PDA

View Full Version : More Mr Branson Bullsh*t via Virgin Galactic


aviate1138
2nd Oct 2008, 10:00
"To my mind there is no greater or more immediate challenge than that posed by climate change," said Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Galactic. "It's therefore more than fitting that the very first science to be conducted on board our new vehicles may be specifically directed at increasing our understanding and knowledge of the atmosphere and from there, to better inform our decisions as to the most effective ways of dealing with climate change."

I would ask the question "Where is the Scientific Data, verified independently that proves climate change is caused by Mankind's production of CO2?"

Computer predictions are not 'proof' of anything. Idiots like Lewis Pugh paddling [nowhere but claiming success!] and getting nowhere [600 miles off!] near the North Pole because it is icebound and scientists fiddling figures Mann, Hansen etc for their hyped up computer predictions are fooling publicity seeking people like RB into making fools of themselves [Bio Fuel for Virgin????].

UK Manmade CO2 is 1.8% of total and manmade CO2 is but 3+% of Mother Nature's massive output!

Occam's Razor needs to be applied. :rolleyes:

CarltonBrowne the FO
2nd Oct 2008, 10:37
There are now more people alive than the cumulative total for the whole of human history. CO2 levels are now several hundred times higher than at any time since the formation of the glaciers.
This is not proof of a causal link, but it is a correlation.
Edited to add: as I have ascertained since posting this, the above figures are wildly inaccurate. Thanks to Lost Man Standing for pointing this out. The correct figure expression should read "several hundred parts per million higher"- roughly 60% higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years, or two and a half times the level at the bottom of the previous observed cycle.

BlueWolf
2nd Oct 2008, 10:38
If Branson is really that worried about it, he didn't ought to be firing those rockety thingies off into space, now should he. Or flying those naughty carbon-spewing airyplanes about.

Very few people get to be as rich as Branson by being stupid, so one presumes that his stance on GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE OF ANTHROPOGENIC CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS (don't anyone let them get away with trying to morph their cult into "Climate Change" just because the first proposition has been shot into the weeds by scientific and observational reality) is down to cynicism and commercial expedience.

The latest figures I have seen put CO2 as being responsible for approximately 3% of the Greenhouse Effect (water vapour being responsible for around 95%), and man being responsible for approximately 3% of CO2, with changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, both up and down, following behind changes in temperature by approximately 800 - 1000 years.

At the above rates, man could at best be said to be contributing around 0.0009% of Greenhouse Warming, which hasn't been happening for the last ten years anyway, since we've been getting cooler.

I have yet to see anything published by the Warming Cult to refute these realities.

chuks
2nd Oct 2008, 10:46
I think you will find that solid-rocket motors produce a lot more "greenhouse gases" than liquid-fuel ones. No prizes for guessing which sort Sir Richard's sky chariot uses!

During my brief London sojourn. doing my ATPL writtens at London Metropolitan University, I would sometimes escape the insalubrious confines of the East End to Maida Vale. There I could rub elbows with rich folk while enjoying a good feed.

One night I was introduced to this brash young idiot who told all at table about his new career flogging rides into Space for Guess Who. (I think the sum in question is 200 thousand pounds for a reservation on a Space craft yet to be built and certified.)

Since "money talks" and this twerp comes from a very wealthy family we had about ten or fifteen minutes of listening to boasting about how he was squeezing big checks out of the ignorant rich who had probably not thought very deeply about the true nature of low-gravity flight. (I think it is so that something like 75% of space novices suffer violent nausea, just for starters.)

Beardie's shill then showed us a DVD featuring Mike Melville tossing a handful of M&Ms (Smarties to you Brits) into the air to float charmingly about the cabin as he was arcing post-booster phase up there across Space. About this time I got the uneasy feeling that this was not a purely social occasion, that some of my rich dining partners might have been getting a not-so-subtle sales pitch there.

I finally cleared my throat to ask His Twerpness if he had bothered to tell his customers about these largely unexplored corners of the human performance envelope, that it might not be candies floating around the cabin but something a bit chunkier.

"No, not really..." Many of us have been there, disappointing the rich with mundane details about what is actually doable with our sky chariots and this was not what the dinner table company really wanted to hear.

I then subtly moved on to the theme of just how surprisingly difficult it can be to get FAA permission to fire even rich idiots into Space as fare-paying passengers on a regular basis, that Sir Richard and he might be selling folks something that may never come to pass except as a mechanism for self-publicity.

