|
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: Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:20 am Post subject: Copenhagen has failed - what do we do now? |
 |
|
Oh dear, yet another dreary thread about global warming. If it bores you, please click away now. No need for you to read it, or post on it.
The Copenhagen conference was a disaster. I felt pretty frustrated by the inaction of major leaders - especially China. What the hell was Wen Jiabao trying to do? What's his game plan? He's a danger to us all, it seems. I'm surprised nobody has started a thread about China's behaviour in Copenhagen yet - I refrained from doing so myself, seeing as it would only further distress our old friend Ya-ta boy.
Why did it fail? I suspect because our leaders don't really feel they have a mandate to make the sacrifices needed to address this problem.
To the smug delight of mises and Ya-ta, I shall include part of an op-ed, because I do feel that providing interesting links does help kick start an interesting conversation. Sorry, dear chaps.
After the catastrophe in Copenhagen, it's up to us
| Quote: |
| Buried deep in our subconscious, there still lays the belief that our political leaders are collective Daddies and Mummies who will � in the last instance � guarantee our safety. Sure, they might screw us over when it comes to hospital waiting lists, or public transport, or taxing the rich, but when it comes to resisting a raw existential threat, they will keep us from harm. Last week in Copenhagen, the conviction was disproved. Every leader there had been told by their scientists � plainly, bluntly, and for years � that there is a bare minimum we must all do now if we are going to prevent a catastrophe. And they all refused to do it. |
| Quote: |
here was plenty of disgrace to go around in Copenhagen. The world's worst per capita warmer is the US, yet its President turned up offering a pathetic 4 per cent cut by 2020 � and once you factor in all the loopholes his negotiators demanded, he was actually demanding the right to a significant increase in US emissions. He caved to the oil and gas lobbies who virtually own the Senate. It was � apart from anything else � a terrible betrayal of his own country's national security. In 2004, a leaked Pentagon report warned that unchecked global warming would ensure "disruption and conflict will be endemic ... [and] once again, warfare would define human life."
Similarly, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao behaved appallingly. His country is the single largest overall emitter of gases, albeit with a far larger population, and much more need for development. Yet he vetoed the 80 per cent target by 2050, and refused to allow other countries to carry out basic checks to ensure China was carrying out the smaller cuts they were committed to. Again, he is betraying his own people: most of China's population depend on rivers that flow down from the Himalayan glaciers, yet they are rapidly disappearing. His name will be cursed in the Chinese history books.
The European Union was hardly better. They sat inert, refusing to make any larger offer to get the ball rolling. Only President Lula da Silva of Brazil came out boldly with an ahead-of-the-curve offer � but his heroism was met with awkward silence and avoided glances from the other leaders.
So here's the situation. There is no deal. The world's leaders refused to agree to limit our emissions of warming gases. The most they could agree was to officially "note" the scientific evidence about 2C � with no roadmap to keep us this side of it. You get a sense of how valuable this "noting" is when you look at the things the conference also "noted": the hard work of the airport security staff, and the quality of the catering in the Bella Centre. It seems impossible, but our leaders really did give the stability of our climate the same status as their praise for Danish sandwiches.
I am normally somebody who supports incremental change. Most progress happens by inches. But with this problem, we can't wait patiently knowing we'll prevail in the next generation. The tipping points will make that too late. You can't defuse a ticking bomb slowly year after year. You either defuse it fast, or it blows up in your face.
Our leaders were given the scientific facts, and they have responded by trying to haggle with the facts about the atmosphere. Imagine a 50-a-day smoker who goes to his doctor and is told he must stop immediately or he will develop lung cancer. He says: "I'll tell you what, doc � I'll cut down to 40-a-day, I'll eat a salad every lunchtime, and I'll slap on a few nicotine patches. How does that sound?" That's the official response to global warming. |
I like his analogy to cigarettes and lung cancer. It's one I've used myself, when searching to explain why so few seem to give a damn averting this potential catastrophe. The human race is like the smoker who kind of knows his habit will kill him if he doesn't stop, but kind of assumes it won't get to that point...
The writers then suggests a mass movement by ordinary citizens. I agree it would work if it were attempted, but I think there are too many complacent folk out there, and so it will never happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here, for those who haven't really acquainted themselves with what it is exactly (climate scientists have concluded) we are facing, is a quick explanation of the problem from the article linked above:
| Quote: |
To understand the gravity of what just happened, you need to know a few facts about global warming that, at first, sound odd. The world's climate scientists have shown that man-made global warming must not exceed 2C. When you hear this, a natural reaction is � that's not much; how bad can it be if we overshoot? If I go out for a picnic and the temperature rises or falls by 2C, I don't much notice. But this is the wrong analogy. If your body temperature rises by 2C, you become feverish and feeble. If it doesn't go back down again, you die. The climate isn't like a picnic; it's more like your body.
Two degrees is bad: 2C means we lose much of the world's low-lying land, from the island-states of the South Pacific to much of Bangladesh to swathes of Florida. But at every step up to and including 2C, if we reduce our emissions, we can stabilise the climate at this new higher level. If we go beyond 2C, though, the situation changes. The earth's natural processes begin to break down � and cause more warming. There are massive amounts of warming gases stored in the Siberian permafrost; at 2C, they melt and are released into the atmosphere. The world's humid rainforests store huge amounts of warming gases in their trees. Beyond C, they lose their humidity and begin to burn down � releasing them too into the atmosphere.
These are called "tipping points". Because of them, the world gets warmer and warmer beyond 2C. They stand at the climate's Point of No Return, beyond which there lies only warming. We are only 6C away from the last ice age; we are setting ourselves on course to go that far in the opposite direction.
So what do we need to do to stay this side of 2C? There is a very broad, rock-solid scientific consensus that we need a cut of 40 per cent in the most polluting countries' emissions by 2020 if we are going to have even a 50-50 chance of doing so. Then, by 2050 we need an 80 per cent cut from everyone. The fact we are only aiming for a 50 per cent goal of avoiding calamity is a sign of how far we have already made a terrible compromise with fossil fuels � but our leaders are refusing to aim even for those odds. |
Of course, this is just a brief summary of the problem as defined by qualified climate scientists. There are of course, here among us, posters armed with liberal arts degrees who know that the above is just ridiculous waffle. 
Also, a little reminder to those who keep saying "oh, we've been through all this before - remember the Mediaeval Warming Period?" let me just point out that global temperatures in the MWP were only as high as those in the early 20th century. We've already heated up quite a lot since then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nero
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
People are complacent. We have been brainwashed to care more about the superficialities of the here and now than worrying about a future that never comes.
"Take the money and run."
Unfortunately developing nations are just as bad as we are - and why wouldn't they be? when we have set the standard of success as tangible things. We are judged on what we have or our buying power, not who we are. The politicians don't care - they are sociopaths for the most part anyway.
A farmer in Indonesia will do whatever he has to do get more money. Money is god and has been for a long time now.
I really think we are screwed. We are producing more and more crap and becoming more and more stupid and ignorant.
To instigate any kind of positive change in the environment would require a change in lifestyle, and an acknowledgement that we are not living our lives correctly - and that's the problem. Once you have opened a Pandora's Box you cannot put it back in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, BB, it was probably wishful thinking to think that national governments and international treaties are the most effective remedy for cutting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The organizations with the best track record for taking initiatives to do so (at least in North America) are local and large municipal governments, and large corporations that want to be socially responsible. I think the only way to pull off significant emissions reduction IS through "mass movements" of a sort. And really, it's more of a technological issue than a political issue...or rather, the solutions are better implemented through technological adjustments rather than legal adjustments.
In Canada and the US, a lot of local governments are racing ahead with their own emissions reduction programs and campaigns, and aren't waiting for the national governments to get their act together. We should all do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't think it failed. Unfortuntely it was all too successful. Third World tyrants like Mugabe et al made out like bandits collecting billions from those who produce.
Kudos to the guys who hacked the emails of the CRU of East Anglia.
