Global Warming Debate

On climate change:

I can't tell if it's nostalgia talking, but in my memory the UK summers used to last longer and be like a summer, and it used to snow in winter. Now it seems we can have similar weather all year 'round, with seasonal extremes as appropriate - heat in summer, snow in winter, rain all the time (!). I know what you mean - to me the seasons all seem to be running late. Spring didn't arrive until May, and then it's summer by June....

On class divides, I refuse to believe that what you can or cannot do is based on where you come from. I am from a middle class family and have 2 brothers. My older brother didn't go to uni an is probably bordering on filthy rich. My younger brother did go to uni, but now has a fairly low level job and earns just enough to get by. Both are happy in their worlds.

In my opinion, and it is only opinion, the people you are speaking of who keep doors closed and perpetuate the class divide are very small in number. Most are aging as well.

Money is definitely magnetic - not scientific and no explanation attempted but the more I have, the more I can save, the better deals I get, the more tax I 'avoid' as you so eloquently put it ;) ... anyone explain that? Is it just access to resources? I'm not knowingly in an 'old boy network', but over the years have built up my own contacts and can get work for my business without issue... for which I am thankful and know I am lucky. I definitely don't keep people out, and spend a fair bit of my time explaining to people how they can work like I work if they want...

I think it's like everything else, it's down to application. Just like it isn't the Suhr guitar that makes the virtuoso, it isn't the background or the education that make you rich. Yeah, it helps, but if you don't work at it, you have to be very lucky to get to where you want to go.

make your own luck.... work hard... boring, but true...

Originally Posted by: AkiraJust a few points...



It isn't a system? As far as I'm aware, capitalism functions due to two groups (or classes, as you will), the Bourgeoisie (dudes at the top), and the Proleteriat (workers). The Proleteriat sell their labour to the Bourgeoisie, however the Bourgeoisie give a wage which is worth less than what the labour is worth, thus extracting some profit.

Sorry friend, you're wrong. The term capitalism was created by Marxists as a derogatory way to describe a free market economy. Capitalism/free markets are simply what happen when individuals are free to barter, trade and produce as they please. Classical liberal free markets are the absence of any system. You're just rehashing old Marxist cliches in your description of free markets. First off, a majority of people are employed by small businesses. Small business owners are not the "dudes at the top". They can make a good income but they have to work very hard - most weeks are 80 hr. work weeks. Employees don't sell their labor for less than it is worth. They sell their labor for a price that someone else is able/willing to pay. If they think their skill or job is worth more, they are free to look elsewhere for employment. Finally, if you are going to mouth these old hackneyed Marxist cliches(debunked cliches), at least learn what Marx's goofy terminology meant. “Bourgeoisie” does not mean "dudes at the top". It means middle class.

wouldn't it have been easier to assume that Akira was dumbing down stuff for collective benefit than get so worked up about terminology? Maybe the GT populous haven't found time to read the communist manifesto?

There is no fact, there is only opinion....

Lucid discussion is not aided by mis-using terms. That's the sort of thing that has cluttered the global warming debate in general.

I find the link supplied by R. Shackleferd to be the most useful type of contribution to this exchange of views.

Originally Posted by: AkiraIf you're going to argue like that then I wont bother.

Nevermind eh?

If I'm going to argue like what? With facts?

Regardless of whether global warming will effect the planet to a cataclysmic degree or not; it just makes sense to pollute less and conserve more. It just seems intuitive to that burning as many fossil fuels as the civilized world does year after year, that it would begin to have some sort of measurable effect on the planet.

What is your country's stand on the Kyoto Protocol? Here in America we've not ratified it because our leaders say it would be too much of a strain on the economy to implement. It seems to me to be something we can't afford not to do.

In reading through the RealClimate debate linked to above, I found a link to this >Wikipedia entry< that lends some perspective.

Originally Posted by: LeedoggRegardless of whether global warming will effect the planet to a cataclysmic degree or not; it just makes sense to pollute less and conserve more. It just seems intuitive to that burning as many fossil fuels as the civilized world does year after year, that it would begin to have some sort of measurable effect on the planet.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. See the link above. It looks to me like the man-made CO2 contributions arrived at the same time as the planet was experiencing a natural cyclical increase. The combination is unprecedented.

[QUOTE=Leedogg]What is your country's stand on the Kyoto Protocol? Here in America we've not ratified it because our leaders say it would be too much of a strain on the economy to implement. It seems to me to be something we can't afford not to do.

Despite the ravings of the misinformed, it looks like Canada will be pursuing a rational program to reduce polution from [u]all[/u] sources, in concert with our trading partners. Strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol would devastate our economy without significantly benefitting the planet.

The efforts now underway to set attainable goals along with the US, Australia, and several Asian countires looks promising. I would like it better if such major polluters as India and China showed an interest in co-operating.

Just in case ya'll haven't gotten enough, I came across this link provided in that Realclimate forum. I just found it and haven't dug very deep, but it looks very extensive. Most, if not all the info there was indexed from realclimate.com discussions, as they were going to make a similar index list of point by point explanations for their site, but he beat them to it...so they just link to him. As always with any issue, keep an open mind but don't believe absolutely everything.

I just got this in the mail today... I'm really looking forward to reading it.


Small type... thin paper... lots of charts...

I'm gonna have fun!

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovI just got this...

Looks interesting...perhaps you'll brief us on the main points it presents after you read it? I normally might buy such a book myself, but currently all available funds are being saved for a new powered mixer and speakers, so yeah.

Originally Posted by: R. ShackleferdLooks interesting...perhaps you'll brief us on the main points it presents after you read it? I normally might buy such a book myself, but currently all available funds are being saved for a new powered mixer and speakers, so yeah.

Well, I already know the main points -- Bjørn did an interview for BULLSH*T.

Essentially: A lot of the claims environmentalists make aren't true (if you examine the hard data). So, having crunched the numbers, he presents what the bigger issues are and where our money is best spent on improving the environment.

I'll try and fill you in more once I've got it in the bag, but I have to finish Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance first.

Originally Posted by: Raskolnikov... but I have to finish Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance first.

Good book!

Just not much help on actually fixing motorcycles.

ahwell,good for sun tanning

Originally Posted by: CW14The whole thing's just a natural cycle of the earth if you ask me. The average temperature goes up by one degree and it's like 'HOLY CRAP THE WORLD'S HEATING UP IT MUST BE THOSE FOSSIL FUELS'.
The temperatures have been going up, down and all over the place for the past gazillion years or so ever since man was able to measure temperature. I doubt we've had much impact on that at all...

You're right about the cyclic fluctuations, but our contribution happens to coincide with one of these natural increases. If you look >here< you'll see that the current CO2 level is nearly twice as high as it's ever been!

The scientific community is not arguing about that; its accepted fact. The debate revolves around what effect that will have, and what we can, or should, do about it. Global temperatures have been much higher in the past than they are now, but no one knows what to expect from the dramatically higher CO2 levels.

Originally Posted by: iihollyahwell,good for sun tanning

Funny you should mention that. In the late 60's I would spend my two months of summer vacation from school hanging out at the beach, tanning. It took about 3 weeks of 8-hour days to get a good tan. Some moisturiser, like coconut oil, was a good option, but not really necessary. No one had yet heard, or even thought of, SPF.

I've burnt to a crisp just riding at least three or four times this year; a couple in spite of some substantial sun block.


Some things sure do change.

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsIf you look >here< you'll see that the current CO2 level is nearly twice as high as it's ever been!

To be absolutely fair, you can't say it's higher than it's ever been as that chart only shows a 1000 and 4000 year history, and they speculate that some of Earth's earlier stages of atmosphere had a makeup of purely carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water, nitrogen, and hygrogen. It was the blue-green algae ("primeval slime" if you will) that split the molecules of H20 and C02 into O2. It drastically (for the slime's sake) reduced the richness of CO2, replacing it with oxygen (which when making it to the upper atmosphere reacted to the sun's radiation and created O3-ozone). Yet the hard elements that help determine the levels have not been found in rocks older than about 3 billion years ago.

But your point still stands. I'm just playing advocate.

Originally Posted by: R. Shackleferd...as that chart only shows a 1000 and 4000 year history...

If that's the case, then I'm raising a red flag right now because we have Arctic and Antarctic ice cores (completely with trapped pockets of atmosphere) going back past the Last Glacial Maximum 18,000 years ago. According to After the Ice, anyway.

Usually, in a situation like this, when somebody shows you a chart of 4,000 years of History it's because they DON'T want you to see something about the other 14,000 years. Looking at one of Mithen's graphs, it shows global temperature being WELL above what we're seeing today at about 7,500 BC and another big spike at 4,500 BC.

Even 2,000 BC is graphed as much warmer and wetter than now.

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsFunny you should mention that. In the late 60's I would spend my two months of summer vacation from school hanging out at the beach, tanning. It took about 3 weeks of 8-hour days to get a good tan. Some moisturiser, like coconut oil, was a good option, but not really necessary. No one had yet heard, or even thought of, SPF.

It just occured to me that LatS grew up in the very same era I wish I had. I wish I could have been about 13 or 14 in 1967. From 1967 right up until the mid 70's, all music was pretty great, and what better way to spend your youth?

Sorry for the random post, now back to talking about the mean old sun.