What’s wrong with 'PC'?

by Original Quill Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:10 pm

Republican presidential contender Donald Trump is making the anti-PC stand his presidential campaign platform. If he’s going to turn the 2016 electoral campaign into a devotional against PC, we ought to have some introspection into what we mean by the term. PC stands for “politically correctness”. Wiki defines it as:

Wiki wrote:…pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.

Certainly to be “correct”, or to “not offend” is ordinarily not objectionable. Conservatives, most of all, argue that there should be order and people should follow proper procedures. And we have manners, after all. And even raucous white supremacists might agree to refrain from urinating in the corner of the dining room. In sum, it’s okay to be correct in certain circumstances.

And we don’t find talking politics objectionable. We do that all the time on this website. ISIS? UKIP? Tea Party? LW, or lefties? RW, or righties? Privatization? Gaza? Benefits? Austerity? Voter suppression? We talk about politics all the time. We may hurl epithets back and forth at one another, but we don’t need a separate concept to do that. Why waste the time objecting to PC?

The only word I see in the definition above that stands out, is “excessively”. So, if its only ‘excessive’ that we object to, are we speaking only about degrees? You mean this whole concept of PC that has Donald Trump at the head of the Republican polls in American, distills down to only degrees? It’s like someone is saying: “You can shout, but don’t be ‘excessively’ loud”. scratch

That explanation is much too lightweight...flighty. I think there is more in the gut when we laugh at objets PC. Here's what I think: When we were boys, we used to love to go around upsetting the ordinary…the proper. Farting in church was only small time. We used to toilet paper (called 'tp'-ing) whole houses. Once, in high school, the rowdy boys disassembled a car and rebuilt it on the roof of the gym. As a freshman at Dartmouth University, my brother’s friends used to wire urinals to deliver shocks to boys peeing (did you know that Sulphur conducts electricity?). Yes, there is an adolescent spirit in all of us that likes the bad-boy pranks.

And that is the instinct that I believe motivates the anti-PC crowd. Shock-value, plain and simple. Trump supporters love to diss Hispanics—it’s so hilarious to be able to say…get back to Mexico, you wetback! And a sanctified war hero like John McCain…let’s light a firecracker under his shoes and watch him limp with that bum leg he got. And women…those self-righteous twats have been preaching correctness all our lives...serves ‘em right, Megyn Kelly.

That’s the fire under Donald Trump. Anybody got a better theory about what PC is? Or what Donald Trump is saying?

by Guest Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:42 pm

Well maybe thats what its about in YOUR neck of the woods Quill, over here is is something more insidious

it is the evil that waits within lefty controlled councils that redefines a "black board" as a chalk board. That caves in to noisy "others" and redefines "Christmas" as "winter holiday". That in at least one case forced its entire "non ethnic" staff to go on a course which subjected them to "racial abuse" for no other reason than it felt it should and could...

It is also the evil that drove a court in i beleive copenhagen to decalre "the truth is no defence"

THAT is PC "euro style"

by Original Quill Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:29 pm

Well, but that is mere superfluousness, or effectively a simple a difference of degree.

We have other forms: officious, meddlesome, interfering, overzealous, obtrusive or pushy. But the offense is lightweight.

What's with Donald Trump making this a presidential platform? I think he is heading for a grand 'bait-and-switch'. He gets people laughing with his dissidence and irreverence, and then when they vote for him he will turn his power into some sort of despotic autocracy like GWB did. It's dangerous, not because he isn't comical, but because he's playing with fire.

by Guest Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:Well, but that is mere superfluousness, or effectively a simple a difference of degree.

We have other forms: officious, meddlesome, interfering, overzealous, obtrusive or pushy. But the offense is lightweight.

I would agree, on the scale of things you are talking about, it is lightweight,however i do think the limit was apporoached with that court decision

What's with Donald Trump making this a presidential platform? I think he is heading for a grand 'bait-and-switch'. He gets people laughing with his dissidence and irreverence, and then when they vote for him he will turn his power into some sort of despotic autocracy like GWB did. It's dangerous, not because he isn't comical, but because he's playing with fire.

by Original Quill Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:45 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Well, but that is mere superfluousness, or effectively a simple a difference of degree.

We have other forms: officious, meddlesome, interfering, overzealous, obtrusive or pushy. But the offense is lightweight.

I would agree, on the scale of things you are talking about, it is lightweight,however i do think the limit was apporoached with that court decision

What's with Donald Trump making this a presidential platform? I think he is heading for a grand 'bait-and-switch'. He gets people laughing with his dissidence and irreverence, and then when they vote for him he will turn his power into some sort of despotic autocracy like GWB did. It's dangerous, not because he isn't comical, but because he's playing with fire.

Perhaps, I'm not familiar with that case. Sounds like some 'role-reversal' exercise.

