wing belief in unfettered industry, etc - isn't relevant? As Kenneth Williams said, what's the bloody point?
Ok - everyone who doesn't agree with you is thick, or lying, or maybe even evil. Satisfied?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 16, 2013 18:35:55 GMT
You don't know enough either to agree or disagree with the various positions taken on climate data, Aubrey.
You are FAR too beguiled with life in your own ideological universe.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 16, 2013 18:39:30 GMT
Could you ever take a man who looked like this seriously on a matter of science? This was taken in the era when he was whining about the population bomb and how the overpopulated UK would die of starvation by year 2000. Some record of mistakes, eh?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Mar 19, 2013 8:51:19 GMT
You've never accused me of supporting Stalin (and the rest of them)? I've accused you of ignoring the crimes of Stalin et al when you've expressed support for communism, or argued that "rightwingers" have been worse. No. Talking of fallacies, that's called, in brief, a post hoc. No, not at all. You're the slithery one. You're the one who splatters all your posts with false allegations, and when challenged to produce references just blithely ignores it (oh, I haven't got time, or I can;t be bothered to suuport my arguments or insults when "everyone knows" they're true, blah blah.) No, it's not relevant in the least, even if you'd managed to support your juvenile characterisation. Are you really as clueless as to believe that the AGW lobby has reduced "industry", other than by inadvertently prolonging an economic recession? How has it? Give some evidence for your pontificating nonsense for once. Desperate, desperate. Petulant, petulant. Don't sulk. Just make a reasoned argument, that's all that's required. And yes, watch out for your lying - that would indeed help.
|
|