Australia has a long history of kowtowing to the US. They have taken the approach of sucking up to the global bully in the hope that they will get protection and crumbs from the USA's table. Maybe its a rational foreign policy, but its not right.
Anyway, worrying about an extradition process for someone who has committed a minor crime is all well and good, but at least they are following some kind of legal procedure, even if it is overkill and inappropriate. Of far more concern to me is the suspension of the rule of law, natural justice and human rights represented by Guantanamo Bay.
Guantanamo Bay is an absolute disgrace. There is no defense for such an abuse of power. It is one small step in the war against terrorism, but one giant leap along the road to fascism.
It is up to the polluters and energy users to prove that their behaviour is not having an impact on the quality of life of everyone else on the planet, including those yet to be born, not the other way around.
Waiting until we can do some double blind studied on a couple of hundred randomly selected earth-like planets a couple of hundred years into their industrial revolutions is not very practical. Not having an easy and obvious way to 100% prove global warming is made made wont protect us from it.
I am interested to know why it is so important to you to believe that global warming is not man made.
This issue is far too serious to ignore, or worse, deny.
From the scientist's point of view, there is no money to be made by providing research that indicates man's contribution to global warming, but there is the potential for having their career damaged if they publish bad science, and there is a lot of money being spent by the energy providers and governments in an attempt to discredit them.
On the other hand, there is plenty of money to be made if you can come up with persuasive arguments the energy industry can use to maintain its lucrative status-quo.
With such an unbalanced situation as far as financial incentive goes, it provides pause for thought that the argument for man-caused global warming is so strong and has gained such widespread support.
Its funny. A very similar argument raged for years before the cigarette companies finally had to admit that their industry was hurting their customers and even non-customers. Now their side of the argument can be seen for what it is - spin, manipulation and downright lies - all to maintain a lucrative status-quo. There were plenty of people like you, who used cigarettes, and therefore had a vested interest in believing they were not harmful. Unfortunately, wanting something to be true and it actually being true are two very different things.
Back to the cigarette example. The smart thing to do would have been for everyone to stop smoking at least until the scientists could come to a near-universally accepted consensus. The global warming situation looks to have far more serious and widespread consequences. Ignoring it until Exxon and Shell executives admit its happening is not the smart thing to do.
A debate about the existence and/or cause of global warming is a great idea. What I don't understand is why are there so many comments that have been highly moderated that use fuzzy headed logic, spin-full and downright dishonest arguments?
OK, that's not so surprising. What is surprising is that most of these disingenuous arguments are all coming from one side of the argument.
The disinformation campaign I'm seeing can be summed up as follows:
There is no no global warming
There is global warming, but its a normal cycle
There is global warming, its not normal, but its not from human activity
Humans couldn't possibly change the planet
The planet always 'bounces back'
Our technology will magically solve the problem for us
We don't have accurate data
We do have the data, but our models are wrong
The scientists are conspiring to scare us - due to all the money in it!
The scientists are so subject to peer group pressure that their findings should be ignored.
Scientists are fear mongerers
Scientists believe we have been bad and must be punished
Scientists make mistakes, therefore any data supporting the global warming theory is a mistake
Some scientists dispute the global warming theory, therefor it must be controversial (ignoring the near consensus on the important issues)
Its a well known dirty political technique to create fear and confusion around an argument that you can't win, to at least prevent you're opponent from scoring points. I'm not sure why it is so important to these posters and moderators that we continue to ignore the danger of global warming. This issue is of vital importance to everyone.
Misinforming and manipulating public opinion on such an important subject is hurting us all. Please stop.
Its great that your skills and natural abilities are in demand in the part of the world where you live, but unfortunately, most people on the planet don't find themselves in such an enviable position. Ignoring for the moment all those who couldn't get the right education, and all those who live somewhere where the economy has no hope of employing them. Even then, your faith in the benevolence of the corporate world is niaive.
It is extremely rare to find an employer with enough foresight to encourage workers by paying them real percentage of what they earn for the company. Nearly all companies try to pay their workers the absolute minimum they can get away with. Some smarter employers are willing to pay more to 'get the cream' - but only as much more as they have to. There are some exceptions of course, but they are few and far between.
Occassionally sales staff get 'incentives' to sell, but that's not really the same since the actual sale isn't just because they're great salespeople - chances are the customer wanted to buy the product anyway, and it was the entire company that produced the product, not the guy who takes it the last step to the customer. The engineer who designed the product wont get a percentage of sales. The office manager who creates the environment for the engineer to work wont get a percentage of sales, the network admin who maintained the tools to keep the company functioning wont get a percentage. They'll all get their wage, and maybe a token bonus just because bonuses have more psychological impact than raising the weeking wage by the 5 ot 10% the bonus equates too.
My direct experience from working in about 10 different companies, both small and very large, and what I've heard from friends and family, is that it is a very rare situation for companies to have a creative, cooperative culture that encourages innovation and initiative. I've never worked at a company that has made any effort to reward most workers based on their productivity or contribution to the company's profitability.
Companies are not some kind of perfect, rational, money making system. They are a group of individuals, with all the good and all the bad points of individuals in any other situation. Your boss might have the company's best interests at heart, but more likely he's got his best interests at heart. In a well run company, these would be the same thing, but its rarely the case. Many people decide that they can secure their job and their promotions more easily by playing politics than by being productive. These people frustrate the hell out of me, but they're probably right.
People who work hard can be appreciated (as long as their boss doesn't feel threatened), but I've seen companies sack their best workers simply because the CEO wants get his profitabily KPI bonus, and sacking people will generally improve profitability for the first year or two. The CEO takes the credit for the company's 'increased productivity and profitability' and moves on to his next victim just before the impact of losing the best people, and overworking the remaining staff starts to come through in the balance sheet. Its stupid, but it happens.
