Nigel Farage

he came before trump though :|

Farage has an easy life being an MEP, why would he want to give up the gravy train for the stress of being PM?

he came before trump though :|

This argument is launched from a number of false premises:

1. The state of nature, in international relations, is altruism. It's not self-interest, it's about looking out for the interests of others.

To this point I hand you a multitude of exceptions, ie, every action in international relations. Nation-states don't exist to further the interests of their partners, they exist to further the interests of themselves.

Obama characterised this in the last week when he decided to put the UK to 'the back of the queue' for a trade deal no-one in their right mind wants (ie, a trade deal which permits US corporations to sue the British Government if they interfere with their right to generate profit, ie, by disallowing them from competing for NHS contracts).

2. Global warming exists.

To this, I hand you the indisputable fact the climate hasn't warmed in 20 years. See this story on the BBC, which has been downplayed and covered up incessantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404 I also give you their incessant fiddling of temperature figures http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Climate Change is about everything other than Climate Change, to know that you'd need to read about the political activities behind climate change - heck, I doubt you've even considered why it's no longer referred to as 'global warming' (think long and hard about it). I doubt you even know the Green movement originated in Nazi Germany. I doubt you know very much other than what the Ministry of Truth tells you to believe.

That's not an insult, it's just most people these days don't have an enquiring mind - they believe what they are told to believe and rarely believe anything their peer group doesn't.

3. That identity takes precedence over principle.

It doesn't matter how many people ISIS kill, it certainly would matter more to you if ISIS chose to kill you - 1 person is 1 person too many. Life isn't cheap, nor should barbarism be more acceptable if it's conducted on a smaller scale (which is essentially the argument you're attempting to advance, largely to make your identity politics fit your arguments, like most illiberal identity ideologues).

I was actually willing to take this seriously until I realised you actually denied climate change.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You mean all of the same academics and researchers who constantly question each other in peer review? You may have NASA on your side, but I've got hundreds of leading academics - geologists, not people with an incentive to push their own bias to further their own career - and 5-odd Nobel Prize winners on my side. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

Here's a direct excerpt - read it and weep your little progressive heart out (you'll have to ignore the whitespace issue, it's a direct copy and paste from a scientific journal):

"We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theoryof man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science,and its important consequences for politics and theglobal economy—is based on ice core studies that provided afalse picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.

Meanwhile, morethan 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere,carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected [by the IPCC]. These measurements hadbeen published in 175 technical papers. For the past threedecades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recentlycompiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a,Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—andnot because they were wrong.

Indeed, thesemeasurements were made by top scientists, including twoNobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standardtextbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany,hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason forrejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesisof anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhapsthe greatest scientific scandal of our time."

Guess where NASA's data comes from?

The global temperature has not risen in 20-25 years. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has shown marked increase, but there's been no increase in global temperatures.

Now, that may outrage you, but I don't know what to tell you. Every independent measurement tells you exactly the same thing. There's also the whole fact that, you know, man-made CO2 accounts for about, you know, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% of naturally emitted CO2.

There's also the fact that CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere needs to be, at a bare minimum, 240ppm to sustain all plant life (currently at 400ppm and it has been far, far higher all throughout history).

There's also the fact that £trillions are dependent on perpetuating global warming, and nothing cajoles people into action - to vote for the types of people progressives want you to vote for - like a big epic scare story (which they're rapidly running out of proof for).

Oh, that makes us differ, because I've never taken you seriously.

I don't deny climate change, those responsible for monitoring global temperatures deny climate change, largely because the climate hasn't warmed since 1998. Do I need to post the link again?

This argument is launched from a number of false premises:

1. The state of nature, in international relations, is altruism. It's not self-interest, it's about looking out for the interests of others.

To this point I hand you a multitude of exceptions, ie, every action in international relations. Nation-states don't exist to further the interests of their partners, they exist to further the interests of themselves.