I get it if PC is just another way to criticize the other side--it's overly officious nonsense!!--but in politics I'm wary of someone who hides his agenda...particularly if behind a clown show.

by Guest Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

Perhaps, I'm not familiar with that case. Sounds like some 'role-reversal' exercise.

I get it if PC is just another way to criticize the other side--it's overly officious nonsense!!--but in politics I'm wary of someone who hides his agenda...particularly if behind a clown show.

and rightly so...........

by Tommy Monk Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:30 pm

PC = the system which changes good intentions into bad actuality...!

by Eilzel Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:20 am

There are wars going on, humanitarian crises the world over, the global economy appears about to collapse even harder than it did in 2008, rising sea levels and other environmental issues are upon us, we have employment problems in the west, increasingly hard to maintain energy and resource demamds, and multiple other big issues.

Political Correctness, like it or not, is NOT one of THE big 'problems' politicians should be focused on. It is designed to curb offensive language, some people like to offend. people don't die because of PC, states and economies don't collapse because of being PC. Anyone claiming PC belongs in the list of current issues I described above seriously needs to get a grip on reality.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:49 am

Eilzel wrote:There are wars going on, humanitarian crises the world over, the global economy appears about to collapse even harder than it did in 2008, rising sea levels and other environmental issues are upon us, we have employment problems in the west, increasingly hard to maintain energy and resource demamds, and multiple other big issues.

Political Correctness, like it or not, is NOT one of THE big 'problems' politicians should be focused on. It is designed to curb offensive language, some people like to offend. people don't die because of PC, states and economies don't collapse because of being PC. Anyone claiming PC belongs in the list of current issues I described above seriously needs to get a grip on reality.

But what about someone who disregards PC, and makes his way by offending regardless...Mexicans, blacks, gays and women.

But wait, there's more. He refuses to give any details about how he will deport 11-million people right away (will he employ football stadiums or construct concentration camps anew), and where will he get the money to afford such a program? He says he will deport children born in the US; how will he get around the 14th Amendment, which says they are birthright citizens? How will he tell blacks to get back in the ghettos? How will he outlaw gay marriage? How will he make women stop menstruating (after reporter Megyn Kelly asked him tough questions, he accused her of being on her period)?

His popularity appears to stem from the audaciousness of these comments, not from answers of how he will do it. Isn't that another lying politician in the making?

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:59 am

Pc has caused a lot of problems as it prevents honest and open debate about certain problems and solutions.

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:28 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Pc has caused a lot of problems as it prevents honest and open debate about certain problems and solutions.

Does it?

by nicko Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:41 am

It's a myth that sea levels are rising, also the ice in the antartic is growing more and more every year.

Don't ask for a link, it was on tv a couple of nights ago.

Climate change, a natural event, been happening for millions of years, even before I got my Range Rover!

by Eilzel Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:49 am

The one thing you heard on a tv show does not compete with a consensus among most scientist who say that global warming is real NOR the real, measurable fact that sea levels are rising.

PC does not shut down debate, hence we never hear the end of anti-PC cry babies bitching of we are stopping them criticising blacks, gays etc, while they criticise blacks, gays and so on.

Quill, anyone with half a brain can see through Trump. He isn't anti-PC he is pro discrimination...

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:10 pm

Ice levels in the arctic went up 30% in 2013-14

...

by Eilzel Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:34 pm

That doesn't alter an overall trend tommy, one year of increase but the levels are overall still much lower than when records on this began. Further, a lot of the time recovering ice is only a thin layer and so representitive of nothing at all. Maybe not in this case, but you are pointing at one year and saying this proves everything scientists have been saying is wrong. Once again tommy thinking tommy knows best- on everything...

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:58 pm

When you remember that the climate fear MONGers proclaimed that all sea ice would be gone by now it is very relevant!!!

by Eilzel Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:17 pm

I'm sorry, the fact you just highlighted the word mong like that puts you out of the realm of serious debate I'm afraid.

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:27 pm

Eilzel wrote:I'm sorry, the fact you just highlighted the word mong like that puts you out of the realm of serious debate I'm afraid.

Not only that he is stating categorically that countless scientists, who have vast knowledge and undestanding (which dwarfs anything Tommy will ever hope to achieve in his life time), are on a par mentally with those with disabilities in the form of a Down's Syndrome sufferer.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:53 pm

More pathetic excuses to avoid the facts...