The claim is they've built a machine that can not only predict future events, but somehow only predicts future events of importances to humans? Like Princess Di's funeral? What about the emergence of AIDS, SARS, or bird-flu? What about the slaughter in Rwanda, or the fall of the Berlin wall? What about the train bombing in Spain?
Why is it that the window between the 'prediction' and the event is variable? To predict that 'something' is going to happen 'soon' isn't much of a prediction.
The experiments have not been able to be replicated.
If it were possible for a mind to predict the future, that would be such an evolutionary advantage that the only species left on Earth would be the psychics, and in fact the psychics would rapidly select for ever increasing psychic ability to out-second-guess their predators/prey. Are we to believe that we can predict the future, but we don't use or develop this ability?
If you've ever tried to ride a bicycle fast, you will notice that at about 30mph that the wind resistance becomes very strong, and in fact, it doesn't matter how many gears you've got, it will take all your effort just to maintain that speed.
Cars are the same, although the engines are tuned to run most efficiently somewhere near practical speeds, they can't tune away wind resistance. The bigger and more aerodynamically unsound the car is, the lower the most efficient speed will be.
That is a hypothetical maths question!
This PDF shows a clear decline in fuel efficiency from 40mph:
If you've ever tried to ride a bicycle fast, you will notice that at about 30mph that the wind resistance becomes very strong, and in fact, it doesn't matter how many gears you've got, it will take all your effort just to maintain that speed.
Cars are the same, although the engines are tuned to run most efficiently somewhere near practical speeds, they can't tune away wind resistance. The bigger and more aerodynamically unsound the car is, the lower the most efficient speed will be.
I'd love it to be faster to, and no doubt it will be in time, but its still an impressive improvement on current technology.
As an exercise, pick a random street in a random town in the USA, and find the nearest pizza restaurant without Google Maps. Chances are you can't even do it without leaving your house to buy maps.
Unless you are talking about aircraft, you are wrong.
Most fuel is burnt combatting friction, and wind resistance is the bulk of the friction, and it raises roughly exponentially with speed.
Whenever there is an attempt to travel the furthest on the least gas, they always travel far below 50mph - more like 25. It minimises the wind resistance.
If you are on the freeway and about to run out of gas, you can increase your chances of making it to the next gas-station dramatically if you slow down. Even slowing from 55mph to 45 will make a big difference.
Just because we currently make a huge mess of our planet in our effort to 'live comfortably' doesn't mean it has to be so. I am certain we could increase our quality of life and decrease our impact on our environment. Right now we are just confused about what 'quality of life' means.
Of course, every living thing has an impact on its environment, but surely you can see a qualitative difference between living in harmony and wholesale rape and pillage?
If you kill a fish to eat it, that's one thing, but if you go dynamite fishing, wiping out an entire local ecosystem just for a few easy meals, that's something else. You might think you are improving your quality of life because you didn't have to spend so much time fishing, but pretty soon your beautiful ocean is a depressing wasteland and you've wiped out the fish stocks and the habitat that replenished them, and you starve. Its a sad and tragic story, but that exact thing has happened/is happening in many places, and its an accurate metaphor for how our western societies are now living.
I'm all for the expansion of our species beyond our planet, but I agree with the previous poster who said that we should learn to look after our own planet first. Its not that I value Martian microbes or even virgin dust more highly than humans. The real reason is that I don't like suffering of any type, especially human suffering. If we just export our problems instead of solving them, it will only create more suffering. It will create more of a mess for our children to clean up, assuming we don't make such a mess that our children can't survive.
Humans have always been more interested in obtaining power than in obtaining the wisdom to use it well. So much of our suffering is caused by this. If we survive long enough, maybe we will outgrow this childishness. Unfortunately, we don't have a watchful parent preventing us from harming ourselves, so we are just going to have to learn to look after ourselves.
What business would pay more for employees than they have to? That's like going to buy a car, and negotiating the price up, just so the salesman doesn't sell it to someone else!
Our economic system has always had more employees than jobs, except in a few extreme, short lived cases, or perhaps right at the top of the hierarchy (CEO level). Businesses don't compete for workers, workers compete for jobs.
The idea that it must be either corporations or consumers to blame is too black and white. Most things are grey. I'd say its not only consumers and corporations to blame, but it is also the fault of voters, leaders, teachers and individuals.
I agree with you that education is a noble goal. However, what you call 'harp[ing] on the cold-hearted motivations of corporations' could also be seen as 'educating the readers of this public forum'. Are you really saying that environmentalists should compromise their core beliefs because the oil industry has momentum? I suspect you don't believe the planet needs protecting, or you don't know the true impact of the oil industry.
While you can make burning fossil fuels less polluting, you can never make it 'clean'. More importantly, you can never eliminate the CO2 emissions, which are looking increasingly like they will cause us even more strife than all the more toxic pollutants released by burning coal and oil.
When the internal combustion engine was invented, nobody had any idea that there would soon be a billion or so of these engines dragging a tonne or two of steel around, day in, day out, all over the globe. There was no planning. There was no consideration of the consequences, no environmental impact statements, no projections nor even basic investigation of what might happen if that much fossil fuel gets burned over a such short timespan. Our love affair with oil is an experiment on a global scale!
Now some people are trying to get the message out that there are consequences, and they may be catastrophic. It could well be too late. Anyone who has ever owned a car is now completely addicted. They are just too convenient. Our cities are literally designed to require them. Our economies run on oil. If the oil stopped flowing tomorrow there would be worldwide chaos, starvation and despair. It could literally end civilisation. Farmers couldn't farm, which is irrelevant, because they couldn't get their produce to market, which is also irrelevant because the produce couldn't get from the market to the consumer. There would be famine on a massive scale, followed immediately by chaos.
Given our reliance on oil, it is not surprising that there is so much resistance to even considering and investigating the consequences of such widespread and massive use. Unfortunately our current dependence on fossil fuels does not mean that it is wise. Is it in our best interests to continue down this path?
If incontrovertible and unanimously accepted evidence came in tomorrow that global warming was real and was going to cause floods, droughts, storms, and sea levels to rise enough to make all our coastal cities look like Aceh, how long do you think it would take for us to stop our greenhouse emissions? We can't just shut down all the coal fired powerstations and go back donkeys for transport overnight. Even if we could, the CO2 is already in the atmosphere - it wont go away overnight. An orderly technological transition will take decades at best. If we need to, can we do it fast enough? Is 'fingers crossed' the smart approach?
I love open source, and know all about the pitfalls of capitalism, however I've got to point out that dodgey business practices as described here are not the inevitable outcome of a free market. Customers are not (all) stupid. They will eventually take their custom to a more reputable vendor.
Quicken has been treating their customers with disdain for some time now. I suspect this latest move is a desperate ploy to make up for the profit it is losing because of alienated customers voting with their feet. Ironic.
It seems that Freevo and MythTV both have their strengths and weaknesses. They both sound good to me. I'm wondering why nobody has said anything about running both on the same machine, perhaps even at the same time.
Is that feasible? Can they read eachothers meta-data and media storage?
Nice idea, but it is just too convenient. Suspiciously, and unrealistically convenient.
Some argue that we don't have a good enough understanding of global warming to justify changing. I can see where they are coming from. My argument is that the theory makes sense, and the consequences are so dire that it cannot be ignored.
We are rapidly burning fossil fuels that were of created over millions of years. The theory that this is having a detrimental impact on our climate that could lead to serious problems makes a lot of sense. It still needs to be proved or disproved, of course, but since this takes time, and since the consequences of inaction could be catastophic, hoping for the best, or even hoping we should do more of the same seems like a crazy thing to do, even if it would be fantastic if that was how it worked.
The starving of the world isn't because of failed crops. Its always because of political failure. Beside, global warming does not predict better crops, it predicts more extreme weather. More floods. More droughts. More huricanes.
>...the scientists are too busy with
> political posturing and grubbing for grant-money to sit down and
> do actual science.
I don't think this is true. The media may make it seem like there is a raging debate because so many think "fair and balanced" means presenting both sides of any argument as equal regardless of the merits (and sources), but if you ignore the propaganda and guff from those with vested interests, the scientific community is increasingly of one voice.
> We're talking potentially about the future of the species - we need to get this right.
We all have a responsibility to respect everyone else's human rights. Governments and individuals. If you wont do it because its right, do it because ultimately you will be better off if you do so.
Where would the world be if every person and every institution had an attitude of 'me first, screw you'?
Ultimately, it is in your best interest to not create enemies, and to support and uplift those around you.
It is through cooperation and mutual support that humans have made moved out of caves and created all the achievements we now enjoy. Uplifting yourself by stepping on others doesn't work for long.
Do you really think the USA is attacked because segments of the world believe you are responsible for them, or are you just trolling? If its the former, I'd love to know where you get your information.
I'm not anti USA. Its a great country of countless achievements and triumphs. Like all countries, its not all positive. It happens to be the sole superpower right now, so when it stuffs up, it has a bigger impact than when Tuvalu stuffs up.
> I don't really care if my country acts ethically or not.
> I care that my country acts on my behalf and on the behalf
> of the rest of the citizens.
Its that kind of attitude that leads to wars. Do you really want your government stealing and maiming and murdering on your behalf (non-US citizens, of course), simply to gain a material advantage for US citizens?
Having great power also means having great responsibility. It would ultimately benefit the USA as much as anywhere else for the USA to endeavour to act ethically, both towards its own citizens and the citizens of the world. Leading by example is better than leading by force.
It is a tragedy that the fine example of US freedom is being sullied by actions such as Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and the Patriot Act. The US used to be a beacon of hope and freedom - an example that less free citizens world wide hoped to change the governments to resemble. It is increasingly acting like an imperialist bully to be feared and loathed.
> the rest of the world would continue whining because now
> we weren't doing exactly what everyone else wants
I'm not sure where you get your information about what the rest of the world wants from the USA, but I do think its time you checked your sources and perhaps broadened them a little.
Either they were too well hidden or more likely they were destroyed by Hussein to avoid the invasion. That the USA (and other countries too) sold bio-weapons to Iraq is not a conspiracy theory - its a documented fact.
> I tend to be on the side of gradual change for the better,
> and monitoring the results of our changes.
Generally, I'd agree with you. The problem is that industrialisation has not occurred gradually. It has happened extremely rapidly. And it just so happens that global warming is happening pretty much in step. It is definately cause for concern. It may be coincidence, but given the consequences of being wrong, I think it would be foolish to ignore the situation until it is completely clear exactly what is happening with a 99.999% confidence. Even if our confidence was 10%, that's a huge risk to take.
The odds are in your favour with Russian roulette, but I still wouldn't recommend it.
The political mudslinging does confuse the issue, but we can ignore those with an agenda of short-term self interest, and ignore those basing their proclamations on some kind of flakey 'the gods are angry with us for being wicked' theory. That still leaves a lot of good, credible research, and plenty of room for common sense.
