Ike Pettigrew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:i don't think there is a mechanism for tables here as such, but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!Also what does it mean to describe 'human type' as wolves?
I don't regard 'democracy' as a valid notional objective, partly because I think most arguments for democracy are nominalist – which, incidentally, I regard as one of the central politico-philosophical insights of Marx, though that doesn't mean Marx-ists understand practical democracy better than anybody else. A democratic process does not necessarily result in a democratic experience. It is, in any case, a malleable term: what does 'democracy' mean, exactly? The answer seems to depend on who, when and where you are. To me, a desirable state of affairs is a system or anti-system in which I can live as I wish, with only my own limitations and surrounding Nature to constrain me. I am not interested in fancy words and nice ideas, I just want to live how I want. If that turns out to look democratic, then all well and good, but I don't much care about that one way or the other. Living how I want requires strong minority protections, so that my views about how to live are not overturned by you and other members of any gang you might form to press me, and so that we don't come into conflict with each other without good reason. That protection comes in the form of property. That, however, does not mean I argue for a system of private property, but I must have the right to possess my own territory or space and be separate from you so that I can live as I want. I see nothing obnoxious in this, for me or for you, but you may disagree – but then, that just means we're different people, which reinforces my logic. I think that ideologies are really about systematic assortment of human types. If you want to live in a system of communal ownership, you and others who like that idea should be allowed to put it into practice. Likewise, I should be allowed to stay away from you. That brings me to the figurative reference to wolves and sisters. Socialists are sisters, while National Socialists are wolves. The former believe in a co-operative totality, whereas the latter believe in a restoration of masculinity and barbarianism. I believe in a world of wolves because I think that is simply the way human beings really are and civilisation is just a construct to suppress natural instincts. A world of sisters – which you want – might functional well, but it would just be a continuation of civilisation, and as such, it would diminish not empower the individual. Under such a system, I suspect 'democracy' (as you would have it) would come to be seen much as we regard tyranny today – for reasons I think I have already explained at length in other threads.
jondwhite wrote:Incidentally, tribal society has been significantly surpassed by civilisation / civilised society. Why regress to tribal?(i). For the reasons just given, I would regard a return to formal tribalism as a progression, not regression. To draw this theme out a bit more: I regard 'progress' in socio-biological terms. For example – to me, eugenics is a 'progressive' policy. It progresses Man. This goes back to my point about ideologies being a form of systemised assortment of human types and my scepticism about the capability (or cultural compatibility) of sub-Saharan Africans under imposed political economies invented in Europe and designed for European sensibilities and conditions.Possibly you favour socialism because you are mass-minded and you value social approval. Nothing wrong with that, by the way – I'm not insulting you. No doubt you have many qualities and attributes I lack. For example, you are probably more moral and ethical than I am, but that just means you are highly-socialised – a nice way of saying you are better house-trained. Not an insult, because it's important that people like you exist and I can't make the same boast. I'm not really a very nice person, whereas you probably are. Good for you!Socialism is a system that favours people who are highly-civilised (i.e. highly-socialised). To my mind, it's just well-trained obedient pets swapping one home for another, but in any event, it isn't a system that would suit me, as I am not 'civilised' or 'moral'. Nor would it suit black Africans, in my estimation. That is not intended as an insult towards me or black Africans, it is just to identify what I see as important points of particular and general differentiation. We aren't all living on the same curve. I should have the right to follow my own trajectory, possibly in co-operation with people of like mind, and the same for you, and the same for everybody else – so far as is practicable. This is what I mean by 'meta-utopia'. We each want to live in our own macrocosm. Capitalism isn't for us, or even if we can function within it, we are dreaming of something else. We aren't fulfilled. Your socialist system would [probably] be a nightmare for me just as much as capitalism is. Your utopia is my negative utopia (dystopia), using the term 'utopia' in its technical sense. Let's agree to disagree and go our separate ways. But with respect, that's why we have (and need) nations and borders. Maybe we need a realignment, the real difference between us is an understanding of the basis of that realignment. You think it will be according to economic interest predominantly, whereas I draw 'interests' more widely as I believe in the primacy of human quality.(ii). In any case, we still live in a tribal society: it's just that the reality of tribalism has been extended into different multi-faceted spheres of human existence. We have commercial, economic and business tribes, sports tribes, hobby tribes, political tribes, as well as traditional ethnic tribes, etc. and so on. If you are going to say capitalism doesn't take adequate account of this, I could not agree with you more, but I don't believe we should try to eradicate what I see as a tribal instinct.