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:57 pm

You mean these facts by scientists:

Skeptic Arguments and What The Science Says

	Skeptic Argument	vs	What the Science Says
1	"Climate's changed before"		Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
2	"It's the sun"		In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
3	"It's not bad"		Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
4	"There is no consensus"		97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
5	"It's cooling"		The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
6	"Models are unreliable"		Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
7	"Temp record is unreliable"		The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
8	"Animals and plants can adapt"		Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
9	"It hasn't warmed since 1998"		For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
10	"Antarctica is gaining ice"		Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
11	"Ice age predicted in the 70s"		The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
12	"CO2 lags temperature"		CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
13	"Climate sensitivity is low"		Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
14	"We're heading into an ice age"		Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
15	"Ocean acidification isn't serious"		Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.
16	"Hockey stick is broken"		Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
17	"Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy"		A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
18	"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"		There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
19	"Al Gore got it wrong"		Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
20	"Glaciers are growing"		Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
21	"It's cosmic rays"		Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.
22	"1934 - hottest year on record"		1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.
23	"It's freaking cold!"		A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
24	"Sea level rise is exaggerated"		A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
25	"It's Urban Heat Island effect"		Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
26	"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"		Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
27	"Mars is warming"		Mars is not warming globally.
28	"Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"		Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.
29	"Increasing CO2 has little to no effect"		The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.
30	"Oceans are cooling"		The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
31	"Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions"		The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
32	"IPCC is alarmist"		Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
33	"Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas"		Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.
34	"Polar bear numbers are increasing"		Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
35	"CO2 limits will harm the economy"		The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.
36	"It's not happening"		There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
37	"Greenland was green"		Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.
38	"Greenland is gaining ice"		Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.
39	"CO2 is not a pollutant"		Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant
40	"CO2 is plant food"		The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
41	"Other planets are warming"		Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.
42	"Arctic sea ice has recovered"		Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
43	"There's no empirical evidence"		There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.
44	"There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"		There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.
45	"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"		Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming
46	"It cooled mid-century"		Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.
47	"Global warming stopped in ~~1998~~, ~~1995~~, ~~2002~~, ~~2007~~, ~~2010~~, ????"		Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
48	"CO2 was higher in the past"		When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.
49	"It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low"		Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.
50	"Satellites show no warming in the troposphere"		The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
51	"It's aerosols"		Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise.
52	"It's El Niño"		El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
53	"2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells"		A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.
54	"Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use"		Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.
55	"It's not us"		Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
56	"It's a natural cycle"		No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
57	"There's no tropospheric hot spot"		We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot".
58	"It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation"		The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
59	"Scientists can't even predict weather"		Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.
60	"IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers"		Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.
61	"Greenhouse effect has been falsified"		The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.
62	"2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory"		The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.
63	"The science isn't settled"		That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.
64	"Clouds provide negative feedback"		Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.
65	"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated"		Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.
66	"It's the ocean"		The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.
67	"IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests"		The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.
68	"Corals are resilient to bleaching"		Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.
69	"Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans"		Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
70	"CO2 effect is saturated"		Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat.
71	"Greenland ice sheet won't collapse"		When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.
72	"It's methane"		Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.
73	"CO2 has a short residence time"		Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years
74	"CO2 measurements are suspect"		CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.
75	"Humidity is falling"		Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate humidity is rising and provides positive feedback.
76	"500 scientists refute the consensus"		Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
77	"Neptune is warming"		And the sun is cooling.
78	"Springs aren't advancing"		Hundreds of flowers across the UK are flowering earlier now than any time in 250 years.
79	"Jupiter is warming"		Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling.
80	"It's land use"		Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate.
81	"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"		The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
82	"CO2 is not increasing"		CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years.
83	"Record snowfall disproves global warming"		Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter.
84	"They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'"		'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.
85	"Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun"		The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.
86	"CO2 is coming from the ocean"		The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result.
87	"IPCC overestimate temperature rise"		Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.
88	"CO2 is not the only driver of climate"		Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.
89	"Peer review process was corrupted"		An Independent Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review.
90	"Southern sea ice is increasing"		Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.
91	"It's microsite influences"		Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.
92	"Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity"		Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.
93	"Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"		Phil Jones was misquoted.
94	"Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate"		Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
95	"Dropped stations introduce warming bias"		If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher.
96	"It's too hard"		Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.
97	"It's albedo"		Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming.
98	"Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960"		This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend.
99	"Roy Spencer finds negative feedback"		Spencer's model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings.
100	"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"		Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.
101	"It's global brightening"		This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.
102	"Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"		This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.
103	"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain"		Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.
104	"It's a climate regime shift"		There is no evidence that climate has chaotic “regimes” on a long-term basis.
105	"Solar cycles cause global warming"		Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming.
106	"Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming"		Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
107	"Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"		The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.
108	"Ice isn't melting"		Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.
109	"A drop in volcanic activity caused warming"		Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming - if anything, a cooling effect.
110	"Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted"		Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable.
111	"It's ozone"		Ozone has only a small effect.
112	"Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored"		An independent inquiry found CRU is a small research unit with limited resources and their rigour and honesty are not in doubt.
113	"The IPCC consensus is phoney"		113 nations signed onto the 2007 IPCC report, which is simply a summary of the current body of climate science evidence
114	"Tuvalu sea level isn't rising"		Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average.
115	"Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed"		Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism.
116	"Renewables can't provide baseload power"		A number of renewable sources already do provide baseload power, and we don't need renewables to provide a large percentage of baseload power immediately.
117	"Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming"		Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.
118	"Ice Sheet losses are overestimated"		A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.
119	"CRU tampered with temperature data"		An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results.
120	"Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic"		Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic.
121	"Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup"		By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
122	"Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures"		Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records.
123	"Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature"		Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations while ignoring the long-term correlation.
124	"We're heading into cooling"		There is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future.
125	"Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural"		Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.
126	"Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer"		This argument uses regional temperature data that ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began.
127	"CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration"		That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses.
128	"The sun is getting hotter"		The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years.
129	"It's waste heat"		Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat.
130	"Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming"		This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse.
131	"It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"		The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.
132	"An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature"		CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.
133	"Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009"		Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.
134	"Mauna Loa is a volcano"		The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites.
135	"CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming"		The CERN CLOUD experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements necessary to blame global warming on cosmic rays, and two of the other requirements have already failed.
136	"Antarctica is too cold to lose ice"		Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans.
137	"Positive feedback means runaway warming"		Positive feedback won't lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.
138	"Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?"		Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.
139	"Water levels correlate with sunspots"		This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans.
140	"CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician"		The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
141	"It's CFCs"		CFCs contribute at a small level.
142	"Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising"		The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.
143	"Warming causes CO2 rise"		Recent warming is due to rising CO2.
144	"Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"		Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.
145	"DMI show cooling Arctic"		While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.
146	"Royal Society embraces skepticism"		The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.
147	"It's only a few degrees"		A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.
148	"97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven"		The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.
149	"It's satellite microwave transmissions"		Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant.
150	"CO2 only causes 35% of global warming"		CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.
151	"Sea level fell in 2010"		The temporary drop in sea level in 2010 was due to intense land flooding caused by a strong La Nina.
152	"Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past"		Current Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years.
153	"We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution"		CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago.
154	"Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming"		Loehle and Scafetta's paper is nothing more than a curve fitting exercise with no physical basis using an overly simplistic model.
155	"Postma disproved the greenhouse effect"		Postma's model contains many simple errors; in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:58 pm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:03 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/huge-increase-in-oldthick-arctic-sea-ice/