Obama characterised this in the last week when he decided to put the UK to 'the back of the queue' for a trade deal no-one in their right mind wants (ie, a trade deal which permits US corporations to sue the British Government if they interfere with their right to generate profit, ie, by disallowing them from competing for NHS contracts).

2. Global warming exists.

To this, I hand you the indisputable fact the climate hasn't warmed in 20 years. See this story on the BBC, which has been downplayed and covered up incessantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404 I also give you their incessant fiddling of temperature figures http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Climate Change is about everything other than Climate Change, to know that you'd need to read about the political activities behind climate change - heck, I doubt you've even considered why it's no longer referred to as 'global warming' (think long and hard about it). I doubt you even know the Green movement originated in Nazi Germany. I doubt you know very much other than what the Ministry of Truth tells you to believe.

That's not an insult, it's just most people these days don't have an enquiring mind - they believe what they are told to believe and rarely believe anything their peer group doesn't.

3. That identity takes precedence over principle.

It doesn't matter how many people ISIS kill, it certainly would matter more to you if ISIS chose to kill you - 1 person is 1 person too many. Life isn't cheap, nor should barbarism be more acceptable if it's conducted on a smaller scale (which is essentially the argument you're attempting to advance, largely to make your identity politics fit your arguments, like most illiberal identity ideologues).

Your '90,000 independent measurements' are from between 1812 and 1961, hardly recent data to base your speculation from or as accurate as modern methods. In fact, as they are independent sources they undoubtedly have only a fraction of the resources that NASA have with which to conduct such studies, so they are unlikely to be as comprehensive. And 3% accuracy isn't a lot in scientific studies, if it were 3 sigmas then it'd be a different story but 3% still leaves room for error, particularly at the time of writing. Admittedly such studies do need to take place over a long period of time, but the more recent the data the better. And mankind is creating far more pollution now than in 1961, especially since China has grown so much.

And even if you don't believe NASA for whatever reason, there have been literally hundreds of scientists from all around the world who agree with them. It's pretty much a consensus in the scientific community, the only dissent is from incredibly socially conservative idiots like Ted Cruz. And are you seriously telling me that every government in the world has coerced EVERY SINGLE study by these scientists?

And just because Earth has been hotter in the past (the Jurassic was actually one point where sea levels were far, far higher), it doesn't mean that the temperature still isn't rising today and that we shouldn't address it. The Earth naturally goes through both warm and cool periods, but we should not be accelerating it. What do governments even have to gain anyway? It costs billions to deal with the aftermath of natural disasters (which have been increasing in number recently), as well as building green energy sources. There's currently plans to build a big tidal power station near Swansea, do you think the government would invest hundreds of millions of pounds into this 'hoax' and gain nothing?

Here's some more graphs, if you don't believe NASA:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png

http://www.mathswithgraham.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/disasters.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/04/Mauna-Loa.png

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/01-giss.png

Climate change is also visible in other ways, such as the fact that 93% of the Great Barrier Reef has now been bleached, a great sadness.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/great-barrier-reef-bleaching-would-be-almost-impossible-without-climate-change


Science does not support your arguments.

What people think is utterly irrelevant, it's a redundant question because Nigel Farage will never become PM. Politics has always been a popularity contest, however nowadays personality is more important than ever. The vast majority of the voting public have had their thought processes usurped by shame and guilt narratives, as well as narratives of omission by our monopolistic broadcaster, to the point they don't know how to think like Nigel Farage.

Even if they do think like Nigel Farage, and prioritise survival and common sense over righteousness and vainglory, they'll be shamed and guilted into conforming by the baying mob. This is the society past generations have left us, and it will only get worse and more totalitarian with every passing year, particularly as the most totalitarian continue to disguise their subversiveness in pointless and aimless objectives like 'diversity' and 'equality'.

20 years ago he would merely have been the epitome of common sense, today he's a 'nutjob.' That's what happens when you orientate society around identity, rather than individuality, or liberalism. Who he is becomes more important than what he says, perception trumps reality. Western civilisation will burn as hundreds of competing identities - women vs. men, hundreds of migrant groups vs. resident population, rich vs. poor, etc. - all stake their claim for superiority over the next 100 years. Long since accepting of the inevitable outcome, my only source of enjoyment is in the thought I'll be around to see it happen, and revel in knowing how right I was.

