Chances of UKIP winning General Election?

[Woden]

And for balance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

RE UKIP - they will get a couple of seats in the GE, nothing more.

I'd be ok with that. They are a one trick pony and having one or two MPs would make that glaringly obvious.

 

[ubersonic]

And yet of all countries we're estimated to be the 9th biggest polluter of CO2 in the world: Source

You do realise that chart says China puts our more CO2 in six months than we do in a decade right? ninth place is still no place in global terms.

 

[D.P.]

Learn some yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

To save you some time ill give you the best bit, it was proven in 2003 that not only did Mann realise the hockey stick was wrong himself, he realised if BEFORE publishing it! Read only access to his data server was given to some scientists trying to validate his work, however they came to different conclusions after noticing inaccuracy's/errors in Mann's work, and not only that but they uncovered a folder buried deep on his server called "Censored" in which he had documented the exact same results!!

He knew it was wrong but he published it anyway knowing it would be lapped up and he would get his recognition despite dooming an entire generation to bogus green taxes

wrong, perhaps you should actually read the article you posted

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.

 

[ubersonic]

wrong, perhaps you should actually read the article you posted

Lol, Your reading from the wrong one.

I was quoting from the second link not the first, the first was just to prove to you the is controversy over it and that it isn't like all scientists accept it like you implied.

Try reading the second one I posted, unlike the CT nut sites with their "derp, Mann bad, climate change = lol" drivel it actually uses science to explain exactly what why Mann's data was erroneous and his results invalid, it also explains the bit I said about him knowing years ago that his conclusions were fundamentally flawed and scientifically unsound.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

 

[D.P.]

Lol, Your reading from the wrong one.

I was quoting from the second link not the first, the first was just to prove to you the is controversy over it and that it isn't like all scientists accept it like you implied.

Try reading the second one I posted, unlike the CT nut sites with their "derp, Mann bad, climate change = lol" drivel it actually uses science to explain exactly what why Mann's data was erroneous and his results invalid, it also explains the bit I said about him knowing years ago that his conclusions were fundamentally flawed and scientifically unsound.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

I'm not reading a site full of conspiracy theory drivel.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

You do realise that chart says China puts our more CO2 in six months than we do in a decade right? ninth place is still no place in global terms.

And our chance of getting the Chinese to change their ways is about as slim as the Chilcott Inquiry finding Blair quilts of any wrongdoing.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Based on my calculations it is about 38% chance. Conservatives with a 29% and labour with a 21% chance.

 

[scorza]

You do realise that chart says China puts our more CO2 in six months than we do in a decade right? ninth place is still no place in global terms.

The longest journey starts with a single step.

And our chance of getting the Chinese to change their ways is about as slim as the Chilcott Inquiry finding Blair quilts of any wrongdoing.

I read today that the Chinese are taking some 5 million high polluting cars off the road in a bid to improve air quality (Source). The penny is starting to drop.

 

[Tefal]

. Also its's common knowledge that melting floating ice does not increase water levels.

which is true for fresh water ice floating on fresh water, salt water is denser (hence why you float in the sea easier than a pool) so it supports a greater volume of ice than the ice displaces.

So yes when fresh water ice such as the polar cap melts it does raise levels.

 

[Nitefly]

None.

 

[scorza]

...

Two cowards who won't even ascribe their own name to their tweets.

 

[ubersonic]

Try reading the second one I posted, unlike the CT nut sites with their "derp, Mann bad, climate change = lol" drivel it actually uses science to explain exactly why Mann's data was erroneous and his results invalid, it also explains the bit I said about him knowing years ago that his conclusions were fundamentally flawed and scientifically unsound.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

I'm not reading a site full of conspiracy theory drivel.

So basically you will only listen to scientists who are telling you what you want to hear, even if they're wrong? sad

 

[rogan]

Absolute zero.

 

[Tefal]

Two cowards who won't even ascribe their own name to their tweets.

she is a massive racist though

 

[Narj]

she is a massive racist though

She should have been given the sack ages ago. I don't understand how she gets away with it. :/

 

[Monkeynut]

She should have been given the sack ages ago. I don't understand how she gets away with it. :/

Because she's not white.

 

[altus]

None of it really, I'd be nervous about the fact they come at it from a view that it doesn't exist because I'm fairly sure there's good solid proof that there's a risk.

Either way the cartoon outlines the point pretty well, I don't see the risk in moving aggressively towards a carbon neutral economy.

To get back on track though, the document is irrelevant because UKIP can't and won't win the GE and moreover things like a climate change policy are window dressing to detract from the fact they're very definitely a party chock full of racist nimbys with a reductive and closed minded view of the world who don't deserve the significant benefits that immigration has brought to this country.

I bet some of their best friends are black.

So you are " fairly sure there's good solid proof that there's a risk."

Would you not want to be completely sure considering:

“The World Bank has reported that three-quarters of the doubling of world food prices that occurred two years ago is directly attributable to the global dash for biofuels."

“Herr Ziegler, the UN’s Right-to-Food Rapporteur, has said that while millions are starving the diversion of farmland from food to biofuels is “a crime against humanity”.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

Calzada, an economist, studied Spain's green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create.

I could go on and on about why you are wrong to think that being green is all win-win and nobody gets hurt, but you have an open mind, unlike those closed minded racist UKIP voters.

 

[Tunney]

Biofuels aren't designed to combat climate change, they're designed to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. I don't see how they're relevant.

As for the cost of green jobs creation, it's an immature but growing market. It's not unusual for young industries to have high start-up costs.

Obviously any macroeconomic policy is going to have some drawbacks. We don't live in a black and white world. However, there's overwhelming evidence that it's the right thing to invest in. Just consider this: once nuclear fusion becomes commercially available (scientists reckon this will be in the next 10-20 years), whose going to suddenly become rich? That's right, all those green companies who invested in battery technology.

 

[altus]

Biofuels aren't designed to combat climate change, they're designed to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. I don't see how they're relevant.

As for the cost of green jobs creation, it's an immature but growing market. It's not unusual for young industries to have high start-up costs.

Obviously any macroeconomic policy is going to have some drawbacks. We don't live in a black and white world. However, there's overwhelming evidence that it's the right thing to invest in. Just consider this: once nuclear fusion becomes commercially available (scientists reckon this will be in the next 10-20 years), whose going to suddenly become rich? That's right, all those green companies who invested in battery technology.

Yes reducing dependency on fossil fuels is a noble cause, but people are going hungry and cold now because of it.
As humans we will use science for our benefit as we progress and adapt to whatever the climate decides to do, like we have done before.
People are going hungry and cold now because of this subsidised race to grab early market share, these green companies are causing harm and being aided by politicians to secure future profits from battery tech etc.
What better way to justify it than by making out we are doomed next week if we don't.

 

[D.P.]

So basically you will only listen to scientists who are telling you what you want to hear, even if they're wrong? sad

I listen to anything that has passed a peer review process, published in respectible journals, follows the scientific process and has collaborating evidence and theory. This was it most likely to be right. I don't follow crazies or conspiracy butters, anyone bribed by oil and gas, young earth creationists, moon landing hoaxers, tea party fruitcake, or anyone who is provably wrong.

Now explain to me with dependable sources how 98% of the thousands upon thousands of scientists studying every aspect of climate can be wrong?