UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Scuffers said:
So it's true then you do live in an alternate reality
I just do the research, kiddo.For the population figures, Google "UK population". For the TB figures, see the government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tubercu...
For flying while pregnant, check the airlines.
It's simple enough, but harder than engaging in reasoned debate.
TheRealFingers99 said:
I just do the research, kiddo.
For the population figures, Google "UK population". For the TB figures, see the government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tubercu...
For flying while pregnant, check the airlines.
It's simple enough, but harder than engaging in reasoned debate.
And nobody ever breaks airline rules and lies to them about how pregnant they are do they?For the population figures, Google "UK population". For the TB figures, see the government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tubercu...
For flying while pregnant, check the airlines.
It's simple enough, but harder than engaging in reasoned debate.
The realbworld is offen very different.
wc98 said:
CamMoreRon said:
Suggest that UKIP are climate change denialists.
wow a real live catastrophic man made global warming fantasist , are you stuck in a 1998 time warp by any chance.
t....Believe me it is happening..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10396142/For...
I've heard stories that local mothers to be have to drive 40miles to get a maternity bed as all the hospitals close to Heathrow are full with tourist mom's.
We are the laughing stock of the world and just get taken advantage of at every possible opportunity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10396142/For...
I've heard stories that local mothers to be have to drive 40miles to get a maternity bed as all the hospitals close to Heathrow are full with tourist mom's.
We are the laughing stock of the world and just get taken advantage of at every possible opportunity.
Edited by jogon on Saturday 11th October 21:12
CamMoreRon said:
Scuffers said:
yes you're right there's a lot more than immigration to running a country which is why if you look at ukip website you notice that they have more policies than just immigration however getting back to the subject yes i'm sure i could find a radio interview with just about any supporter of any party this a complete fruit loop what does that prove the country is full of fruit loops?
They do have a lot of words.. and you're right, you could find any uninformed half-wit who doesn't know what his party of choice actually stand for. Hell.. the majority of Labour voters still believe they're voting for a party that are an alternative to Conservative. 
Some UKIP policies are actually quite sensible, I have to hand that to them. But some are just ludicrous, and unfortunately it is the ludicrous policies that will have the biggest impact to the country and the sensible policies will make no noticeable difference at all.
For example:
"UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies."
- Incredibly damaging policy. And along with.. "There will be no new subsidies for wind farms and solar arrays." And.. "UKIP will abolish green taxes and charges in order to reduce fuel bills." Suggest that UKIP are climate change denialists. Now.. not only are fossil fuels a finite resource, so by definition we should not plan to rely on them indefinitely and work to plan & develop new methods of generating power that do not rely on them as a fuel, they are shown (via a HEAP of research and the vast majority of scientific opinion) to be damaging the environment.
.
By 1984, this had reduced to only 20 years.
In 1998, we were warned that we were going to run out of oil in 40 years.
Many people were far too thick to spot the pattern.
Can YOU see the pattern?
BTW, scientists now say that we have enough gas to last 300 years.
don4l said:
In the 1960's we had only 10 year's supply of oil left.
By 1984, this had reduced to only 20 years.
In 1998, we were warned that we were going to run out of oil in 40 years.
Many people were far too thick to spot the pattern.
Can YOU see the pattern?
BTW, scientists now say that we have enough gas to last 300 years.
Ok, good points.. let me follow up:By 1984, this had reduced to only 20 years.
In 1998, we were warned that we were going to run out of oil in 40 years.
Many people were far too thick to spot the pattern.
Can YOU see the pattern?
BTW, scientists now say that we have enough gas to last 300 years.
In the 1960's we had slide rules. In the 1980's the peak of personal tech was a watch with a calculator on it. In 1998 we had Snake.
Predictions in the scientific community are based on the evidence and the ability to process and forecast from data, so naturally as the state of technology progresses so too does the accuracy of prediction, and therefore the predictions themselves.
That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that predictions were false - just that the data wasn't broad enough, the methods not mature, etc etc. So to claim that the prediction we will run out of fossil fuels as a resource is false just because the goalposts have moved is completely misunderstanding the scientific method.
1 - New oil is not being created underneath us. Oil takes millions of years to form naturally, and any attempt to create oil artificially will likely consume more energy than it creates.
2 - We WILL run out. Eventually. It is only a matter of time, and all we can do is estimate when that will be.
