Jinx999 Wrote:I know perfectly well that the side you support is perfectly rational with a few unforunate fringe groups hanging on while the other side is a bunch of loonys with a few unfortunate dupes, but bear with me here.
Of course, I'm never wrong and always the good guy just like the protagonist in movies and those who oppose me are evil looneys who want to destroy the world, eat babies, and they cut me off in traffic.
It's a common hardware fault, and I am still waiting on a patch, but for now the only option seems to work around it in software. I'm trying to debug it and would appreciate some help. So where in the above numbered reasoning did it jump of the rails?
Jinx999 Wrote:Even if we could leave aside the real problem (the political screaming match), doing experiments when you've only got one test tube and you're inside it is a mite risky.
We are doing the experiments regardless (adding various gases to the atmosphere), and we really couldn't stop without killing billions of people. This is where risk management comes in.
So where in my chain of reasoning did it fail? I know I'm most likely wrong somewhere, I just don't believe that knowledge.
Quote:This. I remember hearing a radio show talking about the potential effects of geoengineering disasters... the sort of stuff that would make you wish you hadn't even tried.
(The big concern seems to be that you won't get any sort of global effort, you'll get three or four different countries doing their own thing towards who-knows-what end result, who may or may not know what they're doing, leading to a combined result of everything getting totally bollixed.)
I expect it will work about as well as large scale government IT projects, ie an absolute disaster. But what is your alternative? Keep in mind that our current industry is geoengineering as a side effect, which means it's not planned or directed.
Quote:Yeah, I completly believe that mankind is causing a least some level of climate change, but some of the proposed 'fixes' make me want to scream "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? YOU'LL KILL US ALL!"
What's your alternative? Most geoengineering projects have a lesser chance to cause disasters than the current predicted change.
Quote:Catty, you mentioned the ole lower reliance on Oil from the Middle East, but (assuming you mean the USA's reliance) there's really no such thing. Most US oil comes from Canada and Mexico.
Oil is a very mobile commodity and sold on the world market, even if country A was not exporting to country B at all, if B increased their demand A would raise it's prices because the world market price would be higher. From wikipedia the Arab League produces about 30% of the worlds oil, Russia 12% and the US 11%. It doesn't matter from where you buy your oil, since it's a global market and 50% of the supply is supplied by those three.
If the arab league doubles it's prices it would drive more business to the others who would raise there prices to the point where they would maximize their on profits, that is basic economic theory.
Quote:Global Response is definitly the sticking point, especially with the world economy already teetering. And places like China are never going to do anything that would endanger their competitive edge.
No argument there. I don't see any way to get a global response on many of these, though the poorer countries will be disproportionately affected by climate change as they depend more on agriculture, and they don't have as many resources to spare on adaptation. This is essentially an global externality, and without a global authority to regulate it the market will not settle at the optimum point.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."