According to Gordon Brown, we only have 50 days to save the planet from global warming!!
So it looks like we only have until December 6th to ram through global legislation or the world will blow a gasket and overheat.
I wonder how many pages a bill (the health care bill has over 1,500) like that would have? How many oxygen producing trees will be needed to print up hundreds of bills for all the leaders of the world to read?
On a side note.......here in North Georgia we had frost warnings a full month ahead of 'normal' seasonal frosts.
30 comments:
Wow, Gordon Brown is actually aggressively pursuing this, eh?
I think it's a bold move. Obviously they don't think that we have to solve climate change within 50 days - it's just intended to be a tough deadline to force nations into action.
I personally feel that we need to move the focus away from climate change/carbon emissions and on to a more broad understanding of our net resource usage, but that's an even more complex issue to resolve.
This is a good place to start (and we've been needing to 'start' for some time now!)
PS. I'm sure they'll replant the trees they cut down for the bill....
Reallocating some of our scarce resources toward their most efficient alternative uses would be a start. Easier said than done, though.
Anyway, is it possible for me to grow an apple tree on my future property in this region, I wonder?
"I personally feel that we need to move the focus away from climate change/carbon emissions and on to a more broad understanding of our net resource usage....."
I absolutely agree with that Matt!
Let's all be good stewards of our natural resources.
I'm no tree hugger but our family recycles and drives a 38+ mpg car. We can all do our part to reduce waste and increase efficiencies of our resources.
Wayne,
Yep, it all starts at home. Of course, when I told my girlfriend not to expect a diamond because they generate 53 million times their weight in waste, she wasn't so eager to get on the resource-saving bandwagon!
Still, we walk everywhere and try to eat locally, so we do our bit.
53 million times? How can a diamond possibly do that?
It's based on the amount of material 'moved' in order to produce the product.
It's taken from this report;
http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file27991.pdf
The draft is 181 pages. You can find a copy of it, along with a video of Gordon Brown and a very poignant video of Christopher Monckton refuting the necessity of the treaty here:
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Wasn't global cooling an issue some years ago? What about seasonal cycles?
Dorci,
You don't think it's important to curb our reliance on foreign oil, invest in renewable technology, prevent the further pollution of the atmosphere and attempt to minimize negative human impacts on the world?
According to Wiki;
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is...
"... a member of the Worshipful Company of Broderers, an Officer of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and a member of the Roman Catholic Mass Media Commission. He is also a qualified Day Skipper with the Royal Yachting Association, and has been a Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic since 1986"
Sounds exactly like the guy we should trust on climate science to me! ;)
Instead we should trust a group of politicians?
The "50 days or the world will end" bit is a little too much for me.
Dorci,
"Instead we should trust a group of politicians?".
Is that the alternative you think I'm promoting?
Who do you think Christopher Monckton is? He's a (hereditary) member of the House of Lords for crying out loud!
How about we put some trust in climate scientists instead, eh? They might just know a thing or two about what they're talking about.
And as I understand it, it wasn't "50 days or the world will end" as a literal countdown to doomsday. It's a call to action to get things moving.
Is that so wrong?
From what I've heard most scientists are bowing out because they just don't agree with the political agenda.
That leaves the politicians to run this show.
Dorci,
Where did you hear that "most scientists are bowing out"?
Does anyone have sufficient faith in politicians to save the planet in 50 days? If we knew for sure that politicians did have 50 days to save the planet it would surely sharpen up our resolve to evangelise our part of the planet - would it not?
Nohm, I honestly don't remember now where I read that. I've read a number of articles besides listening to the videos. And, well, you know, the memory is the first thing to go. If I find it I'll let you know.
I think Christopher Monckton's concern is not just about the so-called need of some to "save the planet" from a global warming that hasn't been proved even exists, but, after reading the wording of the treaty, he believes that the signing of it could have the ultimate effect of the treaty become international law over and above our own U.S. Constitution.
QoI - I sure hope so.
To my knowledge, Dorci, the question of global warming isn't controversial; scientists on "both sides of the fence" don't question that the earth is warming.
The controversial subject is whether or not humans are contributing a large part to that problem. That's where all the arguments are, because while there are limited ways that we can control non-human effects on the evironment, there are many ways we can control what we do.
And that's where it becomes controversial.
The people who claim that it's a hoax that the planet is warming are, in my not-so-humble opinion, whackos who understand little to nothing of the science.
Dorci, if you actually believe that global warming, human-helped or not, does not exist, then I very much encourage you to look at the numbers.
If you have a rebuttal to the numbers, I would be very interested in seeing/reading it. The rebuttals I've heard and read so far are incredibly weak and ignorant, to be kind about it.
Neil said,
" If we knew for sure that politicians did have 50 days to save the planet it would surely sharpen up our resolve to evangelise our part of the planet - would it not?"
Amen Neil!
I bet I would get more Christians to come out and witness with us.
Well, there are naysayers among the scientific community, whom we'll assume are whackos by definition for now.
But anyway, the voluntary activity of preserving the scarce resources of our planet is a good thing. I think the discussion is not only whether or not humanity is actually contributing to the warming of the planet, but also as to whether the contribution humanity may be putting forth is to an extent where government force is necessary to curtail our harmful "suppuration" if you will.
I'm unconvinced of the latter.
Since there is evidence of both warming and cooling on various parts of the globe, I wonder if the aggregate demonstrates warming as the dominant factor going on? I believe it does.
We come back to where we started - any policies that encourage good stewardship of the Earth are to be encouraged. Can we all agree on that?
The majority of these policies do coincide with policies to avert or otherwise mitigate man-made climate change but so what, it all boils down to the same thing in the end - stop acting like there are infinite resources on Earth!
Cheers,
"Global warming" is a joke.
It ain't happening. Quite tyhe opposite is happening.
People are fools to listen to the scare-mongers who would control them and take away their freedoms and their livlihoods over a giant scam.
Sorry...but that is the truth of it.
Steve,
And your evidence for these claims is... ?
I would like to see your numbers.
Here's a list of more thajn 31,000 scientists (in the U.S. alone) that disagree with man-made global warming:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
"Here's a list of more thajn 31,000 scientists (in the U.S. alone) that disagree with man-made global warming"
Well, if you want to go in that direction, do you think that group is larger or smaller than the number of scientists (in the U.S. alone) who agree with man-made global warming?
Regardless, my point has always been that I acknowledge that there's an argument as to how much humans have contributed to global warming; there is no credible argument against the reality that the earth is warming.
Nohm,
I'm saying that the opposition to this AGW stuff is far too substantial to say, "the debate is over" as Al Gore and co. regularly say.
Didn't Al Gore say Hurricanes would increase in frequency and intensity because of "Globl Warming"? (An Inconvenient Truth)
Well, that's not happening, either.
"Well, that's not happening, either."
I would be fascinated to see you support this claim.
Regardless, sorry, I don't take my science information from films or politicians, but I guess that's just me.
Those 31,000 scientists probably don't get theirs from politicians, either.
Just look at a few of these quotes from some eminent scientists:
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/some-quotes-from-eminent-scientists-that-you-wont-hear-about-on-the-six-oclock-news/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths
Some interesting stuff in that one, whether you agree with it or not.
Post a Comment