• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brown: 50 Days to Save the World From Global Warming

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
446
Reaction score
195
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
More climate change fearmongering.

The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".

World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.

BBC
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Yeah, right. 50 days. We have a month and a half to save the world from global warming, even though we in the USA have had record breaking cold temperatures already this fall. If we wait three months we're all dead, but 50 days we can save the world. 60 days? Armageddon. 40 days? Xanadu.

It's embarrassing that we have heads of state spouting this crap. Thankfully Gordon Brown won't survive the next election in the UK. Unfortunately, there are several more asshats like him around the world who still have influence.
 
This is probably one of the stupidest things I've heard in the past few months. What happens on day 51 Gordon? If I didn't know better - the eco-terrorists were pointing a gun to Gordy's head telling him to read the statement, 'or vee vill cut out jor tung und make it into wurst mit de spices und such."

Comon... this kind of nonsense is nonsense and to prove it, I'm going to empty my now almost empty 20lb Co2 tank into the atmosphere (as it has to be refilled anyway) while hopefully cutting the 50 days down to possibly 49.998 days - at least, that's the goal. :lol:
 
Apparently he didn't see the Patriots-Titans game yesterday. We've already solved it.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
More climate change fearmongering.



Uh huh. Yeah, right. 50 days. We have a month and a half to save the world from global warming, even though we in the USA have had record breaking cold temperatures already this fall. If we wait three months we're all dead, but 50 days we can save the world. 60 days? Armageddon. 40 days? Xanadu.

It's embarrassing that we have heads of state spouting this crap. Thankfully Gordon Brown won't survive the next election in the UK. Unfortunately, there are several more asshats like him around the world who still have influence.
Click to expand...

Not that a cold season disproves global warming. But the 50 day thing is probably a bit of a stretch.
 
Ikari said:
Not that a cold season disproves global warming. But the 50 day thing is probably a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

Correct, one cold season does not, but this is about the fifth year now in a row this has been happening.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
Uh huh. Yeah, right. 50 days. We have a month and a half to save the world from global warming, even though we in the USA have had record breaking cold temperatures already this fall. If we wait three months we're all dead, but 50 days we can save the world. 60 days? Armageddon.
Click to expand...

First, weather ≠ climate.

Second, Brown is using a bit of hyperbole to try to sway members of the "Major Economies Forum" (which meets in December, hence fifty days), to get on the ball on GW, which every scientific organization believes is a major issue.
 
Joe1991 said:
First, weather ≠ climate.

Second, Brown is using a bit of hyperbole to try to sway members of the "Major Economies Forum" (which meets in December, hence fifty days), to get on the ball on GW, which every scientific organization believes is a major issue.
Click to expand...

The whole global warming theory is hyperbole.

If you don't believe me, watch Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
 
Ikari said:
Not that a cold season disproves global warming. But the 50 day thing is probably a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

"Probably"? So, you think that there's some chance that insufficient action on this matter in the next 50 days might really spell doom for our planet?

C'mon, let's hear you say it.
 
Joe1991 said:
First, weather ≠ climate.

Second, Brown is using a bit of hyperbole to try to sway members of the "Major Economies Forum" (which meets in December, hence fifty days), to get on the ball on GW, which every scientific organization believes is a major issue.
Click to expand...

If weather doesn't equate to climate, is that the same as saying changes in weather don't equate to climate changes? In other words, just because it's been colder than expected recently doesn't mean that it's not really getting warmer.

Hmmm.

But how do we know what the climate is doing if we can't rely on the weather?

And please cite what every scientific organization has said on the issue of global warming. I mean it. I want you to list every scientific organization and their contact numbers, and give us exact quotes from what they've written about global warming. Because I'm going to check up on it. But your list would better be complete - I want it to include every single scientific organization in the world.
 
swdowning said:
And please cite what every scientific organization has said on the issue of global warming. I mean it. I want you to list every scientific organization and their contact numbers, and give us exact quotes from what they've written about global warming. Because I'm going to check up on it. But your list would better be complete - I want it to include every single scientific organization in the world.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'll get right on that. :roll:
How about you find one single example of a governmental and/or scientific organization that denies GW, and then we'll talk.


a few U.S. orgs:
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - The CNA Corporation
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
BASC - Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Joint Academies' Statement
Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
 
Joe1991 said:
First, weather ≠ climate.
Click to expand...

So when temperature has been stable and even decreasing for 10 years, it's "weather".

Yet when it's been, on and off, increasing for 100 years (which includes a 30-year cooling period), it's "climate".

Even though both 10 years and 100 years are totally insignificant blips in the 4.5 billion year life of the Earth, I guess because the latter proves that we're in a major crisis that only big government can solve, it's a better indicator of a trend than the former....

Second, Brown is using a bit of hyperbole to try to sway members of the "Major Economies Forum" (which meets in December, hence fifty days), to get on the ball on GW, which every scientific organization believes is a major issue.
Click to expand...

