Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    To be fair, I have seen much conflicting information on climate change all from many different reputable scientists and organisation. And Whilst I agree that there is climate shift. I would say that the cause is inconclusive as we have seen shifts in the climate in many different recent historical periods.

    I am not an anti climate change nut. I am completely open to both arguments for and against dlimate change and its causes.
    Yes I agree that you must consider both sides of the argument, but the majority of evidence still points to human activity causing shifts in the earth's climate. Almost all major scientific organisations accept this. If the evidence changes then I would be willing to accepts UKIP's policy as "common sense" but as it stands it isn't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    The cause of climate change is inconclusive though I do believe that man has excacerbated it. it is yet unknown if it is the primary cause of climate change
    Hardly. Not that it really matters if it's the "primary" cause. Man being largely responsible for the current rate of climate change is pretty much as close to fact as you can get it now.

    Though you may be right, it could just be an enormous coincidence and the gases we pump into the atmosphere which retain heat aren't at all responsible for the planet heating up. How about we all just sit around, do nothing and wait for a couple of centuries until it becomes virtually irreversible. Then scientists can just smugly say "I told you so" while they watch the world around them get destroyed...

    (Original post by The Islander)
    I am not asking people to vote in a way that I approve. I am asking them to vote for whatever party they want as long as they believe in their policies, not to tactically vote which undermines democracy.
    That is exactly what you are saying. People have every right to vote tactically (as you yourself hypocritically do) and you are asking them not to.

    Though it is of course utter rubbish - it doesn't "undermine democracy" in the slightest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Hardly. Not that it really matters if it's the "primary" cause. Man being largely responsible for the current rate of climate change is pretty much as close to fact as you can get it now.

    Though you may be right, it could just be an enormous coincidence and the gases we pump into the atmosphere which retain heat aren't at all responsible for the planet heating up. How about we all just sit around, do nothing and wait for a couple of centuries until it becomes virtually irreversible. Then scientists can just smugly say "I told you so" while they watch the world around them get destroyed...



    That is exactly what you are saying. People have every right to vote tactically (as you yourself hypocritically do) and you are asking them not to.

    Though it is of course utter rubbish - it doesn't "undermine democracy" in the slightest.
    Agree to disagree
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackM95)
    That's slightly out of context. The argument actually is that human caused global warming is almost irrelevant, due to the already existing natural forces which dictate such activity. (Natural disasters, e.g one volcano was said to have done more damage to the environment than 10 years of human activity).

    Also, put into perspective, us switching off lights isn't really that important when China is opening 10 coal-fuelled power stations every week, and emitting more than we could ever as the UK legislate to counter.
    Even the graph on UKIP's own document clearly shows that over recent years the temperature has increased at a much steeper rate than other natural fluctuations.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    To be fair, I have seen much conflicting information on climate change all from many different reputable scientists and organisation. And Whilst I agree that there is climate shift. I would say that the cause is inconclusive as we have seen shifts in the climate in many different recent historical periods.

    I am not an anti climate change nut. I am completely open to both arguments for and against dlimate change and its causes.
    Where exactly would this "conflicting information" be then? That line is often trotted out, but every study I've seen on the topic has shown that there is actually virtually no peer-reviewed literature supporting the idea that man-made climate change doesn't exist.

    What on earth qualifies you to say that? We have indeed seen shifts in the climate over history as it is cyclical, the rate of heating this time round however is enormously faster/higher than it has ever been before though. While you still need to be careful as "correlation doesn't equal causation", the only thing different this time around is man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Farrage has claimed the EU is responsible for 99% of our legislation in the UK; I don't see how anyone can trust someone spreading gross exaggerations like this.

    I recommend the recent Economist article setting out frankly the economic and political impacts of leaving the EU, and it's a strong case for staying where we are, at least until a lot of the Eurozone uncertainty blows over.

