ChatterBank3 mins ago
U K I P Candidate Digs Himself Into A Hole !
http://
If Farage still has any hair left, it won't last until Election night at this rate !
If Farage still has any hair left, it won't last until Election night at this rate !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I happen to partially agree with him. If the planet is heating up then there is very little we can do to stop it. We may be contributing and we may be able to slow it down. I've read that the planet is still coming out of an ice age and, according to Attenborough programs I have watched, can heat up so vast areas become desert.
The planet is coming out of an Ice Age,its a very slow process. Nothing can change this fact, but pollution can accelerate the process, but in a minute way compared to natural events such as volcanoes . So, in fact, Nathan Gill is nearer the truth than fiction,which just shows the media are now not only scraping the bottom of the barrel to find 'outrageous' things UKIP members and leaders say, but they are resorting to bad (if any) research. I mean..'UKIP candidate makes valid point about the Environment, backed up by years of research by top scientists' doesn't quite have the same ring does it?
In what way is he right?
Take his volcano claim -- if it's a supervolcanic eruption, he might well be right, but then in such circumstances we'd have more to worry about than the CO2 emissions. At current levels, though, volcanic CO2 emissions in total are reckoned to be less than human-sourced CO2 emissions (per year in both cases). There is some confusion about this because it seems that different people come up with different figures; I reckon the confusion is because on average volcanos emit less, but a pretty big eruption will emit a lot. However large eruptions are also rare, so the accounting comes down against volcanoes.
See, for example, http://
But regardless, it doesn't matter which is dominant, and once again a climate skeptic is failing to take into account the signal-to-background analysis that is important here. Natural emissions in total can, and probably do, dominate. But there was some level of balance, as CO2 sinks such as plants and forest life, and long-term CO2 sinks like coal and carbon, counteracted the emissions. Human activity is disrupting that balance, by destroying the sinks (large-scale deforestation) while simultaneously increasing the sources (burning of fossil fuels/ large-scale animal farming/ paddy fields, all of which also emit CO2). The effect has been to tip a balance from something like 100 in, 98 out to 103 in, 96 out. Do not take these numbers too seriously -- I use different ones every time -- but the point is that it doesn't matter how small our contribution is relatively, it is signal over the background that in both directions is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and inducing extra warming and extra climate effects on what there would naturally be. We can -- and should -- try to combat this.
And other gases, for that matter, most notably CFCs whose greenhouse effect is orders of magnitude greater than CO2's is, while also being entirely artificial.
Take his volcano claim -- if it's a supervolcanic eruption, he might well be right, but then in such circumstances we'd have more to worry about than the CO2 emissions. At current levels, though, volcanic CO2 emissions in total are reckoned to be less than human-sourced CO2 emissions (per year in both cases). There is some confusion about this because it seems that different people come up with different figures; I reckon the confusion is because on average volcanos emit less, but a pretty big eruption will emit a lot. However large eruptions are also rare, so the accounting comes down against volcanoes.
See, for example, http://
But regardless, it doesn't matter which is dominant, and once again a climate skeptic is failing to take into account the signal-to-background analysis that is important here. Natural emissions in total can, and probably do, dominate. But there was some level of balance, as CO2 sinks such as plants and forest life, and long-term CO2 sinks like coal and carbon, counteracted the emissions. Human activity is disrupting that balance, by destroying the sinks (large-scale deforestation) while simultaneously increasing the sources (burning of fossil fuels/ large-scale animal farming/ paddy fields, all of which also emit CO2). The effect has been to tip a balance from something like 100 in, 98 out to 103 in, 96 out. Do not take these numbers too seriously -- I use different ones every time -- but the point is that it doesn't matter how small our contribution is relatively, it is signal over the background that in both directions is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and inducing extra warming and extra climate effects on what there would naturally be. We can -- and should -- try to combat this.
And other gases, for that matter, most notably CFCs whose greenhouse effect is orders of magnitude greater than CO2's is, while also being entirely artificial.
So after all that then jim I take it you dont agree with him when he says "complete stupidity to think by sticking a bunch of wind turbines all over Wales that we are somehow going to stop the weather from changing" ?
I doubt Farage will pullhis hair out at all, his words will actually resonate with many who see the mainstream parties all spending buckets of money on worthless projects that wont make a hapeth of difference.
I doubt Farage will pullhis hair out at all, his words will actually resonate with many who see the mainstream parties all spending buckets of money on worthless projects that wont make a hapeth of difference.
Well, obviously a bunch of wind turbines in Wales won't in themselves change anything. But as part of a national policy in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in favour of carbon-neutral, renewable energy sources while at the same time working to apply pressure for a similar global policy...