Every scientific organization, NOT every scientist. Most scientists are liberal, and unfortunately many of them let their political ideology get in the way of actual science, so naturally when they band together in large groups they're going to be in agreement.
 
Joe1991 said:
Yeah, I'll get right on that. :roll:
How about you find one single example of a governmental and/or scientific organization that denies GW, and then we'll talk.


a few U.S. orgs:
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - The CNA Corporation
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
BASC - Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Joint Academies' Statement
Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
Click to expand...

Given mankind's apparent bent towards short-term gain over long-term sustainability, I don't hold out much hope for the human species.

Perhaps the paramecium, or whatever is the next dominate species, will do a better job.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
More climate change fearmongering.

Uh huh. Yeah, right. 50 days. We have a month and a half to save the world from global warming, even though we in the USA have had record breaking cold temperatures already this fall. If we wait three months we're all dead, but 50 days we can save the world. 60 days? Armageddon. 40 days? Xanadu.

It's embarrassing that we have heads of state spouting this crap. Thankfully Gordon Brown won't survive the next election in the UK. Unfortunately, there are several more asshats like him around the world who still have influence.
Click to expand...

Oh man that is embarassing. I've gotten used to just tuning out whenever Brown goes abroad for something.
 
Catawba said:
Given mankind's apparent bent towards short-term gain over long-term sustainability, I don't hold out much hope for the human species.

Perhaps the paramecium, or whatever is the next dominate species, will do a better job.
Click to expand...

There are so many reasons for the U.S. to shift to a more sustainable way of life. Global warming isn't even at the top of MY list. I'd say that our unhealthy addiction to foreign oil is the number one reason, personally. I hate trying to persude the ostriches who have their heads in the sand on the topic of global warming, that's another.
 
Dav said:
So when temperature has been stable and even decreasing for 10 years, it's "weather".
Click to expand...

Cool.

Now take the last 10 years, and compare it to any other 10 from the time that global temperatures first started being monitored in the late 18's, and tell me what you see.
 
What do you suppose the kids who are aware of climate change, think of our short-sightedness? Here is the view of one ~

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4&feature=related"]YouTube - Greenpeace Video[/ame]

How will we explain our lack of action to our grandchildren?
 
Joe1991 said:
Yeah, I'll get right on that. :roll:
How about you find one single example of a governmental and/or scientific organization that denies GW, and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not the one who made the unsupportable claim that every scientific organization believes that global warming is a major issue.

Also, whether global warming exists or not isn't the issue. The issue is your implication that these organizations all believe that GW is catastrophic and anthropogenic. So let's clarify your statement. Did you mean to imply that the scientific organizations to which you referred all agree on that premise? Because whether or not GW exists is one question, whether it's significantly anthropogenic is another question, and whether it's catastrophic is yet another question. If all of these questions are affirmed by every scientific organization, then I have no choice but to concede this argument, and my moral and ethical code will require me to join sides with you and look for a solution.

I believe that the rational position on this is that global warming exists. It is largely attributable to solar activity (evidenced by the fact that global warming is occurring on other planets in our solar system). It is cyclical. For most of the Earth's existence, these warming cycles have made the Earth warmer than it is now, so we should expect that it's getting warmer. And there's nothing that hobbling western enterprise will do to solve it.

But as to your challenge:

New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.
SEPP Global Warming Page

Check these out, and then tell me why your organizations are "real" scientific organizations, and why mine aren't.

And don't forget to provide your answers to the GW definitional questions I asked in this post.
 
Catawba said:
What do you suppose the kids who are aware of climate change, think of our short-sightedness? Here is the view of one ~

How will we explain our lack of action to our grandchildren?
Click to expand...

Our grandchildren will be laughing at our foolishness in believing man actually has the power to alter the climate.
 
Gill said:
Our grandchildren will be laughing at our foolishness in believing man actually has the power to alter the climate.
Click to expand...

I guess I have never been much of a gambler ~

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ"]YouTube - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]
 
Middleground said:
Cool.

Now take the last 10 years, and compare it to any other 10 from the time that global temperatures first started being monitored in the late 18's, and tell me what you see.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address why it's "weather" when it's 10 years and "climate" when it's 100 years. Where is the line drawn?

The fact is if 10 years is not enough time to pick up on a trend (and it's not), it is very likely that 100 years is not enough time either. The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. 100 years is nothing.
 
Dav said:
That doesn't address why it's "weather" when it's 10 years and "climate" when it's 100 years. Where is the line drawn?

The fact is if 10 years is not enough time to pick up on a trend (and it's not), it is very likely that 100 years is not enough time either. The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. 100 years is nothing.
Click to expand...

Gavin Schimdt and the hyper alarmists at Real Climate have stated that if the current hiatus in warming continues for 13 years, then it should be considered a trend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom