Northern Irish politicians

[belfastuniguy]

Really a place to vent your annoyance or anger with our beloved politicians. You may also wish to support them and say why you like some of them.

I'll start with the former and state the rather depressing attitude of Sammy Wilson and his views on Climate Change.


I mean honestly, first we have ballygobackward Christian fundamentalist Iris-the-witch spewing her hate while the UK looks on and laughs and now this.....I really really worry about the people that vote this people into power.

Quit call over blocked green ad


Mr Wilson said the message of the adverts was "patent nonsense"

A Northern Ireland minister's decision to block a government advertisement campaign on climate change has led to a call for his removal from office.
The advertisements urged people to reduce energy consumption and cut carbon dioxide output.
But Environment Minister Sammy Wilson claimed the adverts were part of an "insidious propaganda campaign".
Calling for his removal, the Green Party said Mr Wilson made "a laughing stock out of Northern Ireland."
Sammy Wilson argued that the Scottish executive had objected and stopped the adverts being broadcast. However, the Scottish executive told the BBC the reason it did not run these adverts was because they are already running their own climate change adverts.
He argued that they were "giving people the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water".
He said that was "patent nonsense".
Mr Wilson said he had written to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to say that the advertising campaign Act on CO2 "was not welcome".
He explained that he did not believe in its message that "man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change" and that the campaign was contrary to his personal views.

This is totally incompatible with him being minister for the environment


Brian Wilson, Green Party

He told DECC: "I do not wish for climate change messages to be promoted by other Whitehall departments here".
But Brian Wilson, of the Green Party, said the environment minister should be removed from office for refusing to recognise climate change.
"He is a climate change sceptic. We have got to take all measures we can to reduce our carbon footprint. Mr Wilson does not agree with that.
"This is totally incompatible with him being minister for the environment," he said.
Friends of the Earth NI director John Woods said: "It's bad enough that we have an environment minister who doesn't accept that human activity is driving climate change, but trying to block advice to people on how they can help tackle it is completely irresponsible.
"The reality is that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that our activities are causing global warming and that urgent action is needed to tackle it."
The Alliance Party and the SDLP have also criticised Mr Wilson's decision.
Alliance leader David Ford said: "The simple fact is that there is scientific evidence, accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists, that manmade climate change will affect our environment if it is not brought under control," he said.

The DUP's Sammy Wilson has objected to the government campaign

Tommy Gallagher, SDLP, accused Mr Wilson of "political sabotage of an important public awareness campaign".
"We need all the awareness campaigns we can get on this issue, and in particular we need to ensure that efforts to combat climate change do not become victims of the downturn. The minister must be held accountable for his maverick posturing," he said.
Northern Ireland's first minister and party colleague, Peter Robinson, told the Assembly that Mr Wilson was entitled to his opinions, although they did not reflect those of the DUP as a whole.
"He has provoked a debate in Northern Ireland which I suspect would not have taken place had he not made the comments, and every individual must be entitled to their view on the issue.
"However, the view of the Democratic Unionist Party is on record and is in our manifesto, and it is that view that we will uphold at the Executive."
BBC Northern Ireland environment correspondent Mike McKimm said: "Mr Wilson has also advised Whitehall that such messages can only be promoted in Northern Ireland with his permission and he wants to see what he terms 'postcode lockouts' used to prevent them 'leaking' into that part of the UK.
"He also told the DECC that this applies to specific organisations licensed to use the "Act on CO2" brand, including the Carbon Trust.
"Mr Wilson's departmental website says it takes a lead on climate change issues.
Emissions
"His own political party manifesto also makes similar claims: 'The DUP has... called for year-on-year targets in order to achieve reduced Carbon emissions.' (DUP 2007).
Commenting on Mr Wilson's approach to climate change and its Act on CO2 campaign, the DECC told the BBC that human behaviour causes climate change.
They said their commitment to this campaign was guided by the "best science, the most up-to-date information and the evidence... the only way we can tackle it is by working together".

[SLMCC Belfast]

I agree totally, now that actual political progress is being made i think that people will start to st back and say," wtf? Why did we vote these assh*les into powr?" It is embarrassing that our environment minister does not believe in the biggest threat to our environment... lol, I love NI!!!!

