Discussion:
The Greens - the Looney Left by another name.
Add Reply
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-12 07:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-emergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit

"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10 high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit, proposing a cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily Thornberry, the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the former Conservative cabinet minister Justine Greening to seek legislation for a fresh referendum.

In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism by rival parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs from all the main political parties in Westminster, as well as the SNP’s leader, Nicola Sturgeon."

Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always knew what "environmentalism" really meant.
Farmer Giles
2019-08-12 08:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-emergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit
"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10 high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit, proposing a cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily Thornberry, the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the former Conservative cabinet minister Justine Greening to seek legislation for a fresh referendum.
In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism by rival parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs from all the main political parties in Westminster, as well as the SNP’s leader, Nicola Sturgeon."
Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always knew what "environmentalism" really meant.
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-12 09:45:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-12 09:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
Strange that they have no objection to cramming more and more people
into the country, while at the same time insisting that we use fewer
resources. It makes me wonder what their real motivation is.
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-12 10:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
Strange that they have no objection to cramming more and more people
into the country, while at the same time insisting that we use fewer
resources. It makes me wonder what their real motivation is.
Good observation. One of many contradictions of the Greens.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-12 10:51:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
Strange that they have no objection to cramming more and more people
into the country, while at the same time insisting that we use fewer
resources. It makes me wonder what their real motivation is.
Good observation. One of many contradictions of the Greens.
Seems obvious, really. We are encouraged to put bricks in our toilet
cistern (which is already too small to be 'effective') at the same time
as we are surrounded by new housing estates.
Farmer Giles
2019-08-12 10:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.

To label those who really do care along with the likes of Caroline
Lucas, and other similar nutters, is just a form of bullying - and I
refuse to be bullied by it.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 10:36:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth
and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also
culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental"
organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the
planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The
third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale
pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease,
politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have
gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western
capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate
rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
To label those who really do care along with the likes of Caroline
Lucas, and other similar nutters, is just a form of bullying - and I
refuse to be bullied by it.
Brazil’s president doesn’t care.

His enlightened ‘advice' was to shit on alternate days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49304358
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-12 10:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
We're not going to go on living the way we are. We didn't go on living the way we were 100 years ago, belching soot from reciprocating steam engines, because technology came to the rescue and will continue to do so. I took a lungful of air in Manila a few years ago and had a sense of deja vu - I was back in Lincoln in the 1970s. It's not like that in the West anymore. I've noticed that Green propaganda has reacted to this reality - they some time back started opening statements with "it's no good saying technology will come to the rescue". It will if you lot allow it, but if you insist on looking the wrong way whilst yearning for your long days in the fields wielding your scythes, it will be a long time coming.
Post by Farmer Giles
To label those who really do care along with the likes of Caroline
Lucas, and other similar nutters, is just a form of bullying - and I
refuse to be bullied by it.
Farmer Giles
2019-08-12 11:14:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
We're not going to go on living the way we are. We didn't go on living the way we were 100 years ago, belching soot from reciprocating steam engines, because technology came to the rescue and will continue to do so. I took a lungful of air in Manila a few years ago and had a sense of deja vu - I was back in Lincoln in the 1970s. It's not like that in the West anymore. I've noticed that Green propaganda has reacted to this reality - they some time back started opening statements with "it's no good saying technology will come to the rescue". It will if you lot allow it, but if you insist on looking the wrong way whilst yearning for your long days in the fields wielding your scythes, it will be a long time coming.
It's not like 'that' in the West because, thanks to your hero Thatcher,
we've exported most of our pollution halfway round the world.

I don't give a toss about this 'Green propaganda' of yours, or any other
strawmen that you care to construct in place of a valid argument. What I
mean by not being able to go on living the way we do, is that we simply
can't carry on with the level of consumption and waste that we have
presently. We simply need to consume less, and waste less. We also need
to travel less, and not have the world full of vehicles buzzing about
making largely unnecessary journeys - causing enormous levels of
pollution in the process. And we certainly need to reduce air travel.,
which is even worse.

The world is finite, and the resources in it. The present levels of
consumption are largely a product of a system that necessitates
continual 'growth'. Continual growth in a finite world is not just
ultimately unsustainable but it is pure insanity to advocate it.

