Do you consider UKIP good or bad?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by geokinkladze
No she had previously referred to the EU as being responsible for 75% of Swedish laws. It was a statement she had previously made to justify EU membership to Swedes.
During a different debate, when asked if Sweden was a special case, she explained it applied to all EU nations. It certainly wasn't off the cuff as she had already made the point previously and had an opportunity to clarify her earlier statement if it wasn't what she meant.
During a different debate, when asked if Sweden was a special case, she explained it applied to all EU nations. It certainly wasn't off the cuff as she had already made the point previously and had an opportunity to clarify her earlier statement if it wasn't what she meant.
This is going in circles- she was confused, alright? The question she thought she was giving the correct answer to was that EU laws, which afaik do affect Sweden are 80% or whatever made by the European Parliament. I've given you a report by our own Parliamentary commision which states that only 6.8% of statues made in this country are influenced by Brussels, to a greater or lesser degree. Yet you persistently refuse to accept my source over Reding in an impromptu debate.
I don't know how many of Sweden's laws are made by the EU, but I expect that its a similarly low amount. The confusion is that she didn't understand the question.
Original post by geokinkladze
No she had previously referred to the EU as being responsible for 75% of Swedish laws. It was a statement she had previously made to justify EU membership to Swedes.
During a different debate, when asked if Sweden was a special case, she explained it applied to all EU nations. It certainly wasn't off the cuff as she had already made the point previously and had an opportunity to clarify her earlier statement if it wasn't what she meant.
During a different debate, when asked if Sweden was a special case, she explained it applied to all EU nations. It certainly wasn't off the cuff as she had already made the point previously and had an opportunity to clarify her earlier statement if it wasn't what she meant.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_laws_70_per_cent-29589
Is the commissioner you are referring to?
Original post by geokinkladze
Only confusing if you confuse "climate change" with "man made climate change".
Data looking at "climate change" over the past 10,00 years would be pretty odd if the phrase "climate change" was replaced with "man made climate change".
Hopefully, that explains your confusion and the reason why the two should be kept separate.
Data looking at "climate change" over the past 10,00 years would be pretty odd if the phrase "climate change" was replaced with "man made climate change".
Hopefully, that explains your confusion and the reason why the two should be kept separate.
Data looking at climate change over the last 10,000 years would be quite odd if it was described as natural climate change. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago, the mean global temp has been pretty much 14 for the entire period you're talking about. It's only if you look at the most recent 100-200 years that there is any noticeable trend. That is in itself highly alarming.
Original post by DaveSmith99
They don't favour nuclear IN ORDER TO REDUCE C02 EMISSIONS. They favour nuclear because nuclear is a good source of energy regardless of emissions.
taken from the UKP leaflet so many people keep quoting:
UKIP
we could achieve Brussels’ emissions targets more cheaply, and more securely, by a combination of gas and nuclear
They are talking about reducing CO2 emissions right there.
Original post by geokinkladze
taken from the UKP leaflet so many people keep quoting:
They are talking about reducing CO2 emissions right there.
They are talking about reducing CO2 emissions right there.
There is simply no need to appeal to CO2 as an explanation for natural variation. But even if you accept the IPCC CO2 theory, there are two more serious problems.
They don't believe in climate change (or anthropogenic climate change if we're being pedantic) but are saying that their policy is the best and will reduce CO2 anyway.
Whether you agree or disagree with their polices, everyone should be concerned with the collusion between the media and mainstream parties in trying to slander UKIP in recent weeks.
And of course, it is a good thing that the Conservatives/Labour become more aware that the man on the street is very angry with the metropolitan elite's dominance in deciding the direction of this country.
And of course, it is a good thing that the Conservatives/Labour become more aware that the man on the street is very angry with the metropolitan elite's dominance in deciding the direction of this country.
Original post by DaveSmith99
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_laws_70_per_cent-29589
Is the commissioner you are referring to?
Is the commissioner you are referring to?
That is the one, so this website you link to is concluding that the European Commision Vice President doesn't know what she is talking about?
