1) The UK should withdraw from the EU - Or at the very least have a referendum on the EU Treaty (Constitution).
2) England should have its own parliament - Or at the very least have English votes on English matters.
3) They are climate change sceptics - Or at the very least are sceptical that man is the cause.
Do you agree with all three of the above statements?
23 comments:
The first two are right of course but the third one is the otehr way round. the golden three are, of course:
1. Out of the EU
2. English Parliament
3. Climate change is certainly induced.
Two out of three wasn't bad, DR.
Never mind James, we all can't agree on everything.
Have to agree with all 3.
I do believe that climate change is happening, don't believe that man is the cause.
I always knew you were a smart man Ian.
Yep, yep and a sceptic - the more I dig into climate change the more I know the truth is not what we are being preached. I think that is what bloggers are united on. We are healthy sceptics, go on prove it we continually say, what's the evidence, what are your sources. And when the AGW crowd come back with leave it to us we are the experts, you don't need to know the data then we are sceptical. And niggling in the back of our minds is what is the deeper unconscious purpose of this anti-industry, largely anti-American movement.
Englishman,
I couldn't agree more, keep up the good work. The BBC talk of climate change as if it is a fact. Most worryingly on children's TV.
I agree on all three points ...we are being sold one of those typical political deceptions - Gordon Brown would be a good PM, if only it would stop raining. Also, I seem to remember the central planners of the good old USSR , constantly blaming "bad weather" for their cock-ups. The only difference is now they have replaced political dogma with a pseudo-religion for the illiterate and ignorant.
I agree with the first two, but the third is complex. Doubtless climate change has been influenced strongly by the period of industrialisation, and there can be a lessening of the impact, but there will also be a "natural" element to it.
Harry,
Spot on. It gives the Brown one and the Lib Dems a good excuse to increase taxes in the name of all things green. Rather than sort out congestion by improving existing roads, building new ones or subsidising public transport, it's easier to tax us off them.
Charlie,
I can't help being sceptical when our greatest industrial growth in this country and many others took place after WW2 through to the seventies. The Global temperature dropped during this period.
It would also seem that Global temperatures have been steady since 1998.
I'm glad we can agree on the other two though.
The first two, most certainly. I think British withdrawl would precipiate other members withdrawing too.
The negotiated settlement could be a real federal state(the Eurozone states, itself part of a larger free trade area which would include the rest of Europe, and a federal British Isles Union, though I think we need to go through a phase of complete for all four home nations before a federation naturally forms again on properly negotiated terms.
On climate change I'm wavering. I'm unconvinced by global warming, and even if it's so, statistically, we should be expecting a fresh ice age soon away, so solve one problem, we'll get another. It's developing adquete climate control technology we should be dealing with.
Carbon emission IS a problem however. I's simple chemistry. Prior to carbon based life, there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere. That 22% percent now is due to plants over 2 billion years converting carbon into fossil fuel, thus leaving oxygen free. By burning it, we restore the atmosphere little by little to the state it was before life.
DF
Yes, but you need to rephrase the third question.
3) A belief that the earth has warmed for some, as yet, undetermined reason.
I fully agree with 2 and 3. Regarding the EU, I am in favour of a Union but I do concede the present structure has major flaws and could do with being completely scrapped and rebuilt, with fewer members too.
2.1/2 out of 3 for me - if the climate change case came before a Scottish court I suspect the jury would return a 'not proven' verdict.
Agree with the first two. We need to have a debate on sovereignty in the UK.
Is Westminster still sovereign, or is Brussels sovereign? Is there a sovereignty of the people (as the Scottish Claim of Right stated) or does the Crown in Parliament retain absolute sovereignty?
Until we can understand these very fundamental things the UK will continue on its path to hell in a hand-basket.
As for no.3, the jury is still out. I think that climate change is a problem, and that most of it is probably down to natural causes. But that is not to say that we have not contributed to it, or that what we are doing now (and have done in the past) will not contribute to it in the future. Given that pro-active steps like reducing pollution, conserving electricity, recycling, developing alternative sources of power, water conservation, land management, population control, etc., are generally positive things (at least in the developed world) I see no reason not to proceed on the assumption that we are damaging the planet.
Crushed,
I am also unconvinced and I believe many others feel the same. This is why I get a little irate when the BBC and others report it as a fact. I'm also not too happy about Al Gore's video being shown to school children at the taxpayers expense.
Pommygranate,
Yes that works.
Especially seeing as other planets are also warming.
Martians and their Bloody 4x4's
Beaman,
Agreed. If this union was what it set out to be, it would not be too bad. However a European empire is not the way to go.
Indeed, by the way, thanks for adding my blog to your picture roll.
I'm with you on all three, but I don't see the political will to tackle them by mainstream politicians.
Shades,
Yes it's a shame. Maybe one day, if we all keep pushing.
Raedwald,
That's close enough for government work.
YES, YES, YES
Post a Comment