Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    18 Dec '09 14:37 / 1 edit
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_bi_ge/climate_obama

    As the middle Atlantic region of the United States hunkers down for a potential blizzard now taking aim at the great Megalopolis. President Obama, Superman cape and all, flies into Copenhagen to revive an all but dead GW conference.

    I know I sound like I'm beating a dead horse here; but I'm not coming at this from a purely partisan perspective. I truly am (somewhat) worried about possible devastating effects of MMGW and I wouldn't mind seeing the World make a real live serious effort to do something.

    That having been said...

    What President Obama is essentially saying is:

    "Okay; I concede that we're not going to get anything "real" or effective done at this conference. But hey, we need a start (or at least a political victory for me). I can't agree to anything substantial because Congress will balk and you "developing" nations (the PC way of saying "China" ) don't seem to want to do anything either. So, I'll tell you what. I'll pledge $100b to you if you'll promise to give me this one concession that I can sell to my constituents. Yes, it's true that we don't have the $100b. But hey, we can always borrow it from you, right? )

    After this and the Olympic debacle, I doubt Copenhagen is going to be on the President's favorite list of vacation spots going forward.
  2. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    18 Dec '09 14:47
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_bi_ge/climate_obama

    As the middle Atlantic region of the United States hunkers down for a potential blizzard now taking aim at the great Megalopolis. President Obama, Superman cape and all, flies into Copenhagen to revive an all but dead GW conference.

    I know I sound like I'm beating a dead horse here; but I'm no ...[text shortened]... going to be on the President's favorite list of vacation spots going forward.
    Agreed - again. It seems likely now that the outcome of Copenhagen will be regarded by many activists and scientists as woefully insufficient, despite the politicians' rhetoric in advance of the summit of extreme and imminent danger.

    It seems that the politicians have decided that the risk to the earth from MMGW is of less importance than politicking, position-taking and effective action. Either they do not believe the danger is as real, serious and immediate as their rhetoric suggested, or Copenhagen has been a pathetic failure of a talking shop characterised by blinkered hubris.
  3. 18 Dec '09 14:52
    Originally posted by DrKF
    . Either they do not believe the danger is as real, serious and immediate as their rhetoric suggested, or Copenhagen has been a pathetic failure of a talking shop characterised by blinkered hubris.[/b]
    Couldn't it be both?
  4. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    18 Dec '09 14:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Couldn't it be both?
    Not really. But feel free to explain how that might be.
  5. 18 Dec '09 15:24 / 1 edit
    It seems like the media rarely talk about the basic issues that the climate scientists have been discussing. At best, you get 30 second statements about the ice caps or the previous year's global temperature.

    I would like to see a series of primetime debates on climate change. I would convene a panel of reputable scientists with one representing the alarmist position, and one representing the denialist position, and two or three representing positions in between. An effort would be made to figure what all of the scientists agreed on - and what the main sticking points are.

    After the debate, the media should not allow the politicians and activists to dominate this debate. Keep the scientists at the forefront because they're the ones who really know what they're talking about, and continually force the politicians to address things that these scientists are saying.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    18 Dec '09 15:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    It seems like the media rarely talk about the basic issues that the climate scientists have been discussing. At best, you get 30 second statements about the ice caps or the previous year's global temperature.

    I would like to see a series of primetime debates on climate change. I would convene a panel of reputable scientists with one representing the al ut, and continually force the politicians to address things that these scientists are saying.
    Sounds great.

    Unfortunately, you know that would be beaten in the ratings by Everybody Loves Raymond reruns on UPN.
  7. 18 Dec '09 16:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    Sounds great.

    Unfortunately, you know that would be beaten in the ratings by Everybody Loves Raymond reruns on UPN.
    So finding out what's at stake for the future of the planet is not as important as Keith Olbermann's Worst Person's list or the latest Glenn Beck conspiracy theory. Regrettably, this is likely the case. Perhaps we're going to need another "Sputnik event" to get viewers interested in the discussion of serious issues.
  8. 18 Dec '09 17:39
    Originally posted by DrKF
    Not really. But feel free to explain how that might be.
    target population greater than three.