[Siderite]

In some ways the damage has already been done. The dead workers, the repressive nature of the state, these things were all known about 12 years ago. There could have been action to refuse to play, but money speaks.

I personally support actions for civil rights, within proportion, and think sport is a great opportunity to highlight this, but many want to play it on easy mode. I am happy for them to take the knee, but it’s no more than a gesture. There is not much societal cost. It doesn’t make them civil rights activists in the manner of Rosa Parks, who faced real consequences for her activism. As soon as any consequence makes their gestures harder, they shrink. They couldn’t do the bare minimum because they feared a yellow card.

Those Iranian players showed greater bravery. They would know there is a real risk to their family back home for their action, and the consequences are far more severe than a yellow card. The England squad have set themselves up as supporting such causes, but when causes get even moderately tough they run away.

[Siderite]

I think a large number would have sympathies, but not 90%.

[Siderite]

Let’s backtrack slightly. The post above the one where you said you are tired of explaining to me that you accept manmade climate change has me saying CO2 is driving climate change. I am going to assume this is what you were referring to, since it’s the only associated comment for this. It should be bloody obvious to anyone that this is not an unfair comment, because it’s clear you don’t think current climate change is CO2 driven. Therefore, responding to my comment about CO2 is driving climate change by saying “of course you accept manmade climate change, and you’re fed up of telling me otherwise” is slippery. You don’t think such and my comments since have been aimed at that alone, and it’s obviously a fair representation to say you don’t think such.

You would have a better time understanding if you read what I was saying and what it was responding to, instead of trying to straw man and twist words all the damn time. My last few points had little to do with the actual debate, so maybe try viewing through that lens instead of jumbling it together with arguments I made posts ago and changing debate focus on a whim to suit you. It’s this kind of behaviour which I am fed up with, and why I am not going into significant debating points. There isn’t a hope in hell of you bothering to understand what I say, because everything gets twisted to suit an agenda.

I would have more trust in your judgement if you hadn’t, repeatedly, failed to understand fundamental elements about climatology. As it is, baseless proclamations are worth very little. I have never argued climate to be simple, we know it isn’t, but complexity doesn’t equal lack of ability to understand. Areas requiring further research do not equate to us not being able to form any theory, otherwise we would have zero confidence in any scientific idea (including gravity, which we know very little about). I have repeatedly talked about positive feedback mechanisms, so this shows that not all warming can be linked directly to CO2. However, these positive feedback mechanisms would not exist without a cause, so to say this shows natural climate change would be eyebrow raising. I have gone into the evidence for such previously, so I am not going to do so again when I have learned it’s futile. I have repeatedly spoken about shorter term climate impacts, from natural sources, but also spoken about why they cannot explain the longer term trend.

To sum up, I accept that you say you think some climate change can be explained by CO2, but your comment about me needing to be explained about how you accept manmade climate change and are fed up of telling it, comes across as a false response to a fair comment about CO2 driving current climate trends. I think it’s obvious that when I say that CO2 is driving warming I mean CO2 is the cause for current climate trends. It may be a misunderstanding on your part, but given everything in the past, I really wouldn’t be surprised if you are twisting words and straw manning me yet again.

[Siderite]

I support the campaign and you’re right that it’s cowardly. What’s more, the Qatari captain wore a Palestinan flag for an armband. That, I would argue to be political, so the hypocrisy is rank.

2 users thanked author for this post.

waltersleftfoot, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

Wolves?

[Siderite]

So you don’t accept climate change is man-made, thanks. Therefore your previous comment about trying to tell me that you accept it’s man-made, after I pointed out the fallacies of a natural assumption, is false and I was fair in disagreeing.

I have said many times that I don’t think the planet will end and that I don’t agree with environmentalists. That you have ignored this to straw man really isn’t my problem.

[Siderite]

Halifax, only just.

They don’t plonk 2 who get relegated into the North and 2 the South. If all 4 relegated teams are northern they will restructure NLN and place teams more southern already in NLN into NLS. There are quite a few teams in there who are far more southern than us, so it’s not going to happen with us in NLS.

