Gordon Brown beats the crap out of climate change

[Atomic_Piggy]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7101075.stm
I hope he goes through with this. As much as I hate this government, my respect would be boosted epic amounts if they did this.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Would be hugely awesome if he goes through with his promises. But in all likelihood, he's full of shit.

 

[[Matt]]

unelected cnut... the UK needs a constitutional change to prevent prime ministers from gaining power without an national election :/

 

[Druckles]

Omg.... like the only good thing he's ever suggested

 

[Mr Stabby]

The plastic bag part is good, the rest is pointless. Brown is lamer than Blair

 

[Druckles]

Seconded

 

[Baserape>]

Good God, the NHS falling apart amd he's on about wasting our money on a green hotline. How out of touch can you get?

 

[Dynasty]

Keep old people alive longer or helping the survival of earth and mankind...man that was on Final Jeopardy last night

 

[Parrot of doom]

unelected cnut... the UK needs a constitutional change to prevent prime ministers from gaining power without an national election :/

He was elected. In a general election you do not vote for a prime minister. You vote for a local member of parliament.

This has been the case for hundreds of years.

He is a **** though, I'll agree with you there. And frankly a 60% cut in co2 emissions is both folly and impossible.

 

[Irksome]

At least your guy accepts climate change as being real.

 

[Druckles]

He was elected. In a general election you do not vote for a prime minister. You vote for a local member of parliament.

This has been the case for hundreds of years.

He is a **** though, I'll agree with you there. And frankly a 60% cut in co2 emissions is both folly and impossible.

I didn't elect him. Didn't elect for Tony either. Three times I didn't elect for them :hmph:

Edit: And accepting climate change for us isn't too great. The fact that they cottoned on would've been helpful about 50 years ago. It's too late for us to do anything now, we're just too small a contributor. I'd hate to say I'm not responsible, but then no-one individually is responsible, it's just the fact that the country I'm living in currently has no means of stopping Global Warming on its own.

That's not to say I don't do my bit for the environment.

 

[Kadayi]

I think one of the big myths is about recyclable Plastic. Sure used plastic can be recycled, but it's not reused in the same way that glass is. All the plastic food packaging you buy doesn't get reused to make more food packaging, it gets turned into plastic Buckets and the like.

 

[Solaris]

I dislike how the onus is constantly put on the individual to reduce ones carbon footprint.

The government are considering to charge us to dispose of rubbish to encourage people to use less packaging.

Really they should be fining companies for using to much packaging and damaging in the environment instead of holding us responsible. The plastic bag thing is shit, sounds nice, but will have very little impact on the environment.

 

[Druckles]

I dislike how the onus is constantly put on the individual to reduce ones carbon footprint.

The government are considering to charge us to dispose of rubbish to encourage people to use less packaging.

Really they should be fining companies for using to much packaging and damaging in the environment instead of holding us responsible. The plastic bag thing is shit, sounds nice, but will have very little impact on the environment.

I agree to an extent. It's the companies and organisations fault. However, we have a choice too, so we cannot put all blame on one group of people, and or person.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I dislike how the onus is constantly put on the individual to reduce ones carbon footprint.

The government are considering to charge us to dispose of rubbish to encourage people to use less packaging.

Really they should be fining companies for using to much packaging and damaging in the environment instead of holding us responsible. The plastic bag thing is shit, sounds nice, but will have very little impact on the environment.

Not like the idea of individual responsibility, if the individual doesn't change their attitude, nothing can be don't to fix the problem, however the governments plan of fining people is retarded, they should be investing in suitable alternatives. Plastic bags are a big environmental problem, you do know what landfill is don't you?

 

[repiV]

At least your guy accepts climate change as being real.

Why is that a good thing, when the evidence doesn't even exist to support that "reality"? We welcome faith back into the political process, only there isn't a god this time.

Whoop-de-doo, we can surrender even more money to the government under the guise of fighting yet another non-existent end of the world crisis.

