séimí mac liam

There is some indication that perhaps the warming trend reversed between
10 and 20 years ago and the climatological effects we are seeing are some
kind of an over-run effect. No telling when the temperature flywheel
will wind down, could be tomorrow, could be 10 years. Has anyone seen
up-to-date numbers on ice sheet thickness?

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

bookburn

My corollary to the Global Warming theory is that increased temp
is due to spread of billions of biotic heating units covering the
earth's surface. Darwin's Law about mechanisms affecting
survival of the species probably accounts for its reformation.
But if Malthus et al. are right, overpopulation also brings about
war and disease.

In the States, we call it "heading for the hills" when flight for
survival is upon us; maybe in Scotland it's "heading for the
Highlands"? Interesting to think that going back to square one
might mean re-experiencing tribal life, pooing the heather,
haggis, and wearing a kilt.

bookburn

adam whyte-settlar

It's all so dreadfully confusing.
On the one hand one has perfectly plausible wooly-hatted types who
selflessly spend their summers in -40 temperatures in Antarctica and
reliably inform us that chunks of ice the size of Wales are breaking off the
continent every second Thursday.
On the other hand one has the temperature recording stations that show that
Antarctic is actually getting *colder* in the centre.

Who knows?
I just go by my instincts which tell me that pumping hundreds of millions of
tons of polluting gases into our atmosphere just can't be a 'good thing'.
I think one aspect that should be emphasised is that the atmosphere is
incredibly thin over the surface of our beautiful little blue planet.
To look up one might imagine that there are boundless expanses available to
absorb our millions of tons of C02 et al - But! Not so!
Think of our atmosphere as a single layer of clingfilm stretched over a
football (soccer ball) and one gets the idea of how delicate and thin it
really is.
Even if our pollution is *not* leading to climate change I still feel that
it denotes a certain lack of respect and a dearth of morality that we should
continue to recklessly pollute such a miraculous little blue-green blob in
such a manner.
My dear old Mum (God rest her) taught me not to throw even a single sweet
wrapper down in the street and I think she would apply the same basic rule
to the atmosphere. Not one unnecessary cow fart should waft heavenwards
unless absolutely necessary.
A W-S

russj41

That's true of some "greenies", but not all greenies are the same, you see.
Others advocate regression to more basic lifestyles involving fewer choices,
less mobility, and the imposition of constraints on industry and capital.
This to be achieved and enforced by the heavy hand of centralized government
that owns and controls the distribution of resources and wealth. These
would be termed the left-wing greenies.


Not all "arch-conservatives" are the same, either. There is a large class
of conservatives who believe that the only way to a better environment is
through individual freedoms, innovation through entrepreneurship, the power
of market driven incentives, and the formation of investment capital to be
applied toward the production and distribution of products and technologies
that will lead to a better environment. These could be termed right-wing
greenies. I put myself in this group.

It appears you've bought into the demonization of capital. "Exploitation"
is a favorite loaded word used by the left to promote the idea that
capitalism is inherently wasteful and evil. In fact, it is just the
opposite. Wastefulness is inimical to profit, the driving force of
capitalism.

How can it be evil to convert natural resources into products that make life
on earth better? Why do we assume that we are at the end of the line in
terms of our ability to find new and more efficient ways to use those
resources? It's happening all the time. The world isn't getting worse,
it's getting better every day, and future generations are going to have it
even better than we do, just as we have it better than the generations that
went before us. If we can keep the left at bay, that is. If you think
about it, virtually all progress toward a better world has come from the
private sector when people have been free to innovate and to be rewarded for
it in terms of bettering their individual circumstances. That is the very
essence of capitalism.


MacHamish Mór

adam whyte-settlar

You're a bit disapointing these days Mac - not much I can disagree with any
real passion.

However, I would like to point out that 'resources' doesn't just refer to
stuff like oil - I have always been aware that the 'world has only 30 years
of known oil reserves left' mantra was a red herring. Of course there are
only 30 years of known reserves left - thats the time scale the oil
exploration companies work in.
But - when was the last time you tried to purchase some top grade *nglish
Oak heartwood for example - its nearly all been used up. Oysters - as we
mentioned a few weeks ago - used to be so commonplace they were a staple for
the poor. The North Sea used to teem with Cod - as did the waters off the
coast of New Foundland - not much of a fishing industry left over there now.
There are hundreds of other examples of over-exploitation of resources.
I would like to know what your definition of 'better' is too - the world
(that place outside the US) is certainly not getting better for hundreds of
millions of people. Australia is a good example - the topsoil has been
'exploited' until it has became dust and is blowing away. In fact half of
the top-soil that existed prior to the indroduction of the 'better' chemical
fertilisers is now in the sea.
And so on and so on.
It's just too simplistic to say that life is getting better and it is
impossible to say what life will be like for future generations - we simply
have no idea.
A W-S