Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Neil · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject:

You said that I had "deliberately altered the wording of your question" & that I have "refused to answer the question put to you".

Those are both lies as anybody here can see.
I answered both your original question & what you meant to ask & Alasdair actually did.

Bringing in tear stained references to Santa Claus (or indeed the Easter Bunny or the Queen of the May) as your intangible witness does not alter that fact.

If you have anything whatsoever to say on topic, for example to dispute that Hansen's original prediction hasn't been proven rubbish then please do so. Though I would require some actual evidence rather than assertion.

Otherwise it is clear that you are merely sticking to personal remarks to obscure the fact that you & the rest of the eco-fascists have been lying to us for decades & that this represents the very highest standard of honesty to which such people aspire.

_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Neil wrote "you have demonstrated a willingness to tell absolutely any lie to support eco-fascist parasitism".

As already pointed out, I never lie. It is possible I might be mistaken, but I never tell a deliberate lie. I suppose it is just possible that there really is a Santa Claus, and the reason he came to the neighbours' kids but not to mine was because my kids were bad. But even if that turned out to be true, what I told my kids, that the prettily wrapped presents for them which appeared under our Christmas tree on the morning of the 25th of December were from me and their mother, would still be the truth. And even if what I think on the subject of global climate change should turn out to be wrong, things I have said about this would still not be a lie, because I genuinely believed them to be true at the time when I said them.

Turning now to the second part of what Neil said above: "to support eco-fascist parasitism".

What we have here is an example of a conspiratorial world-view, in which it is assumed that everybody who doesn't automatically accept the same beliefs as you is assumed to be part of a global conspiracy. I'm not even sure what is meant by "eco-fascist parasitism", but it is the kind of in-jargon phrase you find amongst conspiracy theorists.

My position on global climate change is that yes, I think it is probably happening, and yes, as there can really be no dispute that the rate of human development has accelerated rapidly in the past two centuries, compared with the previous two hundred centuries, and is still continuing to accelerate, I would be rather surprised if this did not have at least some effect on climate. However, I have no "vested interest" in pushing a particular point of view. If anything, as I have a car with rather a large engine, which uses quite a lot of petrol, I would be quite happy if it turns out I'm not causing climate change after all.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Would it be reasonable for me to say that Neil is a notorious child-molester who should not be allowed within a hundred yards of any young person, of either sex, or any establishment where they might be found? Probably not, because I am unaware of any evidential basis for saying that. Just as there is no evidential basis for the deliberately offensive remarks Neil has made about me.

Neil wrote "it is clear that you are merely sticking to personal remarks to obscure the fact that you & the rest of the eco-fascists have been lying to us for decades".

YOU were the one who made it personal, not me. You called me a liar. Once you do that, you can hardly complain if this becomes the topic, regardless of what was being discussed to begin with. And since you continue to call me a liar, despite having absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this, you are the one responsible for the continued personal focus.

I have no idea what you mean by "you and the rest of the eco-fascists". Although it is quite clear that you are a follower of some Guru or Gurus, the ONLY person who speaks on my behalf is Dave Coull.

Neil · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject:

Merely a decision to ignore the facts. No trace of evidence & of course no apology for having said that I had altered your words & refused to answer your question.

OK you keep claiming that lie & I will keep claiming that it is the highest standard of honesty to which you aspire.

Incidentally as self proclaimed moderate who only "thinks something is probably happening" may I introduce you to Dave Coull, on page 8, who gave his word that we were heading for catastrophic warming

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Neil wrote "For obvious reasons the media, which have & still are pushing the warming agenda, don't report this".

Grammatically speaking, "the media, which have & still are pushing the warming agenda" is a generalisation about "the media" as a whole. The part after the comma is something applied to the media in general. It is not just a category of "that section of the media which does this". Neil was saying that, in general, the media does favour "the warming agenda", and that the reasons for this are "obvious".

Now, I think that generalised statement about the media "pushing the warming agenda" is questionable; however, even if it were true, why is it "obvious" that they would do this? Neil has still not produced any plausible explanation why this should be so.

