Chances of UKIP winning General Election?

[elmarko]

I haven't paid much attention to the finer details in it since it went from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change', as not everywhere was in fact warming up, and thus they changed their argument.

When all the nuts were screaming about the Antarctic melting and possibly flooding the globe, the Arctic was in fact increasing in size. Also its's common knowledge that melting floating ice does not increase water levels.

We are still coming out of an ice age in respect to the Earths life cycles so ofc the climate is changing.

The Earth produced harmful / hazardess gasses long before we were around and will continue to do so long after we have gone. It has also been looking after itself for millions of years, what ever 'man made pollution' we make it will look after itself.

Whenever I do come across a piece though, the scientists still seem pretty split. Both making cases for and against. I'm not convinced any of them know with any certainty what is going on, let alone how much mankind as attributed to this.

None of them said that it would warm up everywhere.

Of course the earth will survive in the long term, the question is as to if we will (as a species if we destroy our ability to make the amount of food we require).

The scientific community is not split 50/50.

"Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming."

Part of the problem is a lack of public understanding between what the terms global warming & climate change actually mean.

/Meh, in the last 2000 years the planet has been both hotter and colder than today, it has warmed/cooled faster than in recent times, I really see nothing to get alarmed over.

Climate change is probably the only thing UKIP are right on.

So let me get this right.

You trust the opinion of a group of people who know nothing about climate science, over 97% of people who objectively know the most about climate science?.

The above is why I don't believe in democracy.

 

[balky12]

None of them said that it would warm up everywhere.

Of course the earth will survive in the long term, the question is as to if we will (as a species if we destroy our ability to make the amount of food we require).

The scientific community is not split 50/50.

"Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming."

Then why coin it 'Global Warming'? - not that this is the argument.

So 98% of scientists think that mankind is the cause of this 'global warming'? Without mankind we would not see any changes in climate naturally?

 

[ubersonic]

Personally I would love it if temps got back up to what they were in the medieval warm period, maybe I should vote UKIP in the hope they do away with the green stuff and that the scaremongers are right that it's all our fault ^^

 

[Sliver]

/Meh, in the last 2000 years the planet has been both hotter and colder than today, it has warmed/cooled faster than in recent times, I really see nothing to get alarmed over.

Climate change is probably the only thing UKIP are right on.

I can't believe you actually posted this ! lmao ! Thanks m8 you've made my day. I'm going to screenshot this crap and send it to everyone I know.

 

[ebilcake]

Nope, First Past the Post means they don't stand a chance.

 

[elmarko]

Then why coin it 'Global Warming'? - not that this is the argument.

So 98% of scientists think that mankind is the cause of this 'global warming'? Without mankind we would not see any changes in climate naturally?

They use the term because it's appropriate pending on the context - the average temperature is rising faster than it should be.

Do you really think they mean that?, of course it changes naturally - what they are saying is that we are influencing it.

If a huge metal ball is rolling down hill towards into a river & I direct it into a house instead, is the result man made or environmental?.

Back to my earlier point.

Taking into account how quickly CFC's impacting on the ozone layer, does it not make logical sense that humanity by releasing certain elements into the atmosphere at least as the capacity to impact upon it?.

We've already played this game & shown we are capable of causing significant changes, I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe a different gas is capable of also causing changes - hardly outlandish stuff.

 

[ubersonic]

I can't believe you actually posted this ! lmao ! Thanks m8 you've made my day. I'm going to screenshot this crap and send it to everyone I know.

Well considering everything I posted is factually correct (well except UKIP being right about something) what did you take exception too? O.o

 

[D.P.]

Then why coin it 'Global Warming'? - not that this is the argument.

So 98% of scientists think that mankind is the cause of this 'global warming'? Without mankind we would not see any changes in climate naturally?

Why are deniers incapable of understanding the most basic logic?

A) "So 98% of scientists think that mankind is the cause of this 'global warming'? "
Yes, because that is what the evidence shows.

B) "Without mankind we would not see any changes in climate naturally?"

How do you derive this second statement from the first? The 2 are completely independent. No scientist on the planet has ever claimed what you are saying here.

Clearly you are incapable of even understanding the most basic logic, your opinion is worthless.

 

[D.P.]

Well considering everything I posted is factually correct (well except UKIP being right about something) what did you take exception too? O.o

The fact that is is all completely wrong for starters.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Climate change science is the biggest scaremongering cashcow since the Y2K computing apocalypse.

 

[balky12]

Do you really think they mean that?, of course it changes naturally - what they are saying is that we are influencing it.

If a huge metal ball is rolling down hill towards into a river & I direct it into a house instead, is the result man made or environmental?.

Yes, and my argument is that they actually have no idea how much we are influencing it.