[festivephone]

I actually support him because im sick of being pumped full of environmentalist propaganda. Yes its true to an extent that we need to become more efficent and cut down on emissions etc but at the minute the economy comes first. They feed you all this from you are a child. I remember having to listen to it on blue peter and childrens newsround 20 odd years ago. Well coal and oil hasnt run out and sea level hasnt risen 50ft. Alot of its about making a fast buck and an excuse to tax more. If Governments were serious about tackling climate change they would have spent the billions upon billions that were spent on the Iraq war and developed the hydrogen fuel cell or whatever. They were able to develop a nuke through the manhattan project in a few years so why not an alternative to the internal combustion engine?

[937delta]

Well said festivephone. They feed all this nonsense to you, yet they keep firing plastic bags at you every time you buy a product. Cucumbers are still wrapped in plastic. Most of it is all to scare us. In the 80's we were all going to die from nuclear attack, then acid rain, aids, mad cow disease. Climate change is a subjective subject, depending on what paper you read, you can believe anything. The end result is we stupidily agree with the government and then they reward us with more taxes. Enjoy your life, recycle were you can, and be effecient.

[belfastuniguy]

Originally Posted by 937delta

Well said festivephone. They feed all this nonsense to you, yet they keep firing plastic bags at you every time you buy a product. Cucumbers are still wrapped in plastic. Most of it is all to scare us. In the 80's we were all going to die from nuclear attack, then acid rain, aids, mad cow disease. Climate change is a subjective subject, depending on what paper you read, you can believe anything. The end result is we stupidily agree with the government and then they reward us with more taxes. Enjoy your life, recycle were you can, and be effecient.

What...they offer you a bag and you automatically say yes without any choice in the matter. Please.......don't blames others for your laziness

Well the comparison with nuclear attack wasn't exactly nonsense, see we had thing called the Cold War with the two superpowers having their weapons on standby ready to fire with hesitation, so the fear was hardly unfounded.


I disagree its nonsense, can be over-hyped at times, but science has shown that humans are one of the primary reasons the planet's climate is changing at a pace never before seen in its history. Climate change is natural part of Earth's atmospheric change and have happened all throughout its history.

However the rate of change in the past decades has been greatly accelerated and far beyond what the Earth has previously experienced. People who deny climate change are some of the least intelligent people I have met with no notion of understanding the proven and tested scientific facts.

I actually support him because im sick of being pumped full of environmentalist propaganda. Yes its true to an extent that we need to become more efficent and cut down on emissions etc but at the minute the economy comes first. They feed you all this from you are a child. I remember having to listen to it on blue peter and childrens newsround 20 odd years ago. Well coal and oil hasnt run out and sea level hasnt risen 50ft. Alot of its about making a fast buck and an excuse to tax more. If Governments were serious about tackling climate change they would have spent the billions upon billions that were spent on the Iraq war and developed the hydrogen fuel cell or whatever. They were able to develop a nuke through the manhattan project in a few years so why not an alternative to the internal combustion engine?

A nice example of a reply from someone that really doesn't know too much about the issues he mentioned.

Sea levels are and have been rising and will continue to rise. You do understand the vast quantity of water required to raise the sea level? No thought not..
It happens over time and the rate of fresh water melt has been greatly accelerated over the past decades. Sea level rises are the single greatest threat to the nations economy. Where are all the important cities of most major nations located? The answer would be on the coast or rivers that directly flow into the sea. A rise in sea levels will devastate many cities once the full effects have filtered down, hundreds of billions will need to be invested just to protect the cities, the cost to protect other areas of the country are too great, hence some areas will be allowed to flood. Remember, if London is flooded then the single greatest generator of wealth in the United Kingdom is disabled costing untold billions.

The nuke was easy compared to a new type of engine. What do you power it with with all those fossil fuels gone? Hydrogen cells are incredibly expensive, nuclear fusion is maybe 70/100 years away from being a reality, maybe a touch less. So what's your clever idea? All very well sitting back and criticising those that are trying to develop new forms of energy generation and engines while you offer absolutely nothing constructive. Would like to see you try and get your mind round a 'new engine'.

As for oil, hasn't run out yet, however peak production has been attained in several nations, in a few years the UK will no longer be a net exporter of fuel, Russia isn't too far away from peak, America, sea reserves and many more. Research all those years ago wasn't exactly accurate given technology limitations, today we have a much more accurate picture of oil reserves and the estimated time we have left before they run out and they will, in my lifetime they will.

Where exactly did you get 50ft from, clearly an over exaggeration on your part and really....just bullshit.