The nearest he came was "the media, which are closely related to those in charge, like to give us something to worry about - helps keep us tractable".

"Those in charge"?

The President of the USA would be counted amongst "those in charge", would he? President Bush has been notably sceptical on climate change. So have many other prominent politicians. So have the leaders of many billion-dollar multi-national businesses. Oh, they want us to have things to worry about all right - terrorism, for instance. The more we worry about terrorism, the easier it becomes to impose a rigid control on society. But there is no evidence to support the view that "the media" as a whole is part of a conspiracy to "push the warming agenda".

Neil has, in another thread, previously shown a strong inclination towards conspiracy theory where events in former Yugoslavia are concerned. He is someone who is attracted to conspiracy theories. But there is far less evidence for conspiracy on the climate change issue,

Why WOULD "the media", as a whole, push a particular view on climate change?

What's in it for them?

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

I wrote "My position on global climate change is that yes, I think it is probably happening, and yes, as there can really be no dispute that the rate of human development has accelerated rapidly in the past two centuries, compared with the previous two hundred centuries, and is still continuing to accelerate, I would be rather surprised if this did not have at least some effect on climate".

Neil seems to find some contradiction between that and my previous statement "that the global rate of change is, on all the evidence available to us, far faster than anything that has ever happened in the past. In other words, the reason for thinking we are heading for a crash is not just our present speed, but our rate of acceleration."

What contradiction? The two statements look very similar to me.

Neil described me as a "self proclaimed moderate".

That is false.

I don't think I have ever in my life "proclaimed" or "described" myself as a "moderate", and, so far as I can remember, any time anybody else has ever used that word about me, I have disowned it.

Neil asked "do you have anything fact based you want to discuss".

I want to discuss your claim that "the media" as a whole is biased in favour of a particular view regarding climate change. What's in it for them?

Neil · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject:

Ok well if you say the media don't work monolithicaly then you can't have seen any. If you say you can't uinderstand why the media as a whole or the media supporting warming (the 2 sets are convergent) would not wish to promote evidence that this is a lie then I am afraid I cannot believe you.

I assume you are claiming to be unaware that Bush has collected billions & disbursed it to the farming lobby for bio-fuels on the basis of the warming lie. When you say Bush opposes this lie you are the opposite of accurate. He has strongly supported it he merely wants it to be solved by a government investment in technologu (something the US are good at) rather than the European solution of cuting the burning of CO2 which, coincidentally, at the time, seemed likely to be more damaging to the US than the big EU countires.

Global warming is not accelerating - the precise opposite is the truth.

You proclaimed that you were merely of the opinion that catastrophic warming was "probably" happening & that nonetheless you drive a big car. To pretend that this was not you positioning yourself as a moderate on the supposed danger is clearly not honest.#

As regards your question I refer you to my previous answer to it when Alasdair asked. Perhaps it would be more understandable if you read it this time.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

It is a fact that the description of me as a "self-proclaimed moderate" came from Neil, not from me. It is also a fact that the quotes from me which Neil claims to find contradictory are in fact broadly similar.

Neil wrote "if you say the media don't work monolithically"

There you go yet again, putting words into my mouth that I never uttered. I happen to think that, in general, both the state-run BBC and the so-called "independent" broadcasting companies tend to serve the interests of the ruling class. I happen to think that newspapers aimed at a mass audience also, in general, tend to do this. There may be the odd exception, but, in general, I reckon this tends to be true. I am certainly NOT claiming, in general, an absence of bias on the part of "the media". What I am saying is that, regarding this particular issue, it is far from obvious why it would be in the interests of the ruling class, or of the media which, in general, tends to reflect those interests, to push human-induced-climate-change. What's in it for them?

Neil · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

I wrote "it is far from obvious why it would be in the interests of the ruling class, or of the media which, in general, tends to reflect those interests, to push human-induced-climate-change. What's in it for them?"

Neil says "It would be obvious if you had read my answer or even the signature here: 'The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary'."

Okay, so I have now read your so-called "signature", which is not actually a signature at all, but rather, a quote from the Guru whom you follow. And no, having now read what your Master has to say, it is not "obvious".