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:04 pm

lol daily mail ha ha ha ha

Show me one academic peer reviewed papers refuting man made climate change

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:06 pm

You may have read recent reports about huge changes in sea level, inspired by new research from James Hansen, NASA’s former Chief Climate Scientist, at Columbia University. Sea level rise represents one of the most worrying aspects of global warming, potentially displacing millions of people along coasts, low river valleys, deltas and islands.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s scientific climate body, forecasts rises of approximately 40 to 60 cm by 2100. But other studies have found much greater rises are likely.

Hansen and 16 co-authors found that with warming of 2C sea levels could rise by several metres. Hansen’s study was published in the open-access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion, and has not as yet been peer-reviewed. It received much media coverage for its “alarmist” findings.

So how should we make sense of these dire forecasts?

What we’re pretty sure about

According the to the IPCC sea level rise has accelerated from 0.05 cm each year during 1700-1900 to 0.32 cm each year during 1993-2010. Over the next century the IPCC expects an average rise of 0.2 to 0.8 cm each year.

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Image-20150805-12011-1e40392

Observed and projected sea level rise. IPCC AR5

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Image-20150805-11984-11cfnkn

Sea level rise has accelerated. IPCC AR5

The collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet would add several tens of centimetres to the total.

The IPCC report adds that “it is very likely that there will be a significant increase in the occurrence of future sea level extremes” and “it is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100, with the amount of rise dependent on future emissions”.

Looking to the past

The IPCC estimates stand in sharp contrast to projections made by some climate scientists, in particular James Hansen who pointed out in 2007 and in his and his colleagues' latest study of the effects of ocean warming on the ice sheets.

The IPCC reports did not take into account rates of dynamic ice sheet breakdown, despite satellite gravity measurements reported in the peer-reviewed literature by other scientists.

In Greenland, ice loss reached around 280 gigatonnes of ice each year during 2003-2013, whereas in Antarctica the loss reached around 180 gigatonnes of ice each year during the same period. Both ice sheets appear to be undrgoing accelerated rates of ice melt, as shown in the diagrams.

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Image-20150805-11977-ra32zm

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet recorded by satellites. GRACE

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Image-20150805-12018-17jlz34

Melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet recorded by satellites. GRACE

Hansen and his 16 colleagues reach their conclusion by looking at both the present and the past. During the Eemian interglacial, a period between ice ages around 130,000–115,000 years ago, average global temperatures were around 1C warmer than temperatures before the industrial revolution – that is, similar to today’s temperatures. In Greenland temperatures were about 8C warmer (the rise in polar temperatures is generally higher than the rise in tropical and subtropical temperatures, due to the ice-water albedo contrast effect). This led to sea level rise of around 6-7 metres, to a large extent due to melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.

