Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here is a thread to discuss the UN Climate Summit next week.
I know the vast majority of outcomes will be symbolic, but I am glad it is being discussed. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone attending the march in NYC Sunday?
Here is a thread to discuss the UN Climate Summit next week.
I know the vast majority of outcomes will be symbolic, but I am glad it is being discussed. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone attending the march in NYC Sunday?
How can a teleconferenced summit be located in one city? That's a nonsensical formulation.
Oh wait, you mean people are flying into NYC rather than teleconferencing?
When these climate warriors start acting like there is a problem then they can earn some legitimacy for their positions.
Here is a thread to discuss the UN Climate Summit next week.
I know the vast majority of outcomes will be symbolic, but I am glad it is being discussed. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone attending the march in NYC Sunday?
How can a teleconferenced summit be located in one city? That's a nonsensical formulation.
Oh wait, you mean people are flying into NYC rather than teleconferencing?
When these climate warriors start acting like there is a problem then they can earn some legitimacy for their positions.
Fair point, planes produce more carbon than cars. However, lets be rational; there is a larger need for people to take planes in travelling than, say, driving their car to work every day if they live in a major metropolitan area. Also, as somebody working on a project with another researcher on the other side of the country, I will say teleconferences are convenient, but certainly less effective than meeting face to face. While theoretically it should be the same, the digital/electronic medium influences how people interact. I personally do not feel it is conducive to "serious business." I know other people feel differently, and it is certainly not effective to meet all the time in person. However, where you are getting so many people together to hammer out a treaty they will all sign, face-to-face is better.
Fair point, planes produce more carbon than cars. However, lets be rational; there is a larger need for people to take planes in travelling than, say, driving their car to work every day if they live in a major metropolitan area. Also, as somebody working on a project with another researcher on the other side of the country, I will say teleconferences are convenient, but certainly less effective than meeting face to face. While theoretically it should be the same, the digital/electronic medium influences how people interact. I personally do not feel it is conducive to "serious business." I know other people feel differently, and it is certainly not effective to meet all the time in person. However, where you are getting so many people together to hammer out a treaty they will all sign, face-to-face is better.
Well Herr Max, I know you want a one world government, but unless the whole world, including Third World (developing nations or underdeveloped is PC bullshit) go along with the show then the USA is under no obligation to lead the way on this issue. I would rather see UN do something about terrorism.Also I haven't read all of this yet but its a pretty straightforward, on the nose argument.
The New Climate Economy Report 2014
Fair point, planes produce more carbon than cars. However, lets be rational; there is a larger need for people to take planes in travelling than, say, driving their car to work every day if they live in a major metropolitan area. Also, as somebody working on a project with another researcher on the other side of the country, I will say teleconferences are convenient, but certainly less effective than meeting face to face. While theoretically it should be the same, the digital/electronic medium influences how people interact. I personally do not feel it is conducive to "serious business." I know other people feel differently, and it is certainly not effective to meet all the time in person. However, where you are getting so many people together to hammer out a treaty they will all sign, face-to-face is better.
So back to my original point.
1.) Why does your rationality trump the rationality of people who do things you disagree with?
2.) With respect to the climate doom-sayers, why does the EFFECTIVENESS of their meeting trump environmental considerations? Isn't the ENTIRE point of the meeting to warn people of the coming danger? It sure doesn't seem that they place a high priority on reducing climate damage. They indicate that they value EFFECTIVENESS and smoozing and hob knobbing more highly than they value climate protection.
3.) So face-to-face is better and so is valued more highly than protecting the climate.
If climate doomsayers don't believe their own message then why should anyone else believe the message?
Well Herr Max, I know you want a one world government, but unless the whole world, including Third World (developing nations or underdeveloped is PC bullshit) go along with the show then the USA is under no obligation to lead the way on this issue. I would rather see UN do something about terrorism.Also I haven't read all of this yet but its a pretty straightforward, on the nose argument.
The New Climate Economy Report 2014