    Countries like Norway with no legislative seat but access to the single market still contribute to the EU budget like we do but get little to no say in the policy agenda, and we would also be sacrificing this influence as well as the obvious economic impact.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackM95)
    Err.. no? The policy actually is to freeze immigration for five years, as we have a heavily over-populatied country at a time when there are few jobs and the economic forecast is bleak, and then to conduct a review as to if managed immigration on a points-based system would be sustainble from there on.
    You conveniently forgot to mention capping immigrants after the five years to 50,000 a year. There shouldn't be a numerical cap, there should be a needs-assessed case for any prospective immigrant. A system which may actually produce less than 50,000 immigrants anyway. If the government focuses too much on numbers it will forget the people it is serving.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeikleTreikle)
    Farrage has claimed the EU is responsible for 99% of our legislation in the UK; I don't see how anyone can trust someone spreading gross exaggerations like this.

    I recommend the recent Economist article setting out frankly the economic and political impacts of leaving the EU, and it's a strong case for staying where we are, at least until a lot of the Eurozone uncertainty blows over.

    Countries like Norway with no legislative seat but access to the single market still contribute to the EU budget like we do but get little to no say in the policy agenda, and we would also be sacrificing this influence as well as the obvious economic impact.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've always found that baffling. Especially now some Conservatives are saying that the UK should do the same - what on earth is the point? You still have to pay the EU, you still have to implement EU laws - the only obvious difference (unless I've missed any?) is that you get zero say in the creation of those new laws. So what exactly is the benefit?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Where exactly would this "conflicting information" be then? That line is often trotted out, but every study I've seen on the topic has shown that there is actually virtually no peer-reviewed literature supporting the idea that man-made climate change doesn't exist.

    What on earth qualifies you to say that? We have indeed seen shifts in the climate over history as it is cyclical, the rate of heating this time round however is enormously faster/higher than it has ever been before though. While you still need to be careful as "correlation doesn't equal causation", the only thing different this time around is man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together.
    I am making a statement on various evidence I have witnessed. I never said I was qualified to speak on the subject. Just as I doubt you are qualified to speak on the subject and that this is merely your opinion
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    Even the graph on UKIP's own document clearly shows that over recent years the temperature has increased at a much steeper rate than other natural fluctuations.
    I don't wish to get into a debate over climate change, as althought I support UKIP, I do believe human caused climate change is an issue which needs to be resolved.

    I however do think the way we are going about it at the moment, is reducing effiiceny and putting too much regulation in place when other countries are simply gaining in competitiveness as a result. (e.g our emission-trading permits)

    If we really want to deal with the issue, it needs to be done on an international level, with the biggest polluters being accountable. At the moment, China (largest polluter) and the middle-east such as Qatar (largest per-capita polluter) are getting off scot-free and laughing in the faces of the West which is the only part of the World concerning itself with this quite severe problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeikleTreikle)
    Farrage has claimed the EU is responsible for 99% of our legislation in the UK; I don't see how anyone can trust someone spreading gross exaggerations like this.

    I recommend the recent Economist article setting out frankly the economic and political impacts of leaving the EU, and it's a strong case for staying where we are, at least until a lot of the Eurozone uncertainty blows over.

    Countries like Norway with no legislative seat but access to the single market still contribute to the EU budget like we do but get little to no say in the policy agenda, and we would also be sacrificing this influence as well as the obvious economic impact.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Someone said previously that Farage had said that the EU implements 78% of our laws and someone said different before that. Do you have a source to what he said and another showing the actual percentage of laws imnplemented in the UK by the EU proportionate to laws implement by British parliment ?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stramala)
    You conveniently forgot to mention capping immigrants after the five years to 50,000 a year. There shouldn't be a numerical cap, there should be a needs-assessed case for any prospective immigrant. A system which may actually produce less than 50,000 immigrants anyway. If the government focuses too much on numbers it will forget the people it is serving.
    I'd define that as a managed system personally? And also I dont get what you are really getting at with "needs-assessed" , as the asylum system takes care of that. Immigrants should be a net-benefit on the economy of the country they move to otherwise we have no incentive for immigration to increase above a minimal level. 50,000 for example ensures we get the best talent which adds to the UK economy, instead of causing a drain on the UK welfare system, which an unreasonably large amount of immigrant families have become.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    Someone said previously that Farage had said that the EU implements 78% of our laws and someone said different before that. Do you have a source to what he said and another showing the actual percentage of laws imnplemented in the UK by the EU proportionate to laws implement by British parliment ?
    It's 75%, he quotes it in many an interview.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackM95)
    It's 75%, he quotes it in many an interview.
    And what is the actual percentage if this figure is disputed ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackM95)
    If we really want to deal with the issue, it needs to be done on an international level, with the biggest polluters being accountable. At the moment, China (largest polluter) and the middle-east such as Qatar (largest per-capita polluter) are getting off scot-free and laughing in the faces of the West which is the only part of the World concerning itself with this quite severe problem.
    Are they?

    China for the first time now leads the United States and all other major countries in green energy markets. Its private investments of $34.6 billion in 2009 alone are almost double America's.
    China overtook the US during 2009 to become the leading investor in renewable energy technologies, according to a new analysis.
    China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.
    China’s installed wind power has doubled in each of the past four years.
    To say we are the only part of the world concerning ourselves with this is totally laughable.

    Sources:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/bu...obal-home&_r=0
    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03...l?pagewanted=1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8587319.stm
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/bu...t/31renew.html
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...lemma/(page)/2
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You do realise, that these are all money-making schemes, the Chinese government couldn't give two s**** about climate change. Similar to their economic invasion of Africa's natural resources and cheap labour, the green-market is simply another economic opportunity to monopolise a market and make a lot of money.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    I am making a statement on various evidence I have witnessed. I never said I was qualified to speak on the subject. Just as I doubt you are qualified to speak on the subject and that this is merely your opinion
    I'll repeat - witnessed where? I take it you are completely unable (presumably disguised as unwilling) to produce one single piece of evidence that backs up your claim that there is "much conflicting evidence"? Here for example, is a study that analysed the publications of 1347 climate researchers that found 98% agree that humans are primarily responsible for the currently high level of climate change. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html I don't think you'll find a single study that doesn't come to a similar conclusion on the degree of consensus.

    I said what qualifies you to say that - not that you can't say anything unless you have a qualification... I've studied this at university and have always been interested in it myself (and baffled over why others aren't - this is our only planet and I can't grasp why people are so blasé over destroying it...). I think that qualifies me to say my opinion is reasonably well thought out and not just hobbled together based on a few dodgy websites I've read.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Particularly as the UK emits almost 3 times the amount of greenhouse gas per person than China. So it's not only wrong, it's hilariously laughable for a Briton to moan about how it's unreasonable for us to make cuts yet China should be doing more!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Because we're not the Borg... we don't all think alike.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    I'll repeat - witnessed where? I take it you are completely unable (presumably disguised as unwilling) to produce one single piece of evidence that backs up your claim that there is "much conflicting evidence"? Here for example, is a study that analysed the publications of 1347 climate researchers that found 98% agree that humans are primarily responsible for the currently high level of climate change. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html I don't think you'll find a single study that doesn't come to a similar conclusion on the degree of consensus.

    I said what qualifies you to say that - not that you can't say anything unless you have a qualification... I've studied this at university and have always been interested in it myself (and baffled over why others aren't - this is our only planet and I can't grasp why people are so blasé over destroying it...). I think that qualifies me to say my opinion is reasonably well thought out and not just hobbled together based on a few dodgy websites I've read.
    I have witnessed many different sources, I am not interested in wasting my time digging them out.

    I disgaree completely with what you are saying and it is only your own one sided opinion, unless you are an expert on the subject which I doubt
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.