Do you consider UKIP good or bad? Watch

geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#421
Report 4 years ago
#421
(Original post by lerjj)
Define what you mean by X

If what you mean by X is that temperatures rose rapidly within the course of about 250 years then no, X did not happen 10,000 years ago. There is a natural cycle which has been very well studied. To suggest that this is part of it is verging on the absurd, its so far off trend.

EDIT: 10,000 years is SO off base as well. The last ice age ended ~12 000 years ago and lasted ~100 000 years. Natural climate change is pitifully slow...

How do you know? The way global historic temperatures are measured for the past we can't be accurate enough to measure a specific 250 years of temperatures 10,000 years ago, we can only show the trend.

In the last 100 years temperatures have risen by 0.75 degrees. In the last 20 years they haven't risen. We can't compare any of these time spans to 10,000 years ago so we don't know if there were periods of rapid rise followed by periods of no change.

Indirectly the evidence may come from the fossil record and evolutionary biology. There has always been a problem with certain gaps in the fossil record being unexplained. It leads to the conclusion that during Earth's history, very rapid changes caused some speciations (emergence of new species) to take place. Some of these events have no discernible cause that we can measure as yet (ruling out Extra Terrestrial impacts, volcanic activity and geological changes). It may well be rapid changes in climate (bounces) are more prevalent than many people think.
1
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#422
Report 4 years ago
#422
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
]I'll hook you up with real studies rather than the butchered stats denialists come out with later, for now: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...nuary-2008.htm
So they start with the myth (temperatures did not increase) and then immediately rebuff an argument the myth doesn't make "no, it hasn't been cooling".

(Original post by skeptical scientist)
It hasn't warmed since 1998
For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)

No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998
I therefore wouldn't say they were any more "real studies" than the IPCC which claimed that in the last 15 years the temperatures rose by 0.05 of a degree with a margin of error of 0.1 degrees (more than the claimed rise, which means temperatures could have fallen).

You claim people are using butchered statistics but the link you posted uses the very same tactic.

Pretty much anybody and everybody is using stuff selectively from the IPCC, I just did it, it is very easy to do.

Don't just rely on websites which agree with your point of view, do what that website boldly claims to do: Be a sceptical scientist by going to the source data yourself armed with scepticism. It is the very principle in science that you try to prove an argument wrong before accepting it as valid.
0
reply
Cal97g
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#423
Report 4 years ago
#423
Most of the people saying no are people who are just basing their opinions on the rhetoric of other parties and the media. Here are a few points I would like to make to clarify the point for others, though I think the damage from the front page of this thread is already done.


  • UKIP's policies are not racist. While some of our members may hold some pretty bad views there are memebers of other parties that do too.. this isn't something limited to us. Personally I've never encountered someone within the party who holds racist views.


  • UKIP are the only party to block ex-members of far right groups from joining the party. This includes groups like the EDL and the BNP.


  • While UKIP's policy is to privatise parts of the NHS, it is only our policy because the evidence shows that privatised hospitals perform better than hosiptals run by the public sector. There is a specific example of this I can dig up if asked. In this particular case after the running of the NHS trust was handed over to a private organisation the hospital was named 'best in the country' by a group of independent experts.


  • UKIP's policy is not, nor has it ever been, to make people 'pay on delivery' of health care.


  • UKIP's policy and intention is to withdraw from the European Decleration of HR. This is because it interfears far too much with the legal process within the UK when applied to foreign nationals. It is our intention to implement a Bill of Rights or other similar document which protects the rights of our citizens. A point to make here - England was the nation that invented freedom in its modern form. The European Decleration of Human rights isn't the source of our freedom. We've been free for almost 400 years (some would argue 800, due to the signing of the magna carta) without the ECHR poking their nose in, so why not afterwards?


  • UKIP have an extensive collection of policies, they provided the largest manifesto in the last General Election. We are not a one issue party.


I could go on and on and on correcting misinformation spread by the media, but I'd be here all night. I can't even be bothered to correct my spelling mistakes.
1
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#424
Report 4 years ago
#424
(Original post by Subat)
However UKIP is essentially a racist/prejudice party who are using immigration and benefit issues to gain supporters. The fact is most of the people who are supporting UKIP know nothing about their policies other than 'they will stop immigration'.
I'd be inclined to give the British public more benefit of the doubt. Most people seem to be able to formulate a coherent argument on EU membership, climate change, and domestic policies.

