Ministers face climate ‘dawn raid’ by activists


8:38 am - June 8th 2011

by Newswire    


      Share on Tumblr

Environmental action group Climate Rush gave two Cabinet MPs an early morning wake-up call yesterday.

Between 5.30am and 7.00am Philip Hammond MP and Vince Cable MP had their homes wrapped in ‘Climate Crime Scene’ tape as part of Climate Rush’s doorstep protest.

They also stuck banners to Cable’s and Hammond’s house reading ‘THERE’S NO PLANET B – SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE’.

Both Vince Cable MP and Philip Hammond MP clashed with Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change over proposals for the fourth carbon budget. The Prime Minister eventually stepped in, supporting Chris Huhne and the Climate Change Act – legislation passed by the last Government.

Philip Hammond MP and the Department for Transport has been condemned by environmentalists as Hammond is opposed to the inclusion of Canadian Tar Sands oil in the EU fuel directive. England and Holland are the only EU countries opposing the inclusion of Tar Sands from this directive.

Hammond also plans to hike rail fares by 31% over the course of this Government.

Tamsin Omond, founder of Climate Rush, said:

This Government might be considering a plan B for the economy. They don’t have that luxury with our environment: there is no planet B. Cabinet ministers that oppose these measures are gambling with our future. We need to prepare for the impacts of climate change and we need to limit our carbon emissions now. There’s no future for this or any Government on a dead planet.

Video of the action

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author

· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


If we do find a Planet B can we send Tamsin Omond there?

Please!

3. So Much For Subtlety

A dead planet? I happen to think that the science behind climate change is mostly rubbish, but even if it is all true, how would the worst case scenario ever lead to a dead planet? A slightly warmer and windier planet perhaps.

These people are nuts.

Is this what they do instead of rag week these days? Oh what fun.

Ah. Put climate in the heading and the wanktrolls come out in force.

That opinion piece from the Financial Post in #2 has been popping up all other the place in the past few days. Do the likes of Tyler seriously think an opinion peice published in a magazine is going to contribute anything to science, let alone overturn the scientific conclusions of the vast majority of scientists researching this area? There is a reason articles like that never find their way into scientific journals – because they are too crap to be worthy of publication.

Have to admit that if you were doing this for publicity, wouldn’t doing it with something that couldn’t be sliced with a pair of scissors be more worthwhile?

Climate Rush don’t seem to have UK Uncut’s knack for attracting publicity (which may or may not be good for their cause).

SMFS @ 3

Given that you are too stupid to understand the science, hence:

I happen to think that the science behind climate change is mostly rubbish

Can you possibility explain why you attempt to describe the prognosis?

A slightly warmer and windier planet perhaps.

Typical fuckwitted Tory.

Hey don’t be so harsh on Tyler. After all, he works in finance and these guys are impeccable at managing risk and contributing to society

”A dead planet? I happen to think that the science behind climate change is mostly rubbish, but even if it is all true, how would the worst case scenario ever lead to a dead planet? A slightly warmer and windier planet perhaps.”

I spent four years at Uni studying env science and you are being a little cavalier.

The worst cases scenarios are pretty serious for the human population, though not cockroaches. Even without GW deforestation, oceanic pollution, riverine pollution etc are pretty challenging obstacles.

War is the most likely scenario to affect us in the short term in the UK, we are likely to be dragged into many around the world. What happens for example if the US invades a said country for its oil in order to keep its domestic populace happy.

11. So Much For Subtlety

8. Jim – “Can you possibility explain why you attempt to describe the prognosis?”

Because that is what the worst case IPCC scenario amounts to?

What do you think is wrong with that claim?

“Typical fuckwitted Tory.”

But right. Actually like a lot of fuckwitted Tories.

10. Pete Lee – “I spent four years at Uni studying env science and you are being a little cavalier.”

What was Environmental Science called before it was relabelled? You mean Geography?

“The worst cases scenarios are pretty serious for the human population, though not cockroaches. Even without GW deforestation, oceanic pollution, riverine pollution etc are pretty challenging obstacles.”

Sure, I do not deny these are problems. But what is serious about the worst case scenarios for the Human population? Hotter and windier is what I said. That’s about right isn’t it?