Strange how she was able to "get away" with saying this in Sweden but as soon as she says it in the UK we are all told she made a mistake. If it is a mistake why was it not corrected when she said it to the Swedes?
That Youtube video people don't seem to able to load is pretty clear (and was stated separately to the debate in the link you post). Here are her words
"I don't know if the figure is 75% or 80% but the truth is that most laws which are applied and executed at national level are based on European laws or directives which have to be translated into national laws, so the biggest part of the legislation in any member state is decided by European parliament in co-decision with the council of European ministers."
She has said it on more than one occasion (at least three separate occasions that I know of). Even the link you posted, they weren't able to get her office to deny her words, instead they have clarified her words on her behalf.
Something smells fishy and I'm not talking about EU throwback rules.
Original post by DaveSmith99
They don't believe in climate change (or anthropogenic climate change if we're being pedantic) but are saying that their policy is the best and will reduce CO2 anyway.
You are quite clearly wrong.
They DO believe in Climate Change.
They believe natural cycles are NOT explained by CO2.
They DO believe in reducing CO2.
They do not believe in reducing CO2 via expensive wind turbines.
They believe in reducing CO2 by cheaper nuclear power stations.
None of the statements above are contradictory in any way, unless maybe if you are the type of person who feels that "climate change" and "anthropogenic climate change" are one and the same.
I just found out that TSR has an article on the elections, with this thread linked off of it. So if we could *possibly* stop having a petty squabble over global warming and stick to UKIP policies. I'm aware that they intend to cut a lot of green policies because a certain number of UKIP MPs don't believe in it (that's the most neutral way I could say that, honestly), but it really shouldn't be a major concerning factor.
Since I need to revise anyway, I'm leaving with the statement: CO2 has been proven unequivocally to act as a greenhouse gas on small, observable scales. Global temperatures have risen with increasing CO2 output. This is AFAIK the fastest rate of climate change ever, homo sapiene evolved during an ice age and are not equipped for high temperatures, and the rate is accelerating (see the IPCC graph earlier). Even if you refuse the linking to man's activities, you're blind or stupid if you think that at some point releasing huge quantities of a known greenhouse gas won't have an adverse effect.
Unless someone has notes on Blood Brothers, Lord of the Flies or Tourism, don't contact me until the weekend or reply to this pose directly. I don't care anymore.
Since I need to revise anyway, I'm leaving with the statement: CO2 has been proven unequivocally to act as a greenhouse gas on small, observable scales. Global temperatures have risen with increasing CO2 output. This is AFAIK the fastest rate of climate change ever, homo sapiene evolved during an ice age and are not equipped for high temperatures, and the rate is accelerating (see the IPCC graph earlier). Even if you refuse the linking to man's activities, you're blind or stupid if you think that at some point releasing huge quantities of a known greenhouse gas won't have an adverse effect.
Unless someone has notes on Blood Brothers, Lord of the Flies or Tourism, don't contact me until the weekend or reply to this pose directly. I don't care anymore.
Original post by Rakas21
The EU is already creating trade agreements with the USA (and Canada).
The EU is already creating trade agreements with the USA (and Canada).
The commission insists that its Translantic Trade and Investment Partnership should include a mechanism called the investor-state dispute settle. Where this has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big corporations to sue governments before secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass domestic courts and override the will of parliaments. Also you are ignoring India, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the fact we do not need to be in the EU for our own trade agreements, nor to trade with the EU, a point I assume you accept due to you ignoring it in your reply.
Original post by geokinkladze
That is the one, so this website you link to is concluding that the European Commision Vice President doesn't know what she is talking about?
Strange how she was able to "get away" with saying this in Sweden but as soon as she says it in the UK we are all told she made a mistake. If it is a mistake why was it not corrected when she said it to the Swedes?
That Youtube video people don't seem to able to load is pretty clear (and was stated separately to the debate in the link you post). Here are her words
"I don't know if the figure is 75% or 80% but the truth is that most laws which are applied and executed at national level are based on European laws or directives which have to be translated into national laws, so the biggest part of the legislation in any member state is decided by European parliament in co-decision with the council of European ministers."
She has said it on more than one occasion (at least three separate occasions that I know of). Even the link you posted, they weren't able to get her office to deny her words, instead they have clarified her words on her behalf.
Something smells fishy and I'm not talking about EU throwback rules.
Strange how she was able to "get away" with saying this in Sweden but as soon as she says it in the UK we are all told she made a mistake. If it is a mistake why was it not corrected when she said it to the Swedes?
That Youtube video people don't seem to able to load is pretty clear (and was stated separately to the debate in the link you post). Here are her words
"I don't know if the figure is 75% or 80% but the truth is that most laws which are applied and executed at national level are based on European laws or directives which have to be translated into national laws, so the biggest part of the legislation in any member state is decided by European parliament in co-decision with the council of European ministers."
She has said it on more than one occasion (at least three separate occasions that I know of). Even the link you posted, they weren't able to get her office to deny her words, instead they have clarified her words on her behalf.
Something smells fishy and I'm not talking about EU throwback rules.
I don't understand your confusion. The link clearly shows that in that one example the 70% figure was referring to EU law.
Original post by geokinkladze
You are quite clearly wrong.
They DO believe in Climate Change.
They believe natural cycles are NOT explained by CO2.
They DO believe in reducing CO2.
They do not believe in reducing CO2 via expensive wind turbines.
They believe in reducing CO2 by cheaper nuclear power stations.
None of the statements above are contradictory in any way, unless maybe if you are the type of person who feels that "climate change" and "anthropogenic climate change" are one and the same.
They DO believe in Climate Change.
They believe natural cycles are NOT explained by CO2.
They DO believe in reducing CO2.
They do not believe in reducing CO2 via expensive wind turbines.
They believe in reducing CO2 by cheaper nuclear power stations.
None of the statements above are contradictory in any way, unless maybe if you are the type of person who feels that "climate change" and "anthropogenic climate change" are one and the same.
I am quite clearly not wrong, and quite clearly said anthropogenic climate change. I still don't understand why you are being so obtuse and insisting on misrepresenting the debate. The climate change debate is not about whether the Earth's climate is eternal and unchanging or not.
UKIP do not believe in ANTHROPOGENIC climate change
They do not believe in reducing CO2
We do not however regard CO2 as a pollutant. It is a natural trace gas in the
atmosphere which is essential to plant growth and life on earth.
atmosphere which is essential to plant growth and life on earth.
Have you even read their energy policy document?
Original post by lerjj
Data looking at climate change over the last 10,000 years would be quite odd if it was described as natural climate change. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago, the mean global temp has been pretty much 14 for the entire period you're talking about. It's only if you look at the most recent 100-200 years that there is any noticeable trend. That is in itself highly alarming.
Well it is pretty simple really.. there is climate change, which we can attribute to two major types: man made and natural. If you don't refer to one, then I wouldn't assume it unless it is plainly obvious. Climate change from 10,000 years ago can be safely assumed to be natural. Assuming climate change in the last 100 years is all man made is frankly ridiculous.
Original post by DaveSmith99
Have you even read their energy policy document?
Yes, it is what I keep quoting to you, it is where they state they wish to reduce emissions by building nuclear power stations rather than wind turbines. Clearly you don't understand it. But then you think Climate change means man made climate change. They are two different things. Which is cause for your confusion.. you believe that..
Original post by DaveSmith99
Climate change has become to mean man made global warming
You back this up by saying that...
Original post by DaveSmith99
The 'climate change debate' is not a debate between people who think the earths climate has remained perfectly level and stable for 10,000 years and people who don't, no one thinks or is claiming that
Frankly there are quite a few people who DO claim precisely that. However that is an aside, the people you so conveniently miss out are those who believe climate change is not entirely man made. You conflate the two terms showing that you don't accept there is a difference between the two.
Either way climate change does not mean man made climate change, they are two separate things. One is a part of the other, I can't believe you can't even understand that basic principle. It's not about being pedantic, it's just the truth.
Original post by DaveSmith99
The climate change debate is not about whether the Earth's climate is eternal and unchanging or not.
Of course it's not, it's about to what extent climate change is man made or not, that is the basic principle about which you don't understand. You are putting people into boxes. You assert people are either for or against climate change based on whether they agree with you to what extent climate change is not natural. It's a ludicrous argument and can't reasonably be justified.
Original post by DaveSmith99
UKIP do not believe in ANTHROPOGENIC climate change
They do not believe in reducing CO2
They do not believe in reducing CO2
Evidence again that the extent to which climate change is man made, in your eye's is an absolute. issue. It is either man made or not. it has to be, because you also said that "climate change" and "man made climate change" are one and the same.
But again, you said that
Original post by DaveSmith99
everyone accepts that their are natural cycles
So the question to you is this:
Do you believe the climate change for the last 100 years is entirely man made?
If not, to what extent do you believe it is man made?
Original post by hexagonalRod
Look at the arrogance you've got. This is common across all of UKIP supporters, I don't think this is the way forward.
...and you think making broad statements like that are the way forward?
Original post by geokinkladze
they wish to reduce emissions by building nuclear power stations rather than wind turbines. Clearly you don't understand it. But then you think Climate change means man made climate change.
You can say whatever pointless crap you want but at the end of the day if climate change isn't man made then why do we need to spend money building nuclear power stations to 'reduce emissions'
Original post by lerjj
I don't know how many of Sweden's laws are made by the EU, but I expect that its a similarly low amount. The confusion is that she didn't understand the question.
She made the comments on at least three separate occasions. The first time that is on record was in Stockholm to a Swedish audience, specifically about Swedish laws.
In fact when she made the same comments in the UK, she apologises to someone before she does so. In my view she had been advised not to do it again, but refused the advice. Please note, by the time she was in the UK she had her argument well versed, she was in no way confused, I'm not even sure whether she was actually answering a question by that point. She was trying to defend the EU's value for money on the basis that 75-80% of our laws came from the EU.
This cannot be misrepresented as a confused person answering the wrong question. The fact that the debate was shut up pretty quickly, and the spin doctors went into overdrive afterward, is a lot more telling to me.
Original post by DaveSmith99
They don't believe in climate change (or anthropogenic climate change if we're being pedantic)
because they said...
UKIP
There is simply no need to appeal to CO2 as an explanation for natural variation.
but then you say...
Original post by DaveSmith99
everyone accepts that their are natural cycles
hmmmm
Original post by RumpeIstiltskin
You can say whatever pointless crap you want but at the end of the day if climate change isn't man made then why do we need to spend money building nuclear power stations to 'reduce emissions'
I guess you are also an absolutist. Either Climate change is man made or not, there is no in between... and you accuse me of spouting pointless crap.
If climate change was entirely man made then we wouldn't be here to make it. Get your head around that one.
If climate change was entirely natural then we can pour whatever crap we want into the atmosphere and not worry about it.
Both are scientifically unsound. I'm for neither.
This is the last time I'm going to try and reason with you as it's incredibly tedious and dull.
Yes, I do criticise UKIP for that. UKIP aren't the people to be telling us that, they aren't scientists, they are big-business friendly and wealthy neo-con politicians, their agenda is clear. Leave the science to the scientists, let the politicians decide how it is best to act on the science.
How are you confused? They do not think that CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they think that man has nothing to do with climate change.
Original post by geokinkladze
Yes, it is what I keep quoting to you, it is where they state they wish to reduce emissions by building nuclear power stations rather than wind turbines. Clearly you don't understand it. But then you think Climate change means man made climate change. They are two different things. Which is cause for your confusion.. you believe that..
You back this up by saying that...
Frankly there are quite a few people who DO claim precisely that. However that is an aside, the people you so conveniently miss out are those who believe climate change is not entirely man made. You conflate the two terms showing that you don't accept there is a difference between the two.
