British Politics

The economy isn't worth **** if large areas of the planet become inhospitable. Imagine if the thousands of migrants in Calais causing a moral panic become tens if not hundreds of thousands, and you will get an idea of where this problem will end up.

I agree there is a lot of green insanity (e.g., electric cars). That doesn't mean that the majority of green initiatives are not sensible and necessary.

British emissions don't determine the climate worldwide even if you believe the apocalyptic scenarios for climate change which have been pushed by the radical left (and which btw are completly made up and anti scientific, climate change isn't that dangerous according to science, the leftist narrative is totally made up of non sense claims about it).

people don't leave France for the UK illegally because France is unlivable so I truly don't understand your example either.

people leave France illegaly to get into the UK because the UK let them do it and the moral panic is a complete fabrication, those ships should simply be sunk until there are never again any more such ships (and it would happen extremely quickly). they only attempt that because you let them, and letting them attempt that kills them a lot more than sunking 20 boats and then be done would.

"climate refugees will overwhelm us" is yet another completely bullshit narrative, an attempt to scare us into accepting red-green Marxism.

not only it's absolutely insane to think that people love worse in a 3 Celsius country with 10x the per Capita GDP of 50 years ago, but even if it was true (and again: it's objectively completely false) you can just shoot them down the sea or at the land border if you want to.

people attempting to enter your country against your wishes are never a problem unless you make it so by denying yourself the option of using violence to protect what's yours against illegal attempts to take it.

and before you claim you need a fascist country or something like that to be able to defend your border properly against any attempt to enter against your law, think of what Australia has been doing for a while successfully.

Can you clarify this? Do you think we should start sinking migrant boats in the middle of the channel until they get the message? if not, can you clarify what you do mean??

Also, if you assume the radical left are exaggerating the seriousness of climate change (and I agree they are), is it surely reasonable to assume those downplaying climate change are also exaggerating their position for political advantage (because they are too)?? Assuming the worst possible motive for only one side and not the other is not really a good example of critical thinking.

Also, claiming that climate change is "isn't that dangerous according to science" is not very reassuring. No one can say for sure how much climate change will affect the world, but when the alternatives are "not very much" to "catastrophic", it's rather we err on the side of caution and do as much as we can to look after the environment, and I would feel this way irrespective of climate change.

The far-left marxist/immigrant-hating fascist is correct, erring on the side of caution must be the way forward.

Anyone who doesn't think climate change is all that important might want to google ecosystem resilience and tipping points.

Or at least pay attention to the news about floods, wildfires precipitated by odd weather patterns, extreme weather events, the average world temperature etc

I think it should be legal to sink any unauthorized boat that enters your territorial waters and doesn't stop when ordered to, and this shouldn't be controversial. Same as it should always be legal to shoot at a land border.

If they stop when ordered (boat or people walking) you capture and send back, how is this controversial?

/

I don't "downplay" climate change, i think it's pretty obvious it is significantly beneficial for every country that is colder than the human optimum (which means most countries in europe), and i completly disregard the negatives for countries that aren't my country or allies. In the USA some states will on net lose some from climate change, some will gain, Canada gains massively, and so on.

On net climate change is significantly positive for western countries. Yes Sicily , parts of Spain lose a bit. Not dramatic at all.

So the west would actually better off subsidizing emissions. I dislike the state intervening so i would be ok with never regulating CO2 emissions at all. It is not a pollutant, it's a slightly warming agents and we gain with a warmer world because our countries are colder than optimum (optimum temperature for human beings is 20-25 celsius year average).

The optimal climate for human beings is not needing clothes for temperature, only to cover intimate parts. Snow ever appearing, ever going under 0 celsius, are dramatically dangerous and nefarious weather events very very very far from optimum for human beings. No night in the year should ever come close to kill you if you sleep in the streets in an optimal for human being climate for example.

Having heating at home already means your country is colder than optimum. For all those countries, warming is beneficial. Just think of the savings for not having to heat at all any day of the year, those are monstrously higher than any aggregate negative of warming for us.

So having established this, i disagree with state charity in general, especially for foreign people, and so i cannot agree with any form of regulation to reduce CO2 emissions in any country that doesn't individually lose A LOT from a warming world.

Then, for those who do lose a lot (california? florida, the like), it's still disastrously bad to spend to reduce emissions too much vs using the same money to deal with a warmer world (preparation, mitigation and the like). Why? because that's what the numbers tell you, and because if you do reduce emissions but others (like China et al) don't, you still get a warmer world lol, while whatever you spend to mitigate the negatives of a warmer world, you benefit from it directly.

A warmer world makes an area of your country drier? you are far better off subsidizing desalination plants than forcing people to have electric cars and heating. That's the logic.

It is never rational for any individual country to reduce emissions when it's antieconomical to do so. For some countries (cold ones) , warming is actually beneficial. For the rest, the money is better spent dealing with increasing temperatures and their consequences rather than reducing emissions.

Also, the precautionary principle plays opposite from what you think. Given the compounding effects of giving up even "only" 0.2-0.3% of growth per year (and the disastrous regulations that increase energy prices and so on damage growth much more than that) over the decades, you need to be pretty certain you are doing it for a MASSIVE benefit (or to avoid a major disaster), because we are talking 15-25% of gdp every year from 2100 on , every single year, in missed output if you reduce growth by 0.2-0.3 per year to go "carbon neutral" (which btw you can't without collapsing the economy and quality of life, but that's another topic).

Unless you are absolutely certain that NOT going to net0 soon will automatically cause a complete disaster (We are talking you need it to be worse than covid lockdowns, permanently every year, in terms of missed output), you aren't allowed to mess with the economy that much in such a costly way, if you want to follow the precautionary principle.

And keep in mind that the climate in the UK in 2060 will be the same whether you emit 0 CO2 or what you emit today, because 1) most of the emissions are already baked in 2) the rest depends on what the entire world emits , the UK is irrelevant.

Unless you can guarantee by force China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and others go to net0 as well, it's insane to even think to spend a single pound to care about emissions. Utterly insane.

And that's true even if you believe the most catastrophic scenarios by radical climate porn activists. Even if you believe every single thing they say, you are still better off spending monstrous quantities of money to mitigate (example: create water-level barriers everywhere in your coasts near cities; switch to full hydroponic indoor farming everywhere so food production is independent from the climate, and so on) while consuming as much fossil fuels as possible doing so as long as it's cheaper to do so than to use other sources of energy.

Well reform main difference with tories is reform agrees with me on the fact that net0 is absurd and climate change regulation is killing the UK economy.

That's by far the most important difference, as the tories are slowly moving toward reform takes on immigration (otherwise they would be totally wiped out in elections).

So while you are free to fully disagree with my take on the climate, given the conclusions are the same conclusions the reform party end up with, how can you claim it's not very relevant to talk about it in a thread on the UK?

Keep in mind that's very probable many people who don't care about climate change don't agree with me about why. They bought the simple lie that's the climate isn't actually changing or if it is , it's not because of CO2 emissions.

But that doesn't matter at all at the end because their conclusion (stop doing anything detrimental to the economy to reduce emissions) is perfectly correct anyway

Luciom appealing to authority - in this case the Reform party. That says it all.

What "appealing"? it started with you asking ME what i think a reform government would be like and whether it would be worse or better than the current labor government.

Abandoning net0 is what would happen if reform wins an election. "appeal to authority"??? i am not saying i am right because reform is lol. I am saying i am right and i elaborate why, and that's why i would love for reform to govern in the UK because it would make the UK economy better AND mostly because it would help a lot to achieve the same in the EU.

IT would be far harder to keep suiciding ourselves with insane climate regulations if the UK stops doing it and it's economy and quality of life improves because of that.

What you're basically saying is shoot anyone who tries to cross your border - what kind of civilisation do you want to live in? A state who is prepared to murder innocent people for trying to cross their borders will be prepared to murder people for all kinds of misdemeanours. I think we can do better than that.