Clicky

It perplexes me how people will just buy into whatever they're told to believe without question, without even taking notice of the fact that it's politicians with vested interests who are creating this "reality".

 

[The Monkey]

So you're saying you know this better than the whole scientific community, repiv?

 

[repiV]

So you're saying you know this better than the whole scientific community, repiv?

The "whole scientific community" doesn't agree that global warming is a fact - far from it. That's the point in the first place.

Pays to dig a little deeper.

 

[Druckles]

It seems to be about 50/50 as to whether global warming is caused by humans or natural (well, I mean mostly cause by, as everyone agrees we've both played a part). And then again 50/50 as to whether it's just a spike or a trend.

Personally think it's a spike.

 

[Parrot of doom]

I didn't elect him. Didn't elect for Tony either. Three times I didn't elect for them :hmph:

Edit: And accepting climate change for us isn't too great. The fact that they cottoned on would've been helpful about 50 years ago. It's too late for us to do anything now, we're just too small a contributor. I'd hate to say I'm not responsible, but then no-one individually is responsible, it's just the fact that the country I'm living in currently has no means of stopping Global Warming on its own.

That's not to say I don't do my bit for the environment.

Of course you didn't elect either of them. They were elected by their constituents. If you voted, you voted for whoever you thought best represented your interests.

You do not vote for the party leader. The party votes for that person. The general public have only an opinion about who should be party leader, they have no influence in the matter.

And this is a separate debate but there is still no proof that anthropogenic climate change exists.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Really they should be fining companies for using to much packaging and damaging in the environment instead of holding us responsible. The plastic bag thing is shit, sounds nice, but will have very little impact on the environment.

I have been saying this for years, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person to have given the matter any thought. Thank you for restoring my faith in free thought

 

[Parrot of doom]

you do know what landfill is don't you?

Landfill is the word used to describe a political hot potato, the only means of which politicians have of safely dealing with is to hand it over to another country. In this case, China, who take nearly all our waste for recycling as ballast on container ships, and then gleefully dump it into their own landfill sites.

Landfill in its own right, properly managed, is environmentally harmless. We are only running out of landfill space because politicians will not allow the construction of new sites.

The reason we have recycling targets is not to protect the environment, it is to protect politicians from having to deal with irate NIMBYs.

 

[repiV]

I have been saying this for years, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person to have given the matter any thought. Thank you for restoring my faith in free thought

Of course the real reason they "hold us responsible" is because global warming is little more than an excuse to rob the taxpayer and harass the motorist. Individual citizens are much easier to rob than large organisations.

It's absolutely indefensible that 80% of the money I pay for fuel goes straight to the Treasury.

 

[PvtRyan]

It's all a conspiracy repiV! Fight the Man! They're all after you, trying to take your munnies!

Seriously, all the things the government is suggesting is gonna cost money. There's really very little benefit for them in bullshitting you.

It's funny really, on the one hand you got people claiming it's "the corporations" that control the world of which the most powerful the energy companies, which will without doubt only suffer from the green hype. On the other hand, there's the paranoid like you that are convinced the government is out to get them and to prevent them riding their bike. What a joke.

And come back when you have an article that actually cites its fucking sources. And the "Pro-Motor" movement, right, that's a perfectly objective, scientific, group right? I'll be impressed when you find me an article from Nature or something that claims the same thing, properly backed up. But of course, that's not objective because publications like Nature are all in on the conspiracy! Only articles that agree with you are objective, naturally!

And lol @ "last updated" in 2002.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

RepiV, the sun spots theory was debunked months back. That whole article is now irrelevant.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

I've got tons more of these that destroy the sunspot theory. What amuses me is that people fancy themselves smarter than the scientific community.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Landfill is the word used to describe a political hot potato, the only means of which politicians have of safely dealing with is to hand it over to another country. In this case, China, who take nearly all our waste for recycling as ballast on container ships, and then gleefully dump it into their own landfill sites.