On the other hand I've heard that UKIP want to privatise the NHS AND spend more money on the NHS in this very same thread. Clearly UKIP's detractors need to get their house in order.

If you are from an ethnic minority and a UK citizen it is probably more likely that UKIP would prefer to see less restrictions on immigrants coming from the countries that you/your ancestors came from. This isn't a direct policy in itself, it's just an indirect result of the policy that leads to controlling our own borders. If anything I would say that isn't the kind of thing a racist party would advocate now is it? Surely a racist party would be against immigration.

(Original post by Subat)
Which indicates how jaded the British public are about immigration. It's reached the point where they only care about stopping immigration. The fact that UKIP are immensely vocal on immigration overpowers every single other issue for its supporters. To me that's worrying.
I think it is more indicative of how people like yourself are either being mislead or being misleading. UKIP do not want to stop immigration, they simply want the UK government to be able to control our borders like it did in the past. We didn't stop immigration in the past, so why is it assumed the British people would want to stop it in the future?

Simple analogy, if I have a leaking tap, having it fixed doesn't mean I want to stop the tap from dispensing water does it?
1
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#425
Report 4 years ago
#425
(Original post by geokinkladze)
So are you saying we can be in the EU without implementing the ECHR?
There is a large body of opinion that we could - though UKIP are convinced that membership of the EU requires being party to the ECHR.


(Original post by geokinkladze)
How massive?
Depending on definition, UKIP have overestimated the amount by 25-60%.

The fact that the source they cite never actually said that the EU make 75% of our laws is also a massive lie.

(Original post by geokinkladze)
As an avid devourer of knowledge I'd love to read this source. Do you have the link?
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...he-impacts.pdf

This page has some more information on the topic https://fullfact.org/europe/ukip_eu_..._posters-31629

(Original post by billydisco)
So why does the EU commissioner says she's not sure if its 75%or 80% but that "most" laws at a national level are decided in Europe....??
Can't look at the video at the moment, but is this the Reding comment? Or the German chap?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
RumpeIstiltskin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#426
Report 4 years ago
#426
(Original post by geokinkladze)
I think it is you that lacks understanding, if there was a statement in the treaty stating such, then it wouldn't need to be tested in the courts. The courts are used to test principles applied to specific situations. I'm no gambler, but I'd be willing to bet the courts will be used to test this exact situation.
Given an individual can't make a direct appeal to the ECJ apart from in JR actions of specific Union instruments I'm not sure how an appeal of the gay marriage law would be brought to the ECJ since its only role is to answer questions on validity and interpretation of EU law not national law. Though the ECJ does have a tendency to miraculously invent new procedures so who knows...
0
reply
honeywhite
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#427
Report 4 years ago
#427
(Original post by EllieC130)
Basically I overheard a conversation some girls were having about how if UKIP get into power the country is doomed, jokingly saying they'd all be kicked out of the country (three Asian girls and a black girl; all born here) but then went on to say Farage wanted all the Asians out which is when I said "He couldn't do that. There'd be some massive rebellion" also adding that the Tories and Labour wouldn't be much better for the country. I bowed out soon afterwards realising I'd kind of spoken where I shouldn't have (because you know, not my conversation). This got me to thinking about how there are probably a lot of people that really think that.

My dad votes for UKIP and I got into a conversation with him about it the other day. He argued that UKIP aren't actually racist, they just want tighter immigration laws and for our country to stop giving benefits to everyone who comes in.

Now while his argument, though not really backed up by anything, actually sounds more like something that COULD be a possibility I'm still not sure partially because of the bad rep they've got. I want intending on voting next year but now im considering voting for UKIP mainly because we've seen both the conservatives and labour **** up so it'd be nice to see if UKI p is an improvement. If not, we can always get rid of them in 4 years right? But anyways I'm interested as to what you all think.

I know these threads are overdone however I wanted to make a thread asking rather than focussing on certain things, I just want to ask in general do people consider UKIP good or bad?
UKIP is good or exceedingly good, depending on your political views. No way they're bad. My favourite Parliament would be a Conservative majority with UKIP as Official Opposition.
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#428
Report 4 years ago
#428
(Original post by billydisco)
So why does the EU commissioner says she's not sure if its 75%or 80% but that "most" laws at a national level are decided in Europe....??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHp6wCc-TSc

Skip to 42 seconds.
file:///C:/Users/Jacob/Downloads/RP10-62.pdf

First page, 6.1% of primary legislation, and 14.4% of legislation.