3 - We cannot predict when we will run out of oil - as you suggested - because in reality no scientist has completely mapped all oil fields; otherwise we would not need prospective drilling, we would simply look for the next spot on the map. What this means is that we could run out tomorrow, or we could run out in 300 years. Does that mean we sould just carry on until we do run out and THEN (in a complete global power shut-down) do something about it?
4 - The use of fossil fuels creates harmful waste products: CO / CO2 / Hydrocarbons and so on. The damage these do to the environment has only recently been accepted on a large scale, but the weight of scientific evidence is damning. Ok, there are a very small bunch of scientists who reject the idea, but there is also an engineer on my floor with a Twilight mug. Interpret that how you will.
So why should we be sticking our heads in the sand (a phrase someone used on me earlier) WRT climate change? Yes, research costs money. Yes, innovation costs money. But something does need to be done sooner or later, and frankly I would prefer sooner.
Our global energy usage is predicted to double in the next 25 years. That is a natural result of developing countries moving out of poverty and improving their living standards. If we double the amount of fossil fuels we burn in order to meet demand (not including the energy required to make new power plants) then we are doing twice as much damage to the environment. If we just charge in to that with our heads down it will likely be a crisis that takes a VERY long time to resolve.
So to summarise.. I would say the Green Energy regs we have now were pretty appropriate.
Scuffers said:
For the record even if i wasn't a climate change denier as you put it, the current policy of subsidising windfarms solar and everything else i just plain economic suicide it wouldn't be so bad if they actually generateed electricity
Not as suicidal as running head-down in to both global climate change - with no precedent and therefore no idea how it will affect us, and global energy shortage - with no contingency plan and no alternative.Actually, it is far cheaper to prepare for an event than it is to run around in a panic trying to deal with it once it happens. This is something that we have to start planning for, developing the technology and rolling out it's use ahead of the day the wells run dry. Unfortunately it is also INCREDIBLY difficult to convince people of this need, especially when there is still (seemingly) plenty to go around.
Edited by CamMoreRon on Saturday 11th October 22:06
CamMoreRon said:
don4l said:
In the 1960's we had only 10 year's supply of oil left.
By 1984, this had reduced to only 20 years.
In 1998, we were warned that we were going to run out of oil in 40 years.
Many people were far too thick to spot the pattern.
Can YOU see the pattern?
BTW, scientists now say that we have enough gas to last 300 years.
Ok, good points.. let me follow up:By 1984, this had reduced to only 20 years.
In 1998, we were warned that we were going to run out of oil in 40 years.
Many people were far too thick to spot the pattern.
Can YOU see the pattern?
BTW, scientists now say that we have enough gas to last 300 years.
In the 1960's we had slide rules. In the 1980's the peak of personal tech was a watch with a calculator on it. In 1998 we had Snake.
Predictions in the scientific community are based on the evidence and the ability to process and forecast from data, so naturally as the state of technology progresses so too does the accuracy of prediction, and therefore the predictions themselves.
That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that predictions were false - just that the data wasn't broad enough, the methods not mature, etc etc. So to claim that the prediction we will run out of fossil fuels as a resource is false just because the goalposts have moved is completely misunderstanding the scientific method.
1 - New oil is not being created underneath us. Oil takes millions of years to form naturally, and any attempt to create oil artificially will likely consume more energy than it creates.
2 - We WILL run out. Eventually. It is only a matter of time, and all we can do is estimate when that will be.
3 - We cannot predict when we will run out of oil - as you suggested - because in reality no scientist has completely mapped all oil fields; otherwise we would not need prospective drilling, we would simply look for the next spot on the map. What this means is that we could run out tomorrow, or we could run out in 300 years. Does that mean we sould just carry on until we do run out and THEN (in a complete global power shut-down) do something about it?
4 - The use of fossil fuels creates harmful waste products: CO / CO2 / Hydrocarbons and so on. The damage these do to the environment has only recently been accepted on a large scale, but the weight of scientific evidence is damning. Ok, there are a very small bunch of scientists who reject the idea, but there is also an engineer on my floor with a Twilight mug. Interpret that how you will.
So why should we be sticking our heads in the sand (a phrase someone used on me earlier) WRT climate change? Yes, research costs money. Yes, innovation costs money. But something does need to be done sooner or later, and frankly I would prefer sooner.