Landfill in its own right, properly managed, is environmentally harmless. We are only running out of landfill space because politicians will not allow the construction of new sites.

The reason we have recycling targets is not to protect the environment, it is to protect politicians from having to deal with irate NIMBYs.

Not to mention it ruins land for agriculture and contaminates water supplies, releases large amounts of methane, and takes up a lot of space.

 

[repiV]

It's all a conspiracy repiV! Fight the Man! They're all after you, trying to take your munnies!

Seriously, all the things the government is suggesting is gonna cost money. There's really very little benefit for them in bullshitting you.

It's funny really, on the one hand you got people claiming it's "the corporations" that control the world of which the most powerful the energy companies, which will without doubt only suffer from the green hype. On the other hand, there's the paranoid like you that are convinced the government is out to get them and to prevent them riding their bike. What a joke.

And come back when you have an article that actually cites its fucking sources. And the "Pro-Motor" movement, right, that's a perfectly objective, scientific, group right? I'll be impressed when you find me an article from Nature or something that claims the same thing, properly backed up. But of course, that's not objective because publications like Nature are all in on the conspiracy! Only articles that agree with you are objective, naturally!

And lol @ "last updated" in 2002.

I used the link because it's a good summary. You're free to google their claims and verify them.
Governments always find ways to take more money away from the people, and currently the motorist is the most harassed target of all. No, they don't want to "prevent people riding their bike", they want to make a fortune off people who need to get around.
It's about as objective a movement as the IPCC, a political movement determined to find a way to prove/twist the facts to show that man-made climate change IS happening, whether or not that's actually the case.

 

[repiV]

RepiV, the sun spots theory was debunked months back. That whole article is now irrelevant.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

I've got tons more of these that destroy the sunspot theory. What amuses me is that people fancy themselves smarter than the scientific community.

There is no consensus within the "scientific community" that global warming is caused by mankind.
Besides, why would I want to trust a viewpoint that's typically supported by ridiculous OTT horror stories like "TEN YEARS TO SAVE THE EARTH" and documentaries that contain multiple scientific and factual errors yet win Nobel Peace Prizes anyway?
It totally stinks of a complete ****ing scam. More to the point, only the "GLOBAL WARMING IS KILLING TEH EARTH!!!111" brigade is arguing for mandatory action enforced upon everyone else. If you want to force me to radically alter the way I live my life, then you better have some much better reasons than "well the whole scientific community says so", when they actually don't.
Nor can you deny that global warming is used as an excuse to grab money. Hell, a London bus creates 128 times as much pollution as the average car. And carries an average of five people. Really efficient. In reality the best thing for the environment would actually be to force everyone off buses and into cars.

Incidentally, this summer was the wettest on record and this is the coldest November I can recall.

 

[Druckles]

Of course you didn't elect either of them. They were elected by their constituents. If you voted, you voted for whoever you thought best represented your interests.

You do not vote for the party leader. The party votes for that person. The general public have only an opinion about who should be party leader, they have no influence in the matter.

And this is a separate debate but there is still no proof that anthropogenic climate change exists.

I didn't vote for their party either. And you wonder why no-one turns up for elections.

And don't triple post. There's a perfectly legitimite Edit button, you're just taking up space in this thread.

 

[Nid Banikeri]

You really can't deny global warming is at least partly caused by humans. Just looking around us at the emissions going into the atmosphere, its a huge amount of CO2 to cope with.

But anyway ya, cutting plastic bags? Nice lil step, but is pretty pathethic looking at the big picture.

I'm not an enviro-freak but China is trippling its emissions every year and with the massive increase in flights expected there really needs to be some worldwide action right now. I mean the plastic bags thing is a good idea, just not very much when you look at it like that.

 

[Druckles]

We should fuel planes with plastic bags. Solve two problems with one solution.

 

[repiV]

You really can't deny global warming is at least partly caused by humans. Just looking around us at the emissions going into the atmosphere, its a huge amount of CO2 to cope with.

Really?
96.5% of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Our contribution is a mere pebble in the ocean, and even then there is no proof that CO2 causes global warming.

But anyway ya, cutting plastic bags? Nice lil step, but is pretty pathethic looking at the big picture.

I'm not an enviro-freak but China is trippling its emissions every year and with the massive increase in flights expected there really needs to be some worldwide action right now. I mean the plastic bags thing is a good idea, just not very much when you look at it like that.

It's not a good idea, because it will accomplish jack shit. Even if man-made global warming was anything but junk science, nothing a small country like the UK does could do anything to stop it. So if you don't mind, I'd rather not have my lifestyle dictated to and have to pay stupid amounts of money to the government so I can do the things I enjoy.
The ironic thing is that if everyone switched to an "environmentally friendly" car today, it would cause far more damage to the environment as more oil is used in the production of a car than it will ever need to fuel it throughout its entire lifetime of use.

The war against the motorist is even more heinous when you consider it's supported by people that would usually consider themselves "socialists", yet the result of it is to price the poor off the roads. Yay for equality of opportunity.
I ride my bike every bit as much as I would if petrol was 17p per litre, as it would be without the taxation. I just spend almost all my spare income on biking, making the rest of my life more of a struggle as a result. The only people that stop using their vehicles because of "sin taxes" are the very poor.

 

[No Limit]

So repiV, what science degree do you hold since you seem to be so sure you know better than the scientific community. And before you repeat that crap about there not being a concensus in the sceintific community back it up with a source. They are sure global warming is real and they think humans play a huge role in that.

But I must be the idiot, how can pumping all that pollution in to the air be a bad thing. Its all a conspiracy man, the government has brainwashed thousands of scientists to support their view of taking your money.

*Goes to watch the south park episode about the 9/11 conspiracy as that episode is certainly relevent here*

 

[repiV]

So repiV, what science degree do you hold since you seem to be so sure you know better than the scientific community. And before you repeat that crap about there not being a concensus in the sceintific community back it up with a source. They are sure global warming is real and they think humans play a huge role in that.

Here's just one. You're free to find others.

Clicky

Did you go temporarily deaf when it was pointed out that the IPCC is actually a political organisation, rather than a scientific one?
If the media was telling you that climate change is a lie with the same amount of ferocity it brainwashes people into believing the opposite, you'd be sitting here saying that only idiots would believe in global warming.

But I must be the idiot, how can pumping all that pollution in to the air be a bad thing. Its all a conspiracy man, the government has brainwashed thousands of scientists to support their view of taking your money.

*Goes to watch the south park episode about the 9/11 conspiracy as that episode is certainly relevent here*

You really are an idiot if you want to destroy the world's economy based on an assumption.
I say we destroy the world's volcanoes and slaughter all the cows. All that pollution is going to make the world uninhabitable.

 

[Druckles]

There. Was hoping I'd find something. I did a "Do humans affect Global Warming?" into Google and it came up with a string of media related articles about how crap humans are. Forgot however, that water vapour is an extreme part to play in Global Warming. So I did a Google for "How much do humans effect global warming?" into Google and got two articles. One stating how much water vapour effects global warming:

Water Vapour in Account to Global Warming

The other from WikieAnswers states

Firstly, human's carbon dioxide emmitions only make about 0.00054% of the atmosphere.

WikiAnswers

Edit: Grr repy

 

[repiV]

There. Was hoping I'd find something. I did a "Do humans affect Global Warming?" into Google and it came up with a string of media related articles about how crap humans are. Forgot however, that water vapour is an extreme part to play in Global Warming. So I did a Google for "How much do humans effect global warming?" into Google and got two articles. One stating how much water vapour effects global warming:

Water Vapour in Account to Global Warming

The other from WikieAnswers states

WikiAnswers

Edit: Grr repy

Good find. I enjoyed reading the water vapour article.

 

[No Limit]

Here's just one. You're free to find others.