I have no problem with the idea that professional politicians and their associates in the ruling class seek to keep the populace alarmed. A threat from some "enemy" is useful in maintaining the position of the ruling class as the ruling class. As I already mentioned, the threat from terrorism has been useful for this purpose. Look how George Bush and co have sought to use "Homeland Security" for the suppression of dissent in the USA.

However, to say that ALL threats are "hobgoblins" which are by definition "imaginary" simply isn't logical. Although the threat from terrorism is grossly exaggerated, it is a fact that terrorism does exist. As for human induced climate change, again, it may be exaggerated, but simple common sense should tell us that the rate of human development has accelerated rapidly in the past two centuries, compared with all previous human existence, is still continuing to accelerate, and that this constitutes an experiment with our environment on this planet whose consequences could, potentially, be serious.

What you have to try to do is to look at things from the point of view of the ruling class. And, from the point of view of the ruling class, while it can be useful to kep the population worried, what they do NOT want is for the population to be worried about things that the ruling class are doing. From the point of view of the ruling class, the idea of human-induced climate change can be a threat to business-as-usual. In general, the interests of big business, and of politicians who are in the pocket of big business (that Texas oil company man George Bush springs to mind) tend to be for "business as usual". Therefore they have no "obvious" interest in exaggerating the threat from human-induced climate change. And neither does "the media" which tends, in general, to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. You insist that there is some kind of massive conspiracy. (If there is, nobody has let me in on it. I wonder how much I ought to be getting paid for arguing against your conspiracy theory?) But you really haven't answered my question. What's in it for them?

Neil · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject:

Well firstly you are quite deliberately not noticing the existence of hyperbole.

A hobgoblin which is 2 inches tall but portrayed as 8 feet with fangs but in practice it is. In the same way it would be quite permissable for you to say the Loch Ness Monster was imaginary when in fact it was a real & genuine seal in 1930.

Al Quaeda is a small number of guys in a cave in Pakistan. As a threat they aren't currently 1 millionth as threatening as the eco-fascist ban on DDT which is considered as good a way as any to stop the third world breeding faster than us.

The eco-fascist agenda is also quite useful in stopping the common people having houses in the country & holidays in the Seychelles. Improvement of wealth for everybody is more liberating to the poor than the rich since the difference between having a bus pass & walking is much greater than the difference between having an executive jet & having 2 executive jets. This does not mean that the Greenpeace activists who attacked traders in the London Metal Exchange as "barrow boys" are knowingly part of some conspiracy (only you have suggested that) or that the Duke of Wellington was when he opposed railways on the grounds that they would allow the common people to move around the country, but that they share in a very widespread feeling that the common people are getting above themselves. Eco-fascism is a very useful tool to prevent that. It is noticeable that, no matter how lefty the Greens claim to be they get more votes in Hyndland than Shettleston (I am willing to bet on that).

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Neil wrote "Al Quaeda is a small number of guys in a cave in Pakistan".

Who mentioned Al Qaeda?

Not me.

I used the word "terrorism". The use of terror as a political tactic. Although the threat of terrorism is greatly exaggerated for political purposes, it is a fact that terrorism has, historically speaking, been used by Christians as well as Muslims, by Republicans as well as Monarchists, by Nationalists as well as Internationalists, etc etc etc.

Like I said, "A threat from some 'enemy' is useful in maintaining the position of the ruling class as the ruling class....the threat from terrorism has been useful for this purpose".

Neil wrote "This does not mean that the Greenpeace activists who attacked traders in the London Metal Exchange as 'barrow boys' are knowingly part of some conspiracy (only you have suggested that)"

Statement of fact, I did no such thing. Yet again you are putting words into my mouth which I have never uttered.

It is nevertheless fairly obvious, from your own words, that, as with the Yugoslavia discussion, you are indeed attracted to conspiracy theories.

Coming back to what started this off, you said "For obvious reasons the media, which have & still are pushing the warming agenda, don't report this".

