Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin?

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-31, 09:44:28

Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin?

Everything I've ever heard says the winds go the other way. From Japanese balloon bombs to weather. It seems more likely our pollutants goto Canada. This (2 year old) article suggests China's pollution is actually coming to the US. Caused in part by manufacturing products for the US.

As happens so often with this subject... Both sides are moving towards opinion based "facts".

But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's?

At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's,

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-31, 14:50:36

But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's?

I was young so that would most probably be a list of things I was taught that turned out to be wrong scientifically.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-31, 14:50:36

At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's,

On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.

On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.

My favorite encyclopedia is my 6th edition Meyers Konversations-Lexikon. Note that you don't need a physical copy to access the work these days, for example see here.* I make good use of Archive.org, DBNL.org and Project Gutenberg on my ereader — in fact it's the primary reason I bought it.

* That being said, electronically it's a poor experience even finding the relevant parts, let alone actually looking something up.

Very clever. You can repeat the same every thirty years to see how current scientific knowledge ages. This teaches you to never have an opinion one way or another.

politically polarising.

I love the smell of old books too. Has a way of pulling me in.

DBNL.org will require some translation patients.

Sure. But mostly you just don't read an encyclopedia like a novel.

Dad had a vast collection of novels and such. He used to suggest some for me but I never really got into them. Perhaps one day I will. They aren't going anywhere.

Sagesse it's all about knowing the right time.

Climate change has been a reality for as long as this planet has had an atmosphere and will change with or without us. Do we effect it? Of course. So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.

I assume you meant "Do we affect it?" since effect would imply cause and control, which would say too much!

Batteries in the last, hell, 3 years has have improved dramatically.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-31, 20:32:06

politically polarising.

Not that I want to dance around nomenclature with you, but: "Polarizing" tends to mean drastic opposition across a table of opinion. You completely lose me with the political part.

So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.

Change is as much about circumstances as understanding. You can't always force it and there's no reason to destabilize economies yet.

How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-09-02, 23:54:39

How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?

Evident but just tell me something for my curiosity, do you think that it's possible stable economies? I mean, stable and sustainable, economies? Just yes or no, no need for too much explanations,  I'll know what you mean.

Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.

Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.

Let's go back to AGW, much more important, it destroys any possibility of correcting past errors. Economy is just a by product.

I agree but not entirely. There's no way of financing a "social economy" based only at goods, products and means of production. It doesn't produces the enough cash required to.

I didn't say "based only at goods etc." I said shift the focus of values.

On one side, there's a thing, let's say, food, that has value. On the other side, there's the measure of value, expressed in currency. In capitalism, financial markets mistake the measure of value for the value itself, whereas in reality it's the thing that has the actual value.

I'm not saying that economic units of measurement, such as currency, are worthless. I'm only saying that they are units of measurement, not commodities of actual value. A ton of rye is a whole different thing than the words "ton of rye" written on paper, but financial markets only deal in words on paper. Even worse, they deal in digits in computers...

Please show me the papers that purport to explain extreme weather, as a result of the greenhouse effect…

(Failing that, show me the papers that document increased extreme weather. I'd like to see that, just because I know better…)

Another theoretical nicety I'd like to hear of: What is the connection between the greenhouse effect and extreme weather… (Surely, there's a great deal of "science" to support that?)
———————————————————————————————————————————
You should take a poll, and show that most "people" agree with you! That, after all, is what you believe "science" to be…

... extreme weather...
(... extreme weather…)
... extreme weather…

I don't think the matter is about extremes. It's about shifting averages.
(BTW: you lot should have lessons about the proper usage of "its" and "it's".  )

Quote from: Barulheira on 2015-09-09, 11:44:46

I don't think the matter is about extremes. It's about shifting averages.
(BTW: you lot should have lessons about the proper usage of "its" and "it's".  )

To be fair, the new averages are somewhat "extreme". That's kind of the problem.

Right now we're having a bit of warmth, with its accompanying longer growing seasons and relative prosperity.