Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 33 of 33
  1. #26
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    I have been reading up on this, and I have to lean more towards Feanor interpretation of what happen at the conference rather than NF perspective. India and China are really asserting themselves to protect the economic gains they have made over the last couple of decades. In listening to the comments from Brazil's President, the third world wants the rich countries to pay for everything including the cost of stopping trees from being cut down in the Amazon while they do and pay for absolutely nothing. They want the rich countries to give them money with absolutely no strings so they can institute green policies. Obama has taken the stance (and rightly so) that if any money is given, then it must go towards verifiable initiatives, and the receivers of the money must report back with verifiable results. The third world does not want to anything verifiable, they just want the money. For me, that does not fly, and it didn't fly with Obama either. If I am going to give money, then I want to know that it went directly to initiatives that deal with the problem, and not throw it down some black hole. While I completely understand the United States contribution to pollution, this is a world issue, and the world must deal with it as a whole, not throw it on the door steps of a few. If the US is willing to set verifiable initiatives, then the world should also do the same.

    The bottom line here is that neither China nor India is behaving responsibly. They want to protect their economic interest at the detriment of the US. I cannot agree with that. If the US has to make some tough choices, so should they. Brazil should do more for themselves and not rely on the world to solve problems happening in their own backyard. I believe in helping people help themselves, not give them the solution without any effort on their behalf. China has surpassed the US as the worlds number one polluter, and they should step up to the plate on the world stage instead of throwing a wrench in the process.

    While Obama leadership has absolutely sucked on healthcare, I think his moves in Copenhagen were spot on. Verify, verify, verify, or no money from us. Nobody wants to pay all of this money, and change almost every thing we do here, while the rest of the world proceeds with business as usual.

    Nobody
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  2. #27
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    I agree entirely that we should be far more sensitive to the harm we do to the planet. We must try to reduce pollution and waste and minimize our impact on Earth’s other inhabitants.

    However, the concept of global warming has taken on a “political correctness” in our society.
    ...
    Concept of global warming has taken on a factual correctness. Granted, many postulations are not proven, evidence is building for many. The issue in important case is if we do nothing while we wait for definitive proof it will be too late to take any preventative or even remedial action.

    One thing that is known as a matter of fact is that CO2 increases gobal warming The current CO2 level is 390 ppm versus the preindustrial level of 280 ppm. Recently I heard recently that the level has never been above 280 ppm in over 2 million years regardless of hot and cold cycles that the earth has experienced. The increase is demonstrably due to human activity and we are at a levels unprecidented since the emergence of the human species. It sensible to reduce human production of this gas to forestall warming which will occur unless counteracted by some natural process of which none is currently in evidence.

    It is simply stupid to demand further proof before taking action. Possible (if not proven) consequences of warming are various postive feedback mechnisms that could initiate "run-away" changes. I've already alluded to one of these: release of naturally stored methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If you aren't scared by these possibilities, you ought to be.

    The Wikipedia item on greenhouse gas is a very good one. HERE you will read how dramatically known greenhouse gases have increased dramatically since the 1750. Instructions: pull head out of sand; instruct Congressman to support anti-greenhouse gas legislation.

  3. #28
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Concept of global warming has taken on a factual correctness. .
    You apparently don't get the meaning of the phrase "politically correct".

  4. #29
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    I helped my wife do a paper a year and a half ago and the subject was Global Warming. I checked out our Pathfinder page but most of the links no longer work. However, one could go to Proquest.com, which lists hundreds of scientific periodicals as well as political ones, and simply search under the term, global warming. What I found while perousing this research engine is that there is about a 50/50 split when it comes to global warming twix the realists and the alarmists. For every article or paper outlining our imminent doom there is a counterpoint. While most scientists agree that the earth may well be getting warmer, the idea that it will cause some sort of cataclism is over-rought, so too is the call for governments to throw money at the situation. The theories concerning global climate change are valid. There is an idea in the world veiw that there is concensus within the scientific community regarding global warming/carbon footprint and that is simply false. There is much scientific data out there refuting the alarmists, but you have to dig for it.

    Remember, the Vikings settled, farmed and fished much of the Atlantic coast line a 1000 years ago in what is now covered by glaciers. The earth has been both a much warmer and much colder place at different times. Its a cycle that is effected by everything from solar flares to volcanic activity.

    I'm all for clean air and environmental awareness. I think these ecological accords are good for pointing out the impending deforrestation of Brazil and other ecological disastors that are really happening as I type. But the focus always seems to be on who ever has the most cars or who got 'theirs' first. Giving developing nation status to countries that observe little to no environmental standards or industrial restraint is way more hazardous than my personal 'carbon footprint' . So far these summits seem to be more about economic leverage than ecological concerns.
    Last edited by 3LB; 12-23-2009 at 04:49 PM.
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

  5. #30
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    " ... the realists and the alamist" bespeaks your bias. But the day might come when the alarmists are proven the realists: we shall see.

  6. #31
    nightflier
    Guest
    I don't agree that the scientific debate is split 50/50. I think that conclusion is tainted by Western, and especially American media. I have read in foreign papers that the world scientific community is much more decided, and that only 20% of scientists are willing to state that global warming is not caused or accelerated by human activity. The 50/50 figure is likely one based mostly on the North American scientific community. We have to keep in mind that much if not most of the research that hails from North American universities is grant-funded and these grants come primarily from corporations and the American government. This puts a tremendous bias on the published results.

    I also don't agree that Obama's actions in Copenhagen were consistent with his campaing promises that he would give more weight to diplomacy as a matter of policy. His "tough" stance had the exact opposite effect, one that was chilling and counter-productive. What was achieved? A deadlock, a stalemate? Does it even register at all that this result plays right into the hands of our biggest corporate polluters? This was a devastating blow to the global environmental movement and not unlike the dog & pony show the US made at Kyoto.

    At the risk of dragging too much history into this discussion, it is also completely disingenuous for the wealthiest nation in the world, one that has extracted more from the earth than any other nation, to say: OK we got what we wanted, now the rest of you can't do the same. I don't agree that reparations should be off the table entirely. If this comes in the form of "permitting" other up & coming nations to pollute more than we do, but also brings with it a global agreement that will be better for all, then that is a price that we should be willing to pay. Obama's posturing did far more harm than good and this is a moment we could all very well come to regret because the pollution that will result will harm us, here in North America, too.

    The Chinese delegation had every intention of bringing tangible propositions to the bargaining table, but Obama killed that. In essence this does more to foment a new cold-war mentality towards our new enemy for global supremacy: China. And the American corporate media is eating it up with glee. The only problem is that this is spin, and not at all consistent with what is being reported in the rest of the world. If we are indeed to work together with the rest of the world to work through this problem, then we cannot continue to carry on with cold-war colored lenses. That myopia is not sustainable because as I said before, mother nature doesn't care about human suffering and she has a mean streak we have only seen glimpses of so far.

  7. #32
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    The 50/50 figure is likely one based mostly on the North American scientific community
    or at least, the english speaking scientific community. Yes, I guess most of the articles I read were 'western'. Indeed, the few foreign articles I read (translated from Swedish) was 'pro' adverse global climate change.

    We have to keep in mind that much if not most of the research that hails from North American universities is grant-funded and these grants come primarily from corporations and the American government. This puts a tremendous bias on the published results.
    which works both ways. The paper she wrote wasn't so about global warming but the politics of global warming. As one might guess, the most extreme supporters yea and nay are split right down the partylines.

    I am not refuting global warming or the fact that humans can affect the environment adversely, but I do think there are bigger fish to fry at the moment, ecologically speaking.

    I don't agree that reparations should be off the table entirely. If this comes in the form of "permitting" other up & coming nations to pollute more than we do, but also brings with it a global agreement that will be better for all, then that is a price that we should be willing to pay.
    I really don't get this statement. Are the countries that lag the US in emission standards by decades and are currently in industrial hyperdrive not going to be just as affected by these global climate changes? Are they less a threat to the earth somehow? Our prosperity and the ways we achieved it were so wrong, but its OK if someone else gets a turn? Wrong isn't wrong, just who's doing the wrong that makes it the wrongest? Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does make it even, I suppose. And why are we obligated to do this again?
    Last edited by 3LB; 12-23-2009 at 07:59 PM.
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

  8. #33
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    I don't agree that the scientific debate is split 50/50. I think that conclusion is tainted by Western, and especially American media. I have read in foreign papers that the world scientific community is much more decided, and that only 20% of scientists are willing to state that global warming is not caused or accelerated by human activity.
    ...
    I agree here that the debate is far from 50/50. Permit me this comment on human nature: people tend to "hear what they want to hear and disgrade the rest", to quote Paul Simon.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    ...
    I also don't agree that Obama's actions in Copenhagen were consistent with his campaing promises that he would give more weight to diplomacy as a matter of policy. His "tough" stance had the exact opposite effect, one that was chilling and counter-productive. What was achieved? A deadlock, a stalemate?.
    ...
    Again, we now know that China and India are to blame for the failure to reach a binding agreement. IMO, it's simply wrong to blame Obama for this. In any case diplomacy is not synomymous with appeasement.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    ...
    At the risk of dragging too much history into this discussion, it is also completely disingenuous for the wealthiest nation in the world, one that has extracted more from the earth than any other nation, to say: ...
    ...
    Call it disingenuous but the real problem that Obama and the US as a nation has is a myoptic, recalcitrant, mostly but not entirely Republican, right-wing segment whose intention is to thwart anything resembling progress in your country.

    Also the US is burdened with a rigid two-party system which, at the same time, lacks party disipline, such that you can't rely on nominal party members to vote with their fellow members on important bills. At the same time there is the 60 set rule in the Senate that stifles majority rule. The result is a ludicrous amount of horse-trading and pork-barrelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    ...
    The Chinese delegation had every intention of bringing tangible propositions to the bargaining table, but Obama killed that. In essence this does more to foment a new cold-war mentality towards our new enemy for global supremacy: China.
    ...
    Whatever propositions the Chinese might have had or been willing to entertain, it is pretty clear that they weren't willing to write them into a binding agreement.

    China is already (1) the most populous nation on earth (of course), (2) the No. 1 manufacturer in the world at least in terms of volume of goods, and (3) the No. 1 greenhouse gas producer. Speaking of disingenousness, they have a lot of that working for them.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •