Off Topic Political Debate

The idea of sharing these people amongst the member states is an emergency solution to the numbers of refugees who are already in Europe. Germany only threw open its borders to prevent a human catastrophe which was looming in Budapest - whether that was the right thing to do I don't know. It was done with the right motives and seemed the only interim solution. I agree that the idea of accepting all and then locating them on a kind of quota system is not ideal, and has no long term future. However, we can frame any ideas we like about what the neighbouring countries should do, and how we can help them, but in the end we have no sovereign powers over those nations. In the end, if no one else helps then we must. If refugees are fleeing from bombs and guns then it might also be an idea to ask exactly who made those weapons, and exported them, because those countries must also accept a share of the guilt.

 

I believe that the rich countries should help the poorer ones to create a fairer world, but how the money given is used is too often a cause for concern. I have little faith in governmental agencies to use funds as I would wish, that is directly produce schemes that will make it possible for a family to exist above the poverty line, which is very different depending on where you live. There are self help schemes being operated that make it possible for families to stay together, and it is grass roots schemes that make it possible for food, clothing and education to help people reclaim land, start a small business or even get clean water. We can see that just providing cash is not the only answer, it is needed, but it has to be better targeted.

 

I'm sure Germany accepted the migrants for the right reason but it was a green light for all and sundry to seek a better life in northern Europe. I'm also certain Merkel will face a political backlash for her kindness and will be long gone when the problems surface.

 

Totally agree

 

I don't speak polar bear..... They lived successfully in times of much higher sea levels and smaller ice caps, the polar bear issue is one selected by Greenpeace to tug at heartstrings but is a misnomer. As to floods they are a natural consequence of climate variation, in fact a requirement for natural rejuvenation, it's only our bbelief that the planet should be controlled and stable that is incorrect, change is normal, migration is normal, evolution is normal and survival of the fittest is normal but we try to overcome this natural force and say every creature and indeed every man should have equal rights but this is not nature! Nature is indeed cruel at times, go watch a cheetah taking out a gazelle....

 

Corruption kills our good intent.

 

More debunking of the "100% consensus" http://www.principia-scientific.org...y-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

 

Unfortunately there are about 1,000 studies coming out every week on this topic Aberdeen - each claiming to be conclusive. My angle is that you cannot pump poison into the atmosphere in the belief that the World and its resources belong exclusively to us for ever without expecting some kind of negative reaction. The present rate of climate warming is unprecedented in the last 1,300 years. The heat trapping nature of Co2 is well known from hundreds of other studies (which also claim to be conclusive) - the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere have risen dramatically over the last 3 decades. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica and from glaciers show that the Earth's climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Global warming itself is without controversy. The Global sea level rose 6.7 inches in the last century - but this rate has doubled over the last decade. The top 700 metres of ocean have shown a warming of 0.3 degrees since 1970. Greenland lost around 250 cubic km. of ice per year between 2002 and 2006. Glacial retreat worldwide does not need proof, it is happening. Ocean acidification is also incontrovertable - the amount of Co2 absorbed by the upper layers of the world's oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. These are not theories - these are facts. My worry is that we will go on debating and doubting until it is too late.

 

Exactly!!! There is far from scientific consensus over the issue and the alarmists models have been proven woefully wrong.There is a question over cause and effect are carbon dioxide levels higher because of temperature increase or vice versa. High atmosphere CO2 protects the earth from the Suns heat its definitely very complex.Global warming is very contentious we have had a temperature hiatus over the last 16 years. SEa level has a long way to go still to just reach Roman levels. Oceans are an issue I must admit but is it a simple CO2 issue I'm positive it is not. Controversially I will state that the problem is we've become to numerous as a race and need culling. We do it to other animals such as deer when we realize their habitats cannot support them but will not do it to the human race unless forced by war. One has to assume that if nature takes its course to protect the balance there will be a major plague or major war that will reset the balance, not a nice prospect but inevitable....

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...14lzXUgF2BKORoCWv6DjmA&bvm=bv.104819420,d.bGQ

 

If you like Aberdeen, some of the 'evidence' is circumstantial. I know that we have had warm periods in the past - the Roman period, followed later by the Medieval `warm`period from about 800 to 1300 AD. These were longer changes over longer periods, not ones which were measurable over a couple of decades as it is now. The changes over the last 20 years or so do not have to be proved (or the speed with which they are occuring) - but why are they happening now, at exactly the same time as the most massive increase in Co2 levels in our history ? This is the circumstantial bit.
Moving onto your population theories. I admit, reluctantly, that one of the best things I can do for the environment is to refrain from having children (not something which a 'green' should be saying I know). Most people have somehow thought that it would be nice to live in a World with far fewer people - but all want to be amongst the survivors, together with all of their loved ones and friends, which is where the problems lie. Also I feel that there is no such thing as a 'natural' level of population - it is a question of resources, of which we have enough, and their fair distribution. If you give every citizen in England an equal share of the land available then every single person would have 2,500 sq. km. of land - a naive equation I know - but could there be such a thing as a 'natural' population density ?

