//Toni Lavis Quote "the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas"

Never said it did.//

Never said you said it did. But you sure act like you think it does.

//As I stated before you are nothing but a little TROLL.//

Right, just out of interest, what do you think your habit of constantly attacking other posters for being so-called 'trolls' make you?

//14 days and no one has come out to challenge him so it would seem he was telling the truth//

No, that isn't how it works. Things that are demonstrably false don't magically become true if they go unchallenged in the Daily Mail for a fortnight.

Let's say the Mail quotes Alice as saying 'The moon is made of green cheese', and nobody challenges that quote because what's the point, it's obviously ridiculous, everybody knows the moon isn't made of green cheese. Because the quote is never challenged in print, after the required 14 days, does the Moon suddenly transmute to green cheese? No, no it does not.

In exactly the same way, when President Whatshisface is quoted as saying that Nauru is giving out free holidays, houses, jobs and healthcare, it's obviously ridiculous. As has already been pointed out to you, the economy of Nauru is well and truly stuffed. Can't get blood out of a stone, Phil. They haven't got the money for free housing and healthcare. They haven't got jobs to give. And as for free overseas holidays... I mean really, how are we supposed to take that one seriously? Do any well developed countries with strong economies that take in refugees free overseas holidays such as Australia, Canada, Germany etc. give them free overseas holidays? Of course they don't. It's a laughable idea.

So on the face of it, President Whatshisface's claims seem quite implausible and rather extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and since I've seen no proof - not even the ordinary kind - to support these claims, I see no reason to believe them.

//From now on I am going to point out your stupid comments, you are welcome to do the same to me if you can find any//

Jesus, I don't have time to point out every stupid comment you make, I'd never get aught else done.

Philip S
Your whole topic is an error. "How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them. "

Permanent radioactivity is irrelevant to recent increased melting.

Individual- Friday, 30 November 2018 7:37:01 PM

Answer- You're correct here overall. Most people don't seem to understand what Conservative (and Classical Liberalism) means- and so I tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to explain the concept succinctly- difficult task given the history and machinations and motivations over the last several hundred years.

Further-

*Three main political groups- based around the industrial revolution.

Conservatives - Original rulers and those that support this structure.

Capitalists - Those that sought power following the industrial revolution. Want free reign to expand- Economic Libertarianism.

Communists - Those that sought power in response to the rising power of Capitalists. The New Left evolved from Trotskyism. Saw an opportunity in the growth of capital to increase individual freedom- Social Libertarianism.

___

These ideas of Liberalism (as opposed to Conservatism) are apparently rooted in theories by John Locke 1632-1704- father of Liberal Democracy (influenced the US Declaration of Independence 1776), John Stuart Mill 1806-1873- On Liberty, and others.

Man in a free state of nature is seen by Locke as the goal of government where as Hobbes saw the state of nature as a vast conflict to be avoided. This conflict between those that see man as essentially "good or bad" is played out on many stages- it perhaps can be encapsulated in the "responsibility verses freedom" or "cooperation verses competition" arguments. If man is essentially without virtue then his freedom should be restricted, if essentially virtuous should be allowed to be free. And so on...
The devil is usually in the detail- there is talk about "mob rule" and Bentham's Utilitarianism, every philosopher it seems has something to say about governing. But the Nihilists do offer something special...;

But perhaps the goal of government is to keep the devil from the doors of the governed. But the devil and the doors are different for everyone but still we have a history leading back to nature that we rely upon for guidance. Some say that there isn't good and bad but just different types of good. Also - you shouldn't try to improve upon nature- most see the same devils but argue about the solutions.

I hope that you have become sufficiently confused to do something.

"Over-population is a reality, food shortage exists in portions of the planet, weather extremes are becoming more frequent and extensive, refugee mass-migration isn't occurring because some people felt like a walk, and plastic is a problem."

Over-population: well that's a value judgement. What is the 'correct' population. And I always point out that a partial solution is in your hands. Just show some commitment!

food shortage exists in portions of the planet: yes, because of political issues - war etc - not because we can't grow enough food. In fact we have more calories available per capita than at any time in history.

weather extremes are becoming more frequent and extensive: that's rubbish. Even the IPCC agrees that there's no evidence for these claims.

refugee mass-migration isn't occurring because some people felt like a walk: Its occurring because life is sweet in the west and people want a taste of that. But if the so-called solutions to AGW are implemented then life won't be so sweet.

plastic is a problem: only in the developing third world.

"Glaciers don't melt or recede because of some heat-source below the Arctic ice-cap (or because of an occasional solar flare),"

No they recede because of warming. In fact lots are receding to the levels they were around 1000 yrs ago during the Medieval Warm Period. I wonder what caused that warming?

You see, the question isn't whether or not its warming (it is) but the cause and the level of future warming. The world has been warmer than now for 3000 of the last 12000 yrs and we and the GBR and wild-life and crops and and and all did just fine in those periods. In those days they just enjoyed the warmer more benign climate. They had more pressing things to worry about.