Grammatically speaking, "the media, which have & still are pushing the warming agenda" is a generalisation about "the media" as a whole. The part after the comma is something applied to the media in general. It is not just a category of "that section of the media which does this". You were saying that, in general, the media does favour "the warming agenda", and that the reasons for this are "obvious".

Your generalised statement about the media "pushing the warming agenda" is questionable; however, even if it were true, it is not "obvious" why they would do this. It only seems "obvious" to those, like you, who have swallowed, whole and undigested, The Thoughts of Chairman Mencken.

Neil · Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject:

You are lying again.

You are pretending to misunderstand perfectly obvious statements. It is another lie to say that I have put words in your mouth.

Your attack on "conspiracy theories" which only you brought up is a deliberate ad hominin atack since you are totally unable to discuss anything on the basis of facts.

You are a wholly corrupt fascist willing to tell absolutely any lie in your cause & having never said anything untrue about you I yet afgain call for you to withdraw your proven lies.

Now what do you actually have to say on the topic about Hansen's graph or are you going to continue purely personal lies as a subsitiute for reasoned discussion of the actual topic?

Or is that a silly question?
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Neil asked "what do you actually have to say on the topic about Hansen's graph"

Nothing. I don't know who "Hansen" is, and I haven't even looked at "Hansen's graph", whatever that is. Maybe I will one of these days, or maybe not. If I do look at it, then maybe I will comment, or maybe not. I'm under no obligation to follow your agenda. In the meantime, so far as I'm concerned, the main issue here at present, from which I am not going to be distracted, is your claim that "the media" is biased against your view of things. I can see why people (and not just the media) would be liable to react negatively to your conspiracy theories, but that doesn't prove bias. As I keep asking, and you have no answer, what's in it for them?

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Last night, my wife persuaded me to join her in watching a DVD of the excellent film "Love and Anarchy" (which I would strongly recommend, by the way). "Love and Anarchy" is a work of fiction, but with some elements of real historical events. An Italian anarchist sets out to assassinate the Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. As we know, the attempt didn't succeed, but my own sympathies were entirely with the would-be assassin, and not with the fascists.

There are quite a lot of folk on this forum who will not be too surprised to hear where my sympathies lay. One exception being the conspiracy theorist nut who says "You are a wholly corrupt fascist".

A "fascist" is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a supporter of "fascism" which the OED defines as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government".

In my sixty seventh year of life, I'm not a member of any political party, and I never have been. It's true I support independence for Scotland, but I have always rejected the label "nationalist". By no stretch of the imagination could I be described as "right wing". My attitudes towards authority tend, in general, to be rather hostile, and there are several folk on this forum who know this from their own experience, and who have sometimes found my anti-authoritarian attitudes rather exasperating. And you would have to search long and hard to try to find conclusive evidence of me actually supporting ANY system of government.

So, Neil, the "fascist" bit is laughably wrong, and all you are achieving by such ravings is to make yourself look totally loonytunes.

If we take the "wholly corrupt" bit, by using the adjective "wholly" you are suggesting that I am corrupt in every way. Including financially. Which, again, is laughably wrong, as I have never gained a single penny, or any kind of material advantage, from expressing my views on climate change or anything else.

Neil, by describing an old age pensioner, who happens to disagree with you on some things, as "a wholly corrupt fascist", you have undermined your own case. If you can be so far wrong about that, why should anybody take seriously what you have to say about anything?

Neil · Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Neil wrote "You are an obscene lying child murdering Nazi piece of filth".

Look, I realise you think there is a conspiracy against you, but you really shouldn't have stopped taking your calm-down pills..............

Alasdair · Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:32 am Post subject:

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

Neil,

Global Warming - have you considered the "what if"?

If you have - given the totality of the potential pros and cons - how would you hedge your bets, with a view to the future?

I accept the above may throw a bit of a blanket on conversation/discussion - but my impression is that you are trying to understand the issue - rather than take a particular position on the issue and promote it from a reasonable degree of confidence.

Don't loose sight of the fact that opinions and issues change - therefore you may be caught up in something that was yesterdays news.

Heres a question;

Yachts often have wind generators on the back to charge the batteries required to keep all the electrical components going.

Whats wrong with that, taking into consideration the future?