I can understand those who say the research is not unequivocal and want to know more. I can't undstand those who insist on not giving the problem serious thought and continuing to put great resources into coming to the most accurate conclusion possible. This is of vital importance to all of humanity alive now and yet to be born. If there is any truth to it, we must get to the bottom of it as soon as we possibly can.
Reducing our impact on the environment is very expensive and involves a lot of sacrifice. As the evidence comes in, it is looking increasingly like not doing so will be far more expensive.
It is literally insane to risk such dire consequences simply to continue a particular lifestyle.
To the parent complaining about the flakiness of some environmentalists, I agree it doesn't help get the message out. Don't forget that just because some flakes support environmentalism, it doesn't mean that environmentalism is flakey. Sometimes intuitive types pick up on things a lot quicker than is possible with the scientific method being hobbled by the politics of vested interest. Sometimes they are wrong. The science is increasingly saying global warming is a serious problem that needs to be tackled now, and hard. Despite that, there is a lot of propaganda and spin confusing the issue from those who stand to lose money and power from changes to the status quo. It is always thus.
The parent is one of the more reasoned, less emotional posts on this topic. Except for the part stating the popular misconception that the world is big and we are small and therefore we can not have that much of an influence. If only it were so.
Humans as individuals are small, but there are billions of us. Even so, that's not such a big deal. The main reason we can (and do) have such an impact on the world is because of our technology. Technology amplifies and extends our power, control and influence on the world. That's why we like it so much. The downside is that it also amplifies our impact.
Cities of millions of people are one thing, but give each of those people a car, and air-conditioner, heating, get them to consume a tonne of plastic per year, etc. Suddenly an individual has more impact on the environment in one year than a pre-industrial revolution city.
The idea that humans can not have much impact on nature, or that nature always balances the impact is demonstrably false. Our technology has enabled us to wipe out species. They aren't coming back. We have overfished seemingly inexhaustable supplies in the ocean to the point where there has to be moratoriums and quotas to allows stocks to replenish. What would happen if these weren't applied? We have changed local weather patters through deforestation, irrigation and agriculture. It creates drought, mudslides and floods. We may end up creating a nuclear winter. One 'super' GMO could potentially have a widespread impact.
Its niaive, unrealistic and dangerous to think that billions of humans with more access to technology than wisdom don't have to worry about our impact on the only planet we currently know of that supports life.
I know its natural to think that your country reflects you and therefor generally behaves well, but unfortunately that is not the case, especially in the USA.
It is ironic that the lead article is about censorship in China. Chinese censorship is clumsy and ineffectual compared to the advanced spin and propaganda in the USA. This is why most US citizens think America is a positive force in the world, and are completely baffled when the rest of the world resents and distrusts them. Of course, nobody likes to be told they've been accepting lies. Most US citizens will be feeling very defensive and will vehemently deny that they could be influenced by propaganda. Everyone thinks its something that can only happen to someone else. That is one of the reasons it is so cuccessful.
Outside the USA, it is well known that the USA supplied Iraq with biological and chemical weapons. Its not even controversial. Its just one in a long list of disgusting behaviours the USA has done and is doing. It was based on the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic. Hussein was supposed to use these weapons to win the war against Iran.
Funnily enough, the reason the Bush government was so confident that they'd find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is because they know he had them because they sold them to him!
> The CDC wouldn't have been involved if the request wasn't
> made under the guise of medical research.
I'm not sure if that is your personal theory, or if that comes from some actual propaganda. Either way, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Medical research on Anthrax? At the request of a known dictatorship, currently at war? Gimme a break!
> Finally, I'll just say that I don't buy this runaway greenhouse thing.
What are your qualifications? How much effort have you put into researching this? I'm asking just to check if you have more credibility than the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?st ory=603752&host=3&dir=507
You are right that it is hard to define what normal is when it comes to weather. Do you measure minute by minute, daily, monthly, yearly, etc? Minimums and maximums, averages, or extremes? Temperature, humidity, rainfall, snowfall? Is an inch of rain each month equivalent to no rain for 3 years then 36 inches in one week?
Nevertheless, global warming isn't going to wait for us to understand, measure and diagnose it.
Despite the soundbite, it is wrong to think that 'global warming' means the planet will uniformly change temperature by X degrees. It is an overall result of the greenhouse effect, but the weather in any given spot might in fact get colder. It is the average temperatures that will rise, leading to things like more ice melting the being frozen, leading to higher ocean levels.
> Finally, life experiences tell me that whenever people try to change
> nature, the enviornment reacts to counter that change and equalize it.
Your life experience have not equiped you to understand the impact of our vast population and technological change will have on the planet. There are countless examples of man changing the environment permanently. There are thousands of species that are now extinct and will never return due to man's ability to change nature permanently. There are places that reach 120 degrees regularly simply because the surrounding areas have been deforested. There are rivers that used to be full of fish that have completely dried up due to man's activities. There is no doubt man has the ability to change nature permanently.
To argue that damaging the planet, changing the weather for all of us, is a 'right' is just ridiculous. Its like saying a murderer's right to kill ranks equally with the victims right to not be killed. There are no human rights that involve hurting other people.
> Prove Global Warming is a credible threat before you try to exert
> influence over my lifestyle. Sound fair?
Are you really saying that you will continue damaging the planet because no one has taken the time to prove to you that you need to change your behaviour? As an adult member of the human species, do feel you have any responsibility to behave in a way that doesn't harm other people? Doesn't that extend to educating yourself about the consequences of your behaviour rather than making it someone else's responsibility. If everyone had that attitude, where would we be?
That said, there is more than enough reason to think that global warming is not just credible, but actually real. Maybe its not undeniable, absolute black and white proof, but then there isn't anyone that can provide that kind of proof for anything including whether the sun will rise tomorrow. You've got to look at the facts with an open mind, and be prepared for very uncomfortable news.