Either way climate change does not mean man made climate change, they are two separate things. One is a part of the other, I can't believe you can't even understand that basic principle. It's not about being pedantic, it's just the truth.
Of course it's not, it's about to what extent climate change is man made or not, that is the basic principle about which you don't understand. You are putting people into boxes. You assert people are either for or against climate change based on whether they agree with you to what extent climate change is not natural. It's a ludicrous argument and can't reasonably be justified.
Evidence again that the extent to which climate change is man made, in your eye's is an absolute. issue. It is either man made or not. it has to be, because you also said that "climate change" and "man made climate change" are one and the same.
I clearly do understand the difference. It is accepted by essentially everyone that our climate changes naturally over time. This is not the debate. The debate is about whether or not the change we are seeing at the moment is natural or contributed to by man. Tacking man-made on to the front of climate change ever time you mention climate change in a climate change debate is correct, but not needed or not expected as the position is already clear. This is why its pedantic and childish. Do you think the commonly used phrase 'climate change denier' means someone who does not accept any variation in Earth's climate ever? Or someone that does not accept that man is significantly contributing to climate change?
yet you criticise UKIP for claiming we are experiencing a natural cycle.
So the question to you is this:
Do you believe the climate change for the last 100 years is entirely man made?
If not, to what extent do you believe it is man made?
You back this up by saying that...
Frankly there are quite a few people who DO claim precisely that. However that is an aside, the people you so conveniently miss out are those who believe climate change is not entirely man made. You conflate the two terms showing that you don't accept there is a difference between the two.
Either way climate change does not mean man made climate change, they are two separate things. One is a part of the other, I can't believe you can't even understand that basic principle. It's not about being pedantic, it's just the truth.
Of course it's not, it's about to what extent climate change is man made or not, that is the basic principle about which you don't understand. You are putting people into boxes. You assert people are either for or against climate change based on whether they agree with you to what extent climate change is not natural. It's a ludicrous argument and can't reasonably be justified.
Evidence again that the extent to which climate change is man made, in your eye's is an absolute. issue. It is either man made or not. it has to be, because you also said that "climate change" and "man made climate change" are one and the same.
I clearly do understand the difference. It is accepted by essentially everyone that our climate changes naturally over time. This is not the debate. The debate is about whether or not the change we are seeing at the moment is natural or contributed to by man. Tacking man-made on to the front of climate change ever time you mention climate change in a climate change debate is correct, but not needed or not expected as the position is already clear. This is why its pedantic and childish. Do you think the commonly used phrase 'climate change denier' means someone who does not accept any variation in Earth's climate ever? Or someone that does not accept that man is significantly contributing to climate change?
But again, you said that
So the question to you is this:
Do you believe the climate change for the last 100 years is entirely man made?
If not, to what extent do you believe it is man made?
Yes, I do criticise UKIP for that. UKIP aren't the people to be telling us that, they aren't scientists, they are big-business friendly and wealthy neo-con politicians, their agenda is clear. Leave the science to the scientists, let the politicians decide how it is best to act on the science.
Original post by geokinkladze
because they said...
but then you say...
hmmmm
but then you say...
hmmmm
How are you confused? They do not think that CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they think that man has nothing to do with climate change.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What would civilisation look like if the average IQ was 150?
- DMU
- Alevel options
- What makes a satisfactory academic reference?
- Electrical Engineering Degree if bad at practicals?
- Should I drop out?
- Clearing
- Economics and Business for ALevel
- Is London Met as bad as people say?
- Bad gcse
- I can't stop overthinking about a-levels
- ucas for maths
- Emotional abuse from family member
- bad gsce record
- Law or Philosophy + Ethics A-Level?
- Is Queen Mary good for CS?
- What to do if u score low
- Can I get into imperial/ucl/Cambridge/oxford MEDICINE with bad gcse grades
- Help- Should I include this experience in my vet school application?
- Gcse
Latest
Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