All of this went down pretty poorly so that we quickly moved on to tales of how he was in hot pursuit of the porky Princess Beatrice, daughter of Duchess Fergiana of Yorkiebar. In this I could only wish him the best of all luck, suggesting that if he really wanted to join in aviation perhaps he should start small with some flight lessons in a Cessna 152 before assaulting the Galaxy with rich idiots.

The last I saw of our hero, he was in the tabloids as the steady companion of Princess B. There was a brief mention of his role as Space Salesman Number One but nothing about doing a PPL so that I assume all of my advice had fallen on stony ground there. Well, if I am so smart, why am I not rich?

747 jock
2nd Oct 2008, 10:48
There are now more people alive than the cumulative total for the whole of human history.


Another of those false "true facts" that keep doing the rounds, and no one has ever come up with any statistics to prove it.


For most of the world's history, there were no censuses or births and deaths records, so the only way this myth can be tested is by using the best 'guesstimates' of demographers modelling historic human population growth. There is debate about the detail of these guesses; for example, when does one start counting? With such limitations in mind, a conservative but educated guess of how many people have ever lived places the number at around 110 billion, with estimates ranging from 45 to 125 billion people. Even the lower estimate of 45 billion people outnumbers the 6.6 billion people alive today by nearly 7 to 1,

FlyingOfficerKite
2nd Oct 2008, 13:00
747 Jock

I concur - how can anyone possibly know!

It takes scientists years to (re-)discover the bl***ing obvious, so there is little chance of an accurate estimate in this regard.

FOK :)

Rainboe
2nd Oct 2008, 13:35
There are now more people alive than the cumulative total for the whole of human history. CO2 levels are now several hundred times higher than at any time since the formation of the glaciers.
This is not proof of a causal link, but it is a correlation.

Yes another one of the very dodgy factlets supposed to support the nonsense science of global warming! One only has to sit down and think about it and work it out from your own family tree to realise it is complete and utter tosh! If you look at estimated population levels over the last 2000 years and allow for av lifespans of 25 years up to todays 75 years to gauge a rough 20:1 AT LEAST!

Global warming theories due to manmade CO2 never stand up to scrutiny. It is nonsensical science.
'Global warming', 'Peak Oil', 'Alternative Medicine', 'Spiritualism'.....why do people believe in this garbage?

13thDuke
2nd Oct 2008, 13:46
'Global warming', 'Peak Oil', 'Alternative Medicine', 'Spiritualism'.....why do people believe in this garbage?
Perhaps there is a basic human need for the less bright to have a religion of some sort? As the (Western) world becomes more secular, the popularity of pseudo-relegions seems to rise.

All you need is a catechism , a few dodgy prophets and then all the non-believers can be gentiles/infidels/fenian bastards.

Al Gore is not the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy.

aviate1138
2nd Oct 2008, 14:18
BTW the word Anthropogenic was used because to describe it as 'man made' was considered to be politically incorrect!

Some interesting links......

Hawaii Reporter: Hawaii Reporter (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ff0796e1-e571-4b15-9d0a-1d53dff2a6bc)

http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/9/21_Global_Warming’s_Boom_Bust.html

The Nonsense of Global Warming - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1006/025.html)

chuks
2nd Oct 2008, 15:32
So do you also not believe in "The Law of Supply and Demand"?

If not, why not? The price of oil has gone right up, which argues there is a lot less of the stuff readily available.

Me, I am a bit player in the oil biz, being a supplier of aviation services thereto, when I have seen us grubbing around for the stuff in some rather awkward corners of the planet, such as 100 miles out to sea. That takes very expensive technology so that at a guess, the stuff is becoming hard to find.

Just a second... Yes, a look out the window confirms that as these words hit the screen I am out in the Sahara Desert in an oil camp. They give me the stuff for free but everything I eat and drink here has to be carted in from many hundreds of miles away. God knows what that costs, but as long as we are paying more than $100 per barrel, well...

"Global Warming" I am not 100% sure about myself, but "Peak Oil", yes, I think that is a fact.

frostbite
2nd Oct 2008, 15:36
"The price of oil has gone right up, which argues there is a lot less of the stuff readily available."


Not necessarily. Try 'Demand has increased while output has remained steady'.

