Cameron to meet UKIPer

Pierrepont · 15-12-2006, 09:53 AM

Brittanist, I guess the problem is that if we don't reduce carbon emissions there will be no "scenic country views" left- most of it will be under water when the ice caps have melted.

This is one area where we do need to work with other countries. It's the entire world that will be affected by climate change not just us. Accepting the fact doesn't devalue our beliefs one jot.

Aardvark · 15-12-2006, 10:45 AM

This was in Ephraim Hardcastle in The Mail on 12th December:

David Cameron recently described UKIP as 'mostly closet racists, loonies and fruitcakes'. Pretty damning stuff. But even racists and loonies and fruitcakes, apparently, are, acceptable when they've turned green. On Friday the Tory leader will visit the market town of Charlbury in his constituency to open a new shop selling power-generating windmills. The owner is one James Robertshaw, twice UKIP district council candidate in Witney and both treasurer and chairman of the local UKIP branch. You certainly know where you are with Dave!

It looks like the Oxford Mail nicked the story. :roll:

mkpdavies · 15-12-2006, 10:54 AM

UKIPs policy as far as I can see, is to embrace all technologies INCLUDING nuclear. Short term Nuclear has to be used. That doesn't mean other methods can't be deployed too. If local areas want to stick up windmills, then that's their call.

eublues · 15-12-2006, 11:06 AM

Exactly. We should be questioning of all technologies (and the spin that often surrounds them) but not rule anything out absolutely.

harryaldridge · 15-12-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierrepont

Brittanist, I guess the problem is that if we don't reduce carbon emissions there will be no "scenic country views" left- most of it will be under water when the ice caps have melted.

This is one area where we do need to work with other countries. It's the entire world that will be affected by climate change not just us. Accepting the fact doesn't devalue our beliefs one jot.

Yes. We must build windmills over the countryside to protect it

Seriously now. I think UKIP should be rightly questioning every technology and scrutanising it's real benefit. The big parties can continue to be swept up in the hype but swimming against the tide is important otherwise there is no debate.

I take the view on climate change that there is 50/50 chance of warming being linked to Human activity, or it is a natural cycle. I think it would be prudent to work on the assumption that it is caused by Humans because if it is then we can stop it, but if it is part of a cycle then we are screwed anyway.

A real proposal is to go nuclear. I know the Greenies love to hate nuclear despite its advantages, but then they also like making soap from pig sh*t or something like that.

Of course environmental issues must be dealt with internationally but internationally means neither giving away sovereingty nor focusing narrowly on Europe, but rather addressing the issues properly.

Pierrepont · 15-12-2006, 11:56 AM

well which one would you prefer harry?! a few windmills as part of a solution, or just leave it be and lost it all forever.

You may think that it climate change has a 50% chance of being man made, but the vast majority of credible scientists are 100% certain that it's manmade. The only one's that aren't are funded by oil companies.

BASILDON BOY · 15-12-2006, 12:27 PM

UKIP General Election Manifesto 2005

"Put an immediate stop to the erection of wind turbines."

Nothing in our manifesto to allow local areas to do what they want. Just states we would stop the erection of wind turbines.

Would a UKIP Governmnet put Mr Robertshaw out of business?

mkpdavies · 15-12-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BASILDON BOY

UKIP General Election Manifesto 2005

"Put an immediate stop to the erection of wind turbines."

Nothing in our manifesto to allow local areas to do what they want. Just states we would stop the erection of wind turbines.

Would a UKIP Governmnet put Mr Robertshaw out of business?

UKIPs manifesto also had a section on referendums. As a matter of national policy, yep they won't be considered. Local areas will be free to do what they want though, in accordance with the local peoples wishes. If they want windmills, they shall have them, just not forced on them by central government.

SponPlague · 15-12-2006, 12:43 PM

Michael Crichton argues in his recent book, that science - the non reported stuff - is failing to show the icecaps are melting. Bits, perhaps, but I think there is an overall increase...

Go read the book - and Bjorn Lomborg, too, for that matter...

Auntie's website did a piece on him recently:

Quote:

The best-selling author Michael Crichton has explained to the BBC why he has argued global warming is a nonsense in his new book, State Of Fear.
The novel - a thriller - is controversial because it challenges scientific consensus that rapid climate change is being driven by a build-up of human-produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Crichton, most famous as the author of The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park and creator of TV series ER, told the BBC World Service that he began to look into the subject after reading an article and feeling it "didn't make very much sense".

"I finally concluded that the difficulty that was occurring on this page was that the author wanted to say something he wasn't allowed to say - and what he wanted to say was that global warming wasn't real," the author recalls on The Ticket programme.

"I thought, 'that's absurd, isn't it'?"