@ LBirdWould it be open for workers to democratically decide that 2 and 2 make 5 instead of 4 or 22?I would argue that they cannot in any consequential sense, because by saying that 2 and 2 make 5, you will produce results that don't cohere with physical reality and that will be obvious. Therefore although workers can decide that 2 and 2 make 5 and nobody can stop them and I accept that is [can be] material reality, the rocks will stop them. That's not to say that I think rocks can 'talk', but the rocks are there. – they do change, erode, etc., but they exist in a coherent form, you can't vote them out of existence. My question, then, is how elastic you think reality is?[Note: I'm not being facetious or disagreeing with the larger point you are making, which I think I understand – and I think you make your case very well – but I'm sceptical about it, or you might say, not fully convinced].
Mike Foster wrote:Further to Vin's other post, another argument we often hear against a world of free access is that it would enourage greed. Would everyone rush out 'the day after the revolution' to grab as many sports cars, jacuzzis, gold-plated toilets etc as they wanted? Here, we've argued that greed is a capitalist construct, and comes from a culture of enforced scarcity. But 'greed' is quite close to 'wanting more', and surely a big motivator for a revolution is to want more. I think production would have to increase a lot in the early stages of socialism to satisfy demand, even taking into account that a lot of work and resources used up in capitalism would no longer be needed. This leads on to considering whether or not there would be enough resources for everyone worldwide to have access to enough goods, services etc to have a comfortable lifestyle. How would this be environmentally sustainable? How would socialism cope with distributing goods which are inherently scarce (as oil might be by then?).Again, I must be fair to the socialist case and point out that the above objection simply makes no sense once socialism is properly understood. The real difficulty here – at least, with this isolated point – isn't socialism itself, but a deficient understanding of something that is outside most people's ken and requires imaginative ability.If we have common ownership – the democratic communalisation of resources – and if that works, then why would anybody have a need for a sports car or a mansion? The 'need' disappears. I have to respectfully disagree with Alan Johnstone and others: it won't be socially-defined needs, it will simply be that people will have no desire and no rational basis for greed in the sense defined within the scope of the objection. Yes, greed will still exist in socialism, but it will have a different hermeneutic. 'Greed' will mean something else, just like other politicaly-infused works such as 'democracy' will mean something else.The challenge is not to defend socialism against a bogus objection, but to find a language that communciates the necessary comprehension.
My experience was similar. The first 'proper' book I read, about the age of 8, was Call of the Wild. Jack London is one of my two favourite writers, alongside Orwell.Regarding the quote above from a member of his family, it possibly represents a misunderstanding about Nietzsche, but I think there's a fair chance he would have endorsed Mussolini or looked on him favourably. Who knows?
In my opinion, charities are a business – and they seem to act like it, at all levels. Development has become an industry in its own right.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Dare i be Daniel and suggest that the current Pope appears to have broken the mould.First he has been a very vocal critic of inequality and certain aspects of capitalism, he has reformed the secrecy of the Vatican bank, admitted and apologised for sex abuse by his clergy, he tried to change attitudes towards homosexuality, he announced that atheists and non-catholics can go to Heaven, he is credited with being the peace-maker between Cuba and the US and now he has denounced the power crazy cardinals, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30577368Contraception and abortions and divorce, gay marriage, womens ordination, he still remains committed to existing papal policy. How long before on these the catholic church fall into line with other churches?Not that I'm interested in what religious people think, but all this proves is that he is a pretentious fraud with no principles. Your approval of it doesn't negate what it is. A Catholic who thinks atheists can go to Heaven is, by definition, not a Christian and therefore not a Catholic.
Let's go through the Material World article, and I'll pick out some points, not everything, and not for the purposes of disagreement necessarily, but just selected highlights for observation and comment. The article illuminates quite well this aspect of world socialism and makes a cogent argument. Extracts from the article are indicated by
Quote:.
Quote:Many of us recognise a rightward swing in British and American politics in recent times and throughout Europe topics of immigration, Muslims and refugees are now dominating election campaigns like never before.Is this really a swing "rightward"? Am I right-wing in the proper sense? I accept that the terms 'left' and 'right' have limitations, we don't need to go over that, but you clearly agree with me that the terms retain some significance, or you wouldn't use them in this way. Your rhetoric here is sneakily trying to associate national feeling with the political Right. I find that interesting, but let's shelve that thought for now.
Quote:Despair and deprivation are fertile ground for the populist demagogue. Political and economic crises bring forth renewed discontent based on old slogans. Nationalist parties have been making significant gains and only too frequently elections in Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have become contests between the right and the further-to-the-right. Some call it fascism but it is more accurately described as nativism where scapegoating foreigners offers an increasingly successful tactic for gaining political power. Populist regimes have opportunistically seized on refugees and migrants to promote xenophobia for political gain, tapping into fear and prejudiceNotice here how Nationalism and national feeling are pathologised and the working class in the West are talked-down and talked down to. It can't be that there are real concerns about immigration, founded in experience of reality outside internet forums and middle-class talking shops and echo chambers. It can't be that mass immigration and imposed diversity have damaging economic, cultural and social effects on their own, it must be that workers are credulous or stupid. Yes, that must be it.Notice also the way that Nationalism is attacked morally as a way of 'getting at immigrants', as if the primary thrust of any anti-immigration critique is that workers in the host country take exception to immigrants themselves and not more concrete and relevant things like their general behaviour, their inability to assimilate, various oppressive criminal laws that forbid effective opposition to imposed diversity, and the lack of democratic consent for immigration in the first place. No mention is made of the fact that immigrants are moral agents who choose to migrate and make their own decisions, nor is the question asked why immigrants can't succeed in their own countries or why certain parts of the world seem so unstable and what this might say about differences between different peoples. Instead, a different scapegoat is selected: it's the fault of "populist regimes", and it's the ignorance of the working class, only one section of it: the ones who have immigration and diversity imposed on them, against their will.
Quote:In Hungary, Viktor Orban's Fidesz party and in Poland, Jarosław Kaczyński 's Law and Justice Party (PiS) have openly embraced far-right policies. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban referred to asylum seekers as 'poison' and advocates 'ethnic homogeneity.' To counter the country's declining population he announced a housing grant and loan scheme for couples who promise to have babies.Isn't it just positively dreadful when the leader of a country decides to boost the native population at the expense of foreigners? I can see Tarquin and Luncinda in some plate glass college at York University spluttering into their coffee now as they contemplate what life must be like for all those poor Hungarians living under this evil fascist dictator. Evil I tell you! It was bad enough when Trump was elected, but now this? My word! Tarquin might have to skip one of his lectures on gender dialectics in English Renaissance literature, he's so upset.But wait….what is this? On the other thread, you were telling us about how countries with space should or could maybe let more people in. I wonder why one type of population growth is 'good', but not the other, but again, let's shelve that heretical thought.
Quote:Since his election in 2010, Orban has been accused of setting up an authoritarian state,Translation: A capitalist leader has been accused of trying to defend Hungary as an ethnic community, against the wishes of liberal capitalists.
Quote:jiggling with electoral laws, placing cronies in the judiciary and media, and squeezing funding for groups critical of his regime. Orban was re-elected in 2014 with more than double the combined vote of the next two candidates. Mainstream politicians are also critical of Orban, but they know that the alternative is even less attractive — the extreme right Jobbik party is Hungary’s second-largest.This tells me that what Orban is doing is popular. In other words, the preponderant view among native Hungarians is that they do not want mass immigration and they wish to preserve the ethnic character of their society.
Quote:In 2015 Slovakia’s Interior Ministry spokesman Ivan Metik announced it will only accept Christian migrants when it takes in Syrian refugees under an EU relocation plan. Robert Fico, Slovakia's prime minister, reinforced that message the following year, saying that Slovakia will not accept 'one single Muslim' migrant into the country.' He further stated '…Islam has no place in Slovakia… I do not wish there were tens of thousands of Muslims.'Why shouldn't those responsible for the welfare of the Slovakian people be concerned not to allow into the country those who do not share white European culture? This is not racism, it is just the protection of the dominant culture to ensure continued cohesion.
Quote:Political factions almost everywhere have turned immigration into a political football.Translation: Inconveniently for some, most workers don't want mass immigration.
