Topic: Nobby's Green Thread. A great party with great ideas. A great bunch of lads!

[Redman0151]

If somebody outright refuses to believe in climate change despite the overwhelming evidence (regardless of whether estimates are too high or too low) then I think it's right that they shouldn't be allowed to be involved in running the country.

[zebenzui]

If somebody outright refuses to believe in climate change despite the overwhelming evidence (regardless of whether estimates are too high or too low) then I think it's right that they shouldn't be allowed to be involved in running the country.

Is exactly right, Bennett may not have worded it the best way, but the principle stands. To me it's similiar to calling for people who reject same-sex marriage to not expelled from government roles.

[Yorkykopite]

The principle being? Anyone who disagrees with my well thought out, evidence-based, beliefs has no place in government?

Didn't the Soviets try that?

[Redman0151]

The principle being? Anyone who disagrees with my well thought out, evidence-based, beliefs has no place in government?

Didn't the Soviets try that?

Ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence shouldn't allow you to hold a place of authority in the running of the country as it can potentially be damaging for the people, and world at large

[Yorkykopite]

Ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence shouldn't allow you to hold a place of authority in the running of the country as it can potentially be damaging for the people, and world at large

That's just a fancy way of calling for a purge. Which is a shame when you remember history is littered with scientific commonplaces which have subsequently been rejected - from witchcraft and alchemy to eugenics and phrenology.

By the way 'overwhelming' does not mean 'conclusive'. Even if it did I'd be wary of purging people who held views for which there's no evidence. I say that, too, as both an atheist and someone who believes there is a thing called man-made climate change.

[lfcderek]

-Snip-
And I don't have a problem with his Christianity. I have a problem with any scientist whose beliefs or ideology means they cannot evaluate the science objectively. That's the problem with Spencer (not Christy), someone whose beliefs in creationism means he rejects evolution and who, probably as he sees his job a little like a legislator minimising the role of the government, rejects the bulk of climate change science.

In that post of yours above you say

"And I don't have a problem with his Christianity."

and immediately follow it with

"I have a problem with any scientist whose beliefs or ideology means they cannot evaluate the science objectively."

Bio, His religion, his politics, his anything else is irrelevant to the SCIENCE.

Strangely enough, I downloaded the IPCC CMIP5 Model Means a couple of weeks ago and did the same graph (just the mean values obviously) and I'll post it in the Climate thread sometime. It shows exactly the same as Spenser's (quite right it wasn't Christy).

As it happens, I spent 3 years in the Civil Service in the middle/late 70's. Do you agree with Natalie Bennett who seems to be saying that, if it were now, I should be fired since I believe that the Global Warming has been overstated by at least a factor of 3.

Whether I'm right or wrong (on Global Warming) would be irrelevant to my ability to run an IT department (or be the chief veterinary officer !!). This thread is supposed to be about the Green Party. Intolerance (by the people in power) of other peoples beliefs leads to a totalitarian state. Pure 1984 in it's infancy.

[Redman0151]

That's just a fancy way of calling for a purge. Which is a shame when you remember history is littered with scientific commonplaces which have subsequently been rejected - from witchcraft and alchemy to eugenics and phrenology.

By the way 'overwhelming' does not mean 'conclusive'. Even if it did I'd be wary of purging people who held views for which there's no evidence. I say that, too, as both an atheist and someone who believes there is a thing called man-made climate change.

If the person is willing to provide evidence that man has no effect on climate change or can disprove all of the current evidence suggesting man does, then they should definitely be allowed to put it forward and stand for office. But if they're just going to outright deny it and ignore scientific evidence without rebutting it then I think they're unsuitable to be in a place of power in the country.

The long term effects of people in power who could just say "no, climate change is a lie" and go on to ignore environmental effects could be catastrophic for the country and planet.

[RojoLeón]

Seriously Derek? Let me quote myself then

And I don't have a problem with his Christianity. I have a problem with any scientist whose beliefs or ideology means they cannot evaluate the science objectively. That's the problem with Spencer (not Christy), someone whose beliefs in creationism means he rejects evolution and who, probably as he sees his job a little like a legislator minimising the role of the government, rejects the bulk of climate change science.