“War is the most likely scenario to affect us in the short term in the UK, we are likely to be dragged into many around the world. What happens for example if the US invades a said country for its oil in order to keep its domestic populace happy.”

So nothing to do with the climate at all. The inherent implausibility of this is too much to let go. At no price would oil become worth invading a country for. Look at Iraq. Shale oils become economically viable long before that invasion would.

SMFS @ 11

A fundamental misunderstanding of science, but you can be excused that because you Tories are taught to hate science.

We call it a ‘worse case scenario’ because to us, it would be, but in geological terms, it would be absolutely nothing. There is nothing extreme in having a planet that is incapable of supporting life, indeed the small amount of evidence we have so far uninhabitable planets are the norm, Earth is an extreme exception to the rule. I suppose it is easy to look at these things from a selfish perspective and assume that ‘death of a species’ is at one end of the spectrum, but not really helpful in scientific terms.

Looking at the current projections given all the likely scenarios it is by no means a remote possibility that we could see our planet rendered inhospitable, certainly for higher mammals. We risk degrading our environment and making human life on this planet very difficult, but that is not from the more extreme ends of the spectrum, even if the outcome for is pretty dire.

13. MrAverage

@ 12

Science is the preserve of the left ? Gibbering tribal bullshit there, Jim.

Mr Average @ 13

I am afraid that science is actually a fairly Left wing pursuit. It shouldn’t be, of course, but looking at recent events, it is pretty clear that the Right have abandoned the subject in any meaningful way.

Science is a broad subject of course, but at its core is evidence. What the evidence can and does not support. Science, when you strip away all the stuff and nonsense is about the ruthless pursuit of ‘truth’ and immutable facts and describing the physical World as it is. Which pretty much describes ‘Left Wing’ ideology to a tee.

Right Wing ideology is about describing the World, as they would like it to be. Scientists have been taking on the Muppets from the establishment for as long as people have been objectively observing the Universe.

In previous Centauries that establishment has been the church. It was the church that wanted the World to flat, the centre of the Solar system and around five thousand year old. It was scientists that proved them wrong, and no attempt to silence the scientists made any of the facts ‘go away’. Nor was Darwinism wrong either, no matter how much the establishment wanted it to be proved wrong, either.

The scientists have proved the Right Wing wrong at every attempt. The Tory vermin have never scored a single victory against scientists. Not once. And you won’t do it this either.

Now the establishment is big business and the owners of wealth and guess what? The science is STILL at odds with their Right Wing ideology. How have they reacted to the news? Deny, deny, deny, silence, silence, silence. Nothing has changed. Oh, sure the power base has changed and it now mammon not ‘God’ that wields the power, but the result is the same.

The Right are ideologically opposed to truth whenever the truth fails to adhere to Right Wing ideology. That is why they hate science and that is why they hate every institution that dares point out the considerable flaws in their agenda.

Everyone on this board with a half a brain and any capacity to think objectively can see that Global Warming is made and is happening, but it only the Right that are too fucking stupid or too fucking evil to recognise the damage it will do.

15. So Much For Subtlety

12. Jim – “A fundamental misunderstanding of science, but you can be excused that because you Tories are taught to hate science.”

You’re quick with the insults but less so with the science. Where is your evidence that a word I said is wrong?

“We call it a ‘worse case scenario’ because to us, it would be, but in geological terms, it would be absolutely nothing. There is nothing extreme in having a planet that is incapable of supporting life, indeed the small amount of evidence we have so far uninhabitable planets are the norm, Earth is an extreme exception to the rule.”

I am sorry but how is the IPCC’s worst case scenario going to end up with a planet incapable of supporting life? Can you please explain to me the scientific evidence that a 2 C degree warming would have the slightest chance whatsoever of resulting in a dead planet?

“I suppose it is easy to look at these things from a selfish perspective and assume that ‘death of a species’ is at one end of the spectrum, but not really helpful in scientific terms.”

And yet you have not started to use any scientific terms. You’re just fear-mingering.

“Looking at the current projections given all the likely scenarios it is by no means a remote possibility that we could see our planet rendered inhospitable, certainly for higher mammals. We risk degrading our environment and making human life on this planet very difficult, but that is not from the more extreme ends of the spectrum, even if the outcome for is pretty dire.”

I am sure there is a remote possibility. Just as there is a remote possibility that the random movement of air particles in the room I am sitting now might result in all the air moving to the top south-east corner of the room and causing me to suffocate to death. It is not exactly likely is it? Exactly how would changing the planet disproportionately affect higher mammals? Why them and not, say, reptiles? The problem with making sh!t up you don’t understand is you start to look foolish fairly soon. Stop it Jim.

16. So Much For Subtlety

14. Jim – “Science, when you strip away all the stuff and nonsense is about the ruthless pursuit of ‘truth’ and immutable facts and describing the physical World as it is. Which pretty much describes ‘Left Wing’ ideology to a tee.”

That’s amusing.

“Right Wing ideology is about describing the World, as they would like it to be.”

I am sorry but decades after the Fall of Communism and hence of Socialism in general, based as it was on wishful thinking about human nature, you’re making this claim? If ever an ideology was based on a brutal recognition of the facts and evidence it is European Conservatism. If ever an ideology was based on wishful thinking it was the Left. You can keep deluding yourself all you like, it ain’t going to fly Jim.

“Nor was Darwinism wrong either, no matter how much the establishment wanted it to be proved wrong, either.”

Nor did it go away because Karl Marx and the Left rejected it either.

“The scientists have proved the Right Wing wrong at every attempt. The Tory vermin have never scored a single victory against scientists. Not once. And you won’t do it this either.”

Sorry but that is nonsense. Darwin has won out over the Left.

“The Right are ideologically opposed to truth whenever the truth fails to adhere to Right Wing ideology. That is why they hate science and that is why they hate every institution that dares point out the considerable flaws in their agenda.”

And so does the Left. Take, for instance, the claim that people of African origin are less intelligent than people of European origin who are less intelligent than people of East Asian origin. There is not one piece of scientific evidence to prove this is wrong. Every single piece of scientific evidence, every test, every study, proves this is a fact. Yet the Left and most of the Right deny it. Vehemently with threats of violence in the case of the Left. Francis Crick was even driven out of the UK by the deniers recently. Tenured academics have been fired for pointing it out. The Left makes up specious non-scientific arguments for why we should reject the evidence, but no matter how much they claim cultural bias no one can come up with an IQ Test that African-Americans do well on. In fact I bet if you wrote one in Ebonics Whites would still do better. They can continue to claim that IQ tests don’t measure anything useful even though they are very good predictors of academic success. So it is Deny, Deny, Deny, Threaten, Threaten, Threaten.

[Although perhaps I should point out that I deny that there is a racial difference in intelligence. It is simply too implausible. But of course at least I am aware that I have no objective evidence to support this view.]

“Everyone on this board with a half a brain and any capacity to think objectively can see that Global Warming is made and is happening, but it only the Right that are too fucking stupid or too fucking evil to recognise the damage it will do.”

Except there is no evidence that Global Warming is happening much less that humans are contributing. The records are too ambiguous and too short to make any firm claims. The science is still too weak. And the models garbage. It may exist, although I doubt it, but if it does, we need to study it further until we have some idea of what is going on. It is not only not a pressing issue, is not even a pressing environmental issue.

MFS @ 15

I am sorry but how is the IPCC’s worst case scenario going to end up with a planet incapable of supporting life? Can you please explain to me the scientific evidence that a 2 C degree warming would have the slightest chance whatsoever of resulting in a dead planet?

The science is in the public domain, I think you are too stupid to understand it, but it is out there none the less. Go and look it up, or don’t bother. However, if you cannot be bothered to actually read it or even lack the ability to understand the science, you are hardly in a position to question it, are you? That was the poiint at where we came in, you where knocking science that you have not read or understood.

I am sure there is a remote possibility.

Ah, I see what has happened here. You have confused the term ‘worse case’ with the term ‘least likely case’. I am afraid that is simply not true.