I can see where you're coming from with that analogy. The result is man-made. But you are not comparing apples with apples. We know the ball is rolling towards a river and you intervene. We definitely do not know what the climate would be like now if mankind hadn't existed.

 

[elmarko]

Climate change science is the biggest scaremongering cashcow since the Y2K computing apocalypse.

You know this how?.

 

[elmarko]

Yes, and my argument is that they actually have no idea how much we are influencing it.

I can see where you're coming from with that analogy. The result is man-made. But you are not comparing apples with apples. We know the ball is rolling towards a river and you intervene. We definitely do not know what the climate would be like now if mankind hadn't existed.

So let's use another example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon

CFC's - we created a hole in the ozone layer - clearly we have the capacity to make a big impact in a short space of time by releasing certain gases in our environment.

Was this a con?.

If not, does this not imply that releasing gases into our atmosphere has the capacity to impact on our environment?.

 

[balky12]

Why are deniers incapable of understanding the most basic logic?

A) "So 98% of scientists think that mankind is the cause of this 'global warming'? "
Yes, because that is what the evidence shows.

B) "Without mankind we would not see any changes in climate naturally?"

How do you derive this second statement from the first? The 2 are completely independent. No scientist on the planet has ever claimed what you are saying here.

Clearly you are incapable of even understanding the most basic logic, your opinion is worthless.

Heavy handed aren't we?

I quoted someone saying '98% of scientists think that mankind is the cause of global warming'.

To me that says, well exactly what it says. Mankind caused global warming. How am I idiotic to derive that without mankind, there would be no global warming? If mankind infact caused it?

 

[yer_averagejoe]

I'm now worried that scottish people see the referendum as a "YES or UKIP" vote, which is absolutely not the case. I suspect UKIP have done wonders for the YES campaign and could even have tipped the scales for all the wrong reasons. This European election has been a disaster for the UK AND (arguably) Scotland.

 

[ubersonic]

The fact that is is all completely wrong for starters.

It's completely correct, the medieval warm period was hotter than today and the little ice age was colder, temperatures have also changed more rapidly than today.

A lot of the scaremongering you see today is down to one man called "Mann" (no joke) who created a climate graph in the late nineties by splicing together loads of different data sources, this gave a few odd results, first he normalized all the historical data so the medieval warm period and little ice age are almost non existent and vastly under represented on the graph. Secondly he stopped using his main data set (tree rings) near the end and tacked on the end of a different graph form a different source which then gave it a massive kick up (emphasized by the previous data being normalized) which caused the graph to gain the nickname the "Hockey Stick".

This graph has since been refuted due to it's normalized historical data being shown to be grossly misrepresented, and it's "Hockey Stick" kick at the end not matching valid data (the majority of his data was gathered using tree rings up until the last decade or two which then changed to a different data set causing the kick, however real tree ring data gathered from this period years later had no correlation with the kick and in fact carried on as normal).

 

[scorza]

I'm now worried that scottish people see the referendum as a "YES or UKIP" vote, which is absolutely not the case. I suspect UKIP have done wonders for the YES campaign and could even have tipped the scales for all the wrong reasons. This European election has been a disaster for the UK AND (arguably) Scotland.

From my perspective down here it seems to me that David Cameron, George Osborne and Gordon Brown did the most damage to the unionist campaign. It does seem like the momentum is with the Yes campaign now, I can really see an independent Scotland happening now.

 

[balky12]

So let's use another example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon

CFC's - we created a hole in the ozone layer - clearly we have the capacity to make a big impact in a short space of time by releasing certain gases in our environment.

Was this a con?.

If not, does this not imply that releasing gases into our atmosphere has the capacity to impact on our environment?.

We can go round in circles all day. I could well be wrong. My personal opinion is that it is a con. Do we have an affect on it? Yes, most probably. I never said we had NO influence. How much influenece do we have? I think it is borderline impossible to say with any real accuracy just how much we contribute to the changing climate.

Slightly off at a tangent, the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010. People were shouting from the rooftops how much we have messed up this planet, how Florida's / Gulf of Mexico's coast has been ruined. You go there now, or even just a year after the event, you would never have thought it was center stage to the worlds biggest accidental marine oil spill. The planet will look after itself.

 

[Gilly]

We can go round in circles all day. I could well be wrong. My personal opinion is that it is a con. Do we have an affect on it? Yes, most probably. I never said we had NO influence. How much influenece do we have? I think it is borderline impossible to say with any real accuracy just how much we contribute to the changing climate.

Do we need to say with any accuracy?

 

[balky12]

Do we need to say with any accuracy?

Depends what you are trying to justify. If a Government was going to create a tax for individuals / companies / sectors for 'contributing to the distruction of the Earth', I would like them to be fairly accurate before taking my money.