Disappointing answer

And Crichton said that he had looked at evidence from temperature records and considered that, "It wasn't anywhere near as impressive as I thought it would be".

He said that from what he could see, the data appeared to show that global temperatures had risen three tenths of a degree in the last 30 years; but that for the 30 previous years, temperatures had declined - while the amount of carbon dioxide being released was increasing.

People to say to me, 'now you're agreeing with President Bush' - I do so, but only by accident

Michael Crichton
"I thought, why does the 30 years of decline not count, but the 30 years of increasing temperatures do count as demonstrating this influence of carbon dioxide?" he argued.

This, he explained, had then caused him to wonder why people were so concerned about the last 30 years.

"I was extremely disappointed in the answer," he said. "They do computer simulations and conclude that this is of human origin. The difficulty that I have with that is that I simply don't believe computer simulations."

Crichton's books have often examined scientific issues through a fictional thriller framework, using science to add substance to his ideas.

Jurassic Park, for example, examined cloning through dinosaurs being brought to life in the 20th Century, while The Terminal Man looked at the ever-increasing integration of man and computers.

Data driven

State Of Fear, he contended, was again a work of fiction using fact. He said that the simplest version of his argument is that a lawsuit filed now on global warming could not be won - that there would not be enough evidence to take it to court.

The idea that carbon dioxide emissions are a significant factor in global warming is the basis for the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to come into force in February.

The US has not ratified the treaty, with many on the political right in the country describing global warming as "alarmist."

Crichton said that his own agenda came from what he believed to be fact, that "almost every aspect of environmental thought has attached to it a political tag... I think that's madness.

"I think there's only one position, and that is the position that the data leads you to," he added.

"People say to me, 'now you're agreeing with President Bush'. I do so, but only by accident.

"I'm not interested in what he thinks; I'm interested in what the data says."

State Of Fear is published by HarperCollins. It describes how the head of an environmental group initiates terrorist acts to focus attention on global warming.

The public is so alarmed at what they see that they are driven to donate funds to the organisation.

Britannist · 15-12-2006, 04:04 PM

Won't melting ice caps in the north pole area help the passage of ships through that area? Won't less ice mean more land to build houses on in places like Greenland and easier access for oil companies to drill and test for oil supplies. Won't less ice and more land mean more space for animals to live on and graze?

15-12-2006, 10:54 AM	#13 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,078 Party: Libertarian Party	UKIPs policy as far as I can see, is to embrace all technologies INCLUDING nuclear. Short term Nuclear has to be used. That doesn't mean other methods can't be deployed too. If local areas want to stick up windmills, then that's their call. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

15-12-2006, 04:04 PM	#20 (permalink)
Britannist Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 23,176	Less ice - more land? Won't melting ice caps in the north pole area help the passage of ships through that area? Won't less ice mean more land to build houses on in places like Greenland and easier access for oil companies to drill and test for oil supplies. Won't less ice and more land mean more space for animals to live on and graze?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-12-2006, 09:53 AM	#11 (permalink)
Pierrepont Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 13	Brittanist, I guess the problem is that if we don't reduce carbon emissions there will be no "scenic country views" left- most of it will be under water when the ice caps have melted. This is one area where we do need to work with other countries. It's the entire world that will be affected by climate change not just us. Accepting the fact doesn't devalue our beliefs one jot.

15-12-2006, 10:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,256	This was in Ephraim Hardcastle in The Mail on 12th December: David Cameron recently described UKIP as 'mostly closet racists, loonies and fruitcakes'. Pretty damning stuff. But even racists and loonies and fruitcakes, apparently, are, acceptable when they've turned green. On Friday the Tory leader will visit the market town of Charlbury in his constituency to open a new shop selling power-generating windmills. The owner is one James Robertshaw, twice UKIP district council candidate in Witney and both treasurer and chairman of the local UKIP branch. You certainly know where you are with Dave! It looks like the Oxford Mail nicked the story. :roll:

15-12-2006, 11:06 AM	#14 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,196	Exactly. We should be questioning of all technologies (and the spin that often surrounds them) but not rule anything out absolutely.

15-12-2006, 11:56 AM	#16 (permalink)
Pierrepont Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 13	well which one would you prefer harry?! a few windmills as part of a solution, or just leave it be and lost it all forever. You may think that it climate change has a 50% chance of being man made, but the vast majority of credible scientists are 100% certain that it's manmade. The only one's that aren't are funded by oil companies.

15-12-2006, 12:27 PM	#17 (permalink)
BASILDON BOY Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: N'Djamena, Chad Posts: 2,063	UKIP General Election Manifesto 2005 "Put an immediate stop to the erection of wind turbines." Nothing in our manifesto to allow local areas to do what they want. Just states we would stop the erection of wind turbines. Would a UKIP Governmnet put Mr Robertshaw out of business?