I think what will happen is a developing nation will develop and release an electric car for about $5,000. Their government will cut a bunch of resource consents and taxes once they realize the massive trade surplus this would mean for their economy

So UV light doesnt hit the south?

 During a large chunk of the year, no. Ditto the North Pole. There is also a rather conspicuous year-round lack of atmospheric electrical discharges.

 And all that cold weather doesn't help either.

 The CFC ban, like the Man Made Ice Age Global Warming Climate Change song-and-dance is just another example of science following politics, and the less scrupulous scientists following grant money those politics scare up.

I think what will happen is a developing nation will develop and release an electric car for about $5,000.

 As much as I like the idea of electric cars, both for their potential for making cities cleaner, and because they could have some wicked performance if the power density problem was ever solved... manufacturing them still requires a crazy expenditure of energy and expensive materials that have to be mined out of the earth. Let's not kid ourselves about them being some magical silver bullet of conservation.

 And $5,000 probably wouldn't even cover the cost of the drive train.

So UV light doesnt hit the south?

 During a large chunk of the year, no. Ditto the North Pole. There is also a rather conspicuous year-round lack of atmospheric electrical discharges.

So you admit your info is wrong, good. Now...why do you believe the rest of your info ?

So UV light doesnt hit the south?

 During a large chunk of the year, no.

So, what you're saying is, we should see a drop in the area of the ozone hole during winter months, if ozone reactivity is directly impacted by the amount of UV light in the region?



that's an interesting hypothesis, Wozz!  We should get some scientists to measure that!

The CFC ban, like the Man Made Ice Age Global Warming Climate Change song-and-dance is just another example of science following politics, and the less scrupulous scientists following grant money those politics scare up.

Fixed (because climate change is quite obviously not just a song-and-dance as you can see from ice cores, tree rings, and Roman records...).
I disagree with even the fixed portion, though, since just by simple logic it's obvious that man is having an effect on the climate given our CO₂ output alone.
The question is not whether or not man made climate change real, but rather whether or not it's is a bad thing.
Given the records, and given our capacity with modern technology to make serious changes to either the albedo or greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere, I think it's next to impossible to say that what climate change we are creating is a bad thing.

eitje: Now youre going to have to point out that the months at the bottom are for north or south earth.  ( Sorry, but you are open. )

MightyMouse: Yes, impossible ... if you ignore the finite state of rescources being consumed driving the change. ( We do tend to invent some cool stuff during times of war though... the downside is lots of people die. )

Re: Electric cars, most of what I've read/seen/heard says that most electric cars, even hydrogen cells, would probably be worse on the environment than running a 1-ton dually, considering the environmental costs of producing that much electricity, either through coal or nuclear power, or for the hydrogen cell cars, producing the massive amounts of hydrogen.

All systems go for geothermal and coal seam gas.

eitje: Now youre going to have to point out that the months at the bottom are for north or south earth.  ( Sorry, but you are open. )

The chart tops with "Southern Hemisphere"...?

Yes...

 Remember who you were posting too ?

My climate change argument goes like this:

Humans do not have a good understanding of how all of the earth's feedback mechanisms operate.  As such, it is better to err on the side of caution when considering how we interact with that system.

Minimizing human CO2 output is at worst a waste of time, but at best might prevent catastrophic climate change.

So what should we do?

As such, it is better to err on the side of caution when considering how we interact with that system.

I would agree. In fact I used to agree, but I think that from an evolutionary perspective this argument is too conservative.
I don't believe that even if we fucked up the environment so badly that humanity perished that life would cease to exist.
Heck, call me a rebel but I even think that intelligent life could re-establish itself.

The only forceful argument I've seen come from the "green" side of the argument is that global warming reduces biodiversity. My counterargument would be that biodiversity is extremely capable of reestablishing itself via evolution.

The only valid arguments I can see that support the cautious approach are humanistic in nature, and you wouldn't want to be labeled a speciesist, would you Emp?

As such, it is better to err on the side of caution when considering how we interact with that system.

I would agree. In fact I used to agree, but I think that from an evolutionary perspective this argument is too conservative.
I don't believe that even if we fucked up the environment so badly that humanity perished that life would cease to exist.
Heck, call me a rebel but I even think that intelligent life could re-establish itself.

The only forceful argument I've seen come from the "green" side of the argument is that global warming reduces biodiversity. My counterargument would be that biodiversity is extremely capable of reestablishing itself via evolution.

The only valid arguments I can see that support the cautious approach are humanistic in nature, and you wouldn't want to be labeled a speciesist, would you Emp?

Ha!  Sounds like something James Lovelock would say.

My counter-argument is that the vast majority of human decisions are for the benefit of humans, or some subset thereof.  The decision to keep pumping CO2 out at increasing rates will be based entirely on either concern for future generations of humans, or a refusal to give up the more immediate economic benefits of ignoring any problems associated with CO2 output.

If I were king, what I would do is this: I would start phasing in taxes on carbon output (among all of the other externalities for which I would impose a tax).  I would invest heavily in building more public rail/electrifying said rail, modernizing the electric grid, and making other infrastructure upgrades.  And fuck free trade, I would put prohibitive tariffs on goods based on a country's environmental policies (among other policies that I would rate in order to apply tariffs).

The only valid arguments I can see that support the cautious approach are humanistic in nature, and you wouldn't want to be labeled a speciesist, would you Emp?

Survival of the fittest, mouse, and we've got the fucking guns.  Are you really arguing for evolution as a resolution, but then saying that we should not try to preserve our own species?

Pathetic humans.

If there was a bug destroying Texas you'd want it eradicated. Well we're the bug. We need to pare down. The stupid need to go. Eugenics? Get over it. Desperate measures...

If the bug could be convinced to not destroy Texas and - instead - do something useful for Texas, then I'd be all about convincing the bug to go do that useful thing.

If there was a bug destroying Texas you'd want it eradicated move to SoCal.

Yeah, there is that...

on topic:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/final-lhc-segment-reaches-operational-temperature-at-19k.ars

Scientists can disagree.  It's part of what makes science great - nothing is believed just because it is said, and everything should be testable.  In this case, these fools have come up with a non-testable

Ahh but you see their theory is testable. For if the thing comes online next time without a hitch then it will have been proven false. If however the thing can be rebuilt perfectly and crashes over and over again with no discernible cause then perhaps it could be possible.

The operation of the device one way or the other will provide the proof.
But they were obviously just taking the piss.

I made this post three days from now.

Ahh but you see their theory is testable. For if the thing comes online next time without a hitch then it will have been proven false. If however the thing can be rebuilt perfectly and crashes over and over again with no discernible cause then perhaps it could be possible.

That's not emperical!

But is it hypothetico-deductive?

I made this post three days from now.

PM me the results of the Thursday and Friday Keeneland G3s?
I'll make it very worth your 3-days-in-the-past-self's while.

So you can place the same bets as me and screw up my payout odds?

No way.

That reminds me of an excellent and legal horse betting scam that's been going on... now I could just fucking remember exactly how it went, or find a link. Ugh.

BRING BACK POLIO!

FUCK SALK!