People like you who support the present madness, and seek to make
wholesale condemnations of those who speak out against it, don't do so
out of any concern for the world and the future but simply out of
selfish desire to have more and more and to hell with anyone or anything
else.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 11:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the
Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're
also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental"
organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the
planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The
third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale
pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease,
politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have
gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western
capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate
rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
We're not going to go on living the way we are. We didn't go on living the
way we were 100 years ago, belching soot from reciprocating steam engines,
because technology came to the rescue and will continue to do so. I took a
lungful of air in Manila a few years ago and had a sense of deja vu - I was
back in Lincoln in the 1970s. It's not like that in the West anymore. I've
noticed that Green propaganda has reacted to this reality - they some time
back started opening statements with "it's no good saying technology will
come to the rescue". It will if you lot allow it, but if you insist on
looking the wrong way whilst yearning for your long days in the fields
wielding your scythes, it will be a long time coming.
It's not like 'that' in the West because, thanks to your hero Thatcher,
we've exported most of our pollution halfway round the world.
I don't give a toss about this 'Green propaganda' of yours, or any other
strawmen that you care to construct in place of a valid argument. What I
mean by not being able to go on living the way we do, is that we simply
can't carry on with the level of consumption and waste that we have
presently. We simply need to consume less, and waste less. We also need
to travel less, and not have the world full of vehicles buzzing about
making largely unnecessary journeys - causing enormous levels of
pollution in the process. And we certainly need to reduce air travel.,
which is even worse.
The world is finite, and the resources in it. The present levels of
consumption are largely a product of a system that necessitates
continual 'growth'. Continual growth in a finite world is not just
ultimately unsustainable but it is pure insanity to advocate it.
People like you who support the present madness, and seek to make
wholesale condemnations of those who speak out against it, don't do so
out of any concern for the world and the future but simply out of
selfish desire to have more and more and to hell with anyone or anything
else.
Hooray for common sense over unbridled greed.
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-12 12:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
We're not going to go on living the way we are. We didn't go on living the way we were 100 years ago, belching soot from reciprocating steam engines, because technology came to the rescue and will continue to do so. I took a lungful of air in Manila a few years ago and had a sense of deja vu - I was back in Lincoln in the 1970s. It's not like that in the West anymore. I've noticed that Green propaganda has reacted to this reality - they some time back started opening statements with "it's no good saying technology will come to the rescue". It will if you lot allow it, but if you insist on looking the wrong way whilst yearning for your long days in the fields wielding your scythes, it will be a long time coming.
It's not like 'that' in the West because, thanks to your hero Thatcher,
we've exported most of our pollution halfway round the world.
I don't give a toss about this 'Green propaganda' of yours, or any other
strawmen that you care to construct in place of a valid argument. What I
mean by not being able to go on living the way we do, is that we simply
can't carry on with the level of consumption and waste that we have
presently. We simply need to consume less, and waste less. We also need
to travel less, and not have the world full of vehicles buzzing about
making largely unnecessary journeys - causing enormous levels of
pollution in the process. And we certainly need to reduce air travel.,
which is even worse.
The world is finite, and the resources in it. The present levels of
consumption are largely a product of a system that necessitates
continual 'growth'. Continual growth in a finite world is not just
ultimately unsustainable but it is pure insanity to advocate it.
People like you who support the present madness, and seek to make
wholesale condemnations of those who speak out against it, don't do so
out of any concern for the world and the future but simply out of
selfish desire to have more and more and to hell with anyone or anything
else.
When we're all driving around in electric cars, ultimately fuelled by nuclear reactors, I *assume* you'll be a lot happier?
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 13:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the
Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're
also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental"
organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming
the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from
them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the
widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western
disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead,
we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on
Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly
"climate rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
We're not going to go on living the way we are. We didn't go on living the
way we were 100 years ago, belching soot from reciprocating steam engines,
because technology came to the rescue and will continue to do so. I took a
lungful of air in Manila a few years ago and had a sense of deja vu - I
was back in Lincoln in the 1970s. It's not like that in the West anymore.
I've noticed that Green propaganda has reacted to this reality - they some
time back started opening statements with "it's no good saying technology
will come to the rescue". It will if you lot allow it, but if you insist
on looking the wrong way whilst yearning for your long days in the fields
wielding your scythes, it will be a long time coming.
It's not like 'that' in the West because, thanks to your hero Thatcher,
we've exported most of our pollution halfway round the world.
I don't give a toss about this 'Green propaganda' of yours, or any other
strawmen that you care to construct in place of a valid argument. What I
mean by not being able to go on living the way we do, is that we simply
can't carry on with the level of consumption and waste that we have
presently. We simply need to consume less, and waste less. We also need
to travel less, and not have the world full of vehicles buzzing about
making largely unnecessary journeys - causing enormous levels of
pollution in the process. And we certainly need to reduce air travel.,
which is even worse.
The world is finite, and the resources in it. The present levels of
consumption are largely a product of a system that necessitates
continual 'growth'. Continual growth in a finite world is not just
ultimately unsustainable but it is pure insanity to advocate it.
People like you who support the present madness, and seek to make
wholesale condemnations of those who speak out against it, don't do so
out of any concern for the world and the future but simply out of
selfish desire to have more and more and to hell with anyone or anything
else.
When we're all driving around in electric cars, ultimately fuelled by nuclear
reactors, I *assume* you'll be a lot happier?
Why are you afraid to mention wind power?