Imagine if you will, someone being thrown out of an aeroplane at twenty thousand feet. The ‘worse case’ scenario is that you will be instantly killed, with the best being that you hit the ground and simply walk away. In-between there are things like a string of broken bones or complete paralysis. The ‘worse case’ scenario is by far the most likely.

Just as there is a remote possibility that the random movement of air particles in the room I am sitting now might result in all the air moving to the top south-east corner of the room and causing me to suffocate to death. It is not exactly likely is it?

Hah! Typical anti science Tory! Under what laws of physics could such a scenario ever take place?

I am sorry but decades after the Fall of Communism and hence of Socialism in general, based as it was on wishful thinking about human nature, you’re making this claim?

Whatever happened during the fall of Communism and Socialism is up for debate. The rights and wrongs are open to interpretation and analysis. As is your claim that Conservatism is somehow a manifestation of brutal reality, well that is up for question too. The Laws of physics, however are not.

I am not sure the point regarding Marx and the rejection of Darwinism you are trying to make. The Left in general have embraced Darwinism. Had the Left consistently rejected Darwinism based on Marx’s initial rejection, you may have a valid point. I make room for the possibility that Christian Socialists may reject Darwinism of religious grounds, but no-one on the general left dispute Darwin. It isn’t the ‘Left’ that denies Darwinism now and wants to stop it being taught in schools or wants ‘intelligent design’ (fuck me), is it? I think you will find that is the domain of the American Republicans.

It is simply not possible to have a discussion with a Tory without race and racism sprouting its extremely ugly head, and it will come as no surprise that you have descended to your ideological roots in this case.

However, none of what you say or even remotely covers the laws of physics. If you want a discussion on ‘Intelligence’ and what we are actually measuring, then batter on. It is a highly controversial subject with lots of competing theories. There is certainly no Consensus on the subject. If you want to discuss the nature Vs nurture debate then that too is interesting, but I am afraid it has absolutely nothing to do with hard science or the laws of physics. There has been a Consensus on Global Warming for at least twenty years and it has been the PR machines of the Right, not serious academics, that have fuelled the denier side of the debate.

I have to be honest, here; I cannot think of anything that the Left believes in that we would have to reject science to remain ideology correct.

”So nothing to do with the climate at all. The inherent implausibility of this is too much to let go. At no price would oil become worth invading a country for. Look at Iraq. Shale oils become economically viable long before that invasion would.”

Then you are thick if you can’t see the connection.

Water shortages equals war ( intensified by CC)

Oceanic pollution equals war, take for example the recent tensions between Vietnam and China, at least in part due to the destruction of SE Asian bio resources. ( Intensified by CC)

Deforestation = env refugees, political instability and war.( intensifeid by CC)

I would point out that no-one predicted that the assassination of an Arch Duke in Sarajevo would lead to WW!, and we are in a world of power blocs at the moment as we were then.

It is far from impossible that the US will invade another country in order to guarantee oil availability. If Saudi Arabia fell to Islamic militants ( which it could) do you think the US would stand by.

How serious for the human population (my degrees were based on Biology rather than Geography) – I don’t have a crystal ball, but no species can survive a radical reduction in bio resources.

Technology is all that stands between us and a catastrophic decline in human numbers, and it is not enough.

Clearly you need everything spelled out to you, after human history is not one of peace and harmony is it and shortage of resources has always been besatabilised a society.

19. So Much For Subtlety

18. Pete Lee – “Then you are thick if you can’t see the connection.”

I can see we’re going to get along really well.

“Water shortages equals war ( intensified by CC)”

Even though there have been no cases in the modern world where water shortages have led to war. Even though water is used to inefficiently that there is no reason to think it might ever lead to war. Even though it is least implausible that Climate Change would lead to more rain fall and hence fewer water shortages. Even though war is so expensive and desalination getting so cheap that it would not be cost effective.

Apart from all those points, sure.

“Oceanic pollution equals war, take for example the recent tensions between Vietnam and China, at least in part due to the destruction of SE Asian bio resources. ( Intensified by CC)”

Ummm, no. They are not arguing over anything caused by the destruction of South-East Asian bio resources. They have a straight up dispute over where their border lies and who controls the seas around what may be oil-rich territory. Not that there is any reason to think that climate change would cause any particular level of destruction of SEA bio resources.