Proving global warming is happening is a catch 22 situation. If we wait for undeniable proof, then we will have missed out opportunity to avoid it.
It is also an extremely complex task beyond out abilities to understand perfectly. We are doing well when we get the 4 day forecast right. This is the weather we are talking about. It changes day to day, year to year, and millenia to millenia. There is some pattern and reason to it, but that doesn't mean we can fully grasp it. Unfortunately, if it is real, global warming isn't going to hold off until we can model it perfectly.
Of course, I would like it to be a figment of some hippy with a 'mother nature will get her revenge for our wicked ways' barrow to push. I don't want to curtail my lifestyle if I don't have to. I don't even want to curtail it if I do have to! Still, people (and civilisations) who make decisions based on what they want to happen as opposed to what will happen are headed for a serious head on confrontation with reality, and reality wins every time.
If you look at it objectively, there are many reasons to think that global warming is a serious issue that demands immediate and serious attention. If you consider the vast money and power with vested interests in oil and energy status quo, and yet nearly every government around the world is taking the problem seriously (with the notable exception of the USA). If you consider the amount of CO2 each 1st world and developing world citizen pumps into the atmosphere each year, compared to the finite size of the atmosphere. If you consider that trees, forests, etc are the only way to 'clean' CO2 from the atmosphere, and if you also consider the tiny percentage of these areas that are left on the planet compared with only 100-200 years ago.
Seriously, if you are willing to look at the facts objectively, you can not deny the great likelihood that we are risking a great deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, worrying about an extradition process for someone who has committed a minor crime is all well and good, but at least they are following some kind of legal procedure, even if it is overkill and inappropriate. Of far more concern to me is the suspension of the rule of law, natural justice and human rights represented by Guantanamo Bay.
Guantanamo Bay is an absolute disgrace. There is no defense for such an abuse of power. It is one small step in the war against terrorism, but one giant leap along the road to fascism.
Waiting until we can do some double blind studied on a couple of hundred randomly selected earth-like planets a couple of hundred years into their industrial revolutions is not very practical. Not having an easy and obvious way to 100% prove global warming is made made wont protect us from it.
I am interested to know why it is so important to you to believe that global warming is not man made.
This issue is far too serious to ignore, or worse, deny.
From the scientist's point of view, there is no money to be made by providing research that indicates man's contribution to global warming, but there is the potential for having their career damaged if they publish bad science, and there is a lot of money being spent by the energy providers and governments in an attempt to discredit them.
On the other hand, there is plenty of money to be made if you can come up with persuasive arguments the energy industry can use to maintain its lucrative status-quo.
With such an unbalanced situation as far as financial incentive goes, it provides pause for thought that the argument for man-caused global warming is so strong and has gained such widespread support.
Its funny. A very similar argument raged for years before the cigarette companies finally had to admit that their industry was hurting their customers and even non-customers. Now their side of the argument can be seen for what it is - spin, manipulation and downright lies - all to maintain a lucrative status-quo. There were plenty of people like you, who used cigarettes, and therefore had a vested interest in believing they were not harmful. Unfortunately, wanting something to be true and it actually being true are two very different things.
Back to the cigarette example. The smart thing to do would have been for everyone to stop smoking at least until the scientists could come to a near-universally accepted consensus. The global warming situation looks to have far more serious and widespread consequences. Ignoring it until Exxon and Shell executives admit its happening is not the smart thing to do.
OK, that's not so surprising. What is surprising is that most of these disingenuous arguments are all coming from one side of the argument.
The disinformation campaign I'm seeing can be summed up as follows:
There is global warming, but its a normal cycle
There is global warming, its not normal, but its not from human activity
Humans couldn't possibly change the planet
The planet always 'bounces back'
Our technology will magically solve the problem for us
We don't have accurate data
We do have the data, but our models are wrong
The scientists are conspiring to scare us - due to all the money in it!
The scientists are so subject to peer group pressure that their findings should be ignored.
Scientists are fear mongerers
Scientists believe we have been bad and must be punished
Scientists make mistakes, therefore any data supporting the global warming theory is a mistake
Some scientists dispute the global warming theory, therefor it must be controversial (ignoring the near consensus on the important issues)
Its a well known dirty political technique to create fear and confusion around an argument that you can't win, to at least prevent you're opponent from scoring points. I'm not sure why it is so important to these posters and moderators that we continue to ignore the danger of global warming. This issue is of vital importance to everyone.
Misinforming and manipulating public opinion on such an important subject is hurting us all. Please stop.
It is extremely rare to find an employer with enough foresight to encourage workers by paying them real percentage of what they earn for the company. Nearly all companies try to pay their workers the absolute minimum they can get away with. Some smarter employers are willing to pay more to 'get the cream' - but only as much more as they have to. There are some exceptions of course, but they are few and far between.
Occassionally sales staff get 'incentives' to sell, but that's not really the same since the actual sale isn't just because they're great salespeople - chances are the customer wanted to buy the product anyway, and it was the entire company that produced the product, not the guy who takes it the last step to the customer. The engineer who designed the product wont get a percentage of sales. The office manager who creates the environment for the engineer to work wont get a percentage of sales, the network admin who maintained the tools to keep the company functioning wont get a percentage. They'll all get their wage, and maybe a token bonus just because bonuses have more psychological impact than raising the weeking wage by the 5 ot 10% the bonus equates too.
My direct experience from working in about 10 different companies, both small and very large, and what I've heard from friends and family, is that it is a very rare situation for companies to have a creative, cooperative culture that encourages innovation and initiative. I've never worked at a company that has made any effort to reward most workers based on their productivity or contribution to the company's profitability.