Quote:Capitalism both unites and divides workers. The system compels our fellow workers to unite in order to defend their interests, but it also imposes upon us the necessity to compete individually for jobs. This rivalry creates animosity between workers of different nationalities, regions and religions, by endeavouring to bind the workers of one nation to the idea that they have a common interest with 'their' nation's employers. The only way to overcome these divisions is to strive for the solidarity of all workers, regardless of their nationality, language or faith. Native-born workers may think that excluding migrant workers will help them. But if the employers can hurt one section of the working class, it is easier to hurt the other.This has to be the most pretentious and hypocritical paragraph of the whole article. You call for solidarity among workers, yet you posit as the solution the forced integration of different peoples and cultures. You do this in the hope that by mixing us all together, we will forget or overlook any important differences, adopt purely economistic mindsets, and finally develop the advanced consciousness needed for a democratic social revolution. That is not the basis of solidarity. Imposed diversity is the basis for resentment and conflict among workers. If workers are to achieve solidarity – assuming that is desirable – this must be done through genuine internationalism, not through the abolition of cultural distinctions and forcing and bullying workers into living with other workers of alien cultures. An Englishman is simply not the same as a Pakistani Moslem, does not have the same attitudes, culture or experiences. At best, you will eradicate the essential distinctions that make humanity diverse while achieving your objective, but at the cost of a lesser and diminished humanity; worse, you will strengthen capitalism by removing the ethno-cultural bonds (I accept much of it vestigial) that exist between people and replacing workers with dumbed-down consumers.I'm also not clear how excluding workers from one country hurts any part of the working class. If I am denied immigration to, say, the United States, that doesn't hurt me or harm my interests. I will just continue to work where I am. I'll still be fed and watered. Why is it considered necessary for people to migrate this way, across not just one continent but sometimes several and through many countries, entering places in which they have no heritage or roots whatsoever? Why is this necessary for socialism? Why can't I have solidarity with, say, a Vietnamese person now, without him coming to Britain and without me settling in Vietnam? It makes absolutely no sense. Me and the man in Vietnam can agree we're both workers, and I can support him and he can support me; I don't need to live in his country and rob him of his culture, an agenda that favours capitalism, which seeks to unlock surplus value from countries with large populations but poor infrastructure and poor potential for development. Supporting this left-liberal agenda of mass migration and imposed diversity is like supporting, say, cooperatives because you think 'they lead to socialism', or it's like supporting abuses of workers like privatisation in the belief that socialism can only be achieved teologically, so 'the worse it gets the better'. I think that's madness and I want no part of it.
alanjjohnstone wrote:And once again this forum is being de-railed by those who are unable to rise above being baited. No wonder people like Ike treat us like a joke.Joking aside, let me assure you that I do not regard the SPGB or its case in any sense as a joke. I have never said as much and never would. I take socialism very seriously and I maintain that it is possible and could happen. My contributions are in the spirit of debate, nothing more. I could be wrong.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I would have liked to see other contributorss offer their info on de-population of areas of Britain.Ireland another region that certainly isn't over-crowded once outside Dublin CityAm I to take it from this that you think a higher population is a 'good' in its own right? I know you're just responding to an argument put by anti-immigration people, but I'm trying to fathom the logic. Even if a country has lots of open spaces, how does that justify open borders or mass immigration, especially when it goes against workers' wishes? Isn't there an argument that, first, open space is a good thing to preserve for its own sake, and second, open space is not necessarily habitable, and third, a higher population would put strain on space due to the need for supporting infrastructure? These seem reasonable arguments to me, and that's before we even get into the arguments about ethnic cohesion and the problems caused by imposing diversity on people due to taking a purely 'economic' view of everything.You call this "racism", which I think is a made-up word used against workers you don't like. Are Norwegians racist if they want to keep Norway ethnically Norwegian? Can you not understand that the motivation to keep Norway Norwegian or England English or Germany German might have behind it something deeper than sentimentality and that workers have real concerns? Such concerns, when expressed, don't make somebody a lackey for the local ruling class. Britain once had a modern population of 30 million or so. I should like to see us return to that. In an ideal world, I would like the entire country to return to forest and woodland and become wild, made up of a population of strong, independent people who can look after themselves and have little need of the state or money or capitalism. Wanting less people around is not to say I think people should have less children, rather I think the priorities of the country should change. We don't need incessant growth. Less people would be a better quality of life and result in a hardier and more independent-spirited people – who might be more inclined to ditch capitalism. When it comes to population, I believe in quality over quantity. I don't see the benefit of having more people just for the sake of it.
