-
Search for James Lovelock on YouTube, plenty of stuff there, from his initial position, to the one he now adopts.
He's the chap who wrote this mildly alarming piece in the Independent.
He's written a number of books on the subject: Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, The Vanishing Face of Gaia and The Revenge of Gaia.
-
I remember Testes recommending Wippermann chains but I'm not sure if that was limited to the SS chain.
Their dérailleur chain is good too, but millions of KMC fans can't all be wrong. I'd say it was between those two, choose according to prejudice.
-
• #40829
Anything you do find is going to be 95% polemic and 5% science, is that what you need?
Academically based polemic is fine. It's a pretty big deal, to be fair.
That's the trouble with a lot of climate change 'debate' - no economics. A few right wing nutters have pointed out what a dumb idea it is to ignore economics, but as far as I can see all of the politicians, scientists and NGOs have big vested interests in doing something (anything), because the economically literate solution of doing next to nothing leaves them out of the loop, and therefore cut off from the power and money they crave far above any desire to do any good.
I don't really follow this. As in, I don't understand what you're saying not that I don't agree with the point.
Search for James Lovelock on YouTube, plenty of stuff there, from his initial position, to the one he now adopts.
He's the chap who wrote this mildly alarming piece in the Independent.
He's written a number of books on the subject: Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, The Vanishing Face of Gaia and The Revenge of Gaia.
Cheers.
I remember Testes recommending Wippermann chains but I'm not sure if that was limited to the SS chain.
I tend to use Sram chains for most stuff. The PC890 is £17 and the PC870 is £12 both from CRC.Cheers.
Their dérailleur chain is good too, but millions of KMC fans can't all be wrong. I'd say it was between those two, choose according to prejudice.
Cheers.
-
I don't really follow this. As in, I don't understand what you're saying not that I don't agree with the point.
Once we get past the "anthropogenic climate change will change the way we live for the worse" step, which is a huge hurdle but let's take it as read for a moment, the reaction is dominated by people whose response is to destroy the present economy (by autocratic action, since that's the kind which makes politicians feel big) in the hope that doing so will arrest the climate change. This is usually economically illiterate, since it is paying now for a putative benefit in several decades' time, and the politicians making this prescription usually fail to apply appropriate discounts. Also, it's not even clear what the benefit is; it seems to be that a changed climate will only support an economy of say 50% of current size, but if we cut the size of the economy by 50% we can prevent the climate change. Either way, we end up with a smaller economy, but under their prescription we get it now rather than later.
If your boss came to you and said
"Today, I'm paying you £10/h, but if I keep doing that, in 10 years' time I'll only be able to afford to pay you £10/h. However, if I cut your pay now to £5/h, in ten years' time I'll be able to give you a raise to £10/h"
you'd tell him to fuck off. -
What is an eShish?
Actually, what the hell is shisha? Is it just flavoured tobacco?
-
• #40832
I see. I think I disagree on most points, unless I'm still misunderstanding you.
Once we get past the "anthropogenic climate change will change the way we live for the worse" step, which is a huge hurdle but let's take it as read for a moment,
Not sure if climate change denier or future-technology-will-save-the-world believer?
In any case, I'm not a scientist. I'm barely a social scientist. However, I do have faith in the consensus of the people who know this shit better than me.
the reaction is dominated by people whose response is to destroy the present economy (by autocratic action, since that's the kind which makes politicians feel big) in the hope that doing so will arrest the climate change.
It's really not. At least, not since 2006 and the Stern Review. There are of course going to be people like those you're describing, but I would not for a second say the debate is dominated by those people. At least, not in academic or political arenas.Many people oppose things like cap and trade, but not because it's an economic solution, but because they think it's an insufficient solution.
This is usually economically illiterate, since it is paying now for a putative benefit in several decades' time, and the politicians making this prescription usually fail to apply appropriate discounts. Also, it's not even clear what the benefit is; it seems to be that a changed climate will only support an economy of say 50% of current size, but if we cut the size of the economy by 50% we can prevent the climate change. Either way, we end up with a smaller economy, but under their prescription we get it now rather than later.
You're right that discounts are difficult. And there has been discussion on the actual rate used in 2006. But this is something that experts are, and will continue to, struggle with. It is not, however, pulled out of the air.If your boss came to you and said
"Today, I'm paying you £10/h, but if I keep doing that, in 10 years' time I'll only be able to afford to pay you £10/h. However, if I cut your pay now to £5/h, in ten years' time I'll be able to give you a raise to £10/h"
you'd tell him to fuck off.