Companies are not some kind of perfect, rational, money making system. They are a group of individuals, with all the good and all the bad points of individuals in any other situation. Your boss might have the company's best interests at heart, but more likely he's got his best interests at heart. In a well run company, these would be the same thing, but its rarely the case. Many people decide that they can secure their job and their promotions more easily by playing politics than by being productive. These people frustrate the hell out of me, but they're probably right.
People who work hard can be appreciated (as long as their boss doesn't feel threatened), but I've seen companies sack their best workers simply because the CEO wants get his profitabily KPI bonus, and sacking people will generally improve profitability for the first year or two. The CEO takes the credit for the company's 'increased productivity and profitability' and moves on to his next victim just before the impact of losing the best people, and overworking the remaining staff starts to come through in the balance sheet. Its stupid, but it happens.
The claim is they've built a machine that can not only predict future events, but somehow only predicts future events of importances to humans? Like Princess Di's funeral? What about the emergence of AIDS, SARS, or bird-flu? What about the slaughter in Rwanda, or the fall of the Berlin wall? What about the train bombing in Spain?
Why is it that the window between the 'prediction' and the event is variable? To predict that 'something' is going to happen 'soon' isn't much of a prediction.
The experiments have not been able to be replicated.
If it were possible for a mind to predict the future, that would be such an evolutionary advantage that the only species left on Earth would be the psychics, and in fact the psychics would rapidly select for ever increasing psychic ability to out-second-guess their predators/prey. Are we to believe that we can predict the future, but we don't use or develop this ability?
That is a hypothetical maths question!
This PDF shows a clear decline in fuel efficiency from 40mph:
http://www.nesea.org/greencarclub/results%20of%20f uel%20economy%20exp.pdf
If you've ever tried to ride a bicycle fast, you will notice that at about 30mph that the wind resistance becomes very strong, and in fact, it doesn't matter how many gears you've got, it will take all your effort just to maintain that speed.
Cars are the same, although the engines are tuned to run most efficiently somewhere near practical speeds, they can't tune away wind resistance. The bigger and more aerodynamically unsound the car is, the lower the most efficient speed will be.
Cars are the same, although the engines are tuned to run most efficiently somewhere near practical speeds, they can't tune away wind resistance. The bigger and more aerodynamically unsound the car is, the lower the most efficient speed will be.
As an exercise, pick a random street in a random town in the USA, and find the nearest pizza restaurant without Google Maps. Chances are you can't even do it without leaving your house to buy maps.
Most fuel is burnt combatting friction, and wind resistance is the bulk of the friction, and it raises roughly exponentially with speed.
Whenever there is an attempt to travel the furthest on the least gas, they always travel far below 50mph - more like 25. It minimises the wind resistance.
If you are on the freeway and about to run out of gas, you can increase your chances of making it to the next gas-station dramatically if you slow down. Even slowing from 55mph to 45 will make a big difference.
Of course, every living thing has an impact on its environment, but surely you can see a qualitative difference between living in harmony and wholesale rape and pillage?
If you kill a fish to eat it, that's one thing, but if you go dynamite fishing, wiping out an entire local ecosystem just for a few easy meals, that's something else. You might think you are improving your quality of life because you didn't have to spend so much time fishing, but pretty soon your beautiful ocean is a depressing wasteland and you've wiped out the fish stocks and the habitat that replenished them, and you starve. Its a sad and tragic story, but that exact thing has happened/is happening in many places, and its an accurate metaphor for how our western societies are now living.
I'm all for the expansion of our species beyond our planet, but I agree with the previous poster who said that we should learn to look after our own planet first. Its not that I value Martian microbes or even virgin dust more highly than humans. The real reason is that I don't like suffering of any type, especially human suffering. If we just export our problems instead of solving them, it will only create more suffering. It will create more of a mess for our children to clean up, assuming we don't make such a mess that our children can't survive.
Humans have always been more interested in obtaining power than in obtaining the wisdom to use it well. So much of our suffering is caused by this. If we survive long enough, maybe we will outgrow this childishness. Unfortunately, we don't have a watchful parent preventing us from harming ourselves, so we are just going to have to learn to look after ourselves.
What business would pay more for employees than they have to? That's like going to buy a car, and negotiating the price up, just so the salesman doesn't sell it to someone else!
Our economic system has always had more employees than jobs, except in a few extreme, short lived cases, or perhaps right at the top of the hierarchy (CEO level). Businesses don't compete for workers, workers compete for jobs.
I agree with you that education is a noble goal. However, what you call 'harp[ing] on the cold-hearted motivations of corporations' could also be seen as 'educating the readers of this public forum'. Are you really saying that environmentalists should compromise their core beliefs because the oil industry has momentum? I suspect you don't believe the planet needs protecting, or you don't know the true impact of the oil industry.
While you can make burning fossil fuels less polluting, you can never make it 'clean'. More importantly, you can never eliminate the CO2 emissions, which are looking increasingly like they will cause us even more strife than all the more toxic pollutants released by burning coal and oil.
When the internal combustion engine was invented, nobody had any idea that there would soon be a billion or so of these engines dragging a tonne or two of steel around, day in, day out, all over the globe. There was no planning. There was no consideration of the consequences, no environmental impact statements, no projections nor even basic investigation of what might happen if that much fossil fuel gets burned over a such short timespan. Our love affair with oil is an experiment on a global scale!