CarltonBrowne the FO
2nd Oct 2008, 15:57
I am (I hope) less than halfway through my career, but in my lifetime the population of the planet has more than doubled.
Global warming as a hypothesis qualifies as science- you put forward a theory which matches the observed data, and allow others to challenge the results. Even if the hypothesis is wrong, the scientific method is correct.
Global warming itself could be a real event, or it could be an incorrect hypothesis. We could take corrective action, or we could do nothing. This in turn gives us 4 possible outcomes.
1. Global Warming false, we do nothing: no harm, no foul.
2. Global Warming false, we take corrective action: we find ourselves possessing all kinds of new energy collection methods, pollution handling sciences, and we are all still here.
3. Global Warming true, we do nothing: the planet will survive, but humans will have to cope with the world becoming less and less hospitable to us- at the very least, the essentials of life will become harder work, and at the other end of the scale we are all doomed.
4. Global Warming true, we take corrective action: through application of human ingenuity, we save ourselves and all live happily ever after (or something).
Purely on a random basis, there is only a one in 4 chance that we are all doomed. However, by doing nothing, we increase our probability of doom to 50%. By taking corrective action, we might save the world, or we might just end up with interesting new stuff- either way, where is the harm?

mr fish
2nd Oct 2008, 17:10
my favorite climate change line, " if global warming means THAT much to you, get rid of your car, no?, didn't think it did!!!!

BlooMoo
2nd Oct 2008, 20:01
1. Global Warming false, we do nothing: no harm, no foul.
2. Global Warming false, we take corrective action: we find ourselves possessing all kinds of new energy collection methods, pollution handling sciences, and we are all still here.
3. Global Warming true, we do nothing: the planet will survive, but humans will have to cope with the world becoming less and less hospitable to us- at the vefry least, the essentials of life will become harder work, and at the other end of the scale we are all doomed.
4. Global Warming true, we take corrective action: through application of human ingenuity, we save ourselves and all live happily ever after (or something).

High school musical argument that I first saw many moons ago on following a link from a poster on another JetBlast global warming thread.

Just for starters, the assumptions are false

1) That man-made global warming is a real phenomenon
2) The (hypothetical) phenomenon is a binary measure i.e. the strength of the phenomenon is irrelevant - only it's existence (sound familiar?)
3) The (hypothetical) phenomenon (of hypothetical strength) results in predictable consequences
4) The (hypothetical) consequences (of the hypothetical scale of the hypothetical phenomenon) are all negative

There's an awful lot of mutton dressed as lamb accumulating there.

Classic appeal to fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear)

Apologies for the thread drift but we've all seen a very real example of this argument in action over the last week with regard the US economy. Worked in the Senate. See it used live in the House of Reps tomorrow.

CarltonBrowne the FO
5th Oct 2008, 12:03
Bloomoo, you are correct in that I simplified my argument.
I reduced the case "if global warming is a real, man-made phenomenom" to "if global warming is real." I make no apology for this as I consider those discussing the subject in this forum to be as capable as I am of understanding the argument.
The Earth's climate is changing; it has changed in measurable ways in the last century. This may be part of a natural cycle, or it may be caused by human intervention. It even be that human actions are adding to the effect of a natural cycle.
If we can remove all the potential inputs we are adding to that natural cycle, we can actually assess what that natural cycle IS. In addition, all the alternative energy technologies can provide us with increased competition to the energy sources currently available, which should help to keep costs down as demand for energy rises. At the very least, cities where clean quiet electric cars make up the bulk of the traffic should suffer less from smog than those where petrol engines do all the work (although crossing the road will require a careful look both ways).
I believe strongly that human ingenuity can create solutions to the possible ways in which climate change could harm us. Should these solutions be proven to be unnecessary, I will join in the celebration.
Edited to add: incidentally, my inspiration for the binary argument actually came from a study into whether the commanders of nuclear missile silos would actually bother to fire their missiles if they believed enemy missiles had already been launched. I do not have the book to hand to cite the reference, but I believe the origin of the study was the US Air Force.
You could call it an appeal to fear, or you can call it a simple cost:benefit analysis.

Lost man standing
5th Oct 2008, 21:11
CarltonBrowne the FO

No offence intended, as you are clearly posting your interpretation of the information given out by ill-informed politicians and the media, however much of what you have posted is utter rot.CO2 levels are now several hundred times higher than at any time since the formation of the glaciersThat is an exageration by many tens of thousands of percent. The increase is of the order of 1/3rd. That is of course almost irrelevant, as CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, and the whole of humkan activity has increased the total greenhouse effect by a fraction of 1%.Global warming as a hypothesis qualifies as science- you put forward a theory which matches the observed data, and allow others to challenge the results.That would not qualify as a theory, it would be a hypothesis. However that is also irrelevant, as this is not how the hypothesis of global warming by anthropogenic influence on the greenhouse effect came about. It was first postulated as a mechanism by which there would not be a new glacial period. Then data were collected, and interpreted against an existing idea. That is not usually how science is carried out. It is not a sensible way of carrying out scientific investigation of imprecise data like world climate information.2. Global Warming false, we take corrective action: we find ourselves possessing all kinds of new energy collection methods, pollution handling sciences, and we are all still here.Indeed, but you miss out the bit about the unnecessary deaths of millions in poor countries and the wasting of trillions of US$ worth of resources.3. Global Warming true, we do nothing: the planet will survive, but humans will have to cope with the world becoming less and less hospitable to us- at the very least, the essentials of life will become harder work, and at the other end of the scale we are all doomed.Why is it that the media always talk up the negatives? They mention the extra deaths expected in summer, but never mentioned that these would be far fewer than the reduced winter deaths. Many things would actually be better. In history the coldest times have been the most difficult for human civilisation, not the warm times, times warmer than today despite the lies given by the IPCC's report, written by politicians and special-interest groiups.4. Global Warming true, we take corrective action: through application of human ingenuity, we save ourselves and all live happily ever after (or something).Balls. Sorry, but we cannot predictably affect the climate. That is what you are suggesting we should try to do. We have only the vaguest of ideas how different factors affect climate, how can we control it?

If "global warming" is true then it is primarily caused by factors we cannot influence. We don't save ourselves, we just waste the resources that could have been used to cope with the climate change.

CarltonBrowne the FO
5th Oct 2008, 22:24
Lost man standing, you make a number of assumptions. First of all you assume a lack of scientific knowledge on my part. Perhaps I use the words "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangably- the correct word is probably "model." Then you assume my data comes from the media- the CO2 level I refer to comes from analysis of ice cores from the British Antarctic Survey, and not via any media outlet. Furthermore, as several posters have said, CO2 is only one greenhouse gas. This is true: another is H2O. H2O is also created by the burning of hydrocarbons! Yes, I am aware this is not the major source of atmospheric H2O!
Human action has been observed to have an impact on climate, not always in the predicted direction. In the days after 11th September 2001, it was expected the world would cool slightly as air movements, and the associated high level cloud formation trapping heat, were circumscribed. In fact, the world became slightly warmer- this is thought to be due to a reduction in reflection of solar radiation by the cirrus clouds formed by high level vapour trails. Please note that I am aware that not all cirrus clouds are formed from vapour trails.
I find it interesting that you consider scientific research into alternative energy sources and pollution control a waste of resources. Demand for energy will increase- not only with increasing population, but also with increased demand for the trappings of prosperity in developing nations.
An example of a technology which can control climate is the use of solar powered ships to generate spray, thus increasing the planet's albedo and therefore reducing the amount of radiation absorbed by the ocean. This method has the benefit that should any negative effect be observed, ths ships can be stopped at any time.
Given a suitable laboratory to carry out experiments, the ideal course of action would be to compare the results of doing nothing with the results of the various suggested solutions. Unfortunately, we live in the laboratory; the results of getting the answer wrong could be unfortunate.

Coffin Corner
6th Oct 2008, 00:59
CarltonBrowne has been spending FAR too much time on youtube :rolleyes:

YouTube - Climate Change - Should We Act? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eUNhXYPT8c)

Buster Hyman
6th Oct 2008, 02:25
My Mum used to have a theory about the weather. Every time a rocket went up into space & "broke through" the atmosphere...the weather would go "funny" a few days later. Lots of rockets going up nowadays I see....:ooh:

;)

ZEEBEE
6th Oct 2008, 02:51
CarltonBrowne has been spending FAR too much time on youtube

Maybe he has. The argument contained in the video has some appeal to those who are happy with "Black and White" positions.

Unfortunately, it says nothing about whether the probabilities are very likely and more importantly, whether we can DO anything about it.

It's the old thing about risk vs reward that gets trotted out on every "risk analysis" that's ever been done.

For instance, if we used the analysis presented, we would be going several miles underground because on the level of probabilities, we have a MUCH greater risk of being clobbered by a decent sized asteroid that will make worst predictions of "climate change" look like a Sunday picnic.

But coming back to the original thread, I find it offensive that Branson could be accused of being hypocritical when all he's trying to do is "save" the planet. :}

Lost man standing
6th Oct 2008, 11:20
CarltonBrowne the FO

I might be mistaken in my assumption, but it is immaterial to the argument. You are still out by a factor of the order 1000! CO2 levels have risen from around 0.03% to almost 0.04%. Levels have risen by 0.3 times, not hundreds of times!

I didn't say anywhere that money put into alternative energy or pollution control was a waste of resources. Much of it is of course, as has been proven time and again, but I did not specify which resources I thought would be wasted. Surely you are aware that those factors, which have a potential to aid humankind, are just a small fraction of the resources that would be wasted if we were to take the global action that the communist/environmentalist pact recommends.

I also never denied that human activity has had an impact on the weather. However the level and nature is, as you point out, beyond our capabilities of prediction. Therefore "acting to prevent global warming" is an absurd concept.

Did you notice that in the example you gave you have no idea if there was any effect at all? Hypotheses made after the data are collected are meaningless unless they make testable predictions. If those suggestions were made by scientists then you have come across a classic case of really, really bad science.

CarltonBrowne the FO
9th Oct 2008, 11:54
Lost, as you may have gathered I do not know whether our actions have had a severe effect on climate. I have my suspicions, but that is not the same as proof. I have not had the time to re-check my figures on CO2 levels, but I will do when I have the access. Tell me your sources and I might even end up agreeing with your figure!
If by the example I quoted, you mean the miniscule observed change in temperature after 11/9/2001, you are mistaken about my having no idea. I have an idea but again no proof.
Data collected from within ice cores shows that the planet has a natural cycle of temperature variance. It may be that our actions are completely irrelevant to that cycle, or it may be that the changes we have introduced are enough to increase the effects of that cycle- either to increase the amplitude of the variance, or to push the cycle into a new equilibrium.
In the past it was thought impossible to reduce the smog around major cities-however, with the combination of improved technology, some pressure from environmental campaigners and some legislation the atmosphere around many western cities has improved hugely since the 1970s. Compare that with cities in some developing countries, where older less efficient technology is in use, and the air is deeply unpleasant to breathe.
The newer technology is not only cleaner (I am thinking particularly about cars), it is more efficient, more reliable, and safer.
You are possibly correct in that "acting to prevent global warming" is an absurd concept. Cleaning up our act, however, is not only quite feasible, but has a proven record of success.

Dr Jekyll
9th Oct 2008, 20:55
You are possibly correct in that "acting to prevent global warming" is an absurd concept. Cleaning up our act, however, is not only quite feasible, but has a proven record of success.

It may well be possible to drastically reduce CO2 emissions, but this would leave less money for reducing genuine pollution, that which can be shown to have health effects. Even if you assume that current temperature is so perfect that any deviation would constitute a cost, you have to balance that cost against the cost of preventing that deviation.

Lost man standing
10th Oct 2008, 05:02
Errrrrmmm ... my source is my education. It is something I know a little about, and I usually don't argue beyond what I know.

I did mean that, and OK in literal terms you have an idea, but I was using the coloquilism, and you really have no reason to say there was any affect at all, and if there was what that effect was. Your idea is no better than fantasy, it is an assumption that has been made up completely because you don't know what the weather would have been like otherwise. To cap it all it has nothing to do with climate. The affect that you suggest with no evidence whatever was too short-lived to affect the climate, you are talking about changing the weather.

Smog is a problem several orders of magnitude removed from making serious reductions in rates of production of carbon dioxide. You might not have believed it was possible to eliminate, it was never really that much effort.

Power cannot come from nowhere. There is no magic new source as yet (fusion power is the only one on the horizon, but that has been 40 years away for the last 40 years). Scientific methods can make fuels cleaner by relatively minor changes to the fuels or the processes they are used in; they can't make energy out of nothing.

I never argued against efficiency and responsible environmental management. However if you think that is anything like enough for the communist-environuts, or if you even think that is their primary aim then I suspect you are a tad naive.

