|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:51 pm Post subject: 56 papers run with the same editorial - unprecedented |
 |
|
'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'
| Quote: |
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C � the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction � would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay." |
| Quote: |
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice. |
Click on the link to read the article in full. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YAWN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, that last response was a bit off the cuff. Here is a bit more in depth:
Editors at 56 papers around the world are running the same editorial. There are 192 countries at the conference, so that means that 136 newspapers aren't running the same editorial (if we were to assume each paper came from separate countries). Since all the papers obviously don't come from different countries, the nice circle (jerk) of papers prints the same thing and acts like it's unity when it's a minority opinion.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Here is a nice picture that shows that we are talking about +- 1 degree Celsius over 2000 years. I am sure that tree-ring growth and Galileo thermometers are accurate to a 10th of a degree.
Sure, 2008 was the coldest year in the century, but it was also the 9th warmest! What a load of crap! Yes, let's commit trillions of dollars around the world based on incomplete science while shutting out dissenting views and saying those who disagree are akin to terrorists! Obviously the United States is the most evil country in this regard, despite the fact that the majority of new technology comes from that country...
Whatever. I hate this topic. I hate that people have made up their minds and refuse to acknowledge that this isn't a black and white, right and wrong issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with Nathan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| Yes, let's commit trillions of dollars around the world based on incomplete science |
Well the science is never going to be complete, but it's surely reasonable to take preventative measures rather than simply gamble.
If legislation affects each country equally (say, a 20% reduction by everyone) then 'efficiency' or total production would be hurt, but relative wealth would be the same. I'm sure the citizens of poorer countries are willing to take that deal, seeing as they would be most affected by climate change.
Global agreements (and laws) on emissions are necessary because they are one of the only things that are not restricted to international borders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="RufusW"]
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| Yes, let's commit trillions of dollars around the world based on incomplete science |
Well the science is never going to be complete, but it's surely reasonable to take preventative measures rather than simply gamble. |
It makes more sense to do nothing. If we gamble on a 50-50 chance that AGW is real. We will always lose if we act. If we do nothing, we have a 50-50 chance of losing. It's a moot point anyway, because the proposed legislation isn't expected to actually start working until 2100 (I believe). So we are going to guarantee we lower our standard of living without ever having any chance of reaping the benefits.
| Quote: |
If legislation affects each country equally (say, a 20% reduction by everyone) then 'efficiency' or total production would be hurt, but relative wealth would be the same. I'm sure the citizens of poorer countries are willing to take that deal, seeing as they would be most affected by climate change. |
You actually consider a 20% decrease in the world standard of living to be a desirable outcome? This is really, really stupid. This would guarantee anarchy and likely a return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle that so many of the green crusaders seem so hell bent on enforcing on everyone.
As for the remark about AGW affecting poorer countries the most. How do you know?
| Quote: |
| Global agreements (and laws) on emissions are necessary because they are one of the only things that are not restricted to international borders. |
The proposed legislation will not fix this problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If we do nothing, we have a 50-50 chance of losing. |
This is comical. If AGW legislation hurts efficiency we lose possible income. If AGW is real and we do nothing we lose the Earth (if those scientists are correct). So the equation is not simply 50-50 and there's a huge weighting towards preventing it.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| ..the proposed legislation isn't expected to actually start working until 2100 (I believe). So we are going to guarantee we lower our standard of living without ever having any chance of reaping the benefits. |
I think you're probably wrong about 2100. But, yes, if you're selfish there's absolutely no reason to want to reduce your own standard of living.... ever. However, is AGW is real then millions of people will be hurt by it, so voluntarily reducing their impact is something many people want to do.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| You actually consider a 20% decrease in the world standard of living to be a desirable outcome? |
I was talking about emissions. I don't think a reduction in quality of life would be at all equal to a reduction in emissions. Firstly many things are more important than consumption, but secondly, technology should cover the gap very quickly.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| As for the remark about AGW affecting poorer countries the most. How do you know? |
Poor countries farm a lot more than we do, they can't build flood defenses etc etc etc. I don't know, but it's reasonably obvious that rich countries can protect themselves better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aww, the Gaia parishioners are worried about their hajj. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
If legislation affects each country equally (say, a 20% reduction by everyone) |
Including, I assume, your standard of living/salary/consumption? Can you afford a 20% haircut? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Aww, the Gaia parishioners are worried about their hajj. |
Casting this issue in religious terms is particularly inexplicable because those worried about climate change have come to their position after listening and following the scientific community.
There's a kind of Manichaeist sentiment possessed by the anti-religious that rivals that of even some of the most religious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Casting this issue in religious terms is particularly inexplicable because those worried about climate change have come to their position after listening and following the scientific community. |
Did you read the Mann emails, Kuros? The "community" has been thinned of dissenters and peer-review bullied. Then, those left got piss-drunk on government money. It's a whole big scam, just like organized religion. A bunch of gruesome old men at the top and hoards of nodding peasants at the bottom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Casting this issue in religious terms is particularly inexplicable because those worried about climate change have come to their position after listening and following the scientific community. |
Did you read the Mann emails, Kuros? The "community" has been thinned of dissenters and peer-review bullied. Then, those left got piss-drunk on government money. It's a whole big scam, just like organized religion. A bunch of gruesome old men at the top and hoards of nodding peasants at the bottom. |
I followed it. It looks like a couple of researchers tried to sell their CRU computer model. I've said in another thread that the CRU data should be 'thrown out' (but really there should be an investigation first). You throw that data out and there's still a great, great deal of evidence in favor of climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The CRU data, when fixed of hidden declines and "tricks" does not show a warming trend. That's it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
still latching onto the word "trick", eh? Even though it's been explained as a legitimate technique from many scientific resources.
Even if AGW theory is incorrect, we still have problems with related causes: pollution, ozone depletion, sustainability, ocean acidity, public health issues, etc.
Pretending like we can keep burning fossil fuels forever with no consequence is pretty laughable- we're already seeing consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The CRU data, when fixed of hidden declines and "tricks" does not show a warming trend. That's it. |
It sounds simple, I presume there is an article or investigation showing what these tricks were and what the actual data is and how the CRU fixed it. Can you source this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
