Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Doesn't matter, because you don't know me. You don't know my country. You certainly don't know what hippies are, ever were, or what the movement was about. We changed the mindset of the world in 5 short years. What have you ever done? What? You think I must be stupid because I don't give a shit about the local politics in insignificant places? I don't know or care who the mayor of Podunk Iowa is either. Do you? Why not? They have more world significance than Australia. They produce food for the world, & they're part of America. You don't count. All y'all have is beaches, & you wouldn't even know how to surf if it wasn't for us.

---

i don't know you sorry hippie but you do seem like an ignorant son of a bitch.i at least try and know what's going on out side of Australia's borders.As for hippies i have kicked enough of the dirty things when i was younger lol.Its usually the smaller western economies that they try these carbon taxes and other lefty scams to see how the public will react to them .NZ or Aussie are used as a test tubes for these political scam merchants and the reward for these scams, for the countries politicians is a job working for the UN i.e Helen Clarke ex PM of New Zealand =one dirty thieving dyke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

On a more serious note I think its the political arena which is problematic, where expenses are routinely paid for by taxpayers and which revolves around the major summits but where there are also the less publicised, annual, sometimes bi-annual meetings of the various Conferences of the Parties, on Climate Change, Biological Diversity and so on. These involve government officials, UN officials, corporate representatives, and lobbyists and are never held in the same place but moved around the world, at what expense? I guess the difficult of linking government officials from around the world at the same time through video-conferencing is impractical because of time-zones and so on, but the cost must be astronomical.

---

Exactly.The attendees of the major summits are Government officials, UN officials, corporate representatives and lobbyists. Even [if] the conference concerns Biological Diversity or Arctic Oil Reserves, the attendees represent a wide range of opposing interests. They are there to negotiate in behave of their interests. I never been to one, but I imagine that besides being expensive, it’s gotta be a zoo. Partly why my interest in climate issues stops where the politics begins.

Having been a party in some small scale video conferencing (5 to 10 people) I can testify it’s not easy, reading peoples faces, gauging their reactions to what others are saying, dealing with the one second time delay etc. and then actually coming to a common understanding and negotiating a solution a workable agreement. I think it would be impossible with 50 or 150 officials, ceo’s and lobbyists. Of course it might be a way to keep the ceo’s and lobbyists out.

The whine about the extravagance of these conferences is just a diversion that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of climate change. Meaningless drivel.

So Russ... Still don't have anything to say, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

The whine about the extravagance of these conferences is just a diversion that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of climate change. Meaningless drivel.

---

A bit harsh, Hippifried, after all its in these COPS that the detailed policy recommendations are drawn up which do or don't make it into the major policy statements that the Summits try to reach -and which forms the political consequence of the science. Always assuming that this is the best way to tackle the hard science.

As I have suggested before, it seems to me that the pure science is now taking a back seat to the politics of carbon offsets and taxes, and that is a pity, but someone somewhere is making a handsome profit out of the process, and our taxes are helping to pay for it. Maybe if there was some sense of unified purpose on an issue that affects us all it would not matter so much, but this conference process has been going on since the 1990s and there isn't much to show for it, indivthe idual initiatives that industry has made to reduce carbon emissions appear to have been more successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

i don't know you sorry hippie but you do seem like an ignorant son of a bitch.

---

thats rich comming from someone whos posts contain nothing but prejudice 99% of the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Meaningless drivel.

---

like all of faldurs posts
theres a pattern here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muh_muh

thats rich comming from someone whos posts contain nothing but prejudice 99% of the time



like all of faldurs posts
theres a pattern here

---

cool ain't it :dancing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

cool ain't it ...

---

Naw, just bigoted.

So... Some delegates use their expense accounts to get laid or to glutton out. The hotels make a profit. The restaurants & bars make a profit. The folks selling tee shirts, souvenirs, trinkets, snacks, & other junk from the kiosks that pop up everywhere make a profit. The carpenters, electricians, communications techs, plummers, etc.., all picked up a few weeks of all the premium paid overtime they could handle getting ready for the event. Hundreds if not thousands of temporary staff are hired. Somebody's making a profit from all those uniforms, along with the ID cards, badges, & nametags for both staff & delegates. The local retailers are open late. The transportation providers, from limos to rickshaws, are non-stop busy. The prostitutes & other service providers are non-stop busy & being picky about their clients. Most prices are up, & there are no discounts to be seen. Etc...

This is pretty much the nature of all summits, conve3ntions, & other large gatherings by whatever name. Even the protesters spend money. Cities clamor, even bid to host these events. They spend mega-bucks building convention centers as bait. The topic of discussion that generated the desire to hold a meeting in the first place, is irrelevant to any of this. Why woud anybody be surprized that the meet & greets over climate change issues are not abnormal? That's a rhetorical question. This isn't any surprize to anybody, or even a big deal outside of the local host economy. The whining is just a bunch of meaningless drivel from the sniveling pecks who try to politicize everything that goes on so they don't have to let on that they can't argue the issue.

Drink up, Shriners!

In which case, I think I need a double. Try to imagine the Olympics in London...well, no, don't, I don't live there but already I can smell it, and its not carbon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

naw, just bigoted.

---

thats great it it get's right up your nose

Russtafa. A sort of Aussie Nero - fighting and fucking around while Rome burns. hey ho.

i would say it was the other way around lol

We don't have to worry about global warming. As Woody Allen makes an interesting point about our pointlessness... ha ha!
He offers up the dank and somewhat dark realism about the inanity -- or silliness -- of human life, the planet, the sun and the solar system -- and, yep, even adoring and worshiping T-Girls is pretty pointless... ha ha ha! :) :) :)
And as the British cosmologist Martin Rees has pointed out: the ultimate fate of the universe is pretty bleak -- ha ha!

Woody Allen about meaning and truth of life on Earth - YouTube

Spencer Wells - The Unforeseen Cost of Human Civilisation - YouTube

Sir Martin Rees: Earth in its final century? - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

We don't have to worry about global warming. As Woody Allen makes an interesting point about our pointlessness... ha ha!
He offers up the dank and somewhat dark realism about the inanity -- or silliness -- of human life, the planet, the sun and the solar system -- and, yep, even adoring and worshiping T-Girls is pretty pointless... ha ha ha! :) :) :)
And as the British cosmologist Martin Rees has pointed out: the ultimate fate of the universe is pretty bleak -- ha ha!

Woody Allen about meaning and truth of life on Earth - YouTube

---

Woody paints a bleak five billion year forecast but refrains from saying life isn't worth living. Ever the artist, he sees his goal as finding ways of persuading us (and perhaps himself) that it is indeed all worthwhile. He wants to do this without resorting to cheats (like: it's gonna be okay 'cause there's a heavenly afterlife where we're all meet and maybe drink coffee, converse and smoke cigarettes).

Is it a challenge, like Woody says? I don't think so. But then I'm young. Nevertheless, I'm not religious, not a believer in gods or an afterlife, I'm quite familiar with the life of stars, planetary systems and the cosmos. Yet I'm thoroughly enjoying myself, my friends, the books they recommend, the movies, the discussions, the times we live in, ripples and waves across the pond behind my house, the juncos and chickadees in the trees...everything. Is life worth it? That's a no-brainer.

Should we stop polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses. I'm staying out of that one. I'll just say that if we don't, the thermal energy of the oceans and atmosphere will continue to build and the climate will continue to respond.

more worried about global cooling than global warming scientists predict that the earth is approaching another ice age

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

more worried about global cooling than global warming scientists predict that the earth is approaching another ice age

---

Check you time scales. There are two orders of magnitude difference.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-likely-before

well that's great lets just keep the planet warm,though i think man has a lot of arrogance or stupidity if he thinks he can have such a great infulence this planet

You demonstrate a lot of stupidity to think that 7 billion people can't and aren't changing the face of the planet right now. The entire history of life on this planet demonstrates the capacity of a single genus to spread and change the entire ecosystem. Before the occurrence of photosynthesizing plants there wasn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere to keep you alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Check you time scales. There are two orders of magnitude difference.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-likely-before

---

Climate change is the most daunting issue facing humanity...
I mean, there are tremendous (health) benefits in reducing greenhouse gases.
I mean, don't people, say, welcome cleaner air, clean water? Or have we reached the point where we just don't care? I mean, industrial civilization is not sustainable. Ya really think we can carry on like this for another 50 years, 100 years, 200 years, 300 years? Do people care about future generations?
I don't see how we can continue to despoil the planet and not face any repercussions in the future.
I guess people just don't live in the real world anymore. People are too fixated on the cyber world -- ha ha! :)

Bill McKibben - Public Consciousness and Climate Change - YouTube

Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You demonstrate a lot of stupidity to think that 7 billion people can't and aren't changing the face of the planet right now. The entire history of life on this planet demonstrates the capacity of a single genus to spread and change the entire ecosystem. Before the occurrence of photosynthesizing plants there wasn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere to keep you alive.

---

Trish is absolutely correct.

wow it's like been told by god lol

You already told yourself. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=372

i don't think so Trish those graphs are bull shit

i think global warming is far better than an ice age.i think an ice age would root Europe and north America i think Australia would be ok but you people would be rooted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

i don't think so Trish those graphs are bull shit

---

Without reason to substantiate your 'thought' who gives a fuck what you 'think'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Without reason to substantiate your 'thought' who gives a fuck what you 'think'?

---

i do and i don't give a fuck about your silly greenie graphs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

i do ...

---

No you don't. You don't give a single fuck for your own thoughts either. You blurt them out and leave them stranded. You honor them not with reason nor with evidence.

Week after week, month after month we see you blurting out your prejudices and hatreds. They lie there on the page unnourished and dying like panicked sperm drying on the pages of pulp pornography.

I can't imagine why one would feel compelled to communicate and at the same time regard one's own contributions as unworthy of reasoned support. You have my sympathy.

:screwytalk shit Trish you don't think an ice age would be more harmful to to north America ? i know you are loopy and same go's for greenie pals but ,an ice age is better than global warming?

Even Margaret Thatcher -- Margaret Thatcher!!!!!!!!!! -- believes in the science of global warming. I mean, she's the Queen of Neoliberalism. But believes in global warming. Yes! Thatcher!!!!

Thatcher GlobalWarming - YouTube

And remember ol' Maggie loathes so-called socialism:

Margaret Thatcher on Socialist Federal Europe - YouTube

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Margaret Thatcher: Free Society Speech (1975) - YouTube

i don't give a fuck what that crazy old bat believes in.i think that an ice age would be far more damaging than global warming.if global warming fends of an ice age i say that's great

Climate Change Denial made by Frank Luntz - YouTube

[QUOTE=Ben;1089569]Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

[quote=Stavros;1089623]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

---

no they are not commies they are greenies or today's answer to the LUDITES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

:screwytalk shit Trish you don't think an ice age would be more harmful to to north America ? i know you are loopy and same go's for greenie pals but ,an ice age is better than global warming?

---

So where did you get the idea it's a choice? Once more, look at your time scales.

Anthropocentric climate warming is occurring now with significant measurable increases spanning just decades. Within a few hundred years or less the consequences will be drought, more violent weather events, disappearance of glaciers and sea ice, the rise of sea levels, shift and disappearance of arable lands, and major extinctions. We are already experiencing the effects of greenhouse induced energy imbalance. I'm not saying we should do anything about it, which is the greenie position. I'm not a greenie. I'm simply presenting the science.

Ice age cycles span a period of 20,000 years. At the very earliest the next ice age 1500 years away. We'll have roasted to death by then if we do nothing about greenhouse gasses. If we don't solve the problem of climate warming, we won't be around to even face the next ice age.

On an obstacle course you sometimes have to craw under [a] barbed wire fence with bullets whizzing over you head and then you have to jump a hurdle. Jumping at the wrong time can be fatal. Not that I'm giving you any advice here. Just saying what'll happen if you jump at an inopportune time.

[quote=Stavros;1089623]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

---

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 1/5 - YouTube

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 2/5 - YouTube

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 3/5 - YouTube

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 4/5 - YouTube

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 5/5 - YouTube

[quote=Stavros;1089623]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

---

Naomi Klein - The Paradox of Crisis - YouTube