CarltonBrowne the FO
10th Oct 2008, 14:19
Lost man standing, the source I asked for was a specific source of atmospheric CO2 levels which I could access, and if necessary then correct my initial statement. Your education is a closed book to me.
By carrying out my own brief search I find our answers for CO2 level change are both wildly inaccurate, mine a gross overestimate and yours just as misleading, while numerically smaller. According to this UK Government Met Office page concerning the Vostok Ice Core,
Met Office: Climate change myths (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/figures.html#atmos)
current CO2 levels are almost 400 parts per million. You are correct in that this is not quite double the level for pre-industrial Earth; however this figure appears over 2.5 times the value for the trough of the natural cycle. Rather more of a concern is the fact that our levels are increasing far beyond the levels of that natural cycle, at the point where historical trends would suggest a reduction would happen.
Something has changed in the last 10,000 years or so to lead to an increase in CO2 levels, outside the limits observed in the previous 400,000 years or so. That 10,000 year period coincides with the change in human society from hunter-gatherer, in small numbers, through agrarian and into industrial society, in our present massive numbers. (Roughly 6.7 billion as of today, according to World POPClock Projection (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html) )
As I said, this coincidence of numbers does not prove a link, only a correlation.
When I mentioned the increased difficulty in everyday life which COULD happen as the lesser end of the scale of consequences of climate change, I was not referring to large scale death during summer. What I meant was the problem of growing the established food crops with relatively minor changes in weather; the effect on health through fewer days of sunshine in higher latitudes during summer, and other factors not life-threatening in themselves, just inconvenient, expensive and unpleasant.
As for the communist environuts, I am fully aware that reasonable measures will never be enough for them. Nothing we can do would be enough to satisfy them- that does not mean we ignore the problem. The sky will not fall tomorrow- but it might rain!

Lost man standing
11th Oct 2008, 06:10
CarltonBrowne the FOthe source I asked for was a specific source of atmospheric CO2 levels which I could accessYou do realise that by writing here you must have access to the internet, the largest database in the world? It is not just porn, navel gazing and misinformation you know.

I am happy to find a source for you, and for mates rates of £35 per hour. Otherwise you are welcome to do your own research, as I have no idea off the top of my head, it being common knowledge to scientists in the sort of areas I have studied and something I have known for years from various sources. Try Wikipedia, in uncontroversial facts it is usually about right.this figure appears over 2.5 times the value for the trough of the natural cycleRather seems that it varies naturally far more than by human intervention then, doesn't it?Rather more of a concern is the fact that our levels are increasing far beyond the levels of that natural cycle.I am not convinced that is the case, nor can I see why you assume that is of any special concern. I seem to recall that millions of years past levels were far higher than today. 400,000 years is a trivial time in the Earth's history, so why restrict your view to then? I presume because outside that the evidence changes.

Why do we need to grow established food crops, and in any case why can't we, with a little ingenuity? People coped when the little ice age ended, in the medieval warm period and at other times of increasing temperature. We have more capacity now to alter how we grow food than we did then, and the added CO2 helps plants to grow more quickly and to larger size. Who knows, we might even be able to have wine growing in Yorkshire like the Romans did, and agriculture in parts of Greenland that the Danes cultivated hundreds of years ago and are now permanently frozen. As I pointed that out before it has always been in periods of cooling climate that mankind has had such problems, not when it warms.

CarltonBrowne the FO
11th Oct 2008, 21:19
Lost Man Standing, as you can see I (once I had the time) DID my own research- earning my living took priority. Growing new crops, planting crops in new locations, etc- all possible, just inconvenient. For inconvenient, read also expensive. The greater proportion of our time we have to spend on the necessities, the less we have available for messing around and having fun. My belief is that by enduring some inconvenience and expense now, we can spare ourselves a much larger expense later.
I find your faith in Wikipedia a little naive- giving how easily it can be manipulated, it is only really reliable for facts you already know.
Edited to add: I would never take professional advice from anyone who came as cheap as £35 an hour.

ChristiaanJ
11th Oct 2008, 21:37
BlueWolf,
Thanks. Same here....

CJ

Lost man standing
11th Oct 2008, 21:50
Errrrmmmm, good because I didn't offer to give advice. I would never offer advice for that rate, the stress I go through in that side of my professional life in which I could offer valuable advice is not worthwhile for that little reward. I was offering to do your research for you, a relatively straightforward task.

New crops or more often new strains, new locations, not only necessary throughout history as climate has changed long before the industrial revolution but a relatively normal process over the last century as the market has changed too. Far less negative effect on human life than the thousands of trillions of dollars worth of lost productivity if we make the changes required to significantly reduce carbon dioxide production, and far more likely to actually be relevant. We still have no idea how to change climate in a predictable way, and until we do any action is irrelevant!