Vin wrote:TheMightyYoghourt wrote:Look, even in the hallowed microcosm of this forum where maybe twenty people contribute in a regular and suitably religious fashion, it just takes one Vincent with his threats of violence that he was once capable of visiting on his opponents to demonstrate how impractical socialism is. Imagine this forum with twenty thousand contributors. One thousand of whom are Vin Marratty. Form 'F', anyone?Can you offer any proof for this? I have never committed any act of violence and anyone who knows me would testify to that.You are a coward hiding behind a silly psuedonymI again remind the Party that it is open to prosecution for Libel.
If I may, one cannot be 'prosecuted' for libel in England & Wales (assuming that will be the jurisdiction, I cannot speak of elsewhere). One issues a civil action for libel. It is not a criminal matter. I will allow that you may be using the word 'prosecution' in a looser, generic sense.It is also possible that you are a paragon of the Chancery Bar, with an Oxbridge Double First, – either a QC or about to be made one -who strikes fear into pseudo-socialist neo-Marxist charlatans the world over, dictating writs to your much put-upon senior clerk (BA 2.2. English with Drama, Bath Polytechnic, 1992) while filling out the Times crossword [you will need to be, if you actually want to sue somebody for libel].I might add that it is actually potentially defamatory in itself to groundlessly accuse somebody of libel.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think i should make it clear that i do ACCEPT the free mobility of labour. Just as i fully accept that when i applied for a job, there were others competing for the same position. I didn't oppose the existence of other applicants. And i most certainly did not try to categorise the competition in a way that i could exclude them.But Alan, the free mobility of labour is not sustainable – econmically or environmentally or socially. It harms people, it harms the physical environment, it harms 'society'. You know this if you pick up a newspaper. You know this anyway because a critique of mass immigration and imposed diversity is in entirely in line with Marxism. Nobody wants it, except a small fanatical minority. Even the migrants don't want it on the whole. Do you think they enjoy coming here, impoverished and humiliated, some of them begging for help?
alanjjohstone wrote:I certainly do fully support diversity.But you don't. Sorry to take that sentence slightly out of context (I am trying to argue honestly here), but you really don't support diversity. You are morally supporting the opposite: the homogeneisation of humanity. It would be like somebody deciding that we can't have separate dog breeds anymore, and so all dogs have to be mixed and any dogs that can't or won't propagate a new mixed breed must be shamed and called 'breedist'. It's absurd that you think you are in favour of diversity.In a previous exchange we had, you also inferred that you are cosmopolitan. But again, you're not, at least not in the proper sense. If anything, you are anti-cosmopolitan. You're destroying true diversity and the cosmic facility of humanity, and with it, you are ruining the potential for genuine cultural experiences and also the possible biological benefits of separate development, which could provide us with an evolutionary hedge. You instead want to mix us all, on a doctrinal (and presumably moral) rationalisation.I have nothing against Jews or Moslems, in fact I find both groups very interesting – especially Jews. But I'd like to be able to travel across a border, perhaps undergoing physical risks, to experience their culture in their own space and maybe learn their languages (Hebrew and Yiddish) and visit their synagogues and learn about their history. I can't do that if these alien groups – be they Jews, or other groups like Moslems, Poles, Lithuanians (I'm not picking on Jews in particular) – are already here and living among us cheek-by-jowl. That's not cosmopolitanism. That's the opposite. And the result will just be endless internal strife and conflict until one group or the other emerges as the strongest in a particular country or region.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I am not in agreement of imposed uniformity and that has been by far the much stronger trend under capitalism.You know only too well, Ike, that the "nation" and "nationalism" are artificial entities created through indoctrination and the State. Diversity such as regional dialects were suppressed by the educational system of the various invented countries.Of course, but the fact something is partially-invented doesn't discount its validity. I do think nations (as opposed to nation-states in general) are organic. Scottish and English people have strong commonalities that an Indian, no matter how British he affects to be, does not share. I accept that nation-states are the result of agglomeration and suppression of tribes, etc., whether functionally or intentionally, and I accept that the invented traditions of the capitalist nation-state do not usually reflect the full ambit of the traditions within them, but that is not an argument against national feeling or the importance to people of their identity and culture; and, you don't resolve the problem by formally abolishing the relevant identities, which exist whether you like it or not.