“Deforestation = env refugees, political instability and war.( intensifeid by CC)”

Nowhere that has suffered deforestation has seen any refugees so far. Nor are they likely to.

“I would point out that no-one predicted that the assassination of an Arch Duke in Sarajevo would lead to WW!, and we are in a world of power blocs at the moment as we were then.”

No we are not. There is no contender with the United States and so we are power-block-less. But by this piece of logic we ought to be worried about the Premier League as the outcome of that might well lead to WW3 as well – sure, no one has seen it coming, but they didn’t with the ArchDuke either, right?

“It is far from impossible that the US will invade another country in order to guarantee oil availability. If Saudi Arabia fell to Islamic militants ( which it could) do you think the US would stand by.”

Sure it is far from impossible. It simply has not happened yet. Nor is it all that likely to, to be honest.

“How serious for the human population (my degrees were based on Biology rather than Geography) – I don’t have a crystal ball, but no species can survive a radical reduction in bio resources.”

Why do you think that? Notice that global warming means more bio-resources. Just, perhaps, less diverse resources. More heat, more rain, more CO2, means more plant growth and hence more bio-mass. However that is not really the issue. The question is whether we can survive the loss of some species as that is all that is on offer. And the answer is, of course, with almost complete certainty.

“Technology is all that stands between us and a catastrophic decline in human numbers, and it is not enough.”

How do you know?

“Clearly you need everything spelled out to you, after human history is not one of peace and harmony is it and shortage of resources has always been besatabilised a society.”

Actually just some facts would do. Do you have any? We are not short of resources. We are massively wealthy with them and getting more so every day. Look out the window.

20. So Much For Subtlety

17. Jim – “The science is in the public domain, I think you are too stupid to understand it, but it is out there none the less.”

So …. no, you cannot cite any evidence for your nonsensical beliefs?

“That was the poiint at where we came in, you where knocking science that you have not read or understood.”

I am sure it is a comfort to you to think that is so. A pity it isn’t.

“The ‘worse case’ scenario is by far the most likely.”

Perhaps but when it comes to the environment on what basis do you make this claim? Even assuming the IPCC is wrong and your worst case is even possible.

“Hah! Typical anti science Tory! Under what laws of physics could such a scenario ever take place?”

Go back and do A level physics again. If you ever did. Under all of them. Air particles move in a random pattern. There is no law that says they have to be evenly distributed. It is entirely possible, but extremely unlikely, they might all move to the top corner of any room.

“Whatever happened during the fall of Communism and Socialism is up for debate. The rights and wrongs are open to interpretation and analysis. As is your claim that Conservatism is somehow a manifestation of brutal reality, well that is up for question too. The Laws of physics, however are not.”

Indeed. But as I am the only person in this thread with even a faint glimmer of an understanding of the laws of physics I am going to win that debate too.

“I am not sure the point regarding Marx and the rejection of Darwinism you are trying to make. The Left in general have embraced Darwinism. Had the Left consistently rejected Darwinism based on Marx’s initial rejection, you may have a valid point.”

Actually no. The Left has accepted, these days, that perhaps Darwinism is scientifically valid (although there has been movement back and forth on that) but they have also continued to reject the idea that it should ever inform political debate. It is a taboo subject. Remember the Scopes “Monkey” trial involved the Democratic Presidential nominee on the side of the prosecution and High Tories like Mencken on the side of the poor Science Teacher.

“It is simply not possible to have a discussion with a Tory without race and racism sprouting its extremely ugly head, and it will come as no surprise that you have descended to your ideological roots in this case.”

Yes but we all hope the Left can transcend their biases one day and have a civilised conversation without accusations of racism. Not today I fear.

“However, none of what you say or even remotely covers the laws of physics. If you want a discussion on ‘Intelligence’ and what we are actually measuring, then batter on. It is a highly controversial subject with lots of competing theories.”

That is to say, some people accept the science, and some people reject it on political grounds. There are no scientific grounds for rejecting the idea that IQ tests measure something highly correlated, to say the least, with intelligence.