Deggsie's intent is clear - he wanted to make personal attacks on you (and I) by misrepresenting what you said. He didn't even cite the right guy in his personal attack, that's how coherent he is.

But, then you had to go ruin it for him with, y'know, actual quotes of what you said. Shame on you!  When Deggsie wants to make off topic personal attacks (getting his own facts mixed up along the way) you should be a good girl and not speak back.

Shame he had to run away from the climate science thread (where he was getting ripped to shreds, again) and then snipe at you from the sidelines.

Maybe he should be making this bumbling attack from the UKIP thread, where they actually agree with his personal dislike of climate science.

[AA1122]

On a lighter note, saw this on Twitter today:

Sculpture by Issac Cordal in Berlin called "Politicians discussing global warming."

I personally think Bennett is out of order there and that if it (climate change) has no relation to the person's role then they certainly should not be affected. It is outright discrimination.

That said, in terms of policy I am in favour of the Greens. Miliband, Frottage, Cameron and Clegg all have their fair share of gaffs. Not that this seems to be a gaff. If this were to actually happen it would be something I would try to protest against. It would be outright discrimination and completely unacceptable and does raise questions about party leadership and conviction.

[Redman0151]

On a lighter note, saw this on Twitter today:

Sculpture by Issac Cordal in Berlin called "Politicians discussing global warming."

I personally think Bennett is out of order there and that if it (climate change) has no relation to the person's role then they certainly should not be affected. It is outright discrimination.

That said, in terms of policy I am in favour of the Greens. Miliband, Frottage, Cameron and Clegg all have their fair share of gaffs. Not that this seems to be a gaff. If this were to actually happen it would be something I would try to protest against. It would be outright discrimination and completely unacceptable and does raise questions about party leadership and conviction.

If it's discrimination of people who refuse to believe scientific evidence without providing a suitable counter then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Especially if said person could have the power to vote on laws and ideas that relate to climate change and could have huge consequences on the future of our planet.

[lfcderek]

Deggsie's intent is clear - he wanted to make personal attacks on you (and I) by misrepresenting what you said. He didn't even cite the right guy in his personal attack, that's how coherent he is.

Since Spenser runs one of the satellite temperature records and Christy the other – switching their names seems understandable. Or are you just trying to sound clever and make ad hominem attacks.

But, then you had to go ruin it for him with, y'know, actual quotes of what you said. Shame on you!  When Deggsie wants to make off topic personal attacks (getting his own facts mixed up along the way) you should be a good girl and not speak back.

Read the thread again and you'll find me making exact quotes pertinent to this thread about the Green Party leader - and yet more ad hominem.

Shame he had to run away from the climate science thread (where he was getting ripped to shreds, again) and then snipe at you from the sidelines.

“run away from the climate science thread” ? You've a high opinion of your effect on others Rojo. I've been doing some analysis on the Argo oceanic data. Much more interesting than listening to your ramblings.

Maybe he should be making this bumbling attack from the UKIP thread, where they actually agree with his personal dislike of climate science.

More ad hominem and I'd hardly have a “dislike of climate science” if I'm spending time fiddling around with Argo's layered data.

[RojoLeón]

Nice straw clutching, Deggsie. You brought me into an unrelated thread because..why? You've dragged it off topic with your personal attacks and shown yourself up to be bitter and inept. Well done you.

[lfcderek]

If it's discrimination of people who refuse to believe scientific evidence without providing a suitable counter then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Especially if said person could have the power to vote on laws and ideas that relate to climate change and could have huge consequences on the future of our planet.

I don't know where you get your view of "refuse to believe scientific evidence without providing a suitable counter" from.

Let's remember what 'Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming' (CAGW) maintains

CO2 is a Green House Gas            -   No-one disputes this
Human beings are increasing GHGs      -   No-one disputes this
A doubling of CO2 causes a 1.1 deg C rise      -   No-one disputes this
Positive climate feedbacks inflate this to 3 deg C   -   Strongly disputed


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) monitor a huge number of climate models which are founded on the the above  and the end result are their CMIP5 model predictions.

Again, being a sceptical git, I went to their web site and downloaded the model output and have graphed it against the observed temperature record. The result was



That, and a huge range of other disconnects lead many, including a large number of 'in post' climate scientists to doubt the extent of 'Global Warming'.