Our global energy usage is predicted to double in the next 25 years. That is a natural result of developing countries moving out of poverty and improving their living standards. If we double the amount of fossil fuels we burn in order to meet demand (not including the energy required to make new power plants) then we are doing twice as much damage to the environment. If we just charge in to that with our heads down it will likely be a crisis that takes a VERY long time to resolve.
So to summarise.. I would say the Green Energy regs we have now were pretty appropriate.
Scuffers said:
For the record even if i wasn't a climate change denier as you put it, the current policy of subsidising windfarms solar and everything else i just plain economic suicide it wouldn't be so bad if they actually generateed electricity
Not as suicidal as running head-down in to both global climate change - with no precedent and therefore no idea how it will affect us, and global energy shortage - with no contingency plan and no alternative.k off troll: no ones interested in your facile sniping [-zod-] the futures purple.Or to put it another way, get on the train, or the trains going over you.
That is all.
jogon said:
Your denial all sounds a bit Rotherham to me if you know what I mean.
No, I don't. Do you mean the UKIP guy in the cap talking about "a level playingfield"? A handful of recorded anecdotes is interesting -- if there is some verifiable record of the dialogues it might even constitute oral history done methodologically correctly. But you'd expect some facts and figures and a link to something that was actually published, otherwise it's just sloppy journalism (and sloppy research).
I've yet to find a link to the [added for clarity] rearch[/added for clarity]paper. And surely you'd see similar (if not quite as high) results for Gatwick, were there any?
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 11th October 22:13
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 11th October 23:17
CamMoreRon said:
Not as suicidal as running head-down in to both global climate change - with no precedent and therefore no idea how it will affect us, and global energy shortage - with no contingency plan and no alternative.
Actually, it is far cheaper to prepare for an event than it is to run around in a panic trying to deal with it once it happens. This is something that we have to start planning for, developing the technology and rolling out it's use ahead of the day the wells run dry. Unfortunately it is also INCREDIBLY difficult to convince people of this need, especially when there is still (seemingly) plenty to go a
Yes, its really cheap to keep subsidizing windmills that do nothing.Actually, it is far cheaper to prepare for an event than it is to run around in a panic trying to deal with it once it happens. This is something that we have to start planning for, developing the technology and rolling out it's use ahead of the day the wells run dry. Unfortunately it is also INCREDIBLY difficult to convince people of this need, especially when there is still (seemingly) plenty to go a
Please explain how any part of the dect is doing something actually usefully?
TheRealFingers99 said:
A handful of recorded anecdotes is interesting -- if there is some verifiable record of the dialogues it might even consitute oral history. But you'd expect some facts and figures and a link to something that was actually published, otherwise it's just sloppy journalism (and sloppy research).
I've yet to find a link to the paper. And surely you'd see similar (if not quite as high) results for Gatwick, were there any?
Heard it all before.. The trojan horse, what utter lies we were told, but actually worse in Tower Hamlets and Bradford. The muslim rape gangs now been exposed all across the UK in every Muslim enclave possible it seems. And you now call in to question a report that our hospitals are been take advantage of by health tourists when it is evidently the case. I've yet to find a link to the paper. And surely you'd see similar (if not quite as high) results for Gatwick, were there any?
jogon said:
Heard it all before.. The trojan horse, what utter lies we were told, but actually worse in Tower Hamlets and Bradford. The muslim rape gangs now been exposed all across the UK in every Muslim enclave possible it seems. And you now call in to question a report that our hospitals are been take advantage of by health tourists when it is evidently the case.
I can't find the damn report to take issue with it! AFAIK, it's the figment of some deluded journo's imagination. If it's "evidently the case" where's the evidence?
All I see from you are muslimophobic rants, allegations (but no evidence) of conspiracies, and the hidden assertion that two lies (if lies they were) = 3.
TheRealFingers99 said:
I can't find the damn report to take issue with it! AFAIK, it's the figment of some deluded journo's imagination.
If it's "evidently the case" where's the evidence?
All I see from you are muslimophobic rants, allegations (but no evidence) of conspiracies, and the hidden assertion that two lies (if lies they were) = 3.
Typical behaviour, best deny and accuse those who dare question as racist, Rotherham all over again.If it's "evidently the case" where's the evidence?
All I see from you are muslimophobic rants, allegations (but no evidence) of conspiracies, and the hidden assertion that two lies (if lies they were) = 3.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff