Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Highgate

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,776 profile views
  1. You are entirely right and your point reminds me George Carlin However, often when people say..I'm proud to be...whatever, they are not usually claiming that it's better than anywhere else or that deserve any special credit. Just simply that they have a love for their own country, it is their home, and they are concerned about it welfare. And that's totally fine with me.
  2. We have the Labour party in Ireland too, the only party that has remained from pre-independence times. They still have the same symbol as your Labour party, and probably surely similar policies, although they are wholly independent now. In 25 years of voting in elections here, I've never voted for a Labour Party candidate once. Not in General Elections, not in European Elections, not in Local Elections. Not once. I've voted for the Green Party and I've voted for Independents. I can emphatically reject that I have a Labour Party bias. Go back up and read up the original post of if you must. It wasn't suggested that I had a left of centre bias. I was accused of having a Labour bias. If he intended to say left of centre bias but just misspoke (as you seem to suggest) then it was a pretty redundant point anyway, given that his bias from the other side is at least as pronounced as mine. Incidentally, the revelation that you have US Republican bias is the least surprising revelation of this whole thread πŸ™‚
  3. It's pretty much exactly what you said in the post I read. Labour bias? I've never even voted in a UK election. It seems to me that the Conservatives surely deserve the lion's share of the blame if you are concerned with costs to Britain. Given that they proposed the referendum (despite not really taking it seriously). Then they were then in government when it came to implementing it and have so far failed to deliver. If that has been the thrust of your previous posts then it's fine to have a pop at Labour too I suppose. If not, then I think it's you who is displaying bias.
  4. Strange to single out the opposition for criticism too, you would have thought the party in government might have borne some of the responsibility. Apparently not, it's all Corbyn's fault.
  5. I don't think they'll accept a bribe on something they believe will weaken the Union. Maintaining the union between GB and NI is their raison d'Γͺtre. And it would be suicide for them at the polls. Accepting a bribe to prop up the Tories was a different proposition altogether.
  6. This deal looks like it won't pass. Tusk has hinted that the EU might grant another extension. Is Boris going to have to ask for it? And if he does will that be a huge blow to his hopes in the next election, whenever that is?
  7. Based on a population increase from 7.7bn to 11bn, you are exactly right. Based on the 50% increase mentioned a 33.3% reduction is correct however. πŸ™‚
  8. I'm sure that's highly likely, I definitely have plenty of things that can't be considered environmentally friendly. It's difficult for consumers in all honesty. I guess it's the crude oil derivatives that are burned that are of the greatest concern regarding global warming, although the others no doubt require GHG release throughout their product life-cycle.
  9. Yeah population growth is a huge issue for all environmental problems. But when it comes to greenhouse gases there are two figures to consider. Mean carbon footprint per capita and total population. Both can and need be addressed. There is no point giving up on the former because you don't know what to do with the latter. There are obvious ways to tackle population growth that have already been mentioned and there is much that developed nations can do to assist developing nations in that regard. No arguing the point that the rest of the environment, apart from pets and a few other animals, would benefit from a huge reduction in the human population or our disappearance altogether. That's not even debatable, but we are entitled to be concerned about our own welfare. I don't remember suggesting children need to do exhaustive reading to become aware of global warming and the threat to humanity. A simple appeal to authority should suffice. Opening their ears in science class or listening to a speech by someone like David Attenborough would make it all too clear that something is dreadfully wrong with our climate. The idea of keeping this information from them is spectacularly unrealistic in my opinion. One thing you have to remember with the IPCC reports. When they something like ' 98% of climate scientists agree that there will be a 2 C rise in temperature by 2050 if we don't keep our GHG levels to whatever level......etc etc.' That is a consensus. That's what they all (or 98% of them) can agree on. It's not their best guess, it's not their average of their opinions. The actual mean of their opinions would be far more bleak, brutal and worrying than the predictions that the IPCC have been steadily releasing over the past number of years. But if they were to release their average predictions, then they could only say '50% of climate scientists agree that....'. So when you hear anything that starts with '98% climate scientist agree', the opinion you are going to hear is very much the best case scenario. Is it any wonder that in the last few years all the latest data is showing that the IPCC's reports were underestimating the speed of global warming and the severity of it's effects? I think your ex-uni cohorts might be closer to the mark than you are on this issue. Although let's hope you are right and they are wrong.
  10. 33,3% reduction just to standstill I believe, based on your own population figures. But I actually think that reduction would be entirely manageable if there were the political will, utilizing only the technologies we have today and not depending on future developments, which should help further. Even if I'm right however, I'd still agree with you that a simultaneous halt in population growth and subsequent decline would be a very healthy and desirable thing for the environment. It will be difficult for the younger generations to bear the financial cost, but it would be better in the long run. As long as it's voluntary.
  11. It all comes down to each individual's carbon footprint as well as the number of people on the planet. If we slash the average carbon footprint we will have more room to manoeuvre with global population, which can be addressed gradually and naturally. All going well πŸ˜€
  12. Developed countries need to help developing countries pay to upgrade their technologies to carbon neutral and to protect their environments from the climate change/raised sea levels that we've already guaranteed ourselves. As you say it's not fair that developed countries prospered by burning fossil fuels and the others did not. But we must hope and work towards developing nations not taking the same route to prosperity. They must be presented with a better and more lucrative option.
  13. What's the elephant in the room? I think kids can source their own information on Climate Change these days, it's not plausible to hide them from the reality or to 'protect' them from it. You'd have the change the science curriculum for starters.
  14. I think you maybe sort of answered my questions, although not directly. Not either of them. Why wouldn't you want to see the Green party in power if you believe human Climate Change is real and if you think they are the only party taking it seriously? Having them as a minor party in coalition might not work, their policies might get sidelined. Couldn't agree with you more about the PR system. The FPTP method is not fit for purpose in a democracy in my opinion. As for limiting population, if you make sure everyone has decent access to education up to 3rd level the population issue gets controlled for you, or so it seems. The crucial factor is that women get educated to that level, as is often not the case in many parts of the world. So education for everyone is the first step in controlling population. The problem with the real message not getting through is that climate scientists, the most relevant people in this debate, have been saying almost unanimously for decades now that climate change is our fault and it will be a disaster. And we, and our governments, simply haven't listened. Maybe it's time for a few crazy vegetables to have a go.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.