 

In every other species ye there is a natural population density determined by environment, predation and food sources. As such an ultimate equilibrium is obtained as these factors change and change they do across all of nature. In our case as a species we have prolonged our lifespans mainly as a result of hydrocarbon exploitation which has enabled us to effectively take hold of our microclimate (living with heat and cooling in our dwellings), improve mobility of food and create the building blocks for a more cosseted way of living. I'm not sure we can categorically state that CO2 levels in the modern period are unprecedented as I very much doubt our techniques for measurement were not being implemented in the middle ages and our age dating techniques do not work on a scale that would enable accurate changes to be tracked over small timescales. I would like to see proper science applied to the area of climatology and scientists actually apply their own principles of proof by experiment being necessary and if experiment i.e. the best one is what actually happens proves a theory wrong then it should be thrown out. The heating and cooling effects of all atmospheric gases and vapors needs to be accurately determined under lower, middle and upper atmospheric conditions. Add this to proper analysis of cosmic heating and radiation and we will have the basis to understand properly the effects of our life on the planet and what the natural feedback loops are. Judging by the Northern Lights this last week we've just been bombarded by an enormous amount of Solar energy which will result in a short term heat rise followed no doubt by cooling. The rise will be blamed on CO2 no doubt and the cooling on a misreading of data. The Green initiatives are all about delivering money to Green companies not the environment. Explain the Biomass farce, burning wood instead of coal is an absolutely disgusting practice removing natural sequestration because we can replant the trees for lower calorific output per Kg of CO2 sent to atmosphere, better for the environment would to be to continue with "dirty" coal and plant the replacement trees in re-forestation projects!!!! The decision here in Scotland to keep pursuing wind is totally political and our environment is being sacrificed to make SNP points against Wsstminster, it really sickens me..

 

Its a bit dull on the political thread, surely we cannot wait until 2020 before we have another heated discussion!!!

Can someone please be controversial about politics or religion?

Even laughing about Corbyn and his band of cronies is becoming boring.

 

How about laughing at Cameron and his band of robbers?

 

That isn't controversial Dave, it's normal.

 

My suspicion is that we will not have to wait until 2020. The EU referendum is looming and will have to be got out of the way first - what type of deal will Cameron come back with, which side will he support at the referendum, will the big parties use their whip to ensure party discipline or will we see breaking of ranks, and, if the latter occurs, how serious will that be. Also, what would the future be for Cameron if he supported the losing side in the refrendum ? I know roughly what Britain wants from Europe (little more than a free trade area) and, what reforms other European countries want but I do not know what their 'bottom line' is. If Britain goes into negotiations thinking that they want nothing more from Europe than a free market for their products then they will be very disappointed. There is so much fear involved here, and misapprehensions concerning Europe - do the British not realize that the biggest threat to their way of life is not from the EU. or from immigration but rather through Americanization.

 

I think Sarah Palin would make a wonderful Archbishop of Canterbury and Anne widdecombe should be the next Pope.

 

Will Norways open door policy to ISIL refugees come to a premature end now it's looking like they're going to have to raid a few billion from the sovereign wealth fund to pay for this mad benevolence? Indeed I can see Norway becoming very intolerant in the near future based on declining revenues and increasing numbers of refugees. Mad every taxi you get into there you're not sure if you'll become embroiled in some drivers suicide mission!!! Send them all home

 

Up to now the town of Engelskirchen (pop. 20,000 and situated 40 km. east of Cologne), which is the place where I live, has given accomodation to about 400 refugees. The central distribution point for NRW (which is taking about 20% of Germany's refugees) is Cologne. Rural areas receive allowances per refugee and so maybe it's a lucrative trade for small towns without much money. 400 to 20,000 is a ratio of one to every 50 people - which, if replicated in the UK would be around 1.2 million. Around 35% are from Balkan lands which are not classified as dangerous (Serbia, Kosovo and Albania) the others are from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea - and even a couple from China. Most of them have a journey behind them which only a brave person would make, and certainly a journey which no ISIS terrorist would dream of making (they have more effective ways of operating and recruiting, and are not interested in poor waifs and strays). Most of them are people who need our help and who have no home to go back to. The 35% of Balkan people will probably be sent back, the others will, I hope, stay and build their lives here. One day their families will join them, and that will be a good day because 400 men with nothing to do often equals trouble.

 

Time for a bit of controversy - Imo Elizabeth Windsor may be a very nice person (in fact she would be offered a cup of tea at our place just like anyone else) but she is not my Queen. The challenges of the future need a nation of citizens not subjects, and monarchy does not fit into that. I would not be too hard on them however - I have heard that so called 'Queens English' exists in an imaginary triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and the City - well the geographical epicentre of that is Luton - so, they can have a couple of council houses there at the states expense. I would also change the national anthem (I resent the fact that royalists claim a monopoly on patriotism) alter it from the present dirge which no Scouse footballer can sing - so, which song should it be - I favour 'Dead End Street' from the Kinks, or maybe Waterloo Sunset (something for everyone).