Thats never going to happen, for years women, immigrants and poor people have been fighting for their rights, and the people who were against that have never once found that they were right all along. You think the people againt those who protested for a day off a week and better pay etc are sitting around right now thinking how right they were?

1. Global warming does not have a 'consensus' in the scientific community. Rather, any and all measurements put forward to the IPCC who utilise ice core measurements to determine historic patterns in climate warming - a fundamentally flawed analysis - are rejected. Time and time again they are rejected for not confirming their bias.

You may be referring to the 97%, however that's not a consensus - that's a consensus that there is some correlation with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but absolutely no consensus on whether this a problem. The truth is CO2 is now, and always has been, an ESSENTIAL gas.

2. Anyone who is willing to accept ANYTHING as definite, particularly in light of so much contradictory evidence (as it's possible to provide), doesn't belong in the scientific community. They are theists, plain and simple.

3. There has been a tremendous amount of fiddling with official climate change data, which should be more than enough to plant scepticism in your mind.

4. Yes, I can quite ably believe that millions of people who profit from climate change, and who want to appear to be 'saving the planet' (who would want to be opposed to 'saving the planet'?!), would buy into climate change propaganda.

I've provided more than enough evidence to cast doubt on the legitimacy of climate change (including the FACT that the climate hasn't warmed in 25 years despite a marked increase in CO2 emissions), from legitimate sources and scientific journals, however if that doesn't do anything to convince you to even retain a degree of scepticism then nothing will.

Fighting for their rights? What rights have they been fighting for? They've got every legal right everyone else has, and more in some cases. The struggle ended decades ago, now all we're left with is a desire to manufacture the perpetual struggle. Women have had the right to vote in this country since 1918 - the same time universal suffrage was extended to men and to 40% of women - and nearly a century later you are still talking about the struggle, you are still tying yourself to 32 million people because you happen to share genitalia. For what? Do you want attention? Is it some sort of persecution complex? Whatever it is, you certainly know how to dance to their tune.

You aren't a female as far as the political process is concerned, you are an individual. With that comes a responsibility to burden all of the negatives and positives which come from being an individual in a free-thinking, competitive society. These are the rights you possess and the duties you must burden.

Recognise something: you don't speak for women. Just because you're poor, it doesn't mean you speak for the poor. Just because someone is black, it doesn't mean they speak for billions of black people. This dynamic is so fundamentally bigoted it shouldn't even require explaining.

So, in such an environment you have to question: why do these identities predominate in political discourse? One reason: to manufacture conflict between social groups. Conflict means votes and power, it always has and it always will.

Im assuming youre in america or uneducated because womens suffrage in britain wasnt until 1928.

Im not saying that its the same struggle as it was then

its different battles we're fighting but we are still fighting.

And actually, in a lot of countries, women dont all have the same legal rights.

As for poor people- its very hard in this society to move from one class to the other, rich people have access to all the better education etc, so you cant really say there is no discrimation to fight back against the this world.

No i dont speak for all women, or all working class people. Neither do you.

And yet here we both are, giving our opinions on the treatment of women and working class people in society. Shocking how people can still have opinions on things even if they dont speak for every single person concerned.

Surprisingly i agree with you, these identities dominate in political discourse to cause conflict. However, we arent to blame for that.

The mps and the like are all talking about benefits, for example, and that inherently targets the working class. And then they talk about whether immigrants can recvieve benefits, and so then it puts british people against immigrants, and so omn so forth, then while everyones arguing over who gets special treatement

they lower the rate of benefits without anyone noticing. They rely on this conflict to keep their power. But that doesnt mean we should stop talking about racism, about sexism, about homophobia etc, it means that we should all be working against all those things.

Not all Americans are uneducated, nearly 50% of the students in Harvard (excluding legacy students) can read and write and nearly all the professors can do the same.