Copenhagen

mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Debateage on BBC 4

Monbiot's moralising screed is counter-productive, rhetoric typical of the more enthusiastic AGW believers who, irritated by the relative failure of their proselytising mission, have thrown their toys out the pram, drawn firm lines in the sand between their self-satisfiedly virtuous selves and the 'angry men', 'deniers', 'no-marks', [insert tired Dissensian epithet here] and thereby exasperated the public, undermining their cause.

Update from the ethicists at Oxford:
The question of global warming has been a bonanza for climate science and the interest of climate scientists is for the stream of research money to continue. Note that I do not say this is a bad thing: but the quantities of money involved (governments have spent billions of pounds on climate research) undermine the claim of disinterestedness. If in truth they had to announce tomorrow that it had all been a big mistake they would look like idiots, the money would stop and many would be out of a job.

So, it would be fair to say that, in the unlikelier event of the AGW theory being incorrect, the chance of a majority U-turn would be <0.

Of course, I give myself leave to play devil's avocado because my carbon footprint is almost certainly < yours: I am the nec plus ultra of environmental stewardship, the alfalfa and omega, by my industrial inaction you shall know me.
 
Last edited:
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
oi Biscuits, i live under a bridge and power my internets w an ingenious hamster-wheel system, so am at liberty to call various sorts in The Spectator no-marks (no-marks in general, not necessarily anything to do w their views on one specific issue: by their stench shall ye know them) :p

anyway, back on track, New Scientist (comprehensively) fisks Droid's Express headline of the other day
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Ha! I had to write that post - it was Zhao wot made me do it. :D

Semi-seriously tho', re 'no marks', calling ppl 'cnuts' etc, the Dissensian trope du jour, it seems to me that lefties tend to be oddly eager to tar the whole person for their beliefs, to conclude that they are, to their very marrow, unclean ('stench'), unworthy and then to discount them outright for anon.

Of course, rightists can be just as bloody-minded, but they seem less inclined to equate their opponents' 'sins' with an intrinsic sinfulness.
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
mixed_biscuits said:
Ha! I had to write that post - it was Zhao wot made me do it. :D

Semi-seriously tho', re 'no marks', calling ppl 'cnuts' etc, the Dissensian trope du jour, it seems to me that lefties tend to be oddly eager to tar the whole person for their beliefs, to conclude that they are, to their very marrow, unclean ('stench'), unworthy and then to discount them outright for anon.
Click to expand...

ha! citing an anecdote i made on-thread about the very unpleasant sounding Brecht once, Josef K remarked much the same as you above.

of course it's all tongue-in-cheek pour moi.. ...er..

unserious rightists (ie tabloids and the worse sorts of the broadsheets) are definitely up there in the baby/bathwater tropes, but, that is unserious sorts (hardly your Andrew Sullivans).
Mel P is a no-mark politically, although she might be a laugh down the pub :cool:
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
mixed_biscuits said:
Semi-seriously tho', re 'no marks', calling ppl 'cnuts' etc, the Dissensian trope du jour, it seems to me that lefties tend to be oddly eager to tar the whole person for their beliefs, to conclude that they are, to their very marrow, unclean ('stench'), unworthy and then to discount them outright for anon.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this. I've been given just as much personal abuse from people on the right as the left. There is no difference, IMHO.
 
sufi

sufi

lala
Iran's President Says Materialism, Capitalism Cause of Climate Change

ahmedinjad on the other hand was a science graduate
irinn said:
Dear colleagues. Without a doubt, if such thinking and the schools of thought which were presented to mankind by the divine prophets are used as the basis of life, the destruction of the environment will be brought under control and the climate will have a chance to regenerate itself and create better conditions for the continuation of its life. Based on this we would like to propose the following:

1) A working group consisting of intellectuals dedicated to resolving the problems of mankind from volunteer countries set out and put at the disposal of mankind the criteria for its prosperity in a specified time and based on a divine and humane world-view, which most of the world people believe in. Consumption can be balanced by reforming criteria and fairly distributing public assets in the world. It is possible to set up a prosperous society in which wealth is distributed efficiently and fairly, life goes on in a sincere atmosphere, the competition for supremacy turns into a competition for compassion, and consumption is controlled based on the needs.

2) The current economic system should be based on the aforementioned conditions and be organized and defined in line with justice and human dignity. The consumption model should be based on realistic needs and should not be drawn up in a way which increases consumption.

3) The so-called industrialized countries should fulfill their international commitments. At the same time, clear and feasible mechanisms should be drawn up which bring the disobedient governments and economic sectors under control and obligates them to pay fines to the countries which have experienced a loss. It has been said that more than 250 billion dollars has been spent on the expedition to Afghanistan and around 1,000 billion dollars has been the cost of the war in Iraq. Wouldn't 50 billion dollars spent on Afghanistan's infrastructure and economic development have turned this country into a developed country? And wouldn't 200 billion dollars on developing new technology and suitable use of fossil fuel have returned the pollution level to the period before industrialization?

4) While the spread of greenhouse-gasses causes 1,000 times more silent deaths than the actions of terrorists, who are the most hated creatures, is it not true that all the objectives of the convention would be achieved with only half of America's military budget? Is it not better to allocate part of the military budget of the leading nations to promote the people's welfare and reduce pollution?

5) By abandoning this profit-oriented and monopolistic view, new technology, diverse sources of energy and also clean and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, sea tide, geothermal and nuclear energy would become cheaply available to all countries, and they will not have to resort to the extensive use of low yielding fossil fuel.

6) In order to execute the budget in the best way possible and achieve the long-term objectives of the convention, countries should accept financial commitment to the world climate fund in proportion to their share of pollution in the past. And the resources of the fund should be distributed in a fair fashion and away from the control of the main polluters. Would it not be better to redirect the funds for the production and distribution of nuclear arms, through global disarmament, to the development of new technology, welfare and fight against poverty? We propose to designate the year 2011 as the year of rectifying consumption model and reducing pollution and suggest drawing up a plan to promote the culture of human values.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
There's a great bit in one of those NYT pieces about the prez of Malaysia demanding that developed countries cut their emissions by "at least 100%". :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top