It's more like this: your boss comes up to you and says I can continue to pay you £10/h, but if I keep doing that, I predict that in 10 years I will only be able to pay you £5/h, and the worse case scenario is that you won't have a job. Or, I can pay you £6/h now in an ten years I will continue to pay you £6/h but the likelihood of you having a job is much higher.This is because, first, a cost-benefit analysis shows that it's not an equal pay off. It is economically beneficial to take aggressive action. That is, initial costs equal long term relative gains. Second, a simple cost-benefit analysis ignores other factors, of which I mentioned one (the possibility of catastrophic failure).
There are also ethical issues with the economic approach. Such as the monetary value of intangibles (human life, the extinction of species, the asymmetry of climate change).
Anyway! Like I said, I'm not an expert.
-
Have found out from my neighbours that their landlord has refused to fix their faulty stove. One of them retunred to find it hadn't been turned off the special way you need to now it doesn't work properly. Lucjily, no light switch was turned on.
The neighbours are sorry.
But its not their fault is it?
Shall I go and shout at the landlord and call him a cunt and make him fix it?
where do I stand legally? -
At least, not since 2006 and the Stern Review.
Obviously it's the U of Sussex, not LSE, but Professor Richard Tol, and Peter Lilley have published a paper on the Stern report that might make interesting reading.
-
• #40836
Obviously it's the U of Sussex, not LSE, but Professor Richard Tol, and Peter Lilley have published a paper on the Stern report that might make interesting reading.
Cheers, but no chance I have the time. But! Even Lord Professor of the universe Stern admits there were/are problems with the report (one being the discount rate, as mentioned).
My point was that economic approaches (or, non economically naive approaches) to the problems of climate change are very much part of the mainstream.
-
"Have found out from my neighbours that their landlord has refused to fix their faulty stove. One of them retunred to find it hadn't been turned off the special way you need to now it doesn't work properly. Lucjily, no light switch was turned on. The neighbours are sorry.
But its not their fault is it? Shall I go and shout at the landlord and call him a cunt and make him fix it? Where do I stand legally?"It's a light or be lit world. Fuck legality. Go shout at the landlord and call him a cunt, and give him the option of lighting the stove, or you'll light him on fire.
*I also strongly advise against taking my advice.
-
Not sure if climate change denier or future-technology-will-save-the-world believer?
Sceptic on all of those questions, and more.
There was going to be a tl;dr, but this is neither the time nor the place.
Executive summary:
It really doesn't matter whether mankind self-destructs and takes every other species down with him, or gets destroyed without any other species even noticing. We're all going to be swallowed up by the red giant sun pretty soon*, and the science predicting that is way stronger than either the climate or economic models of where we're headed in the next century.*Soon in this instance meaning we're already past the halfway point of the complete history of life on earth.
-
Has the sun not got a good 4-5 billion years left? I'd reckon if we manage to avoid fucking the place up too much for another few hundred years we could probably figure out some way of spreading a further and saving this place while we're at it.
-
we discussed this last week, wasn't it the canyon clearance site? (road bike reccos thread)
-
• #40844
-
that's the one, although V-L ordered a rose from their (rose) site which apparently allowed an upgrade to lightweight wheels foc, no doubt due to a glitch..
-
Has the sun not got a good 4-5 billion years left?
The sun has, we (i.e. life on earth) haven't. It starts getting properly hot here (i.e. all surface water evaporated) in only 1 billion years, hot enough to put paid to most life long before that.
-
if our universe is cyclical, it is possible that we could be having this conversation (or could already have had, many times) again
-
But a long time nonetheless. Plenty of time to not fuck the place up ourselves.
-
the earth is a closed system, the universe is a closed system, we have next to zero influence on the wider outcome
*orders rhino horn powder with a side of tiger pizzle
Dammit
gbj_tester
hippy
Chalfie
Nick.Earthloop
Lynchman
snottyotter
rive_gauche-
Post a reply
About
Any question answered...
Posted by
@carson
I remember Testes recommending Wippermann chains but I'm not sure if that was limited to the SS chain.
I tend to use Sram chains for most stuff. The PC890 is £17 and the PC870 is £12 both from CRC.