What got me was listening to tin-pot-dictators like Mugabe, Chavez and Amadjihad of Iran waxing lyrical about saving the planet and pis-ing and moaning about how they have been exploited by the "rich" countries.
I am sure that the tanks that Chavez is buying from Russia are all hybrids and Amadjihad never intends to use his forthcoming nuclear arsenal to, in the worst case scenario, attack Israel, the Little Satan.
Don't any of you ever wonder why Al Gore whose fortune was made from Occidental Petroleum, Chavez, who is sitting on an oil patch, JP Morgan, and Amadjihad, who is also sitting on an oil patch, the head of the World Bank, who was a former CEO of Goldman Sacks and head of Fannie Mae from 93-97 are all on this bandwagon.
Why are all these very powerful people all of a sudden so interested in saving the planet? Let me run this by you. Maybe they are just trying to pick your pockets! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
Why are all these very powerful people all of a sudden so interested in saving the planet? Let me run this by you. Maybe they are just trying to pick your pockets! |
Why is it that everyone powerful must necesarily be crooked by your reckoning?
Do you think its possible for there to be good and responsible governments? Are you saying that human nature is essentially fatally flawed, corrupt, and never to be trusted whatsoever?
Maybe its very simple: scientists have established a link between emissions and climate. And seek to remedy the situation before it goes too far. Scientists are people, they have kids, families and they want a future with a healthy stable environment same as anyone else. or is that too obvious for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
What we need to do now is let science go back into the hands of real scientists.
Abolish all government funding for the fraudulent activities of political hacks like the AGW hacks who pretend to be scientists for the power and money. Science is best when the scientists work out of a love of learning and a love of science, and not for the love of dirty, tainted, government money that requires biased outcomes.
And the whiners need to study science, at least a little, so they can have some perspective:
Really, BB, you need to check out these graphs. You can see the history of climate change and where we actually fit in that history.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
| Quote: |
� and ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of Earth�s climate than interglacials. This next graph, for the longest period, we have to go to an Antarctic core (Vostok):
[see graphs]
In other words, we�re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn�t stand still. It doesn�t even stand stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.
Does this mean that CO2 isn�t a greenhouse gas? No.
Does it mean that it isn�t warming? No.
Does it mean that we shouldn�t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons � but there�s plenty of time to do them the right way |
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Enjoy your travels now Junior but learn to ride a bicycle and take long walks. When aircraft and other fuels are slapped with huge carbon taxes teachers like us won't be able to afford to go from Manhattan to Brooklyn.
Also, I would, if I were you, invest heavily in blankets and winter coats. When the envirofascists get the cap in place you will need them as the price of home heating fuel and electricity will go through the roof.
Also, invest in gold. When western nations get the currency printing presses going full bore to pay off these third world tin-pot-dictators. in an effort to assuage our "eco-guilt," those greenbacks won't be worth the paper they are printed on.
For myself, I've decided to go without the usual Christmas tree with the lights and Christmas wrappings. I drew a tree on an old recycled grocery store bag and kicked it in the corner. No gifts this year. They leave too much "footprint." Christmas dinner will be rescued from a dumpster out back a local restaurant.
I only wish I hadn't had two kids. That's two more unnecessary "footprints."
What bothers me most of all is the puritanical attitude of the envirofascists. The holier than thou position that they take. Live for Christ's sake and stop the global whining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
scientists have established a link between emissions and climate. . |
Here Junior, you, BB and others believe this lie. But it's just your belief, your religion, but your bible has been debunked.
No such link has been estalished. We see tons of opinion pieces that argue this, but there is no science to prove the claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocket_scientist
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Location: Prague
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Global warming has lots of obscure numbers and concepts and terminology like for instance the terms "troposphere" and "picnocline". Its really boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
What we need to do now is let science go back into the hands of real scientists.
Abolish all government funding for the fraudulent activities of political hacks like the AGW hacks who pretend to be scientists for the power and money. Science is best when the scientists work out of a love of learning and a love of science, and not for the love of dirty, tainted, government money that requires biased outcomes.