The UK now has 21GW of installed wind generators, which is almost 3 times the
nuclear capacity. And yes, I know that the wind doesn’t blow everywhere at
all times, but it is rare to have no wind over the entire area of the British
Isles and offshore locations.

I will be a lot happier driving an electric car fuelled by a combination of
solar, wind, tidal and nuclear power.
Farmer Giles
2019-08-12 15:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental" organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease, politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
We're not going to go on living the way we are. We didn't go on living the way we were 100 years ago, belching soot from reciprocating steam engines, because technology came to the rescue and will continue to do so. I took a lungful of air in Manila a few years ago and had a sense of deja vu - I was back in Lincoln in the 1970s. It's not like that in the West anymore. I've noticed that Green propaganda has reacted to this reality - they some time back started opening statements with "it's no good saying technology will come to the rescue". It will if you lot allow it, but if you insist on looking the wrong way whilst yearning for your long days in the fields wielding your scythes, it will be a long time coming.
It's not like 'that' in the West because, thanks to your hero Thatcher,
we've exported most of our pollution halfway round the world.
I don't give a toss about this 'Green propaganda' of yours, or any other
strawmen that you care to construct in place of a valid argument. What I
mean by not being able to go on living the way we do, is that we simply
can't carry on with the level of consumption and waste that we have
presently. We simply need to consume less, and waste less. We also need
to travel less, and not have the world full of vehicles buzzing about
making largely unnecessary journeys - causing enormous levels of
pollution in the process. And we certainly need to reduce air travel.,
which is even worse.
The world is finite, and the resources in it. The present levels of
consumption are largely a product of a system that necessitates
continual 'growth'. Continual growth in a finite world is not just
ultimately unsustainable but it is pure insanity to advocate it.
People like you who support the present madness, and seek to make
wholesale condemnations of those who speak out against it, don't do so
out of any concern for the world and the future but simply out of
selfish desire to have more and more and to hell with anyone or anything
else.
When we're all driving around in electric cars, ultimately fuelled by nuclear reactors, I *assume* you'll be a lot happier?
Then you 'assume' wrong.
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-12 16:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
When we're all driving around in electric cars, ultimately fuelled by nuclear reactors, I *assume* you'll be a lot happier?
Then you 'assume' wrong.
Well, of course - there are no absolute levels in the virtue game, only relative.

You say that I don't really care about the environment. What you really mean is that you are holier than I.
Farmer Giles
2019-08-12 16:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
When we're all driving around in electric cars, ultimately fuelled by nuclear reactors, I *assume* you'll be a lot happier?
Then you 'assume' wrong.
Well, of course - there are no absolute levels in the virtue game, only relative.
You say that I don't really care about the environment. What you really mean is that you are holier than I.
I don't care about relativism either, nor virtue signalling. I believe
what I believe, and don't go around wearing it on my sleeve - nor feel
the need to.

I'm content with my life without needing vast amounts of possessions. I
enjoy the natural world and value it highly. My only concern is about
conservation and preservation.

I think you are misguided, Gary, that's all - with perhaps a little
greed and selfishness mixed in - and I have no views about the moral
superiority or otherwise of our respective positions.

Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 11:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
You shouldn't judge those who truly care about the environment on the
same level as those who only pay lip service, and make a good living
from pretending, to caring about it.
I care about the environment, but I'm also a realist. Friends of the Earth
and Greenpeace are saturated with
people who (seemingly) have a return to agrarianism as a goal. They're
also culturally self-loathing. Whilst they and other "environmental"
organisations *may* have written papers, or issued statements, naming the
planets environmental villains, I've yet to see such views from them. The
third world, or developing world, are largely to blame for the widescale
pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. But that Western disease,
politically correctness, protects them from criticism. Instead, we have
gullible teenagers and middle-aged wimmin blocking streets on Western
capitals, in a desperate bid to look virtuous, with their silly "climate
rebellion" tee shirts.
I don't think you really care about the environment, or are a realist.
It's not realistic to think we can go on living the way we are.
We're not going to go on living the way we are. We didn't go on living the
way we were 100 years ago, belching soot from reciprocating steam engines,
because technology came to the rescue and will continue to do so.
Came to the rescue?

All technology did was replace the very large soot particles from
reciprocating steam engines with somewhat smaller soot particles from Diesel
engines, and very small carcinogen particles from petrol engines.

If you consider the idea that making the poisons invisible to the human eye
will let you off the hook with your so-called technological advances, then
your are highly misguided.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
I took a
lungful of air in Manila a few years ago and had a sense of deja vu - I was
back in Lincoln in the 1970s.
Pure narcissistic bullshit. I doubt that Lincoln has ever reached the smog
levels of Manila, even in the 1970s.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
It's not like that in the West anymore.
Isn’t it? That is what you would like to think, but the truth is that just
because we do not have pea-soupers caused by millions of coal fires, it does
not mean the air in cities is not full of poisonous gases.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/190815/thousands-londoners-hospitalised-three-
years-harmful/
Post by g***@googlemail.com
I've
noticed that Green propaganda has reacted to this reality - they some time
back started opening statements with "it's no good saying technology will
come to the rescue". It will if you lot allow it, but if you insist on
looking the wrong way whilst yearning for your long days in the fields
wielding your scythes, it will be a long time coming.
Unfortunately internal combustion engine technology has had a century to come
up with solutions to its own pollution; and has failed miserably. All it has
done has pretended the problem has gone away because the public can’t see
it.

Cutting hay with a scythe may have been slow and difficult work; and
therefore something modern day technology know-alls would shy away from
instantly - preferring to mock from the safety of their keyboards rather than
do any kind of manual work; but it was far less polluting and preserved a lot
of rural wildlife which has now been lost and will never return.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Farmer Giles
To label those who really do care along with the likes of Caroline
Lucas, and other similar nutters, is just a form of bullying - and I
refuse to be bullied by it.
Col
2019-08-12 08:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-emergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit
"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10 high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit, proposing a cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily Thornberry, the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the former Conservative cabinet minister Justine Greening to seek legislation for a fresh referendum.
In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism by rival parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs from all the main political parties in Westminster, as well as the SNP’s leader, Nicola Sturgeon."
Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always knew what "environmentalism" really meant.
Only wimmin then?
Isn't that a bit, erm, sexist?
--
Col
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 08:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by g***@googlemail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-em
ergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit
"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10
high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit, proposing a
cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily Thornberry, the
Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the former Conservative cabinet
minister Justine Greening to seek legislation for a fresh referendum.
In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism by rival
parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs from all the main
political parties in Westminster, as well as the SNP’s leader, Nicola
Sturgeon."
Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always knew what
"environmentalism" really meant.
Only wimmin then?
Isn't that a bit, erm, sexist?
But our Mr Baggers is a white male supremacist. What do you expect?

To his kind, the environment is something to be destroyed in pursuit of
wealth and selfish interests. Even when they have destroyed it all, they will
still blame lefties for not doing enough to protect it.

They are not allowed to lose, you see.
Joe
2019-08-12 10:08:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:59:18 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by g***@googlemail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-em
ergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit
"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10
high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit,
proposing a cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily
Thornberry, the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the
former Conservative cabinet minister Justine Greening to seek
legislation for a fresh referendum.
In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism
by rival parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs
from all the main political parties in Westminster, as well as
the SNP’s leader, Nicola Sturgeon."
Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always
knew what "environmentalism" really meant.
Only wimmin then?
Isn't that a bit, erm, sexist?
But our Mr Baggers is a white male supremacist. What do you expect?
To his kind, the environment is something to be destroyed in pursuit
of wealth and selfish interests. Even when they have destroyed it
all, they will still blame lefties for not doing enough to protect it.
Actually, I think you'll find, on investigation, that most intelligent
people are in favour of conserving the environment. What many of them
are not in favour of is joining with the many complete nutters that form
the 'environmental movement', not to mention the very real
revolutionaries who are out to impose communism on the world. Please
don't tell us that they don't exist, and are not well represented among
'environmental activists'.