Got to get back to explaining how climate change works to the guy who posted a temperature graph for Europe as evidence that the Earth is not cooling...
0
reply
hexagonalRod
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#429
Report 4 years ago
#429
(Original post by billydisco)
Awwwwww- you sound like the EU when Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty....

"Give us an answer other than the-one-we don't-want-to-hear"



Oh dear- and THIS is why people vote UKIP because of people like you. Let me guess, Labour or Lib Dem? :rolleyes:

You're just moaning rather than providing me with reasoning for your opinions.

Prisoners being able to vote or not isn't a vital issue in the UK atm. And no, Conservative.
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#430
Report 4 years ago
#430
(Original post by billydisco)
I found this:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/...emperature.jpg

It shows the temperature plummeting and then increasing....... so how could man have caused the temperature to plummet?
And I found this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medi...arm-period.htm

That is not a global temperature graph and is therefore irrelevant to global warming.
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#431
Report 4 years ago
#431
(Original post by geokinkladze)


Now here's the bit I struggle with, I can understand it is a greenhouse gas, to some extent, because it traps heat (much like clouds do). However when it is cloudy, the clouds also reflect heat back up into the atmosphere, whereas those who say CO2 traps heat, don't explain why it only traps one way.. only when the heat is rebounding up.

And it is simple law of thermodynamics that something which absorbs heat also absorbs cold (absence of heat). For example metal gets hot quickly, it also gets cold quickly. So if CO2 was absorbing heat, it would also release it pretty quickly at night.
.
Ok, I'm going to explain this to you, because you don't seem very clear on how this works. Light coming from this Sun is mainly short-wavelength light because of its high temperature. Various layers of gas in our atmosphere absorb the highest wavelengths and so a mixture of UV and visible comes in. CO2 absorbs some of the infra-red light on the way in, but there is not that much in the first place.

The light hits the Earth, which works in the same way as fluorescent objects in that it re-radiates the light at a lower frequency. This means visible turns into IF (broadly speaking) and this is then trapped by the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

They let it in because it's too high energy to stop, then they trap it because it loses its energy- that's how it can work one way. You know that glass also works one-way in a greenhouse? That you can make one-way bullet resistant glass? Things can work in only one direction, its not prohibited by some law of symmetry.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#432
Report 4 years ago
#432
(Original post by geokinkladze)
I've read the latest (5th) IPCC assessment report, I'm going to hazard a guess not many people posting about climate change have. I have noticed a discernible trend since previous reports in that there are fewer claims for man made climate change and more about how money needs to be spent on preparation. It seems to me that the IPCC is slowly coming round to the idea that climate change happens anyway, irrespective of mans effect on climate. There is also the confusion of the problems that rising populations bring with regards to climate change, for example:
That ******* is 1.2 thousand pages long. Why am I sceptical? Besides, just to humour you I decided to check out the introduction. The reality of man-made climate change is re-affirmed in the first bloody paragraph.
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#433
Report 4 years ago
#433
(Original post by billydisco)
No- I am asking how can you panick over temperature differences (if there are any) when the temperature has always been changing on Earth?
Just because it has happened before doesn't mean it isn't happening now nor that we don't have a hand in it.

(Original post by billydisco)
How do you know the changes (if there are any) are due to man and not the same forces which changed the Earth's temperature over the last few billion years?
0
reply
User995789
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#434
Report 4 years ago
#434
(Original post by geokinkladze)
To be more accurate he sees the cost of wind turbines as extortionate compared to their benefit and is in favour of nuclear power instead as a cheaper way of reducing CO2 emissions.

None of that is incompatible with "climate change" so again, I ask, where is the evidence that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change?

#WhyImVotingUkip Because of the tiny chance all the world's climate scientists are in cahoots to crash the economy. pic.twitter.com/R0HHUbyBYj
0
reply
jonskibeat
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#435
Report 4 years ago
#435
(Original post by Cal97g)
Most of the people saying no are people who are just basing their opinions on the rhetoric of other parties and the media .....
I could go on and on and on correcting misinformation spread by the media, but I'd be here all night. I can't even be bothered to correct my spelling mistakes.
I've had a go here! http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...819&p=47704982
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#436
Report 4 years ago
#436
(Original post by lerjj)
Ok, I'm going to explain this to you, because you don't seem very clear on how this works. Light coming from this Sun is mainly short-wavelength light because of its high temperature.
I'm going to stop you there.. short wavelength light emits more heat, therefore it is inaccurate to say the light is short wavelength because of it's high temperature. It is more the other way around, it emits high temperature because of it's short wavelength. That much at least I do know.

(Original post by lerjj)
The light hits the Earth, which works in the same way as fluorescent objects in that it re-radiates the light at a lower frequency. This means visible turns into IF (broadly speaking) and this is then trapped by the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
This bit I agree with, in fact it is the reason I said I accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to some extent. The extent should be verifiable in the medium to long term, simply measure IF light at low altitude levels over time, if the heat is being caused by CO2 trapping IF light we should be able to detect this.
0
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#437
Report 4 years ago
#437
(Original post by Cal97g)
[*]UKIP's policy and intention is to withdraw from the European Decleration of HR. This is because it interfears far too much with the legal process within the UK when applied to foreign nationals. It is our intention to implement a Bill of Rights or other similar document which protects the rights of our citizens. A point to make here - England was the nation that invented freedom in its modern form. The European Decleration of Human rights isn't the source of our freedom. We've been free for almost 400 years (some would argue 800, due to the signing of the magna carta) without the ECHR poking their nose in, so why not afterwards? .
I'd be careful holding views like that. The press wasn't free up until 1853 when the government lifted the excessive stamp and advertising taxes. The Chartists certainly weren't free when the government destroyed them in the 1840s for demanding political rights that we take for granted now. The suffragettes weren't free with constant government suppression. Freedom has come in drips and drabs and has been fought for every step of the way, Britain's not the exceptional democratic nation some like to paint it as, except for the upper classes of course.
1
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#438
Report 4 years ago
#438
(Original post by Blueray2)
#WhyImVotingUkip Because of the tiny chance all the world's climate scientists are in cahoots to crash the economy. pic.twitter.com/R0HHUbyBYj
You are making an assumption there.. I could easily state

#WhyIHateUKIP Because they ask me to back up my statements with evidence but I can't.

Please note the statement I'm asking to be backed up is that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change, which is what you claimed. All I've asked for is for you to back up that claim, you can't because you are wrong.

Clearly the evidence is that they do, why would they wish to cut carbon emissions if they didn't? Why would they talk about natural warming cycle if they didn't think it existed. They just don't think we should pay through the nose in order to reduce carbon emissions. You may wish to, I don't, neither do UKIP. Neither I nor UKIP believe that the climate isn't warming up over the long term.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#439
Report 4 years ago
#439
(Original post by InnerTemple)
There is a large body of opinion that we could - though UKIP are convinced that membership of the EU requires being party to the ECHR.
I can understand why UKIP are convinced. No one has tried and I'm pretty sure I can understand why. There are EU treaties which uphold it for a start, any nation would have to accept breaking those treaties and still remaining a member. It would become the thin end of a wedge for some in the EU.


(Original post by InnerTemple)
Depending on definition, UKIP have overestimated the amount by 25-60%.
The argument over the amount is entirely dependent on definition, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHp6wCc-TSc

(Original post by InnerTemple)
The fact that the source they cite never actually said that the EU make 75% of our laws is also a massive lie.
My guess is the link above is the source.

(Original post by InnerTemple)
Can't look at the video at the moment, but is this the Reding comment? Or the German chap?
Reding.

Thanks for the link.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#440
Report 4 years ago
#440
(Original post by geokinkladze)
You are making an assumption there.. I could easily state

#WhyIHateUKIP Because they ask me to back up my statements with evidence but I can't.

Please note the statement I'm asking to be backed up is that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change, which is what you claimed. All I've asked for is for you to back up that claim, you can't because you are wrong.

Clearly the evidence is that they do, why would they wish to cut carbon emissions if they didn't? Why would they talk about natural warming cycle if they didn't think it existed. They just don't think we should pay through the nose in order to reduce carbon emissions. You may wish to, I don't, neither do UKIP. Neither I nor UKIP believe that the climate isn't warming up over the long term.
UKIP's most recent official document on climate change

UKIP MEP and education secretary Derek Clark speaking in January this year

We will still ban Al Gore’s video for use in schools if I’ve got anything to do with it. I will not have much opposition within the party. It is, of course, not just this video which needs banning; all teaching of global warming being caused in any way by carbon dioxide emissions must also be banned. It just is not happening.”
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1377)
79.5%
Leave (355)
20.5%

Watched Threads

View All