And this scepticism (returning to this thread) would cause me to be fired from a government IT establishment - or from being the Chief Veterinary Officer !!

[Redman0151]

I don't know where you get your view of "refuse to believe scientific evidence without providing a suitable counter" from.

Let's remember what 'Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming' (CAGW) maintains

CO2 is a Green House Gas            -   No-one disputes this
Human beings are increasing GHGs      -   No-one disputes this
A doubling of CO2 causes a 1.1 deg C rise      -   No-one disputes this
Positive climate feedbacks inflate this to 3 deg C   -   Strongly disputed


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) monitor a huge number of climate models which are founded on the the above  and the end result are their CMIP5 model predictions.

Again, being a sceptical git, I went to their web site and downloaded the model output and have graphed it against the observed temperature record. The result was



That, and a huge range of other disconnects lead many, including a large number of 'in post' climate scientists to doubt the extent of 'Global Warming'.

And this scepticism (returning to this thread) would cause me to be fired from a government IT establishment - or from being the Chief Veterinary Officer !!

I'm not talking about belief in how strong our influence is, i'm talking more about people outright denying human influence on climate change.

Especially when said people have the ability to vote on law that could have huge implications on our output of greenhouse gases and ultimately the speed at which it becomes a very serious problem.

[Zeb]

The principle being? Anyone who disagrees with my well thought out, evidence-based, beliefs has no place in government?

Didn't the Soviets try that?

Government advisers are employed on a party basis aren't they? And government ministers are also party positions. Hardly a surprise that the Green Party would employ neither if they didn't subscribe to the view that climate change is an issue. Bit of a fuss over not a lot really for me. If it were the civil service, another kettle of fish entirely.

[DefJack]

A quote from the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett in a recent BBC interview with Ross Hawkins -


"The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change.

Any senior adviser refusing to accept the scientific consensus on climate change should be sacked", it said.

Party leader Natalie Bennett said "the rule must apply to all senior advisers, including those with no responsibility for environmental issues."

The left, only compassionate and friendly as long as you agree with them, that statement is very scary, stating that anyone who doesn't agree with their views shouldn't be allowed in politics is very tyrannical and typical of socialist regimes, how ever nicely you try and wrap it up.

[Zeb]

The left, only compassionate and friendly as long as you agree with them, that statement is very scary, stating that anyone who doesn't agree with their views shouldn't be allowed in politics is very tyrannical and typical of socialist regimes, how ever nicely you try and wrap it up.

The groundswell of opinion for renationalising public utilities from the Tory advisers and ministers is overwhelming... Isn't this how politics works? In positions where a party has control, those positions tend to be filled with people who toe the party line. "I don't give a damn what you decide, but just make sure you all say the same thing."

[Bioluminescence]

In that post of yours above you say

"And I don't have a problem with his Christianity."

and immediately follow it with

"I have a problem with any scientist whose beliefs or ideology means they cannot evaluate the science objectively."

Bio, His religion, his politics, his anything else is irrelevant to the SCIENCE.

They should be irrelevant, and they are in the case of most scientists. However, in Spencer's case, his beliefs mean he's not evaluating the science objectively. That's why when evaluating any topic you should look at the whole body of evidence, rather than rely on one or two individuals, especially when they tend to publish mainly on their own blogs rather than the scientific literature.

I don't agree with Natalie Bennett on this, except perhaps for those roles that require an understanding of relevant scientific topics. A health minister who believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, for example, should not be in that position.

[jackh]

Natalie Bennett‏@natalieben·2h
Greens have got far more votes per minute of TV time than any other party.  #VoteGreen2014. #EP2014

---

Just spoke for about 3/4 minutes on the BBC.  Breath of fresh air.  A shame, really.

[clinical]

They need more coverage. Their policies are great.

[jillc]

They do need more coverage I think the Greens are an excellent party. They have done a lot of work, and I'm often tempted to vote for them. If they had received more coverage, instead of the media pawning over Frottage and his imbeciles then people would of seen just how limited the UKIP actually is.

[Mutton Geoff]

That's just a fancy way of calling for a purge. Which is a shame when you remember history is littered with scientific commonplaces which have subsequently been rejected - from witchcraft and alchemy to eugenics and phrenology.