He is making a silly point and -- I hope! -- he knows it, but it sounds snappy.
He is making a silly point and -- I hope! -- he knows it, but it sounds snappy.
It is not silly art all - if you have one of those things in your back yard. Have you got one?
Until you can get the emerging countries and China to agree to halt it is pointless. All we are doing is self flagellation, and whilst that may be popular in the ranks of the labour party I dont see the point.
In my personal opinion that doesnt mean we should not stop looking for alternatives, for one it would be great to stick the Arabs back in their tents.
Until you can get the emerging countries and China to agree to halt it is pointless. All we are doing is self flagellation, and whilst that may be popular in the ranks of the labour party I dont see the point.
In my personal opinion that doesnt mean we should not stop looking for alternatives, for one it would be great to stick the Arabs back in their tents.
What about son of Krakatoa, been erupting for 150 years? Then there is the biggest emitters of carbon, the oceans. Going to be tricky to stop that! Mankind has control of 4% of the carbon. No one has yet explained to me how the rest, can be somehow effected by the 4%. Clearly we should work to get pollution to a minimum but the planet looks after itself, it is folly to think mankind has any real effect.
youngmafbog
He is making a silly point.
No-one thinks that wind turbines will 'stop the weather from changing'.
Nobody has ever said that ever.
Wind turbines are there for an alternative energy source. The world has a finite amount of fossil fuel, and we need to start urgently assessing alternatives to coal and oil (especially oil), because we cannot rely on existing energy sources forever.
He is making a silly point.
No-one thinks that wind turbines will 'stop the weather from changing'.
Nobody has ever said that ever.
Wind turbines are there for an alternative energy source. The world has a finite amount of fossil fuel, and we need to start urgently assessing alternatives to coal and oil (especially oil), because we cannot rely on existing energy sources forever.
"No one has yet explained to me how the rest, can be somehow effected by the 4%."
Because it's extra, and so tips the balance. It's like Micawber's economic policy.
Obviously we have an effect on the environment. How many species have we wiped out so far? How much forest has been lost to human activity? And how much of the world's previously locked-away carbon stores have we set free and burned.
This candidate speaks of hubris in thinking we can have any effect. Quite the opposite -- thinking that we can carry on with no consequences is arrogant and dangerously wrong.
Because it's extra, and so tips the balance. It's like Micawber's economic policy.
Obviously we have an effect on the environment. How many species have we wiped out so far? How much forest has been lost to human activity? And how much of the world's previously locked-away carbon stores have we set free and burned.
This candidate speaks of hubris in thinking we can have any effect. Quite the opposite -- thinking that we can carry on with no consequences is arrogant and dangerously wrong.
It has always amazed me that the "conspiracy theorists" of this debate all seem to be on the side of denial that there is a problem.
You'd think there'd be lots of people claiming a conspiracy against doing anything about it.
As for the wind farm I can understand people not wanting one near them, but dressing that nimbyism up in dubious science, as this UKIP chappie is doing, is another matter
You'd think there'd be lots of people claiming a conspiracy against doing anything about it.
As for the wind farm I can understand people not wanting one near them, but dressing that nimbyism up in dubious science, as this UKIP chappie is doing, is another matter
What he actually said.
/// it was "complete stupidity to think by sticking a bunch of wind turbines all over Wales that we are somehow going to stop the weather from
changing". ///
Is he not right?
He also said,
/// "We don't agree that man is responsible for changing the climate.
/// it was "ridiculous" to think man could change the climate, saying: "A volcano eruption will produce more CO2 than man has ever been able to produce in the short time since the industrial revolution." ///
Once again is he not right?
Seems we have more to worry about a return to an ice age than global warming.
http://
/// it was "complete stupidity to think by sticking a bunch of wind turbines all over Wales that we are somehow going to stop the weather from
changing". ///
Is he not right?
He also said,
/// "We don't agree that man is responsible for changing the climate.
/// it was "ridiculous" to think man could change the climate, saying: "A volcano eruption will produce more CO2 than man has ever been able to produce in the short time since the industrial revolution." ///
Once again is he not right?
Seems we have more to worry about a return to an ice age than global warming.
http://
Svejk
Seriously?
Do you honestly believe that the UK was the only country to sign at Kyoto???
You think that the UK is the only country which is tackling a reliance on fossil fuels, or are you saying that it just seems that way?
If so, why do you think no other country is taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions?
Seriously?
Do you honestly believe that the UK was the only country to sign at Kyoto???
You think that the UK is the only country which is tackling a reliance on fossil fuels, or are you saying that it just seems that way?
If so, why do you think no other country is taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.