Broomhill Ultra Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Deniers gonna deny regardless, sadly. See that's what a lot of people said about the MMR vaccine and autism for example. It answered the question in a way that suited a lot of people and somehow a tragically comic, corrupt piece of 'research' became a national hysteria against a proven and vital piece of medical science. I worked with a lot of people with autism through that time and could see that this was a properly fucking mental suggestion. Took years to right that situation, some parents still defend the crooked b*****d as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 See that's what a lot of people said about the MMR vaccine and autism for example. It answered the question in a way that suited a lot of people and somehow a tragically comic, corrupt piece of 'research' became a national hysteria against a proven and vital piece of medical science. I worked with a lot of people with autism through that time and could see that this was a properly fucking mental suggestion. Took years to right that situation, some parents still defend the crooked b*****d as well. Wait - are you suggesting that the case in point is similar to the climate change scientists? Or are you saying that the MMR scandal research is similar to the climate change deniers that Clarkston and Reynard cling to? Its the latter surely - the right answer is the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Wait - are you suggesting that the case in point is similar to the climate change scientists? Or are you saying that the MMR scandal research is similar to the climate change deniers that Clarkston and Reynard cling to? Its the latter surely - the right answer is the latter. What I'm saying is a piece of dodgy science was picked up by people who wanted an easy answer to a very complex problem. This became a pressure group that other researchers were willing to validate with more piss poor 'science' that then got seized on by a mainstream media eager to campaign on whatever is popular for a while before dropping it to move onto something else. The result was hysteria and a fair amount of kids left with serious illness and disability. Science is not politically neutral and never will be while profit is behind most of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Wait - are you suggesting that the case in point is similar to the climate change scientists? Or are you saying that the MMR scandal research is similar to the climate change deniers that Clarkston and Reynard cling to? Its the latter surely - the right answer is the latter. Definitely neoliberals Fucking b*****ds!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Wait - are you suggesting that the case in point is similar to the climate change scientists? Or are you saying that the MMR scandal research is similar to the climate change deniers that Clarkston and Reynard cling to? Its the latter surely - the right answer is the latter. I still didn't really answer your question there did I. I think maybe rises in temperature cause carbon dioxide levels to rise rather than the other way round. I think maybe the effect of the sun is far greater than anything humans have produced in the last 150 years. I'm still in favour of reducing pollution, renewable energy etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'm also a bit uneasy about the way the climate change science seemed to fit into a timeframe that has made it very easy for western societies to criticise the industrialisation of developing nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 YouGov have: SNP 43, LAB 27, CON 15 & LD 4. 'Others' (Green/UKIP probably) 11%. Less bad for Labour, then. Conservative vote also a bit more realistic than the IPSOS poll earlier. I put this in to the electoral calculus site which left Labour with 12 rather than 4 MPs. It also had the Conservatives on zero again, but there is surely next to no chance of Mundell losing his seat to the SNP in an area that voted very highly against independence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Definitely neoliberals Fucking b*****ds!!! All those climate change deniers wanted was to raise a family eh? b*****ds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 YouGov have: SNP 43, LAB 27, CON 15 & LD 4. 'Others' (Green/UKIP probably) 11%. Less bad for Labour, then. Conservative vote also a bit more realistic than the IPSOS poll earlier. I put this in to the electoral calculus site which left Labour with 12 rather than 4 MPs. It also had the Conservatives on zero again, but there is surely next to no chance of Mundell losing his seat to the SNP in an area that voted very highly against independence? There is an opportunity for the SNP to use the referendum result to galvanize its support. If they can do this across the country then they will take advantage of all the inevitable splits that exist between No voters. Its a big 'If' though - can the SNP capture all those angry Yes voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 There is an opportunity for the SNP to use the referendum result to galvanize its support. If they can do this across the country then they will take advantage of all the inevitable splits that exist between No voters. Its a big 'If' though - can the SNP capture all those angry Yes voters? I agree, which is why they will take seats off Labour in the areas that voted Yes or where the vote was narrower. In terms of Mundell's seat, I can't see it. The SNP got 10.8% of