[937delta]

What...they offer you a bag and you automatically say yes without any choice in the matter. Please.......don't blames others for your laziness

If no-recycleable plastic bags are dangerous to the environment why are they legal, they should be banned.
Its like the petrol engine we use it everyday. Its up to the government/designers to sort out what comes to us the consumer. Until their greed for money gained in taxes through oil income has been addressed, don't patronise me on when or how I should drive a car, or if I use a plastic bag thrown in my face when shopping.

I

disagree its nonsense, can be over-hyped at times, but science has shown that humans are one of the primary reasons the planet's climate is changing at a pace never before seen in its history. Climate change is natural part of Earth's atmospheric change and have happened all throughout its history

There are scientist qualified to the hilt who disagree with what you are saying. So its not conclusive. I tend to think that its alot hot air, and the world will be looked after - don't worry about it.

[redstar1]

Originally Posted by belfastuniguy

All very well sitting back and criticising those that are trying to develop new forms of energy generation and engines while you offer absolutely nothing constructive. Would like to see you try and get your mind round a 'new engine'.

What makes you think someone hasn't managed to create an efficient engine running on hydrogen? Research into this field is NOT encouraged or funded and it comes down to the simple reason that there is no money in it and it would cost millions of jobs worldwide. Current economic reality depends on oil and its by-products.

[PB-1888]

It was wrong to prohibit that ad. It was an excessive form of state censorship, I didn't realise I live in Russia.

I'm no climatologist, but I think the evidence is there and convincing that the world is warming at a degree not seen in history, and that the main variable to explain this is through our consumption of fossil fuels. However some of the stuff published is blantant scare mongering all for a good story. There is also the issue that, as in any scientific pursuit it is difficult to get research funding when arguing against the received paradigm. Rather than castigating climate change sceptics I would rather see them lose the debate through reasoned argument. Its not as if they're holocaust deniers.

We should all be encouraged anyway to save energy, recycle and reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. If not from an environmental perspective, then at least from a political one. I'm not too happy that when I fill my car my money is going to some despotic regime.

The oil age will not end because we run out of oil. The whole peak oil thing is nonsense. The stone age didn't end because cave men ran out of stones after all. It will become a matter of Darwinian survival for humans to create an alternative, either because of imminent environmental catastrophe or because our national security is threatened by ongoing massive transfer in wealth from the West.

The Manhatten project is a perfect example of human ingenuity at a stellar pace, and creating a transportable nuclear bomb is not easy. Just ask Iran. The Apollo Moon landings is another example. I have no doubt that an alternative to the combustion engine could be made within a decade if minds and money were put to the task.

[937delta]

The Apollo Moon landings is another example

And you are convinced that these took place

[redstar1]

Originally Posted by 937delta

And you are convinced that these took place

There is vast quantities of evidence that it did, and absolutely none that it didn't....

Then again I wasn't there so I can't say for certain.....

[937delta]

There is vast quantities of evidence that it did, and absolutely none that it didn't....

My view is that they went there 40 years ago and haven't been back since, why not, is not like man not to explore. To finance it they could have had paid trips to a purpose built landing station. To arrive somewhere like Buckna lift a few rocks never to come back seems strange.

[redstar1]

Originally Posted by 937delta

My view is that they went there 40 years ago and haven't been back since, why not, is not like man not to explore. To finance it they could have had paid trips to a purpose built landing station. To arrive somewhere like Buckna lift a few rocks never to come back seems strange.

There was no reason to go back. The Apollo program was phenomenally expensive and returned very little scientific gain. Once the kudos and prestige of making it to the moon and back had been achieved there was very little left of interest. The American public were no longer fascinated by it and it became impossible to justify the cost.

There is also very little exploration value. It is just a lump of rock. However we now know that the Moon is relatively abundant in Helium-3 .... which is the most likely second generation nuclear fusion fuel source. That is why America wants to go back. Helium-3 will be the replacement for oil and gas in power stations.

[G.C.]

Originally Posted by redstar1

What makes you think someone hasn't managed to create an efficient engine running on hydrogen? Research into this field is NOT encouraged or funded and it comes down to the simple reason that there is no money in it and it would cost millions of jobs worldwide. Current economic reality depends on oil and its by-products.

Do you have any idea what resources are required to seperate hydrogen from the compounds its in?

