"Ayn Rand ...Atlas Shrugged was her greatest achievement and last work of fiction. In this novel she dramatized her unique philosophy in an intellectual mystery story that integrated ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, economics . " - one tough lady - then again born in Russia , saw the Bolshevik revolution in 1917/18 etcetc.
.....Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reapingthe rewards today ...
"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
1900 - 47.3 years
1920 - 53 years
1940 - 60 years
1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.-- Ayn Rand, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution
[ life expentancy ? - try the miserable expectancies that the third world has inherited from this attitude - but I digress, only wanted to make a point about "blind - no - blinkered eye to suffering and charity"]
Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death.
Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other.
This one acknowledges GW but refutes CO2 as the cause and pins it on solar activity. Does a good job of it.2020hindsight said:wayne - 1 minute was enough for me -
I preferred the show on abc four corners which showed the corrupt scientists to be what they are ... in the paid service of the Exxons of the world - (the one you kndly found the link for)
lol -k m8, I'll try again "later" - maybe I'll get to the second or third minute before I "change the channel".wayneL said:This one acknowledges GW but refutes CO2 as the cause and pins it on solar activity. Does a good job of it. Pollution is still the biggy for me rather than co2.
Agree with you on this.The kicker is the end, where it suggests that economic development in Africa is impossible without increased use of coal and oil. The suggestion doesn't even pretend to be scientific: it's a rhetorical gambit that to my mind discredits everything that preceded it.
That's a pity because there probably is more information to be publicised that would be useful in forming public policy. But this programme certainly won't stop me turning out lights when I leave a room.
The Denial Machine , Reporter: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcast: 26/02/2007
For years the global warming debate has swirled like a firestorm. Science has been tossed about in a tornado of spin from doomsayers and doubters, deep green activists and fossil fuel lobbyists.
How did the future of the planet become such a political battleground? A few weeks ago the pre-eminent body of climate scientists, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reaffirmed that global warming is real, happening now and very likely caused by human activity.
Late last year a report to the British Government likened the potential economic impact of global warming to the two world wars and the Great Depression. Yet some scientists insist that climate change, if it’s happening at all, could be a good thing.
This report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation investigates the campaign to deny the science of global warming and slow international action against it. It tracks the activities of a small group of North American scientists, some of whom previously worked for Big Tobacco and who are now receiving donations from large oil and coal interests. It also examines how key planks of the fossil fuel industry’s case were adopted by governments in the US and Canada…
As Australia stews over how far it should go to combat greenhouse emissions, "The Denial Machine" goes behind the debate - on Four Corners 8.30 pm Monday 26 February, ABC TV.
thanks Ghotib - sheesh - even Channel 4 is not above bending the truth ( and consistently) throughout that article.ghotib said:I don't say that Al Gore presented a flawless case but this programme has its own problems:
The real global warming swindle
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/9929/a001008_pre.jpgOne of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.
Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.
However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.
However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.
However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.
Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.
If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.
"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.
Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.
The first graph is from Channel 4. (temp and solar winds) - good correlation.http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html
During times of high activity, like in year 2000, the Sun shines about 0.07 percent brighter, researchers report in the September 14 issue of the journal Nature. The researchers used a combination of data on solar brightness obtained by spacecrafts since 1978 and isotope data ””collected from Earth's atmosphere and in ice sheets of Antarctic and Greenland””to recreate the Sun's influence on terrestrial temperatures over the past several centuries.
Although events such as sunspots have increased in the last 400 years, their effect only contributed a small amount to global warming, the results show. “Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” said study co-author Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Not sure which bits you are referring to, but the scientific consensus, which did not exist a few years ago, suggests global warming effects are well and truly to the fore.Kimosabi said:A lot of the Global Warming stuff is absolute crap...
"WORLD HAS TWO YEARS OF OIL SUPPLIES LEFT"
Planet Earth has been getting hotter and colder all by itself without any help from humans.rederob said:Not sure which bits you are referring to, but the scientific consensus, which did not exist a few years ago, suggests global warming effects are well and truly to the fore.
Moronic mortals have a conceptual problem with evolutionary time, and therefore find it difficult to conceive that a one degree temperature change to planet earth makes a massive difference to weather - due to many subsidiary influences, particularly related to melting of the ice caps ans incumbent rising sea levels.
It is in fact this latter effect that will prove the greatest catastrophe, but if we are not willing to see the writing on the wall now, I guess worrying about it later is something the next generation will have to learn to die with.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Image manipulation program (for making charts) wanted||Beginner's Lounge||18|
|P||Need replacement for Fairfax Media's Trading Room free program||Software and Data||6|
|R||Should I continue the matched shares program?||Beginner's Lounge||10|
|A||Program for calculating profit from stocks||Software and Data||2|