Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2941 - 2954 of 2954 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Again, everybody please watch MARS on Netflix. That show makes human nature very clear and how big business is looking after themselves, despite the harm they are doing with "our" only home. Their directors have pushed their way to the top following corporate success models, that don't take into account what-so-ever anything but the success of their company. This is why governments are required, to keep them accountable where possible.

Best
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,347 Posts
Exactly! Capitalism without rules is just as dangerous as Capitalism with too many rules. Without any umpires you get 1% or less of the people controlling 90% of the wealth. With to many umpires you end up stifling innovation, competition, and creativity. Both are unacceptable for sustained prosperity for all who want it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Yes it is a balancing act, that IMO is way too far one way at the moment.

The other worrying thing that is being caused by huge corporations trying to maintain their profit margins, is their deliberate miss-information campaign to discredit climate scientists. While this in itself is a very sad example of self interest, it is causing some Joe Averages to wonder if science is really real, hence the flat earth movement. We are on the way to a break down in society, just because billionaires are using their money to control their profits above their own research (Exxon Mobil for example: https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken, which has been discussed here before).

Best
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
The weird thing is "huge corporations" cannot force anyone to buy their stuff. Governments are the only ones who force you to give them your money. Well, also extortion specialists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
What's more concerning than big corporate driving climate change is the nonsense hoax that a particular political party uses in their attempt to create mass hysteria to garner more votes... In the 70's we were going into an ice age... now we are going to burn in hell... well someone had to fill in for Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey... the tree huggers are doing a fine job!

1604146
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,347 Posts
The Indus, Ganges, and to some extent the Yangtze rivers all drain from the Himalayan Mountains. The glaciers that are the life blood of these rivers and the billions of people that depend on them are receding. When those rivers dry up what will those billions of people do? Personally I don't want to know and neither should anyone else. If anyone thinks they won't be affected by that you need to pull your head out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
I will actually try to avoid making any pronouncements on the actual issue. But I wonder if perhaps there is a correlation between AR ownership and Climate scepticism. Both choices would seem to go against the majority view (which is an attraction in itself for many) such that those who identify as independent minded might feel attracted. I think even the firmest sceptic would accept that theirs is a minority view.

It also may be the case that AR ownership (or at least those most likely to post here) also connotes a sex (mainly male) and age (let's be honest, mostly over 35) both correlated to climate scepticism.

For those believers, don't worry - correlation is not causation and so buying an Alfa Romeo will not by itself change you to a climate change sceptic. It's just that the demographic populating this board may be a bit more likely to be sceptic than the general population.

It opens up a wider question about how we make decisions on socio-political matters. There's plenty of published data on climate change (and other stuff). And while there are a small and commendable minority who approach the issue with a scrupulously open mind and carefully analyse the cases for and against before taking a view, that's not how the vast majority of the population work.

Oh no - we make up our minds first (usually by seeing stuff we kind of agree with but don't really know why) and then afterwards look for more supporting data wherever we can find it. Happily the internet (or your favorite media outlet with its editorial stance) is always able to provide 'credible' sources for everything from Climate change fanaticism to scepticism to a flat earth. Decisions like these are hugely influenced by the way our mind works with regard to loss aversion, social group identification and self image on socio political matters. It's scary how irrational our rational choices can be.

That's how we choose first - the facts follow later and if we need to we can pick and choose those. There are some excellent case histories and research on decision making where decisions are made, then later shown to be wrong, yet deciders simply refuse to believe facts ( I know both sides of the argument will agree with this :) )

And in some ways there's little point in having a debate - it's fairly clear that once a mind is set it will take an awful lot to change it. Facts are flexible these days (they probably always were). It kind of makes you worry about how societies will make the right decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
Well.....
If they just started measuring temps in 1880, you may have something there.
But wouldn't it be better to show more of the graph? You know, more data to base a conclusion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
How do they measure global temps? Good question. Also the DOD is spending millions to combat sea level rise at the Norfolk navel yard. Any one been to Glacier National Park lately? They will have to change the name in a couple of years. Coastlines especially in Alaska are receding faster than the locals can move their houses back. No more igloos due to lack of snow.
This year, there’s particular interest as it looks likely 2014 will be the hottest year on record.
First out the blocks with the official data was the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). Earlier this month, it confirmed 2014 had taken the top spot with global temperatures 0.27 degrees Celsius above the long-term average. Today, it’s the turn of NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the UK Met Office following suit next week.
Why so many records? While global temperature is a simple enough idea, measuring it is harder than you might think. We take a look at how scientists measure global temperature.
The basics
To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.
The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.
A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.
Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.
Four major datasets
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset.
Here’s how global temperatures in the four datasets compare over the past 130 years. You can see they all show a warming trend, but there are some year-to-year differences too.


View attachment 1604143
This is only a fraction of the actual graph....
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,944 Posts
It also may be the case that AR ownership (or at least those most likely to post here) also connotes .... an age (let's be honest, mostly over 35) both correlated to climate scepticism. ... And in some ways there's little point in having a debate - it's fairly clear that once a mind is set it will take an awful lot to change it.
Thanks to Bertiebloke for his rational contribution to this thread.

His comments about age and rigidity of mindset reminds me of a quote attributed to Max Plank:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

This is often abbreviated as: science advances one funeral at a time
 

·
Out of the office!
Joined
·
11,200 Posts
Thanks to Bertiebloke for his rational contribution to this thread.

His comments about age and rigidity of mindset reminds me of a quote attributed to Max Plank:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

This is often abbreviated as: science advances one funeral at a time
1604216
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Bertiebloke and Alfajay, Thank you, great posts.

Old white men do seem to be the cork in the bottle of open minded thinking. Women have the saying "Middle age is when your broad mind and narrow waist begin to change places." - E. Joseph Cossman

Pete, also an old white man
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
What's more concerning than big corporate driving climate change is the nonsense hoax that a particular political party uses in their attempt to create mass hysteria to garner more votes ...
But looking after our home, the Earth, IS very much a political thing. As I've already said in an early post, those that run corporations will NEVER reduce their focus on profits and looking after their shareholders. So sorry we need governments to limit the destruction caused by corporations. Let the market drive the change does not solve the cause of the problem, and even if it does help, as is so obvious now, its too slow. Plus EB101, the biggest political influences are those big corporations. They are in there constantly wining and dining, to get what they want ... how do they sleep at night!

I personally believe "we" have given away the Earth's natural resources way toooooooo cheaply and will one day be very sorry. These mining, etc. companies should have to pay considerably more, and I mean massively more, in taxes for the resources they dig out of the ground that they just so happen to own the perimeter at the surface of. They are taking "our" shared resources with only their company and employees (some considerably more than others) benefiting. Yes that is how land ownership works, and it worked well for a long time, but in hindsight it is not 100% correct.

As I'm sure has been discussed before, we need to review the Capitalism model because depleting our "shared" home is the not the right result. Yes we have all benefited from advancing in society but some more than others and it is not future proofed. We assume that future technologies will solve all problems, but most use that as an excuse to simply do nothing ... while they push their company to expand!
Pete
 
2941 - 2954 of 2954 Posts
Top