The study points out that during the Eemian contact between the warming ocean and ice sheets led to abrupt disintegration of the ice, raising sea levels by several metres over period of 50-200 years, an extreme rate exceeding current IPCC estimates. The concern is that similar high rates of warming and of sea level rise may pertain in future.

For these reasons Hansen’s group considers sea level could reach several meters toward the end of the century.

These authors state: “We conclude that 2C global warming above the pre-industrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth’s energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric.”

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Image-20150805-12011-131iaae

Earth with a sea level rise of six meters. NASA

Criticisms of the study

Extensive criticism of this conclusion followed. Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, stated “there are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies.”

Greg Holland, also from the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, stated: “There is no doubt that the sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number, so the truth lies somewhere between IPCC and [James Hansen].”

Michael Mann stated Hansen’s estimates are prone to a very large “extrapolation error”.

Media comments range from positive to derogatory. However, few comments respond in detail to the comprehensive analysis by the authors of Hansen’s 2015 paper.

Could it be worse?

The consequences of advanced ice melt include the increased discharge of icebergs from a disintegrating ice sheet, as occurred in the past during stadial phases of interglacial periods. Stadials are sharp cooling phases following peak temperatures, caused by the discharge of cold melt water into the ocean. Such discharges constitute a negative feedback, namely cooling.

Past stadial phases, in the wake of peak temperatures, included the Younger dryas (12,900 – 11,700 years-ago) and melting of the Laurentian ice sheet 8,500 years-ago.

A stadial freeze, predicted due to a collapse of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Current would follow in the wake of large-scale melting and discharge of large parts of the Greenland ice sheet. With further rise in atmospheric CO2 this would constitute a transient stage in global warming.

Warming of 2-4C implies a rise in sea level by several to many metres. Future sea level rise, once it reaches equilibrium with temperature rise of about 2C above pre-industrial temperature, could reach levels on the scale of the Pliocene (pre-2.6 million years ago) around 25+/-12 metres. Temperature rise of 4C higher than pre-industrial would be consistent with peak Miocene (about 16 million years ago) equilibrium sea levels of about 40 meters.

We don’t know how long it would take for seas to rise that high with rising temperatures. However the extreme rise rate of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, higher than 2 ppm CO2 per year, if continues, threatens an accelerating rate of sea level rise.

If so, it follows human civilisation has now begun to preside over a major change to the map of planet Earth.

Andrew Glikson is Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-to-make-sense-of-alarming-sea-level-rise-forecasts.html

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:34 pm

Arctic ice increased over 30% in 2013-14 when the 'experts' claimed it would all have disappeared by now!!!

lol!

I know this is an inconvenient truth... but it is the truth none the less!!!

Laughing

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:40 pm

You mean some experts claimed where other experts disagree over the lengthen of time in their predictions, which proves how science always questions. You then state only one year of Ice increase and fail to produce other years since. That is hilarious as there is no doubt reasons for an increase in one year.
So your whole reasoning to discount man made climate change is based on where some have got their calculations wrong based on the number years? lol Classic fail where many others offer around by 2100 as a more likely prediction

Anyway on your points, lets see what the experts say:

Confusion caused by anecdotes of structures being buried by accumulating snow on Greenland's ice sheet leads some skeptics to believe Greenland is Gaining Ice. As always, the best way to tease out the truth here by following the research of scientists investigating Greenland's ice mass balance.

In general, the best available science tells us that Greenland is losing ice extensively (Figure 1) and that these losses have drastically increased since the year 2000.

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Greenlandicelosses

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Greenlandicelosses

Figure 1: Estimated Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance changes since 1950 using three different methods (Jiang 2010). Mass Balance Measurement Techniques are discussedhere.

The evidence suggested by a multitude of different measurement techniques suggests that not only is Greenland losing ice but that these ice losses are accelerating at a rapid pace (Velicogna 2009). Further evidence suggests that although ice losses have up to this point primarily occurred in the South and Southwest portions of Greenland, these losses are now spreading to the Northwest sector of the ice sheet (Khan et al 2010).

Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes (Wouters 2008) along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006).

In conclusion Greenland is losing ice extensively along its margins where fast flowing ice streams are pushing more ice into the ocean than is gained in the center of the ice sheet. For more information on how ice sheets lose mass, a more comprehensive discussion is available here.