By the way 'overwhelming' does not mean 'conclusive'. Even if it did I'd be wary of purging people who held views for which there's no evidence. I say that, too, as both an atheist and someone who believes there is a thing called man-made climate change.

Yorkie she did not word it very well, maybe it was her 'Antipodean Rhetoric' ?

 It is not so much a Soviet purge in my opinion anyone who doesn't believe Climate Change exists is akin to a member of the 'Flat Earth Society' and as such should have their views discredited and thereby make it untenable for them to remain in any high decision making office.

[tax_man]

I didn't go for the Green Party this time but I'm very tempted to next year for the big one. I'm a bit concerned about their massive anti-fracking stance though. Whilst I firmly believe shale gas shouldn't be used as a quick alternative to renewable energy, shale could have a huge impact on energy prices and jobs, especially in the north west. There's a lot of evidence to prove it is no more damaging than mining, but granted if done incorrectly there is very little margin for error. Still, I don't agree with outright dismissal of it as a solution.

Same goes for GM foods really, what's their policy on this? This is more a global issue than a UK issue but GM foods are working wonders in places like India where drought and flood resistant rice seeds are ending famine in certain areas. Again, there's no evidence GM foods are bad. Farmers have been selectively breeding crops and seeds for thousands of years. GM is just doing this on a larger and more global level.

Everything else though I'm really impressed by. Would like to see a clear manifesto and outline of how they're gonna pay for their headline policies but they are a breath of fresh air, and as someone said further up, the most socialist and compassionate option going at the moment. If Labour continue just, as Owen Jones put the other day, "offering analysis and not solutions" then my vote will go Green.

[SP]

There is no evidence that GM foods are bad. But it has not been proved they are safe. It feels like a genie being let out of the bottle on a hunch. It is probably ok, but it is a huge gamble to take with eco-systems. Patented genomes feels like all kinds of wrongness.

[tax_man]

There is no evidence that GM foods are bad. But it has not been proved they are safe. It feels like a genie being let out of the bottle on a hunch. It is probably ok, but it is a huge gamble to take with eco-systems. Patented genomes feels like all kinds of wrongness.

Fair points. Though I think given crops have been genetically modified for thousands of years through cross breeding then we know at those levels it is safe. We don't know 100% yet whether it is for more intensive modification agreed.

Science that can, and is, saving millions of lives is incredibly attractive though. I think its worth the gamble. Those in the west lucky enough to be able to have concerns can still do so. Meanwhile millions can be saved from famine elsewhere.

[RojoLeón]

Fair points. Though I think given crops have been genetically modified for thousands of years through cross breeding then we know at those levels it is safe. We don't know 100% yet whether it is for more intensive modification agreed.

Science that can, and is, saving millions of lives is incredibly attractive though. I think its worth the gamble. Those in the west lucky enough to be able to have concerns can still do so. Meanwhile millions can be saved from famine elsewhere.

Are they currently being used to fight famine though? Yes, what you say sounds like the marketing fantasy of a bigAg multinational but in reality these firms are using the tech to ruthlessly exploit vulnerable farmers through seed supply dependancy with 'innovations' like the terminator gene.

Their tech isn't being used to feed anyone but the bottom line of the major shareholders. It directly contributes to disenfranchisement and eventual debt slavery.

But nice PR pitch for them plucky scientists, like

[Paulie's Wallnuts]

Just going to list off some of their policies:

• Turn the national minimum wage into a genuine living wage
• Scrap the welfare cap
• End factory farming and animal testing
• Scrap university tuition fees
• Stop the privatisation of our National Health Service and where possible reverse public service sell offs
• Scrap university tuition fees
• Bring the railways back into public ownership

http://issuu.com/lifework/docs/minimaniissuu?e=7496317/7612527

What's not to like? It's a fucking crime that the BBC had given 27 appearances on Question Time instead to Nigel Frottage, instead to this genuine alternative.

They are starting to become a credible alternative for me if Labour don't buck their ideas up.

It is criminal that they aren't given more air time as (correct me if i'm wrong), they had more MP's or MEP's than UKIP until recently.