Clicky

And what scientific research did they base the petition on? You did see that in their petition they actually claimed that pollution helps our enviroment?

Did you go temporarily deaf when it was pointed out that the IPCC is actually a political organisation, rather than a scientific one?
If the media was telling you that climate change is a lie with the same amount of ferocity it brainwashes people into believing the opposite, you'd be sitting here saying that only idiots would believe in global warming.

Politcal by your defenition. They take peer reviewed studies and publish them. And the IPCC is not the only organization that has made statements on this, from wikipedia:

1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 Joint science academies? statement 2007
1.3 Joint science academies? statement 2005
1.4 Joint science academies? statement 2001
1.5 U.S. National Research Council, 2001
1.6 American Meteorological Society
1.7 American Geophysical Union
1.8 American Institute of Physics
1.9 American Astronomical Society
1.10 Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
1.11 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.12 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.13 Geological Society of America
1.14 American Chemical Society
1.15 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

All of them say pretty much the same thing, that we are likely to blame. You will not find very many others that say differently, and if you do there is a 99% chance their research was funded by energy companies. But again repiV, you know better than all them because you believe in crazy ass government comspiracies. Shouldn't you be handing out with some truthers?

You really are an idiot if you want to destroy the world's economy based on an assumption.

Sure, that statement is not alarmist in one bit.

By investing in alternative energies we are going to all starve to death.

 

[repiV]

And what scientific research did they base the petition on? You did see that in their petition they actually claimed that pollution helps our enviroment?

Wait a minute, one moment you're claiming that I think I know better than scientists, and now you're sitting there saying that you do?
Hypocrite.

Hell, pollution, not necessarily man made, is a necessity for life on earth as we know it. Without the "greenhouse effect" we would freeze to death.

Politcal by your defenition. They take peer reviewed studies and publish them. And the IPCC is not the only organization that has made statements on this, from wikipedia:

No, they take peer reviewed studies (which means nothing more than all their buddies congratulate each other on a job well done), alter them to suit their agenda and then publish them. Big difference.

All of them say pretty much the same thing, that we are likely to blame. You will not find very many others that say differently, and if you do there is a 99% chance their research was funded by energy companies. But again repiV, you know better than all them because you believe in crazy ass government comspiracies. Shouldn't you be handing out with some truthers?

So excuses to raise more tax money is a "government conspiracy" now? Wow, you really are a naive idiot.
Since parking enforcement in the UK was decriminalised and local authorities were allowed to keep the revenue from fines, they employed third party companies on strict performance targets and the job of the parking warden now is nothing more than to **** you over any way they can. 30 times more parking tickets are issued now than when it was a criminal matter.
Up to 88% of parking tickets are overturned on appeal.

Parking enforcement doesn't differ all that much from the Mafia in the way they operate here. So, you were saying?

Sure, that statement is not alarmist in one bit.

By investing in alternative energies we are going to all starve to death.

Who said anything about investing in alternative energies? Only a fool would oppose that. What's being suggested is not investing in alternative energies, but in forcing people to stop using the energy sources we currently have available. As any intelligent person would know, it would have an absolutely catastrophic effect on the world economy, poverty, quality of life and life expectancy. It would hit the poor worst of all. Real humanitarian.

Don't you have any comment to make on the water vapour article? It quite clearly, with evidence, exposes the global warming farce for the fraud that it is. And if it won't convince you, it will at the very least make you think twice. If it doesn't, it's quite clear you believe what you WANT to believe, rather than believing the truth.

 

[No Limit]

You didn't address my question. Do you think all those panels that I listed which all agree we play a large role in the warming are wrong? Once we get past this point we can talk about how important it is to change our life style and how drastically we actually want to change it.

 

[repiV]

You didn't address my question. Do you think all those panels that I listed which all agree we play a large role in the warming are wrong? Once we get past this point we can talk about how important it is to change our life style and how drastically we actually want to change it.

Yes. Now read Druckles' article.