Basic rebuttal written by Robert way

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm

Poor Tommy lol

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:42 pm

The importance of good climate communication: a recent Arctic example

Posted on 23 July 2015 by John Mason

Here's the abstract of a new paper in Nature Geoscience on Arctic sea-ice volume:

Changes in Arctic sea ice volume affect regional heat and freshwater budgets and patterns of atmospheric circulation at lower latitudes. Despite a well-documented decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent by about 40% since the late 1970s, it has been difficult to quantify trends in sea ice volume because detailed thickness observations have been lacking. Here we present an assessment of the changes in Northern Hemisphere sea ice thickness and volume using five years of CryoSat-2 measurements. Between autumn 2010 and 2012, there was a 14% reduction in Arctic sea ice volume, in keeping with the long-term decline in extent. However, we observe 33% and 25% more ice in autumn 2013 and 2014, respectively, relative to the 2010–2012 seasonal mean, which offset earlier losses. This increase was caused by the retention of thick sea ice northwest of Greenland during 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred—conditions more typical of the late 1990s. In contrast, springtime Arctic sea ice volume has remained stable. The sharp increase in sea icevolume after just one cool summer suggests that Arctic sea ice may be more resilient than has been previously considered.

OK, let's pick this apart. Arctic sea-ice volume is the trickiest of the sea-ice variables to measure. Extent and area are by contrast straightforward. Volume depends on the survival of multi-year ice in any melt season. A pronounced melt season, like 2012, sees some of the multi-year ice lost. But if any of the ice that didn't melt in 2012 makes it through the 2013 season, you are going to get a volume increase. The authors state that they observed 33% more ice volume in autumn 2013 relative to the 2010-2012 mean. They go on to state that in 2014 there was 25% more ice volume relative to 2010-2012 – in other words it dropped again. That shows up on the following ice thickness distribution plot: the thickest ice is in red. Big red blob for 2013, much smaller one for 2014.

Such observations are reasonably consistent with PIOMAS:

In the PIOMAS graph, we see a sharp plunge in the Arctic sea-ice volume anomaly down to the 2007 record (at the time) minimum. We then see volume recovering a bit until 2010, when we see the first of three extremely low years culminating in 2012, followed by the years referred to in the above abstract. These variations, taking place over periods of a few years, are simply noise on a longer-term trend - the blue line. We see such noise in all aspects of the climate system over such short timescales.

Here are the results presented in the Nature Geoscience paper. The Cryosat-2 estimates of total (red stars), first-year (green diamonds) and multi-year (blue triangles) sea-ice volume are shown, as well as model estimates of volume from PIOMAS. Unsurprisingly they show that most Arctic sea-ice variability involves thin first-year ice, which is the most prone to melting. The uptick in multi-year sea-ice following the 2013 melting season (the fourth lot of blue triangles from the left) can clearly be seen.

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Nature-ice-volume

What’s wrong with 'PC'? Nature-ice-volume

The media picked up on this story, of course. According to the Guardian:

Ice in the Arctic staged a surprise revival in 2013, bucking the long-term trendof decline, according to the first analysis of the entire ice cap’s volume. The revival was the result of cooler temperatures that year and suggests that, if global warming was curbed, the Arctic might recover more rapidly than previously thought.

Just a small moan about this piece: please, please stop calling Arctic sea-ice the ice-cap. It's a fragmented floating ice-sheet whose fluctuations have only a small bearing on othercryosphere-related climate consequences such as sea level rise. It's far better to refer to the elevated, terrestrial ice-sheets as ice-caps. They are a separate kettle of fish, so to speak, since ice volume-loss from them contributes directly to sea-level rise and the physics of such fluctuations are entirely different, involving additional phenomena such asglacier dynamics and so on.

Terminology nitpicks aside, for full-on inaccuracy with respect to this story we need to turn to the UK's Daily Mail. In an editorial comment entitled, “Climate change and an inconvenient truth”, it opined thus (with my weary responses in between):

In a major report last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changegave a grave assessment of how man-made global warming was rapidly destroying the Arctic ice cap.

It is – both the Arctic sea ice AND the Greenland ice-cap. So far, so good.

Steadily increasing temperatures had made the pack ice contract by up to 12 per cent between 1979 and 2012, leading to rising sea levels which threatened to swamp coastal regions – not to mention endangering stranded polar bears.

No, no, no! Give me strength! Pack ice (i.e. sea-ice) does NOT affect sea-levels to that extent. See this Skeptical Science post and discussion for more information.

By the middle of the century ‘a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean’ was likely for a large part of the year, the report predicted.

Yes we expect such conditions by some point this century under Business as Usual. Onwards...

How interesting then, that the latest analysis of 88million measurements from the European Space Agency’s Cryosat satellite show the northern ice-cap INCREASED by a staggering 41 per cent in 2013 and, despite a modest shortage last year, is bigger than at any time for decades.

This starts OK then descends into absolute tripe. In 2013, sea-ice volume was 33% greater relative to the 2010–2012 seasonal mean. The abstract above says exactly that. The 41% figure comes from an older (2014) AGU abstract by the same team. The Nature Geoscience paper has more data. But that's a minor quibble. It's the "bigger than at any time for decades" that is the howler here. It's so bad it's not even wrong. To turn a few years into decades is either being ignorant (quite possible, such things happen rather often in today's media) or, I put it to the writer, intending to deliberately mislead the readership (disgraceful - and happening all too often in today's media). I hope it's the first one.

Let's see that PIOMAS graph again, with some added annotation. This is the Daily Mail's idea of decades:

On we plod through the rest of the Mail's offering:

Of course, the climatologists will come up with explanations – as they did for the fact that global temperatures have barely changed since the year 2000. They’ll say 2013 was a freak year, that in spite of temporary fluctuations long-term trends remain the same, that cooling ‘episodes’ are as much a feature of climate change as warming and so on.

Yes – 2013 was a colder summer up in the Arctic with a shorter melting season. All the data show this. No need for emotive words like “freak”. Colder years do occur in a warming trend – nothing new in that.

But the more they juggle their theories to fit the inconvenient truths, the more the public will question whether these prophesies of global doom are based on genuine science, or guesswork.

So you hope, I guess. Because the reason why they may question the science is down to grossly inaccurate and confusing reportage like the above. Science is a progressive thing: the more data we collect and analyse the clearer the picture with respect to what is occurring.

And they will rightly wonder whether solemnly committing to climate changetargets while saddling ordinary people with a raft of spurious green taxes serves any real purpose – other than being an expensive exercise in gesture politics.

And now we come to it. However, I put it to this Daily Mail leader-writer that if the public are going to objectively consider the implications of climate change and the measures required to mitigate it, then they need clear and accurate information. Do the politics bit once you have that to hand. And, just for balance, I put it again to Guardian writers that it's best to distinguish sea-ice from land-based ice-caps!

In the meantime, here's an animation of the ice volume changes (data from PIOMAS) set to music, by Andy Lee Robinson:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-ice-volume-2015.html

by Original Quill Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:42 pm

Didge, that's really impressive research in the last 2-3 posts.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Arctic ice increased over 30% in 2013-14 when the 'experts' claimed it would all have disappeared by now!!!

I know this is an inconvenient truth... but it is the truth none the less!!!

The facts of today show the claims from before to be complete bullshit!!!

No amount of waffle can change this... not even waffle that appears to be 'well reasoned'...!!!

But the bullshit continues... pc enforces this bullshit as being true...

The truth must be wrong if the truth is not politically correct!!!

by nicko Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:08 pm

I'm still keeping my Range Rover Laughing

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:13 pm

It is interesting that the same people who are supporters of the UK doing more To lower carbon emissions and use less energy etc are the same people who want continued mass immigration that will only add to energy use, increased carbon emissions, more pollution, more building and concreting over our land...!!!

lol!

by Eilzel Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:22 pm

Oh my sweet Jesus..., The environment is a global issue tommy. Those immigrants are going to have a carbon footprint whatever country they live in, the UK isn't shut off from the planet however much you might wish it lol

That this needed explaining to you kind of crystalizes your closed mentality.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is interesting that the same people who are supporters of the UK doing more To lower carbon emissions and use less energy etc are the same people who want continued mass immigration that will only add to energy use, increased carbon emissions, more pollution, more building and concreting over our land...!!!

Ah-ha...so they want more pollution, rather than less. Interesting theory. What would be the purpose?

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:38 pm

More people = higher air pollution levels...

How do we meet EU air pollution level rules while increasing numbers of people!!!???

lol!

by Original Quill Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
More people = higher air pollution levels...

How do we meet EU air pollution level rules while increasing numbers of people!!!???

Okay...so what you are saying is that it is a subversive way to extricate the UK from the EU? How does UKIP feel about higher air pollution levels?

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
More people = higher air pollution levels...

How do we meet EU air pollution level rules while increasing numbers of people!!!???

Okay...so what you are saying is that it is a subversive way to extricate the UK from the EU? How does UKIP feel about higher air pollution levels?

Not what I'm saying... as you already know full well!!!

I have pointed out yet another huge contradiction in leftie thinking, this time where the lefties support the EU, the EU rules, the rules on enforcing lower carbon emissions and lower levels of air pollution etc... while also supporting the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of extra people every year which will mean more building, more energy use, more emissions, more pollution, more waste/refuse, more vehicles, more imports, more air pollution, more green spaces and countryside concreted over etc...

They obviously haven't thought this through...!!!

lol!

by Fuzzy Zack Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:27 pm

Being politically correct means you are putting up filters on what you really think.

That's just being dishonest.

I recommend being more child like (the most honest) - something I've learned from Trump and my 3 year old nephew. Both guys pull a lot of girls using that technique - and it works.

Also why Trump is on top of the polls. He's not being dishonest - like all other politicians.

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
More people = higher air pollution levels...

How do we meet EU air pollution level rules while increasing numbers of people!!!???