[PB-1888]

I've just read that some DUP guy wants the Ulster museum to have a creationist exhibit to balance out all the whacky evolution stuff. Alongside Prof Sammy's ideas on climate change and Iris's views on homosexuality I despair that these views are coming from the largest party in NI. Is it any wonder why we suffer from such a brain drain and have close to 70% of the work force working in the public sector? If our public representatives can't get their heads around really basic fundamental concepts such as equality and the value of reason then what message does that send out to the world?

Being from Belfast, I hope to see what was once a very proud city at the vanguard of industrial and scientific development, return to that position. I fear that for as long as her citizens continue to vote for and support such irrational opinions then the doldrums we find ourselves in; needing the continued transfusion of funds from London for life support and becoming increasingly overshadowed by the cities of the South will only continue.

[937delta]

And what is wrong with politicians having views, is it better to have an honest politician or a slimey, sleezy one.
Why should an institution, the education establishment etc dogmatically educate people on an unproven fact as how we all came to be!!!!!!

As for Belfast being a power house again, it aint goin to happen. After, China and India, Africa will be next, cheap labour etc. And to suggest that the DUP are somehow preventing economic development in Belfast is a bit naive.

[belfastuniguy]

Originally Posted by 937delta

And what is wrong with politicians having views, is it better to have an honest politician or a slimey, sleezy one.
Why should an institution, the education establishment etc dogmatically educate people on an unproven fact as how we all came to be!!!!!!

As for Belfast being a power house again, it aint goin to happen. After, China and India, Africa will be next, cheap labour etc. And to suggest that the DUP are somehow preventing economic development in Belfast is a bit naive.

Oh please anyone that actually believes in creation is a fucking retard and clearly incapable of understanding even basic evolutionary science. They are entitled to hold that view but when science has and is still proven that evolution happened rather than god placing two people on earth and those two people being the first humans is unbelievably ridiculous. More so when we think that those two people had two sons and no daughters?? Incest? or just BULLSHIT...I determine the latter.

The very suggestion we should have a 'Creation' space at the museum is laughable and will never happen. Thankfully museums are not run by politicians but by a board of experts.

A basic requirement in today's knowledge economy is to be able to think ouside the box, constantly challenge your held opinions and accept that there can be better ways of thinking and doing things. I think we agree Belfast is not the city it was 100 years ago. How is it going to stand on its own feet, let alone lead from the front if we adopt such a restrictive mindset?

Indeed and the sooner those politicians either die or are voted from office the better our future becomes.

[937delta]

Oh please anyone that actually believes in creation is a fucking retard and clearly incapable of understanding even basic evolutionary science. They are entitled to hold that view but when science has and is still proven that evolution happened rather than god placing two people on earth and those two people being the first humans is unbelievably ridiculous. More so when we think that those two people had two sons and no daughters??

The basic principles of your theory don't make sense to any sane man. Basically it is wishful thinking on the part of athiest's as an alternative to God. Your belief in the religion of evolution is based on no factual evidence whatsoever. Your attitude to people who don't blindly follow your view is typically of a condescending nature in that you think that you are intellectually more superior than those who know and feel through their faith that through creation all is here and present today. Everything present can be explained by creation. Taking creation on board geology, and science fits in and can be proved to by scientists.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. Genesis 5, 3-5

2 sons no daughters????

two people being the first humans is unbelievably ridiculous

Even science is coming round to the fact that all human genes go back to 1 male and female.

If you guy's could actually get an argument together to undermine creation, you may be taken seriously. However you never will as creation is factual history.

[odlum833]

Ive just posted a couple of vids in the UK skybar on how the sun will destroy the Earth - is that God's plan too? He is not very nice is he? - I myself am religious but my faith has limitations and science is challenging it all the time. I remain open minded.

[odlum833]

Originally Posted by 937delta

Even science is coming round to the fact that all human genes go back to 1 male and female.

Just to say - strangely that would make us all brothers and sisters by proxy which tbh id rather not think about

[saoró...]

Originally Posted by 937delta

If you guy's could actually get an argument together to undermine creation, you may be taken seriously. However you never will as creation is factual history.

Umm, no. It is not recorded as such, therefore it is not history. If every religious text was interpreted as history the youd pass jesus by in heaven swinging off 77 virgins on your way to enlightenment.

There is no need to compose an argument against creation because there is nothing to dispute. There is 0 evidence. None. While there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

In logical, sensible human society, when you state a fact, you give information about its origins so others can uncover the truth you have. If I was to take your approach, i will now proclaim when people die, they go to live on some planet near alpha centauri, on which there is only one KFC. Prove me wrong delta.