I actually agree with most of your points about climate change. Yes, there is little the UK can do (that doesn't stop me from taking personal responsibility for cutting my carbon emissions), and if the UK does achieve net zero it will largely be by exporting our emissions to China.

I also agree that climate change may well make the world better for some people, and maybe the world overall will be more habitable. You only have to look at the map to see most of the World's land mass is uninhabitable due to cold. Plus, the world will warm up whether we intervene or not - man made climate change is just accelerating the process.

What you're failing to address is the geopolitical aspect. People who live in parts of the world that become inhospitable due to climate change that they didn't create will need relocating. Who is going to pay for this, and how will it be managed? Growing the economy isn't going to cut it, so what's the solution, other than shooting them at the borders?

People who try to trespass aren't innocent in my model, it would be a crime to try to trespass of course. And btw i mean Spain does it in Ceuta and Melilla. And no they aren't "refugees", as they aren't at imminent risk of death in FRANCE !!!!!

Keep in mind though that sometimes the way to minimize the amount of actual violence and death, is to credibly signal you are willing to kill with no mercy. In most western countries if you try to trespass inside military installations you get shot dead, no questions asked.

How many people die because of that per year? close to none, because if you truly know and believe you get shot dead if you try , you simply don't.

How many people drown in the sea attempting to cross the channel, or more broadly the mediterranean and other seas? if you killed a fraction of that ONCE, and credibly kept governing willing to do so again, do you see how the total amount of people dying because of that dynamic would reduce to close to 0?

My proposal and model saves human lives.

Moreover, it doesn't exist any kind of rational justification to let poor people in from FRANCE for you (it can be different for other situations). You can be sure beyond any reasonable doubt they aren't at imminent risk for their death IN FRANCE. There is absolutely no humanitarian reason whatsoever to accept them in the UK once they are in France. Unless it's an agreement to share the burden with France of course.

So it's not humanitarian in the slightest to created conditions to allow people to leave France and reach the UK. You aren't saving anyone from any danger. You are actually putting them in danger by making them believe they can cross the channel with impunity, so that many of them die in the attempt. It's pure folly, simple as that.

It isn't always as simple if you border a very poor country, or a country at war. But for the UK? it's incredibly simple, there is absolutely no human being which you are going to save by accepting illegal immigrants entering in illegal ways. They are already saved before attempting the last leg of the travel to the UK.

Bold is false though *even* believing the insane 4sigma scenarios. I tried to explain this many times in the climate change thread.

Follow me here and ask questions if some logic or number doesn't appear reasonable to you.

The most important , well populated country that is going to suffer the most from climate warming is very probably Bangladesh according to most experts / models. It is a country which is already hotter than the human optimal, for the largest part of it's area. It is mostly a plain so no higher ground to move to for colder climate.

Ok, *even bangladesh*, *even in the most horrid scenarios* (those were there is no emission reduction from now till forever, keep in mind SOME emission reduction is economically advantageous and i have nothing against it, like installing a lot of solar where it makes sense to do so), has it's GDP going down like 30% vs baseline in 2100 (the world overall goes down like 6-8% median estimate RCP 8.5 from the IPCC).

Do you realize that GDP would still be A LOT HIGHER THAN TODAY right?

So the claim is that a FAR RICHER than today bangladesh will have life conditions which are SO MUCH WORSE THAN TODAY that a lot of people will HAVE to flee or they die.

How is that claim even remotely sustainable or logic? Bangladesh is at approx 6000 USD PPP of per capita GDP. There is no possible universe where with 15k USD PPP per capita in 2080 but 2.5 celsius higher life is SO MUCH WORSE THAN TODAY that tens of millions have to flee the entire country. There simply isn't.

It's all complete fabrication. A totally made up narrative concocted by very cunny people who thought "see, what does the right hates a lot? refugees? let's go with a wild, utterly indefensible claim that climate change generates a lot of what they hate to deal with, they are gullible enough they can fall for it".