Okay...so what you are saying is that it is a subversive way to extricate the UK from the EU? How does UKIP feel about higher air pollution levels?

Not what I'm saying... as you already know full well!!!

I have pointed out yet another huge contradiction in leftie thinking, this time where the lefties support the EU, the EU rules, the rules on enforcing lower carbon emissions and lower levels of air pollution etc... while also supporting the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of extra people every year which will mean more building, more energy use, more emissions, more pollution, more waste/refuse, more vehicles, more imports, more air pollution, more green spaces and countryside concreted over etc...

They obviously haven't thought this through...!!!

Have you thought through the fact that those people are going to live somewhere, using energy and resources and creating pollution?

I don't know if you knew this, but the world has just the one atmosphere that we all share. It doesn't matter where emissions originate, they all hurt the atmosphere the same way.

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:36 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Being politically correct means you are putting up filters on what you really think.

That's just being dishonest.

I recommend being more child like (the most honest) - something I've learned from Trump and my 3 year old nephew. Both guys pull a lot of girls using that technique - and it works.

Also why Trump is on top of the polls. He's not being dishonest - like all other politicians.

I hope that's a joke pale

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:45 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Being politically correct means you are putting up filters on what you really think.

That's just being dishonest.

I recommend being more child like (the most honest) - something I've learned from Trump and my 3 year old nephew. Both guys pull a lot of girls using that technique - and it works.

Also why Trump is on top of the polls. He's not being dishonest - like all other politicians.

You are of course exceptionally wrong because your stand point is based on superceeding a principle you respect in keeping with others. You would never insult another Muslims for being a Muslim, of which they are a minority group in this country.
Its not filters, its you using poor reasoning to justify discrmination to anything else you do not like.

PC

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Now if you naturally avoid forms of expression or action to others, which excludes them because you perceive that to be wrong, then you follow that PC principle. It is actually you creating a filter of block to this reasoning when you wish to marginalize someone else.
Methodology stands, and if you cannot prove you never hold this principle, then you clearly contradicting yourself and are yet again hypocritical.
The PC principle is flawless, as its based on the golden rule, how you wish others to treat you. Yet many times its how some wrongly perceive they are apllying it when in reality they are not if it ends up discrminating against someone else.

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:00 pm

PC

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

and here is the problem ....

in who's "perception" and exactly what??? constitutes "insult" ...who gets to define that?

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:12 pm

There is no problem Victor, when you go off the wrong view point.
The golden rule is to treat others how you would expect them to treat you.
There is no better moral than this view. People can insult all they like if they wish, this is about trying to correct what is very much wrong, where there is discrmination.
You say perceived wrong, so tell me when is disrimination ever right, based off negative reasoning?
We have been here before and you have never overcome the argument of PC, because it is based on the golden rule

by Guest Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:15 pm

Anyway, will catch everyone tomorrow

Night all

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:49 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Not what I'm saying... as you already know full well!!!

I have pointed out yet another huge contradiction in leftie thinking, this time where the lefties support the EU, the EU rules, the rules on enforcing lower carbon emissions and lower levels of air pollution etc... while also supporting the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of extra people every year which will mean more building, more energy use, more emissions, more pollution, more waste/refuse, more vehicles, more imports, more air pollution, more green spaces and countryside concreted over etc...

They obviously haven't thought this through...!!!

Have you thought through the fact that those people are going to live somewhere, using energy and resources and creating pollution?

I don't know if you knew this, but the world has just the one atmosphere that we all share. It doesn't matter where emissions originate, they all hurt the atmosphere the same way.

Our air pollution levels are already too high so it does matter when more people want to turn up and add to our local area and increase pollution levels further!!!

by eddie Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:12 am

Eilzel wrote:There are wars going on, humanitarian crises the world over, the global economy appears about to collapse even harder than it did in 2008, rising sea levels and other environmental issues are upon us, we have employment problems in the west, increasingly hard to maintain energy and resource demamds, and multiple other big issues.

Political Correctness, like it or not, is NOT one of THE big 'problems' politicians should be focused on. It is designed to curb offensive language, some people like to offend. people don't die because of PC, states and economies don't collapse because of being PC. Anyone claiming PC belongs in the list of current issues I described above seriously needs to get a grip on reality.

I sometimes dislike the whole 'PC' thing but regards politics, that's a good post les.

by Eilzel Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:10 am

Thanks Eds, it was carefully avoid by the anti-PC 'I want to be horrible to who I like' brigade though...

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:26 am

Pc is an insidious, pervasive, regressive, negative force.

by Eilzel Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:31 am

Its none of those things. And even if it was, compared to war, discrimination, human rights biolations, natural and environmental crises and energy problems and starvation- PC is nothing.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:45 am

All part of The same agenda...

by Eilzel Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:13 am

You are so full of crap I'm surprised you can eat...

So war, starvation and PC are all the same to you?

by Sponsored content