You can disapprove of cruelty to animals without wanting to firebomb
the homes of people who are perceived as 'cruel'. You can disapprove of
keeping mink in captivity to harvest their fur without doing something
utterly stupid like turning a large number of them loose in a country
where they are not native. And so on.
--
Joe
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 10:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:59:18 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by g***@googlemail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-
em
ergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit
"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10
high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit,
proposing a cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily
Thornberry, the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the
former Conservative cabinet minister Justine Greening to seek
legislation for a fresh referendum.
In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism
by rival parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs
from all the main political parties in Westminster, as well as
the SNP’s leader, Nicola Sturgeon."
Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always
knew what "environmentalism" really meant.
Only wimmin then?
Isn't that a bit, erm, sexist?
But our Mr Baggers is a white male supremacist. What do you expect?
To his kind, the environment is something to be destroyed in pursuit
of wealth and selfish interests. Even when they have destroyed it
all, they will still blame lefties for not doing enough to protect it.
Actually, I think you'll find, on investigation, that most intelligent
people are in favour of conserving the environment.
Are you saying that only those on the left are intelligent?
Post by Joe
What many of them
are not in favour of is joining with the many complete nutters that form
the 'environmental movement', not to mention the very real
revolutionaries who are out to impose communism on the world. Please
don't tell us that they don't exist, and are not well represented among
'environmental activists'.
You sound paranoid.
Post by Joe
You can disapprove of cruelty to animals without wanting to firebomb
the homes of people who are perceived as 'cruel'. You can disapprove of
keeping mink in captivity to harvest their fur without doing something
utterly stupid like turning a large number of them loose in a country
where they are not native. And so on.
Is this your attempt at a strawman? I’m not sure how cruelty to captive
animals fits in the destruction of the environment debate, but I’ve no
doubt we are going to be told at great length.
Joe
2019-08-12 12:43:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:40:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
Actually, I think you'll find, on investigation, that most
intelligent people are in favour of conserving the environment.
Are you saying that only those on the left are intelligent?
Of course not. I'm saying that a lot of people who don't join in with
the nutters are nevertheless genuinely 'green'. Look at what people
*do*, not what they say.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
What many of them
are not in favour of is joining with the many complete nutters that
form the 'environmental movement', not to mention the very real
revolutionaries who are out to impose communism on the world. Please
don't tell us that they don't exist, and are not well represented
among 'environmental activists'.
You sound paranoid.
Really? That implies that you are going on record as asserting that no
communist revolutionaries have spotted a convenient rent-a-mob to
hijack. Are you sure? The Soviets worked at bringing down the West in
all the ways they could think of, and nobody ever told the useful
idiots to stop when the Soviet Union disbanded. Look at Corbyn...
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
You can disapprove of cruelty to animals without wanting to firebomb
the homes of people who are perceived as 'cruel'. You can
disapprove of keeping mink in captivity to harvest their fur
without doing something utterly stupid like turning a large number
of them loose in a country where they are not native. And so on.
Is this your attempt at a strawman? I’m not sure how cruelty to
captive animals fits in the destruction of the environment debate,
but I’ve no doubt we are going to be told at great length.
I'm pointing out that many 'environmentalists', a group that overlaps
the 'animal rights' group, are not very intelligent. How, for example,
is stopping the traffic in bits of London going to encourage the
developing world to cut down on the use of fossil fuels? Because a lot
of the West is doing just that, and in the UK it is pure virtue
signalling. If the UK stopped producing carbon dioxide (yes, all of it)
tomorrow, there would be absolutely zero effect on the planet's
climate. And the 'environmentalists' *know* that, but they still stage
their silly charades *in* *the* *West*, where it is safe to do so.
Little wonder that sane people are not impelled to join them.
--
Joe
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 13:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:40:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
Actually, I think you'll find, on investigation, that most
intelligent people are in favour of conserving the environment.
Are you saying that only those on the left are intelligent?
Of course not. I'm saying that a lot of people who don't join in with
the nutters are nevertheless genuinely 'green'. Look at what people
*do*, not what they say.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
What many of them
are not in favour of is joining with the many complete nutters that
form the 'environmental movement', not to mention the very real
revolutionaries who are out to impose communism on the world. Please
don't tell us that they don't exist, and are not well represented
among 'environmental activists'.
You sound paranoid.
Really? That implies that you are going on record as asserting that no
communist revolutionaries have spotted a convenient rent-a-mob to
hijack.
I see you have turned to your mind reading skills (or lack of them) again.
Post by Joe
Are you sure?
Am I sure of what?

