Unthreaded
EM
Here at Bishop Hill we have had a few discussions as to what left or right wing means, and even the relevance of those labels these days. The site you linked to says this:
"In the UK the main left wing parties are the Labour Party and the Green Party. They believe in making laws that protect women, ethnic minorities, and gay people against discrimination. They believe that we should tax rich people more to support people less well off, and they believe we should regulate big businesses so they serve people’s interests. They believe that a good welfare system means people are healthier, more able to work, and will put more back into the economy. They also typically believe country-wide tax-funded action on climate change is necessary."
There seems to be no recognition that the Climate Change Act introduced by the Labour Party (and enthusiastically voted for by all parties) plus the subsidy system in favour of big green business resulting in higher taxes and energy taxes for poor people, redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Doesn't that (according to the website you linked to) make the Labour Party and the Green Party right wing, and UKIP left wing?
I think you need to re-visit your definitions. It's a funny old world.
Mark Hodgson
Entropic man
That definition of stupid as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome ...
Seems like Barack Obamah hasn't seen it (OK from 2013... -but it's doing the rounds again)
tomo
Leftmob have been using "language" propaganda tricks the latest is the meme "post truth"
= when some refuses to believe lefty dogma pushed as fact
Anyway I see BBC Radio took programmes like Monday's on Post Truth ...and have packaged them under the label : The New World ..Are we at a series of global tipping points?* Radio 4 explores the paradigm shifts that are taking place across the globe, from the arrival of the post-truth society to the potential departure of globalisation, taking in shifting demographic sands, the backlash against the political elite and pivot of power to the East along the way"
* see another language trick
No everything else is old except
#1 A handful of genuine fake news stories created to sell advertising . .they have little impact on politics cos few people believe them .
#2 Understanding an entire large section of Metropolitan elites including media live in Bubbleworld
stewgreen
Times editorial re ASA FoE
- Important that public confidence in charities is robust
-This newspaper believes fracking reduces energy bills & dependence on coal
That is a surprise
stewgreen
Why didn't I know that 3 wind turbines near Manchester had blown down on Dec 23 rd ?
Media gatekeeping ?
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2017/01/03/wind-turbines-lots-of-problems-no-free-energy/
stewgreen
Damian Carrington venting in the Guardian about IPSO's decision: James Delingpole article calling ocean acidification 'alarmism' cleared by press watchdog .
I assume this was the original article (which unlike Damian's is well worth reading): Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism (Spectator, April 30th 2016).
lapogus
Supertroll, thank you for the kind offer! You never know, I may take you up on it.
That professionally qualified people will lie for pecuniary advantage, is not something that surprises me. Trying to work out what broke and why is always made more difficult by liars, and I have rumbled a few distinguished liars.
Climate Science is based on a mistaken assumption about CO2 being the Climate Control Knob, and a series of conspiracy theories about why people don't agree.
My most logical explanation of why the CO2 Myth was promoted, comes from the Wikipedia entry to the Brandt Report from 1980, which I did read some of, whilst still at school in 1981/82
"The Brandt Report suggests primarily that a great chasm in standard of living exists along the North-South divide and there should therefore be a large transfer of resources from developed to developing countries. The countries North of the divide are extremely wealthy due to their successful trade in manufactured goods, whereas the countries South of the divide suffer poverty due to their trade in intermediate goods, where the export incomes are low."
Making energy costs in the Northern Hemisphere more expensive, to drive manufacturing jobs to the Southern Hemisphere seems to have addressed many of Brandt's initial concerns, but has created unforeseen ones.
Why can't Climate Science be honest about admitting anything? Because it is based on a scam? Is it all a scam? No one knows, because climate science has been institutionally dishonest, since inception.
Meanwhile, I do place my trust and faith in Haematology, but NOT climate sciencd!
golf charlie
#1 EM links to a Mickey Mouse website
Why should we accept their wacky defns ?
"believe that we should tax rich people more to support people less well off"
That's why they support green subsidy policies that give multimillionaire Lord Sheffield DCamerons inlaw £1,000/week for his windturbines ??
A regressive policy which means that the poorer you are the higher proportion of your income goes into the pot to pay for the subsidies, extranetwork costs and inefficiency costs caused by green energy.
Extra costs through higher energy bill and higher bills for everything due to the higher energy costs embedded within everything the poor buy.