Now some people are trying to get the message out that there are consequences, and they may be catastrophic. It could well be too late. Anyone who has ever owned a car is now completely addicted. They are just too convenient. Our cities are literally designed to require them. Our economies run on oil. If the oil stopped flowing tomorrow there would be worldwide chaos, starvation and despair. It could literally end civilisation. Farmers couldn't farm, which is irrelevant, because they couldn't get their produce to market, which is also irrelevant because the produce couldn't get from the market to the consumer. There would be famine on a massive scale, followed immediately by chaos.
Given our reliance on oil, it is not surprising that there is so much resistance to even considering and investigating the consequences of such widespread and massive use. Unfortunately our current dependence on fossil fuels does not mean that it is wise. Is it in our best interests to continue down this path?
If incontrovertible and unanimously accepted evidence came in tomorrow that global warming was real and was going to cause floods, droughts, storms, and sea levels to rise enough to make all our coastal cities look like Aceh, how long do you think it would take for us to stop our greenhouse emissions? We can't just shut down all the coal fired powerstations and go back donkeys for transport overnight. Even if we could, the CO2 is already in the atmosphere - it wont go away overnight. An orderly technological transition will take decades at best. If we need to, can we do it fast enough? Is 'fingers crossed' the smart approach?
Quicken has been treating their customers with disdain for some time now. I suspect this latest move is a desperate ploy to make up for the profit it is losing because of alienated customers voting with their feet. Ironic.
Is that feasible? Can they read eachothers meta-data and media storage?
Nice idea, but it is just too convenient. Suspiciously, and unrealistically convenient.
Some argue that we don't have a good enough understanding of global warming to justify changing. I can see where they are coming from. My argument is that the theory makes sense, and the consequences are so dire that it cannot be ignored.
We are rapidly burning fossil fuels that were of created over millions of years. The theory that this is having a detrimental impact on our climate that could lead to serious problems makes a lot of sense. It still needs to be proved or disproved, of course, but since this takes time, and since the consequences of inaction could be catastophic, hoping for the best, or even hoping we should do more of the same seems like a crazy thing to do, even if it would be fantastic if that was how it worked.
The starving of the world isn't because of failed crops. Its always because of political failure. Beside, global warming does not predict better crops, it predicts more extreme weather. More floods. More droughts. More huricanes.
> ...the scientists are too busy with
> political posturing and grubbing for grant-money to sit down and
> do actual science.
I don't think this is true. The media may make it seem like there is a raging debate because so many think "fair and balanced" means presenting both sides of any argument as equal regardless of the merits (and sources), but if you ignore the propaganda and guff from those with vested interests, the scientific community is increasingly of one voice.
> We're talking potentially about the future of the species - we need to get this right.
Exactly.
We all have a responsibility to respect everyone else's human rights. Governments and individuals. If you wont do it because its right, do it because ultimately you will be better off if you do so.
Where would the world be if every person and every institution had an attitude of 'me first, screw you'?
Ultimately, it is in your best interest to not create enemies, and to support and uplift those around you.
It is through cooperation and mutual support that humans have made moved out of caves and created all the achievements we now enjoy. Uplifting yourself by stepping on others doesn't work for long.
Do you really think the USA is attacked because segments of the world believe you are responsible for them, or are you just trolling? If its the former, I'd love to know where you get your information.
> I don't really care if my country acts ethically or not.
> I care that my country acts on my behalf and on the behalf
> of the rest of the citizens.
Its that kind of attitude that leads to wars. Do you really want your government stealing and maiming and murdering on your behalf (non-US citizens, of course), simply to gain a material advantage for US citizens?
Having great power also means having great responsibility. It would ultimately benefit the USA as much as anywhere else for the USA to endeavour to act ethically, both towards its own citizens and the citizens of the world. Leading by example is better than leading by force.
It is a tragedy that the fine example of US freedom is being sullied by actions such as Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and the Patriot Act. The US used to be a beacon of hope and freedom - an example that less free citizens world wide hoped to change the governments to resemble. It is increasingly acting like an imperialist bully to be feared and loathed.
> the rest of the world would continue whining because now
> we weren't doing exactly what everyone else wants
I'm not sure where you get your information about what the rest of the world wants from the USA, but I do think its time you checked your sources and perhaps broadened them a little.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found= true
Its not surprising that Hussein didn't go out of his way to notify his enemies that he was a toothless tiger.
What is surprising is that so many US citizens refuse to accept that their government does not always act ethically.
Generally, I'd agree with you. The problem is that industrialisation has not occurred gradually. It has happened extremely rapidly. And it just so happens that global warming is happening pretty much in step. It is definately cause for concern. It may be coincidence, but given the consequences of being wrong, I think it would be foolish to ignore the situation until it is completely clear exactly what is happening with a 99.999% confidence. Even if our confidence was 10%, that's a huge risk to take.
The odds are in your favour with Russian roulette, but I still wouldn't recommend it.
I can understand those who say the research is not unequivocal and want to know more. I can't undstand those who insist on not giving the problem serious thought and continuing to put great resources into coming to the most accurate conclusion possible. This is of vital importance to all of humanity alive now and yet to be born. If there is any truth to it, we must get to the bottom of it as soon as we possibly can.
Reducing our impact on the environment is very expensive and involves a lot of sacrifice. As the evidence comes in, it is looking increasingly like not doing so will be far more expensive.
It is literally insane to risk such dire consequences simply to continue a particular lifestyle.
To the parent complaining about the flakiness of some environmentalists, I agree it doesn't help get the message out. Don't forget that just because some flakes support environmentalism, it doesn't mean that environmentalism is flakey. Sometimes intuitive types pick up on things a lot quicker than is possible with the scientific method being hobbled by the politics of vested interest. Sometimes they are wrong. The science is increasingly saying global warming is a serious problem that needs to be tackled now, and hard. Despite that, there is a lot of propaganda and spin confusing the issue from those who stand to lose money and power from changes to the status quo. It is always thus.
