The latest anti-UKIP 'documentary'

I realise it's pointless my arguing with you, but I'll just point out that whilst there are some scientists who claim that human intervention is causing 'global warming', there are others who maintain that any climate changes are purely natural phenomena that have been occurring for millennia.
By "Some scientists", you the vast majority of scientists. Especially those that actually study the climate.

By "Other", you must mean those with a vested interest in denying it, such as the AAPG. Or those sponsered to say so, or just those that have invested too much into the wrong theory.

I have been very open minded on the subject over the years, but watching a number of debates on line, reading the IPCC reports, discussed it with others who work in environmental management (at conferences), watching deniers present their evidence, have all lead to the conclusion that AGW is real.

I have often played devils advocate in some debates and challenged the evidence, and each time I've come away more convinced.

No one denies that the climate changes naturally, but it is the rate of change that is un-natural. We know what impacts things like the sun and volcanoes have, so we can account for those, along with a whole host of others drivers.

I don't vote Green of course, as I care for the environment.
 
Sponsored Links
Either way the issue isn't whether climate change is induced by man or not , the issue is that Agnew is some sort of ****** that doesn't have the slightest grip on science. How can he really believe and argue that decarbonisation will actually remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere causing plants not to be able to grow. As a politician it is a lamentable performance and doesn't reflect well on those who voted for him.
 
wobs wrote
"I don't vote Green of course, as I care for the environment"

Are you saying that the Green parties policies if implemented would actually be bad for the environment?

They want to end factory farming. Can't say I disagree with that.
Once you remove the animals from the open land the energy consumed multiplies drastically.
And yet in the pursuit of cheap food this is exactly what is happening.

Force feeding and forced production all at the expense of the animals welfare and the environment.
 
I don't vote Green of course, as I care for the environment.

I agree. If the Greens ever wielded any power, this country could become a nuclear wasteland.

Remove our nuclear deterrent, and one of several countries in possession of nuclear weapons could destroy Britain (sorry, the UK!) without the fear of any meaningful reprisals. An independent Scotland could do away with them on their own soil, of course, as they would be able to cower behind our nuclear shield.

I'm afraid that the Greenies have failed to learn from history. For over sixty years, nuclear weapons have ensured relative peace in Europe, at least with regard to large-scale wars such as happened twice in the last century.
 
Sponsored Links
No.

That's probably why someone decided to call "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey" - the UK.

Or 'Britain' for short!


No!! NI is not part of Britain, that's simply wrong.

And IOM and Jersey are not even part of the UK , never mind Britain!

Honestly ,I can't see why people don't know what makes up their own country and take pride in this knowledge! (In your cases it is ignorance , not stupidity and that's not meant to be derogatory )

I blame the schools, this should be standard fare, surely ?

Does anyone here remember doing geography or history?
The oldest known term for these Islands is the "Isles of the Pretini" from which the term Briton is derived, so therefor Ireland and Britain were regarded as British, mainland Britain was British before it was English , Ireland was British before it was Irish, that is why we use the term "the British Isles" when referring to Ireland and Britain.
 
wobs wrote
"I don't vote Green of course, as I care for the environment"

Are you saying that the Green parties policies if implemented would actually be bad for the environment?
Yes. They put ideology ahead of the environment at evergy turn.
Lets start with energy.

They are anti-nuclear, even though it is one of the best tools we have for combatting climate change. Their rational this is based entirely on fear.

They seem to think that energy efficiency and renewables are the answer, even though this has been shown to be false repeatedly. Renewables have their place of course, but cannot replace coal, and energy efficiency is limited owing to the laws of physics and economics.

Waste:
They are against incineration, even though it is shown to be the best way of treating waste residues, and is a useful energy source, and is used in countries with the highest recycling rates. Alternatives such as gasification do not work on municple waste as has been shown in various plants throughout the UK.

There is also a limit to how much you can recycle, which is a point foreign to them.

[quotes below are from Green Party policy documents]
They also want: "The removal of incentives for damaging large scale bio-fuels."

Ignoring the benefit of biofuels used in plants such as Drax. Just because something is large scale does not make it bad. Yes there needs to be regulations to limit impacts, but moving from coal to biofuel is generally a good thing.

They also want: "NR430 The import and export of waste would be prohibited, unless it is to be recycled.”
If waste can be used as a fuel (or incinerated) in another country, this would be stopped. Think about that. If the best environmental option is to burn a waste, in another country, the Greens would stop it.

"End all animal experiments, replacing them with more reliable non-animal alternatives"
Logical fallacy. If animal experiments were less reliable, why would they use them? Drug testing is part of an extensive process to keep new drugs safe. And its not cheap.



These are core issues for a party that claims to be focused on the environment


They want to end factory farming. Can't say I disagree with that.
Once you remove the animals from the open land the energy consumed multiplies drastically.
And yet in the pursuit of cheap food this is exactly what is happening.

Force feeding and forced production all at the expense of the animals welfare and the environment.
While it would be nice, what of those people who cannot aford ethically bred food? How about making ethically bred meat a more aspiratiional type of food? Just for a start.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
UKIP meanwhile has the following in a 2010 policy statement:
UKIP rejects the recent House of Commons report on homeopathy as an unbalanced and short-sighted dismissal of a branch of medicine that last year treated 54,000 people on the NHS. UKIP endorses the remarks of the Chief Executive of the British Homeopathic Association who pointed out that "the [select committee] inquiry was too narrow in its remit, there is plenty of evidence to support homeopathy, with 100 randomised controlled trials, and many more on outcome measures, which reflect how patients say they feel." UKIP believes that homeopathy has much to offer patients and notes that in a recent survey carried out at England's NHS homeopathic hospitals, some 70 per cent of patients said they felt some improvement after undergoing treatment. UKIP will continue to support homeopathy through the NHS.

UKIP's response to this is that it is a 2010 statment, and there is no mention of homeopathy in the 2012 statement. Hardly a backdown on pseudo-science.

They are pretty much scientifcally illiterate, with policies that fly in the face of the evidenc on climate change, stem cell research, etc.
 
PS. Did I mention the Green Party are also in favour of alterntaive medicines on the NHS, and the Welsh Greens want to:
"Increase provision for alternative holistic therapies, such as homeopathy, massage and psychotherapy, within the NHS in Wales"
http://wales.greenparty.org.uk/poli.../hss.-health-and-social-services.html[/QUOTE]

I think they may have a point. Honey and lemon in hot water has been more effective on my man-flu (from which, incidentally, I have been suffering for over three weeks now!) than several over-the-counter remedies I have been trying.
 
wobs wrote

"While it would be nice, what of those people who cannot afford ethically bred food?"

Who are those people in the UK?
The ones on £30k per year welfare pay outs?
Who smoke, drink, take drugs, buy the latest designer clothes, phones, tablets etc etc.
 
No one denies that the climate changes naturally, but it is the rate of change that is un-natural.

One thing for sure, ,,, extra taxes on not so green things ain't gonna change the environment. (perhaps someone should tell the bloody government) ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
No.

That's probably why someone decided to call "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey" - the UK.

Or 'Britain' for short!


No!! NI is not part of Britain, that's simply wrong.

And IOM and Jersey are not even part of the UK , never mind Britain!

Honestly ,I can't see why people don't know what makes up their own country and take pride in this knowledge! (In your cases it is ignorance , not stupidity and that's not meant to be derogatory )

I blame the schools, this should be standard fare, surely ?

Does anyone here remember doing geography or history?
The oldest known term for these Islands is the "Isles of the Pretini" from which the term Briton is derived, so therefor Ireland and Britain were regarded as British, mainland Britain was British before it was English , Ireland was British before it was Irish, that is why we use the term "the British Isles" when referring to Ireland and Britain.

Not quite....and the Isle of Man is in the Irish Sea, but it's not Irish !

(Good old Wikipedia says.....

"
In classical times, several Greco-Roman geographers used derivatives of the Celtic languages' term Pretani (such as "Brit-" or "Prit-" with various endings) to refer to the islands northwest of the European mainland; several included islands not currently viewed as part of the "British Isles"—Thule, for example. During the Roman era, the word "Britannia" came to mean the Roman province of Britain in particular.

Other early classical geographers (and native sources in the post-Roman period) used the general term oceani insulae, which meant "islands of the ocean". Great Britain was called "Britannia"; Ireland was known as "Hibernia" and, between about the 5th and 11th centuries, "Scotia". The Orkney Islands ("Orcades") and the Isle of Man were typically also included in descriptions of the islands. No collective term for the islands was used other than "islands of the Ocean".

The term "British Isles" entered the English language in the 17th century to refer to Great Britain, Ireland and the surrounding islands; it did not enter common usage until the first half of the 19th century[79] and, in general, the modern notion of "Britishness" evolved after the 1707 Act of Union.[80] While it is probably the most common term for the islands, this use is not universally accepted and is sometimes rejected in Ireland.[10]"
 
wobs wrote

"While it would be nice, what of those people who cannot afford ethically bred food?"

Who are those people in the UK?
The ones on £30k per year welfare pay outs?
Who smoke, drink, take drugs, buy the latest designer clothes, phones, tablets etc etc.
Oh I see, so if someone is on welfare, then they are on £30k per year.

Or maybe not.
And what of those on minimum wage?
 
No.

That's probably why someone decided to call "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey" - the UK.

Or 'Britain' for short!


No!! NI is not part of Britain, that's simply wrong.

And IOM and Jersey are not even part of the UK , never mind Britain!

Honestly ,I can't see why people don't know what makes up their own country and take pride in this knowledge! (In your cases it is ignorance , not stupidity and that's not meant to be derogatory )

I blame the schools, this should be standard fare, surely ?

Does anyone here remember doing geography or history?
The oldest known term for these Islands is the "Isles of the Pretini" from which the term Briton is derived, so therefor Ireland and Britain were regarded as British, mainland Britain was British before it was English , Ireland was British before it was Irish, that is why we use the term "the British Isles" when referring to Ireland and Britain.

Not quite....and the Isle of Man is in the Irish Sea, but it's not Irish !

(Good old Wikipedia says.....

"
In classical times, several Greco-Roman geographers used derivatives of the Celtic languages' term Pretani (such as "Brit-" or "Prit-" with various endings) to refer to the islands northwest of the European mainland; several included islands not currently viewed as part of the "British Isles"—Thule, for example. During the Roman era, the word "Britannia" came to mean the Roman province of Britain in particular.

Other early classical geographers (and native sources in the post-Roman period) used the general term oceani insulae, which meant "islands of the ocean". Great Britain was called "Britannia"; Ireland was known as "Hibernia" and, between about the 5th and 11th centuries, "Scotia". The Orkney Islands ("Orcades") and the Isle of Man were typically also included in descriptions of the islands. No collective term for the islands was used other than "islands of the Ocean".

The term "British Isles" entered the English language in the 17th century to refer to Great Britain, Ireland and the surrounding islands; it did not enter common usage until the first half of the 19th century[79] and, in general, the modern notion of "Britishness" evolved after the 1707 Act of Union.[80] While it is probably the most common term for the islands, this use is not universally accepted and is sometimes rejected in Ireland.[10]"
Aristotle referred to Great Britain as Albion and Ireland as Ierne but both Islands were collectively known as the Pretanic Islands , that was around 350BC.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top