“There has been a Consensus on Global Warming for at least twenty years and it has been the PR machines of the Right, not serious academics, that have fuelled the denier side of the debate.”

No there has not been. Not that it matters if there has. Freeman Dyson is not a serious academic? How interesting.

“I have to be honest, here; I cannot think of anything that the Left believes in that we would have to reject science to remain ideology correct.”

So much for your knowledge of the science. Most of what the Left believes is scientifically-specious if not in direct contradiction to the evidence. We have no evidence for the Blank Slate even though it remains a favourite of the Left. We have no evidence that Homosexuality is genetic. We have some evidence that gender is. The Left rejects both ideas. The Left’s crime policies are in direct contradiction of the evidence, as is their opposition to the death penalty. Not to mention the environmental movement which is largely a science-free zone.

SMFS @ 20

So …. no, you cannot cite any evidence for your nonsensical beliefs?

We have been posting this stuff for twenty years and you people have ignored it. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers out there and you honestly can say you are unable to google up a single one of them? You are unable to go to your local library (while it still exists) or a branch of Watersons and get a popular science book on the subject? Or are you saying that you are so unlucky that the every time you go into a bookshop they have sold out of the reputable books and the only thing on the shelves are books written by halfwits who have been totally discredited over years.

There is no law that says they have to be evenly distributed. It is entirely possible, but extremely unlikely, they might all move to the top corner of any room.

Boyles Law.

But as I am the only person in this thread with even a faint glimmer of an understanding of the laws of physics I am going to win that debate too.

The dumb arrogance of a man who has just printed the assertion that the gas in the room could spontaneously contract into a small corner of room.

So much for your knowledge of the science. Most of what the Left believes is scientifically-specious if not in direct contradiction to the evidence. We have no evidence for the Blank Slate even though it remains a favourite of the Left. We have no evidence that Homosexuality is genetic. We have some evidence that gender is. The Left rejects both ideas. The Left’s crime policies are in direct contradiction of the evidence, as is their opposition to the death penalty. Not to mention the environmental movement which is largely a science-free zone.

Hold on though, none of any of that is settled though, is it? Nor is any of that important for the formulation of ideology either? People can believe that homosexuality is nature or nurture, but it does not justify discrimination under any circumstances.

Many of the things you have mentioned like crime, death penalty and the like is about philosophy, not hard science.

What you have to take into account is that you and the rest of the Tories are fuckwits. Seriously mate, if you take into account that you people are completely mental, it would make our lives easier. You Tories start of with an assumption and then you go and collect evidence. When you stumble across anything that contradicts your theory, you reject it as ‘Left Wing’ and everything else you accept. Whatever that is, it is not science, it may be political knock about and pretty legitimate stuff, but to equate that to something purporting to be hard science is a nonsense. Not only that, but the fact that you equate the laws of thermal dynamics with the death penalty debate, really shows you up.

It is how we interpret statistics, and our values that are under discussion when dealing with crime, not about the immutable laws of physics, seriously mate the entire volume of gas is not moving into the corner of your room. The fact that you think it might, and the fact that you think the laws of physics supports that idea shows up your considerable lack of knowledge of the subject.

22. So Much For Subtlety

21. Jim – “We have been posting this stuff for twenty years and you people have ignored it. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers out there and you honestly can say you are unable to google up a single one of them?”

Who’s this we Kemosabe? You mean other people have been publishing papers that makes precisely none of the claims you have made here? And you know it which is why you are responding with bullshit and abuse?

“Boyles Law.”

Nice effort. I am mildly impressed. Boyle’s law does not say that all the air in this room can’t move to the top left hand corner. It just says the air will get hot if it does so.

“Hold on though, none of any of that is settled though, is it? Nor is any of that important for the formulation of ideology either? People can believe that homosexuality is nature or nurture, but it does not justify discrimination under any circumstances.”

Does it matter if it is settled? And settled in what sense? In the sense that Darwinism is settled? It is settled in the political sense – so much so that I suspect if anyone did come here and assert that gender was genetic or that homosexuality was a choice they would be banned. Of course it is important for the formation of ideology. If homosexuality is not a choice, then homosexuals cannot be punished for being Gay. If it is a choice that is another matter. Why can’t you discriminate against behaviour you do not like if it is freely chosen?