Am I sure of a view that you have decided I must have?
Post by Joe
The Soviets worked at bringing down the West in
all the ways they could think of, and
......failed
Post by Joe
nobody ever told the useful
idiots to stop when the Soviet Union disbanded. Look at Corbyn...
Do I have to look at him? Where is he?

On a CCTV live feed?
Post by Joe
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
You can disapprove of cruelty to animals without wanting to firebomb
the homes of people who are perceived as 'cruel'. You can
disapprove of keeping mink in captivity to harvest their fur
without doing something utterly stupid like turning a large number
of them loose in a country where they are not native. And so on.
Is this your attempt at a strawman? I’m not sure how cruelty to
captive animals fits in the destruction of the environment debate,
but I’ve no doubt we are going to be told at great length.
I'm pointing out that many 'environmentalists', a group that overlaps
the 'animal rights' group, are not very intelligent.
They are far more intelligent than the “if it moves, shoot it” brigade.
Post by Joe
How, for example,
is stopping the traffic in bits of London going to encourage the
developing world to cut down on the use of fossil fuels? Because a lot
of the West is doing just that, and in the UK it is pure virtue
signalling.
And anyone who mentions the buzz-phrase “virtue signalling” is showing
the world that they consider themselves to be extremely well educated in
everything.

A couple of years ago it was “passive aggressive” that was required to be
inserted into every paragraph in order to convey cleverness where there was
none.

(You see, I can do strawmen, too)
Post by Joe
If the UK stopped producing carbon dioxide (yes, all of it)
tomorrow, there would be absolutely zero effect on the planet's
climate.
Complete bullshit.

There is no such thing as “the planet’s climate”.

Do go back to school and study Climatology 101 for starters.
Post by Joe
And the 'environmentalists' *know* that, but they still stage
their silly charades *in* *the* *West*, where it is safe to do so.
Little wonder that sane people are not impelled to join them.
You seem to have a very guilty conscience. Do you by any chance drive a big,
fast, highly polluting vehicle?
Joe
2019-08-12 10:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:26:17 +0100
Post by Col
Post by g***@googlemail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-emergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit
"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10
high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit,
proposing a cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily
Thornberry, the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the former
Conservative cabinet minister Justine Greening to seek legislation
for a fresh referendum.
In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism by
rival parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs from
all the main political parties in Westminster, as well as the SNP’s
leader, Nicola Sturgeon."
Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always knew
what "environmentalism" really meant.
Only wimmin then?
Isn't that a bit, erm, sexist?
Only men can be sexist, in the same way that only white people can be
racist.

The reality is that women are far more sexist than men. A party run by
old men in suits has chosen a female leader not once but twice. Can you
imagine a party founded and run by women choosing a man to lead it?
--
Joe
Col
2019-08-12 10:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:26:17 +0100
Post by Col
Post by g***@googlemail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-emergency-female-cabinet-to-block-no-deal-brexit
"The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has thrown down the gauntlet to 10
high-profile female politicians over blocking a no-deal Brexit,
proposing a cabinet of national unity including Labour’s Emily
Thornberry, the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and the former
Conservative cabinet minister Justine Greening to seek legislation
for a fresh referendum.
In an extraordinary proposal that will be viewed with scepticism by
rival parties, Lucas offered to broker a deal with female MPs from
all the main political parties in Westminster, as well as the SNP’s
leader, Nicola Sturgeon."
Of course, those of us with healthy levels of cynicism always knew
what "environmentalism" really meant.
Only wimmin then?
Isn't that a bit, erm, sexist?
Only men can be sexist, in the same way that only white people can be
racist.
The reality is that women are far more sexist than men. A party run by
old men in suits has chosen a female leader not once but twice. Can you
imagine a party founded and run by women choosing a man to lead it?
Quite.
There are several sentences in that Guardian article that if you
replaced the word 'women' by the word 'men' would have led to howls of
protest, Twitter in meltdown etc. That entire piece gives the impression
that Lucas considers women better then men regarding negotiations. Sure
women bring different qualities but overall 'better', really? Just
imagine if a man had argued the same thing and said that men were better
in such situations, just imagine...
--
Col
Loading...