alanjohnstone wrote:Another aspect of this is the capitalist campaign in the market-place for consumers to be all alike in tastes and personal demand. Diversity is permitted only in the niche corners of the minority market, otherwise it eats into price margins and advertising revenues and whatnot.Quote:Why do you think you know what's best for everybody else?We do think we understand the class interests of our fellow-workers better than they do themselves – it is called being class-conscious. It doesn't make us in any manner superior or elitist. To bring about this increased consciousness involves understanding socialism, which means talking about it, sharing ideas about it – in short educating ourselves and our fellow workers about it. We indeed claim to understand how the class society basically works and that is the difference to the majority of our fellow-workers who do not understand capitalism.
I differ from you also on this point, in that I don't accept I know better than anybody else when it comes to general propositions. Yes, when it comes to certain specialist areas – astronomy or German or commercial law or Marxist theory or National Socialism or vegetable gardening – I do know much more than the average person, but that doesn't make me special and I'm not going to tell other people what they should think. Fundamentally, my attitude is that people should be allowed to live as they wish and a system (or anti-system, if you prefer) is needed to ensure this. I have no further interest in telling other people how to live or what to think.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm afraid I don't accept that point. Let us return to the group going to the cinema model, is that a state? The decision, ultimately, may rest on a minority exercising and effective veto, you may not even get to go to the film you prefer, but because you want to go with your friends, you go anyway. Lets expand it a little, there's enough people for a film club: you don't have to go see the movies, you can miss a few without doing as much harm as with splitting on a close friend for the night. Also, you might have delegated functions, instead of choosing from a list of what is on, a person or persons choose the showings, and from time to time you fill in a pre3ference swurvey, or ask them to show a type of movie you like that is underrpresented, you might even, if you can arrange the facilities, allow specialist sub groups to meet and watch unpopular movies in genres they like.Now, that is democracy between lots of friends, where is the state? There are no guns, no monopoly of violence, people contribute according to their ability, and take according to their need, where the film enjoyment of each shall be the condition for the film enjoyment of all. There is no need for a monolith co-ordinating everything, but a reproduceable, scalable group relationship.So, not just words on a page, but a practical, real life example, for you to dissect in detail.I respect the fact that you are challenging me in a civil way and answering my points. I don't agree with you, but I'm not sure what I can add to what I have already said. Thanks.
J Surman wrote:re Ike's post 61:Yes, we can all avail ourselves of search engines, however I am interested to know which sites/writers/scientists/politicians/corporations/private interests etc caught your attention in order to have a better idea of what you are trying to say.I have followed the thread but choose to engage in the part of it that particularly interests me – and don't see that as off topic, I was simply asking for more information on some of what you had written as I consider the increasing effects of climate change will impact on both majorities and minorities.It's off-topic. Anybody, including me (I claim no expertise), can pull out evidence/data in this area. I have no trouble with that, but I wanted the thread to be about the socialist case, as that's my interest – and by the way, my intentions were good-natured and genuinely inquisitve, but my attitude has hardened now that I have been personally attacked, not by you, but by others here. I'm sick of being called a racist, etc. just because I oppose what capitalism does to the working class of my own country. We can quibble over whether it's "my country", and I can explain and argue why it is, and no doubt you will tell me it isn't, but that aside, immigration and diversity harm real people, and Vin and others believe that pointing this out justifies personal attacks and insults. Sure, I'm not perfect either – I often give as good as I get – but it's not my modus operandi to stir up trouble and the tone of this thread before Vin's intervention speaks for itself.If you want me to discuss global warming, you can can start a thread and ask me the questions you want to ask me. Quite why you'd be interested in my view on it is anyone's guess. Skeptics are ten-a-penny, which speaks its own story. However, I don't believe my view is just a 'view', I think there are serious problems with the global warming thesis – you surely watch or read the news, so little of what I say will come as a surprise.
moderator1 wrote:Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).The tone of this thread, I feel, was fine until Vin joined it.
