You keep holding Japan as an example of successful immigration policy. I assume that it means Japan is totally free of terrorism.
Opps, sorry. My bad.
Deluded people will always find a reason to become terrorists, it might be racism, religious intolerance, or whatnot.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yeah, can we go back on topic (such as it is).
Legalize pot. Seriously. Everybody just needs to mellow.
Wow, I didn’t even know I had one. Damn, if I’d known that when I was a teenager, I could have saved a ton of money on po…
Uh, nevermind.
[spoiler]It’s hard to rhyme a word like vagina, but there’s always someone who can sing about them
(spoilered due to possible NSFW lyrics)[/spoiler]
As it happens, there was an implied warning when saying that the debate you crave is not the one you want, there is a need for a debate alright, but it has to be focused on the disinformation that has been made that is also misguiding dangerous individuals.
Take the matter of no significant warming since 1995: besides Pat Michaels (one of the few scientist that remain an skeptic, not a denier) already warning you guys that it was a very stupid point to make, it turns out that the deadline has already passed:
The point here is: Does anyone saw a few weeks ago any report in the mainstream media reporting on that item that with the same energy as when they reported on the “conspiracy”?
Because it implies an ignorance of the science, it is not a belief that there is warming and that we are causing it now, that is demonstrated by several lines of empirical evidence.
Once again, creating your own definitions can not get you far, clearly a denier is denying the evidence, skeptics do not ignore the evidence, that is why skeptics can be more sincere, but when scientists like Michaels tells deniers that it is retarded to make a point like saying that there was any warming from 1995, when they continue to ignore what even the researchers that are sympathetic to their misguided cause say, then there is no choice but call then what they are: deniers of the science.
Once again, the hacking of the emails at Dr. Jones CRU was an attempt to shut down the debate, Breivick fell for the conspiracy.
Once again the debate should be on why items like the statistically significant warming since 1995 are not being reported properly in the media, specially the right wing one.
That is just nonsense, and a baseless accusation, the solution I proposed only involves shaming the media or making efforts to make the media more responsible when there is already evidence out there to tell the public what a nonsensical **fringe **idea is to deny AGW.
As for all others that are complaining why this is now a Global Warming debate, you need to be aware that Breivik pointed also at the conspiracy “discovered” by the hacked emails (“climategate”) and “the communist plot” to take over the world using environmentalism as a reason for his rampage. Having a media that has been useless in debunking that conspiracy or even media that is complicit on feeding conspiracies is a big problem IMHO.
I’m not suggesting culturally discriminatory immigration policies, I’m saying that it won’t be too controversial to say that immigration will lead to cultural challenges, so we should be aware of it and have something in place to rise to these challenges.
But this said, what’s wrong about choosing our immigrants? A country can target certain professions when establishing its immigration policy. It can also target people who already speak its common language, or who come from countries with similar values. All this is discriminatory up to a point, but it increases the chances of immigrants integrating well.
I’m not following you, here – who is saying the debate they crave isn’t the one they want? I want any number of debates.
Why? I’m not the one making that claim. Is anyone here making that claim?
It’s not a belief that there is warming? What the heck do you believe?
Again: who in this thread is making that point? I’m sure you’d be delighted to argue against people who are staking out positions you’d love to knock down, but I don’t think they’re here. The debate you crave versus the debate you can get, y’know.
Who is saying this? Seriously, why are you fixated on 1995?
By “fringe” do you mean “not the majority”? (And by “nonsense, and a baseless accusation” do you mean a majority of folks don’t believe those facts about your side?)
Well, here’s the all-important question: what should we do about it? The solution you proposed “involves shaming” or “making efforts to make the media more responsible”, but that’s pretty danged vague; I want specifics. What do you recommend?
Full stop here, that 1995 claim is the classic one regarding the “no warming in recent years” bit that we discussed ad nauseam. Acting like you do not know what it was discussed is your problem, and the science is now here to say that yes indeed, there was significant warming.
I’m truly sorry, but I believe you’re mistaken. Possibly you’re not very good with numbers?
Already mentioned on what the BBC advisers recommended.
That you are attempting to deny is that that year was chosen by deniers to get that answer from Dr. Jones and then use that answer in the denier’s propaganda is becoming painfully obvious.
But I guess it would be safer to say you are just denying what the numbers in the cite say.
Your inability to get facts right is becoming painfully obvious.
Of course an even better explanation is that I forgot one link there.
Oh really? What everyone can notice is that you are not looking at the numbers in the cite to even notice how misleading denier sources were when claiming that Dr. Jones had made an about face.
Pardon? I’ve merely been saying that I’m not the one making any such claim about '95 – and that I don’t believe I’ve ever made any such claims about '95. Why should I look at the numbers in the cite when I’m not the one taking a position on '95?
A tangential discussion that got out of hand. GIGOBuster and The Other Waldo Pepper, please take your discussion to another thread.
Comments like this are only going to wreck the discussion.
Meh, you are indeed trying to tap dance around what are the main denier points and the previous discussions were about all those arguments denying recent warming, not just what you are choosing now in an effort to move the goalposts of what the “mainstream” deniers reported. In any case as per **Marley23 **it is not pertinent to this discussion, but as per Breivik’s own words, it is clear that the media’s lousy work on reporting on the issue of climate gate (and Dr. Phil Jones even got death threats) that needs to be taken care of, looking at changes in policy like the BBC recommended would be a good start.
And that is it IMHO, no persecution of suspected deniers, just more education on what the science says and less reliance on fringe sources. If you continue to think I’m recommending the harassment of people that continue to ignore evidence (Both scientific and historical) you are mistaken.
Since you’re disregarding Marley to falsely claim I’m moving the goalposts from some previous discussion, I’ll briefly post to back him up: feel free to open a separate thread to continue this, preferably kicking it off with a cite to where I’ve said anything about this '95 claim.
Meh, I was just saying what mainstream deniers said. And getting back to Breivik and the irresponsible conservative media:
Bears repeating. Just so we don’t lose sight of what the thread’s about.
People who do not like too much immigration are supposed to not think about it at all, in some kind of mind-controlling scheme that the old Commisars of USSR would have loved. That is your solution?
Let me ask you BrainGlutton: How do we preserve our Scandinavian identity? Are we allowed to use the same kind of immigration policy as Israel?