In fact, 14 of the teams in NLN are further south, so it’s impossible to even contemplate.

[Siderite]

Awaywego wrote:

Not necessarily NLN it could be NLS.

Given Kidderminster, Leamington Spa, Kings Lynn, Brackley, Gloucester and Hereford are in the NLN I don’t see why they would put us in the NLS. ;-)

[Siderite]

Oh, and yes, you might not be including me in the ‘usual suspects’, as said before, but it gets tiring seeing my opinion being cited with this. It creates a false impression if so. I would take back my las sentence, as that’s not helpful, but it’s gone past editing time limits.

[Siderite]

“None of the above comments surprise me in the slightest. It’s the usual stuff from the usual suspects; and I’ve given up trying to explain to siderite the huge difference between understanding man-made climate change is real, with which I agree, but that it’s going to lead to catastrophe, which is absurd.”

lol. Bucks isn’t arguing that man-made climate change isn’t real, but only in the last post he says that nature did it, always has done and always will. Your comments about giving up explaining seem to be a reaction to me saying the same towards you. Always the victim, it’s never your fault.

The goalposts have significantly shifted. I have never argued for catastrophe, the planet will survive for one, yet this wasn’t what you used to argue against.

Also, none of what I said was a personal insult, so I don’t know where the usual suspect guff is coming from, while citing this. Seemingly disagreeing with you is wrong and to be frowned upon. We can’t have anyone disagreeing with the great one.

[Siderite]

We had someone who was willing to throw money at it and look at us now with him. If the London lot get it, we might have the same situation down the line, and their property interest may be more of a worry for Glanford Park than the fears with Swann.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Bucks doesn’t deny climate change, but all change of climate is because of the UHI.

[Siderite]

If you accept the economic arguments, you have to accept people won’t be happy about it and that this wasn’t project fear.

You can argue it until you are blue in the face, but it doesn’t stop your argument being nonsense. I have spoken about the evidence for CO2 driven warming many times and not received anything which changes my mind. Suffice to say, the evidence for CO2 driving climate change doesn’t come from record breaking hot days(nor just models), which was the original point which had morphed into something slightly different to feed your obsession.

You can attach conspiratorial motives all you like, it doesn’t change the evidence and no capital letters of emphasis or proclamations of facts can change that. Your assertions mean little without evidence or addressing of questions and I am unlikely to be swayed when you have demonstrated several key misunderstandings of the science through the years.

[Siderite]

let’s see what happens over the next few years. The likelihood of it remaining of higher value than London is small.”

The same was said about Paris and anywhere in Europe overtaking in the first place. Now the same people want us to trust their predictions again, and again. In 20 years they would still say we need to wait and see and how their promised sunlit uplands are just round the corner.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

If it was never about economics, why the desperation to argue against economic impacts?

If it’s incompletely incorrect, and you aren’t using that against climate change, then your point is rather moot. Also, again with the climate has changed because of nature comments, so in which case, we can observe the evidence for which natural climate forcing variable is causing it, right? Or, it’s all random chance and energy is coming from nowhere, which is scientifically impossible. Either way, your argument is baseless.

[Siderite]

Just like they did with useless opposition in 1997, 2001, 2005, every other time they have won and 2019 against the useless Johnson. Oh, wait.

[Siderite]

He’s trying to argue that only 7 temperature records this summer statistically different from previous, and these were near air bases, therefore no climate change. Which is an erroneous way of looking at it.

[Siderite]

Northumbiron wrote:

You are missing the point, because you still haven’t answered my question.

Is it to be a trade off of working towards zero emissions versus continuing as before?

I take it you’ll be going for the latter.

Also, one would think airports are a new invention given Bucks’ latest post. While the UHI is a thing and does partially explain some accelerated temperatures, it doesn’t explain the amplitude of that heatwave.

My local weather station, not near an airport, beat the local record by 3 Celsius, but the usual suspects will continue to leap to half-answers, which don’t explain the full picture, and play the know-it-all for their own agenda. All while jumping on weather = climate falsehoods. Probability of weather events occurring due to climate change does not equal this weather event was caused by climate change.