the vote last time around - you'd need huge defections from Labour and the LDs for them to even come within a shout of Mundell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Some wild forecasts now - 43 seats? Would love that. 30 would be a fine acheivement though but with all this hype, that may be portrayed as 'disappointing' by the Unionist media. Skeletor Murphy won't save them either. Times / YouGov Scotland gen elec poll SNP: 43% (47 seats) Labour: 27% (10 seats) C: 15% (1 seat) LD: 4% (1 seat) 1,078 adults Oct 27-30 Times/YouGov Scotland: How much do you trust: Nicola Sturgeon: 48% Gordon Brown: 37% Jim Murphy: 24% David Cameron: 19% Ed Miliband: 15% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Its a big 'If' though - can the SNP capture all those angry Yes voters? This fleetwood mac themed coalition are going to try to get some from the left; http://m.tusc.org.uk/index.php Not going to get many votes but disappointing if SSP, greens etc follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 10-12 thats if they keep polling like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I wonder if the same people who moaned about the calibre of Labour politicians being sent to WM will take a good hard look at the calibre of SNP candidates. To say they are talentless is a bit of an understatement. Looks like the scheme goblins are high fiving one another about changing the colour of the rosette when they send their monkey to parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Even though the information says otherwise? Seriously? 95% of the experts say its man-made. The other 5% are either the morons or the unethical who've taken a wee bung to claim its all a conspiracy. That's not actually correct. The myths are all contained in this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php There is no political compass to the scientific method, you utter troglodyte. Bar a few lunatic fringe publications or the total spinning and misunderstanding of data, the near-unanimous consensus of "information" points to man made climate change. Please just stop and see the light for both your own good and the good of humankind. It seems that you're a gullible fool which I can't take enjoyment from because you have access to communication devices. Look at those myths and realise that it's very healthy to question unless of course you believe that the Scottish referendum for independence was lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I wonder if the same people who moaned about the calibre of Labour politicians being sent to WM will take a good hard look at the calibre of SNP candidates. To say they are talentless is a bit of an understatement. Looks like the scheme goblins are high fiving one another about changing the colour of the rosette when they send their monkey to parliament. I thought the SNP surely wouldn't be stupid enough to suggest that a decline in support for Labour equates to a heightened desire for independence....I was wrong. Their imbeciles were on the BBC today claiming "it's cos they buddied up to the Tories during the referendum". Loving the fall of Labour and the idiocy of Nicola Sturgeon. My political joys since Sept 18 know no bounds...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I wonder if the same people who moaned about the calibre of Labour politicians being sent to WM will take a good hard look at the calibre of SNP candidates. To say they are talentless is a bit of an understatement. Looks like the scheme goblins are high fiving one another about changing the colour of the rosette when they send their monkey to parliament. Pete Wishart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I thought the SNP surely wouldn't be stupid enough to suggest that a decline in support for Labour equates to a heightened desire for independence....I was wrong. Their imbeciles were on the BBC today claiming "it's cos they buddied up to the Tories during the referendum". Loving the fall of Labour and the idiocy of Nicola Sturgeon. My political joys since Sept 18 know no bounds...... Talking of imbeciles, in what way does "it's cos they buddied up to the Tories during the referendum" equate to suggesting a heightened desire for independence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Talking of imbeciles, in what way does "it's cos they buddied up to the Tories during the referendum" equate to suggesting a heightened desire for independence? You tell me. The SNP are suggesting it and the fact that the Tories, the Lib Dems and Labour "buddied" up was to retain the Union. It is irrelevant that it has anything to do with independence. The reason people aren't voting for them is the same reason that people didn't vote for independence. Like the White Paper and all arguments for independence they're disorganised, incoherent and like your post...... bereft of any intelligence or relevance. Typical leftie, blinded by bias and can't interpret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Erm, I'm the one on the side of the vast scientific majority. You're the one in with the tinfoil hat non-entities. You really do hate being shown up. So, I'm seeing a complete lack of qualifications here. No surprise really, as I don't think a McDonald's star qualifies you to determine who is and who isn't a credible scientist. As we've seen, you;ve made a completely ludicrous claim and have embarrassed yourself utterly. I hope you learn from your shameful efforts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.