[jooneyisdagod]

The Greens can have their say in 2015

Along with Ukip, the Green party represents a protest vote that is a threat to the big two parties at next year’s general election

A fourth wild card is adding to the drama of the upcoming general election. While Ukip has been commanding the headlines, and the prospects of the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party cause political number-crunchers to scratch their heads, the Greens have been gradually gaining ground. As recently as six months ago, their average rating in YouGov polls was just 2%. It is now 5% and they are closing in on the Lib Dems and fourth place in the popular vote – the position they did achieve in the European parliament elections in May.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/27/green-party-2015-ukip-protest-vote-general-election?CMP=fb_gu

Since there are now threads for all the major parties in the UK apart from the Greens, I thought I ought to correct that. To me, The Greens are a very interesting prospect across the world. They're starting to rise to prominence in the UK and certainly in Australia. There are also a number of things that I don't agree with them on particularly on the issues of nuclear power and GMO's but at least they look like they are much more likely to listen to evidence. A very interesting prospect in the upcoming elections IMO but I would be quite interested in the opinions of others.

[mulfella]

They've had a Westminster MP for the whole of this Parliament and yet have been excluded from the Leader debates.

UKIP, who have essentially stolen a tory seat, have been invited.

I'll be voting Green.

[CornerFlag]

Suspected I was always meant to be a Green Party follower, and when I used Vote For Policies it pretty much confirmed it for me.

[MarkoStudge]

Yup same for me. The Greens are constantly disregarded, even in massively important national TV debates, about time there was a thread on here at least! I'm not without my criticisms, like with their nuclear policy for instance like jooneyisdagod said, but they should be granted a platform to speak on.

[alfonso]

Whilst I don't agree with all their policies, these are probably the only ones I would vote for.

[gregor]

Yup same for me. The Greens are constantly disregarded, even in massively important national TV debates, about time there was a thread on here at least! I'm not without my criticisms, like with their nuclear policy for instance like jooneyisdagod said, but they should be granted a platform to speak on.

I like the Green party, but I think a lot of the time they're too nice. They're either unable (financially maybe) or unwilling to make a proper fight of things. With all the appalling rhetoric that's spouted from UKIP and the Tories pandering to them, the Greens should be taking the opportunity to say the exact opposite. Their message should be an incredibly simple one - Immigration benefits the country, based on facts. Immigration isn't the reason you can't get a job. A concentration of wealth and the lack of a living wage is the reason.

Labour is at an all time slump and the Greens are a genuine left wing alternative in this country. They need to grab that opportunity to gain support but they struggle to be taken seriously a lot of the time.

[Bobsackamano]

I'll be voting green, not voting tory or lib dem and im not voting for louise 'israel' ellman in my local constituancy. She's one useless turnip of an MP. She does nothing for the people who elected her, its like a rotten borough and she doesnt give a shit.

Rant over, green for me!

[Wool]

Green for me and all. It's a safe Labour constituency and there's no danger of Tory/UKIP winning here so I don't have to vote strategically.

[alonsoisared]

Suspected I was always meant to be a Green Party follower, and when I used Vote For Policies it pretty much confirmed it for me.

if only the country was full of people who would take ten minutes out of their day to complete that short compatibility test. Unfortunately they'd rather sit and read the sun and base everything on that.

[Red Beret]

Louise Ellman is nothing short of a career politician, identified by her superiors as having potential as such and parachuted into a safe seat to ensure her progression through to the ranks of cabinet minister.  I could never in all good conscience support a 'Labour' party that takes such actions.  It's nothing more than establishing a new elite ruling class, regardless of party platform.

The Greens are the only genuine socialist party out there right now and I'll be voting for them, regardless of their shocking lack of exposure by the mainstream media.

It's not easy being green...

[just Riggins?]

Signed up a few months ago after seeing Natalie Bennett doing a talk at Glastonbury.

It's going to be a constant fight from here on out to get them where they need to be but I think their membership numbers have doubled in the past year or so so there's good signs.

[sms1986]

I would love to see the Greens get more seats next year, I agree with most of their policies as I'm a staunch socialist but I doubt they'll have a candidate in my area as it's a safe Tory seat (I live in the western part of the Ribble Valley constituency).

[jooneyisdagod]

Come on you greens !