“What you have to take into account is that you and the rest of the Tories are fuckwits. Seriously mate, if you take into account that you people are completely mental, it would make our lives easier. You Tories start of with an assumption and then you go and collect evidence.”

No I don’t. Because the mainstream of fuckwittery tends to come from the Left. As does the ignorance. As can be seen here. What you need to take into account is most people on the Right started out on the Left. Becoming part of the Right involved a massive re-examination of their beliefs and attitudes. Most people on the Left were taught to be Leftists at school and they have not yet bothered to think about why they think things. That means that by definition most Conservatives have re-thought their positions, while most people on the Left have never felt the need.

Which explains the two responses of people on the Left and Right to other people on the other side – the Left traditionally thinks Tories are evil (because of course they have not yet even tried to understand what Tories think) while the Rights traditionally thinks Leftists are morons (because they have thought about what they used to believe and so became Tory).

“When you stumble across anything that contradicts your theory, you reject it as ‘Left Wing’ and everything else you accept.”

Given you know nothing about me this would be interesting if it wasn’t such utter nonsense. Presumably you know you’re full of it but you need to keep your morale up by this sort of childishness.

SMFS @021

Becoming part of the Right involved a massive re-examination of their beliefs and attitudes.

When have the Right examined anything other than their most basic prejudices? We both know why you are a Global Warming denier. It has nothing to do with the science; it is to do with the implications of the science. If the answer to Global Warming was build a huge anti Global Warming machine in Africa, at the cost of millions of Africans being shifted out of their ancestral homelands, you and the rest of the Right would all for it. Or if the answer was to bomb Iran’s Carbon Dioxide machine, The Americans would have had it in cinders twenty years ago. However the real answer is to consume less and therefore people who never even read a book on the subject and the entire Right Wing have suddenly became climate experts? Yeah, right.

You cunts do this all the time, no matter the science says, if it doesn’t match up with what you want the answer to be, then the science (or whatever evidence) is wrong. A couple of weeks ago a possible link between red meat and bowel cancer was announced, but because the Tories like red meat, the Daily Hate’s message board was filled with newly qualified ‘oncologists’ (Or Tories with a vested interest, who can tell?) denouncing the study. Now no-one could point to the flaw in methodology because if you are a Tory none of that matters, the only thing you need is a ‘God given’ conviction that you are right.

That type of thing happens all the time with the vermin. They never look at the evidence objectively, the look at the implications and work their way back. You people are simply blinded by your ideology and a fear of loss of identity with your peers to read any evidence objectively.

24. Mr S. Pill

@22

“Becoming part of the Right involved a massive re-examination of their beliefs and attitudes.”

hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. seriously, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. all week, even. brilliant.

wow, just… wow.

25. Mr S. Pill

Lest we forget, ideas right-wingers have brought us include:

Anti-NHS
Anti-women’s suffrage
Pro-slavery
Anti-abortion
Anti-minimum wage
Homophobic legislation
The Daily Mail

’nuff said.

26. Charlieman

@23. Jim: “It has nothing to do with the science; it is to do with the implications of the science.”

By your definitions, I am a denier. Because I don’t like the way that climate change “scientists” conduct themselves.

Science is about openness and honesty. But some climate change “scientists” are not open or honest. They deny access to data and methodology. Consequently, I do not consider them as scientists.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Ministers face climate 'dawn raid' by activists http://bit.ly/mgPNXD

  2. tamsin omond

    Ministers face climate ‘dawn raid’ by activists | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IuhPi9J via @libcon

  3. Double.Karma

    Ministers face climate 'dawn raid' by activists http://bit.ly/mgPNXD

  4. Ms C

    climate rush's climate campaign dawn raid on govt ministers: http://tinyurl.com/6jj6hay

  5. Pucci Dellanno

    Ministers face climate 'dawn raid' by activists http://bit.ly/mgPNXD

  6. Laura-Jane Silverman

    Ministers face climate ‘dawn raid’ by activists | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IuhPi9J via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.