People are emigrating much more today than they did when the life conditions in their home countries were objectively FAR WORSE than today. And they are doing that uniquely because we allow them in. That's why emigration is increasing. Not because they are worse off than in their past, they objectively aren't.

And the same will be true in the future. The only reason refugees, "climate" or otherwise, could increase, is if we keep letting them in. If we stop, they stop coming. There is no climate change big enough that makes them FORCED to emigrate thousands of kilometers away. There might be specific areas of specific countries which will depopulate. And they will go elsewhere in the same country in many cases, and sometimes abroad where someone is willing to take them.

And btw growing the economy solves every possible problem, including a warmer climate. People live in freaking saudi arabia lol, which is an infinitely worse place to live than Brazil or Bangladesh would be even in a 3 celsius warmer world by a large margin. Do you see why the existence of cities in saudi arabia proves that with enough money climate change is utterly irrelevant for the purported dynamic of "refugees"?

Highly inefficient and maladaptive economic and social collectivism combined with Western aid, allowing for unsustainable population growth, has proven to be a disastrous cycle for much of the "Global South." But human nature being what it is, the preferred solution is just to double down and be more collectivist and inefficient.

Whether left or right wing, xenophobia and collectivism is never the answer. You cant build an economy where extreme corruption and nepotism is the norm. But with Western aid propping things up there is no impetus to self correct and everything just gets worse.

Shouldn't think he actually is.

https://www.thenewsmovement.com/articles/andrew-tate-faked-his-conversion-to-islam-for-business-reasons-whistleblower-says

The News Movement

TNM | Andrew Tate faked his conversion to Islam for business reasons, whistleblower says

The 'appeal to authority' -- 'Certain respected persons say this, so it must be true' -- is a recognised intellectual fallacy.

i am asking what appealing I ever did.

it went reversed. I start from a position from which I consider going for net 0 is a disastrous mistake, and THAT makes me like reform.

I don't need reform to concur with what is obvious to the totality of rational people (non leftist right-wing leaning libertarians) to know it's correct.

by 57 On Red k

Shouldn't think he actually is.

https://www.thenewsmovement.com/articles/andrew-tate-faked-his-conversion-to-islam-for-business-reasons-whistleblower-says

The News Movement

TNM | Andrew Tate faked his conversion to Islam for business reasons, whistleblower says

better, it makes it easier to criticize him, I don't want to risk capture in the UK if I criticize Tate too much because of "islamophobia"

The guy that says state/government should use violence as a last resort = shoot people at first sight near the borders ….

And Saudi Arabia will become even hotter….
What is the limit in your opinion of hot temperature a human civilization can live ?

50C.?
60C ?
About 70C ?

Lucio just believe science and markets when it fits his narrative shrug

Example : He trust rich idiots , with too much money to spare , buying beach house to claim climate changes isn’t a risk but refuse to trust actual insurance companies , expert in risk, in them raising prices or even refuse to insured people due to increase climate risk.

yes It is pretty well known in game theory that if you credibly commit to extreme actions you almost never end up needing to actually do it.

it's like the entire world still exists only thanks to that. check what MAD nuclear equilibrium was.

and try to understand it works at lower levels as well

with enough money (= real resources) there is no limit.

we can already live on spaceships

insurance is increasing fast because rebuilding costs are increasing fast because of Biden inflation and regulation.

it costs 50% more to build a house per square meter than it did a few years ago in most areas of the USA.

that means insurance has to grow 50% just to break even even if the risk stays the same.

then there are rates. with increasing long term rates insurance loses money on its pool of long term investment. when long term rate go up insurance companies are the first losers for obvious reasons

On the rape gangs

Havent we had 4 major abuse stories in the last 20 years:
- catholic church
- grooming gangs
- entertainment
- politics/power i.e. cyril smuths lot

In each case the police & social services were awful
In each case the victims were blamed
In 3/4 cases the abusers were in positions of power

The problem is society as a whole back then not believing women and the awful nature of the police

I dont see the fsr right vilifying the church or the entertainment industry, or elon for that matter

LOOOOL Luciom "Lets change the crops that countries grow"