Humans as individuals are small, but there are billions of us. Even so, that's not such a big deal. The main reason we can (and do) have such an impact on the world is because of our technology. Technology amplifies and extends our power, control and influence on the world. That's why we like it so much. The downside is that it also amplifies our impact.
Cities of millions of people are one thing, but give each of those people a car, and air-conditioner, heating, get them to consume a tonne of plastic per year, etc. Suddenly an individual has more impact on the environment in one year than a pre-industrial revolution city.
The idea that humans can not have much impact on nature, or that nature always balances the impact is demonstrably false. Our technology has enabled us to wipe out species. They aren't coming back. We have overfished seemingly inexhaustable supplies in the ocean to the point where there has to be moratoriums and quotas to allows stocks to replenish. What would happen if these weren't applied? We have changed local weather patters through deforestation, irrigation and agriculture. It creates drought, mudslides and floods. We may end up creating a nuclear winter. One 'super' GMO could potentially have a widespread impact.
Its niaive, unrealistic and dangerous to think that billions of humans with more access to technology than wisdom don't have to worry about our impact on the only planet we currently know of that supports life.
It is ironic that the lead article is about censorship in China. Chinese censorship is clumsy and ineffectual compared to the advanced spin and propaganda in the USA. This is why most US citizens think America is a positive force in the world, and are completely baffled when the rest of the world resents and distrusts them. Of course, nobody likes to be told they've been accepting lies. Most US citizens will be feeling very defensive and will vehemently deny that they could be influenced by propaganda. Everyone thinks its something that can only happen to someone else. That is one of the reasons it is so cuccessful.
Outside the USA, it is well known that the USA supplied Iraq with biological and chemical weapons. Its not even controversial. Its just one in a long list of disgusting behaviours the USA has done and is doing. It was based on the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic. Hussein was supposed to use these weapons to win the war against Iran.
Funnily enough, the reason the Bush government was so confident that they'd find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is because they know he had them because they sold them to him!
> The CDC wouldn't have been involved if the request wasn't > made under the guise of medical research.
I'm not sure if that is your personal theory, or if that comes from some actual propaganda. Either way, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Medical research on Anthrax? At the request of a known dictatorship, currently at war? Gimme a break!
> Finally, I'll just say that I don't buy this runaway greenhouse thing. What are your qualifications? How much effort have you put into researching this? I'm asking just to check if you have more credibility than the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?st ory=603752&host=3&dir=507
Nevertheless, global warming isn't going to wait for us to understand, measure and diagnose it.
Despite the soundbite, it is wrong to think that 'global warming' means the planet will uniformly change temperature by X degrees. It is an overall result of the greenhouse effect, but the weather in any given spot might in fact get colder. It is the average temperatures that will rise, leading to things like more ice melting the being frozen, leading to higher ocean levels.
> Finally, life experiences tell me that whenever people try to change > nature, the enviornment reacts to counter that change and equalize it.
Your life experience have not equiped you to understand the impact of our vast population and technological change will have on the planet. There are countless examples of man changing the environment permanently. There are thousands of species that are now extinct and will never return due to man's ability to change nature permanently. There are places that reach 120 degrees regularly simply because the surrounding areas have been deforested. There are rivers that used to be full of fish that have completely dried up due to man's activities. There is no doubt man has the ability to change nature permanently.
To argue that damaging the planet, changing the weather for all of us, is a 'right' is just ridiculous. Its like saying a murderer's right to kill ranks equally with the victims right to not be killed. There are no human rights that involve hurting other people.
> Prove Global Warming is a credible threat before you try to exert > influence over my lifestyle. Sound fair?
Are you really saying that you will continue damaging the planet because no one has taken the time to prove to you that you need to change your behaviour? As an adult member of the human species, do feel you have any responsibility to behave in a way that doesn't harm other people? Doesn't that extend to educating yourself about the consequences of your behaviour rather than making it someone else's responsibility. If everyone had that attitude, where would we be?
That said, there is more than enough reason to think that global warming is not just credible, but actually real. Maybe its not undeniable, absolute black and white proof, but then there isn't anyone that can provide that kind of proof for anything including whether the sun will rise tomorrow. You've got to look at the facts with an open mind, and be prepared for very uncomfortable news.
It is also an extremely complex task beyond out abilities to understand perfectly. We are doing well when we get the 4 day forecast right. This is the weather we are talking about. It changes day to day, year to year, and millenia to millenia. There is some pattern and reason to it, but that doesn't mean we can fully grasp it. Unfortunately, if it is real, global warming isn't going to hold off until we can model it perfectly.
Of course, I would like it to be a figment of some hippy with a 'mother nature will get her revenge for our wicked ways' barrow to push. I don't want to curtail my lifestyle if I don't have to. I don't even want to curtail it if I do have to! Still, people (and civilisations) who make decisions based on what they want to happen as opposed to what will happen are headed for a serious head on confrontation with reality, and reality wins every time.
If you look at it objectively, there are many reasons to think that global warming is a serious issue that demands immediate and serious attention. If you consider the vast money and power with vested interests in oil and energy status quo, and yet nearly every government around the world is taking the problem seriously (with the notable exception of the USA). If you consider the amount of CO2 each 1st world and developing world citizen pumps into the atmosphere each year, compared to the finite size of the atmosphere. If you consider that trees, forests, etc are the only way to 'clean' CO2 from the atmosphere, and if you also consider the tiny percentage of these areas that are left on the planet compared with only 100-200 years ago.
Seriously, if you are willing to look at the facts objectively, you can not deny the great likelihood that we are risking a great deal.