And the whiners need to study science, at least a little, so they can have some perspective:
Really, BB, you need to check out these graphs. You can see the history of climate change and where we actually fit in that history.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
[see graphs] |
OK, I checked out your graphs. First I read:
| Quote: |
I�m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years. As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.
|
He's looking at one spot in history. That is useless. He should be looking at the global temperature through history. The earth is warming as a whole.
Then there is a graph that shows a hockey stick (and questions how long is the blade?) - yet it only starts at the Mediaeval Warming Period, and finishes in 1900! Way before the recent acceleration began. If his graph wasn't focussing on such a narrow period - you'd see that the temperature keeps shooting up much much further than the MWP.
Then his graphs are badly described. For example, do the two line discussions relate to the graphs above or the graphs below. His next graph only takes us to 1800. What use is that?
In fact, his graphical demonstration is so badly put together - he surely deserves a D- for his effort.
What are his credentials? 1st year science student?
This is your proof that there is no serious global warming taking place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
I really don't think it failed. Unfortuntely it was all too successful. Third World tyrants like Mugabe et al made out like bandits collecting billions from those who produce.
Kudos to the guys who hacked the emails of the CRU of East Anglia.
What got me was listening to tin-pot-dictators like Mugabe, Chavez and Amadjihad of Iran waxing lyrical about saving the planet and pis-ing and moaning about how they have been exploited by the "rich" countries.
I am sure that the tanks that Chavez is buying from Russia are all hybrids and Amadjihad never intends to use his forthcoming nuclear arsenal to, in the worst case scenario, attack Israel, the Little Satan.
Why are all these very powerful people all of a sudden so interested in saving the planet? Let me run this by you. Maybe they are just trying to pick your pockets! |
Spot on mate, bloody spot on.
To answer the OP's question, we do nothing.
Deforestation and toxic sludge in rivers are concerns; CO2 is not. In 20 years, the western world will be the only place on earth that hasn't decimated its environment. This is a real concern.
I will vote for whoever gives my country a low unemployment rate and fast cars that run on cheap fuel: perhaps, Big Bird, you could do something useful, and invent a hydrogen or cold fusion engine? (Since you're so worried about CO2? )
Until then, enjoy: 1)paying high taxes 2) staying poor while I get rich off energy stocks 3) enabling tyrants to decimate their environments and enslave their people, 4) walking across the planet in record-breaking cold temperatures.
Enjoy your prius. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Copenhagen has failed, what do we do now?"
We celebrate the demise of a badly planned and executed meeting largely based on misleading data.
We also should select REAL scientists with integrity and have them examine the science again.
However neither side would accept a conclusion that favored the other side, so let's just celebrate and wait it out. After all evolution says the Earth has been around for billions of years so another 20-30 shouldn't really matter...it's not even an eyeblink in geological terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Copenhagen has failed - what do we do now? |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Oh dear, yet another dreary thread about global warming. If it bores you, please click away now. No need for you to read it, or post on it.
The Copenhagen conference was a disaster. I felt pretty frustrated by the inaction of major leaders - especially China. What the hell was Wen Jiabao trying to do? What's his game plan? . |
Some leaders from developing countries feel that global warming is largely a Western conspiracy to keep them poor. Think about it. You are trying to drag your country out of poverty and once you've finally got most factories up and running gangbusters...you're suddenly told in effect "Sorry, but you've got to shut most of them down...or pay much more to bring them up to "green" specifications."
'Ol Wen could have just been hedging his bets on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
However neither side would accept a conclusion that favored the other side, so let's just celebrate and wait it out. After all evolution says the Earth has been around for billions of years so another 20-30 shouldn't really matter...it's not even an eyeblink in geological terms. |
The Earth will not suddenly vanish. The Earth will go on. I'm not concerned about the Earth. I'm concerned about my immediate descendents. The Earth may have been around for billions of years, but human beings have not been around for billions of years. In fact we have only been around 200,000 years or so - maybe less. It would nice to get in at least another 1000 years. Probably some of our descendants will survive, and a whole lot more won't make it. |
|
| 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