[Siderite]

Paris overtaking London on the stock market isn’t someone’s opinion.

[Siderite]

I don’t think the Scunny Bunny would be too happy with that! :-)

[Siderite]

More project fear lies:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/paris-london-stock-market-bloomberg-b2224731.html

[Siderite]

bartonscorpion wrote:

Siderite wrote:

How do they work together when there are fundamental disagreements with the path forward? Labour won’t be able to criticise how the Tories have run if they have a foot in their plan? The same would be said of the reverse. Also, the Tories would say it all went wrong because of Labour sabotage. The incentives aren’t there and they never will be for something like this.

The only time it’s possible is during an external threat, like in WWII.

So what you are saying siderite is, let things just carry on like the present

I am saying that this is not a workable solution and Labour aren’t going to be as daft as sign their name to Tory policies then take the blame. If you think Labour would do a better job on the economy, well that’s one reason to vote them in next time.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

How do they work together when there are fundamental disagreements with the path forward? Labour won’t be able to criticise how the Tories have run if they have a foot in their plan? The same would be said of the reverse. Also, the Tories would say it all went wrong because of Labour sabotage. The incentives aren’t there and they never will be for something like this.

The only time it’s possible is during an external threat, like in WWII.

[Siderite]

Norman Baker is a conspiracy theorist who thinks the British Secret Services were involved in the death of David Kelly, or they covered up an Iraqi hit team, based on nothing. I would take anything said by him with a huge pinch of salt.

[Siderite]

Yes, I would. He’s a self-admitted Calvinist, which can be a very fundamentalist sect.

[Siderite]

For the fundamentalists, sure. I am reluctant to say all Christians are like that. The comfort religion gives cannot be underestimated.

My issue is when thy say stuff like above, as in it’s a necessity to have a Christian founding for morality. Can Christianity apply a moral code for some? Sure, but it’s not a necessity. An atheist or anyone can easily form an argument for why murder is wrong without God. It would be worrying if you can’t, because it displays a lack of empathy and understanding of how actions impact others. This is the basis of most moral systems, dating back longer than 2000 years. I have nothing against people basing their life around the Bible; I do when they claim it’s a necessity for others and make out that it’s the only thing needed, and without it we’d be murderers.

The point in this is that bpg often makes out Christian belief is a necessity for morality, yet can’t see how referring to people as invaders or undertaking an invasion could be considered a harmful take, which violates another’s moral system. It’s a bit rich to say that atheists cannot comprehend how murder could be wrong without Christianity while refusing to understand why an atheist might consider it wrong to refer to people in such a manner. Obviously the former is of a worse magnitude, but that’s not the point.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

…” how morality is meaningless without Christianity.”
No,you’ve got it wrong!
Objective Morality proves that there is a Creator (God),not that it’s meaningless without Christianity.
You have to “steal “ from a Creator(God) worldview to make sense of your life.
If there is no God all morality is subjective ,murder might be “wrong” in your eyes but “right” in another persons , who decides in an atheistic worldview?
Objective morality proves there is a Creator ( God) and Christianity is true because of Christ proving He was God in human form .
YOU can’t live a truly atheistic lifestyle,you have to “steal” from the Christian worldview to make sense of your life. Think about it.

More lectures, which is my point really when your superior Christian morality fails to identify a moral problem, in my opinion.

It’s easy to identify why murder is wrong without Christianity. We don’t need a God to tell us how our actions impact others and base a moral system around that. These moral systems predate Christianity. I am not borrowing from it and my point was really that you’re forever telling us about morality requiring your god, yet the subject here has seen me take a different moral standpoint to Christianity’s finest representative on this forum.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

Going by his displayed goalkeeping skills, as evident in that Sidemen match, I think he’s already ruined. :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Or because it dehumanises people? Surely we can use more suitable language?

It’s funny how you love to lecture others on how morality is meaningless without Christianity, yet here is a moral position of mine which differs from what is your Christian position of dehumanising people and making out they’re some invading horde. Obviously, because it’s illegal, their humanity could be discarded by the Christian moral system of yours.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Author]

Posts