dangerdan

I'd like to start by saying how frustrating it is hearing people use the argument "it was really hot this summer, global warming for you!" or "its been snowing all week, where's that global warming gone?". In talking about global warming, or global cooling for that matter, people need to remember that we are dealing with the idea of climate change, not one erratic summer or winter - it means nothing. Now while its true global temperatures peaked in 1998, there is still a critical issue at stake here. Here is my analysis of the situation; 1. Is there global warming? 2. To what extent is it being caused by CO2 concentrations? 3. To what extent is that change in CO2 concentration caused by man? 4. The Precautionary Principle 5. An Under-Development Mechanism? 6. Adaptation 1. Is there global warming? Well, one of the most cited pieces of evidence with regards to this issue is the information gathered by the Hadley Centre at the UK Met Office, which show an increase in temperature from 1860 through to 1940, when a 30 year cooling period begins, before rising again to 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average. Now as I previously stated, the hottest year on record is 1998 and since then the earth has been cooling, this may be a another small cooling period similar to 1940-1970 or the start of a bigger trend that causes us to re evaluate what we think we know about the environment. It may surprise many people to learn that the most prevalent Greenhouse Gas in the environment is water vapour, accounting for approximately half of all GHGs. Solar radiation also has an extremely high correlation coefficient with temperature, indicating that solar radiation is another leading factor or global temperature. The environment is a series of inter-connecting systems, cycles and feedback loops, the most important of which is the Albedo effect, which determines the level of light that is reflected from the atmosphere, and trapped inside the atmosphere. For example though aerosols are accredited as a cause of global warming, the terrestrial layer they create can actually reflect more solar radiation away, causing cooling. This effect has been cited as a cause of the 1940-1970 global cooling period. So, there isn't necessarily global warming. Hadley Centre graph available here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ 2. To what extent is it being caused by CO2 concentrations? The most compelling piece of evidence with regards to establishing a causal link between is Vostok's ice-core data. A graph plotting CO2 concentration, Temperature, Dust (PPM) at first sight appears to show a direct correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature however closer inspection shows that CO2 conc. lags approximately 800 years behind temperature changes, and therefore no causal link can possible exist in the direction assumed. Indeed, dust levels seem to be a more causal factor in global temperatures. Vostok's analysis shows something else though, it shows that the earth's natural carbon cycle is a 140, 000 year cycle with fluctuation with a carbon concentration fluctuating between 200 and 280 PPM (parts per million). This is why 280 PPM is seen as the ideal target, and brings me nicely on the the next question. Vostok ice-core data: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ 3. To what extent is that change in CO2 concentration caused by man? (to be continued...)

Well, one of the most cited pieces of evidence with regards to this issue is the information gathered by the Hadley Centre at the UK Met Office, which show an increase in temperature from 1860 through to 1940, when a 30 year cooling period begins, before rising again to 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average. Now as I previously stated, the hottest year on record is 1998 and since then the earth has been cooling, this may be a another small cooling period similar to 1940-1970 or the start of a bigger trend that causes us to re evaluate what we think we know about the environment. It may surprise many people to learn that the most prevalent Greenhouse Gas in the environment is water vapour, accounting for approximately half of all GHGs. Solar radiation also has an extremely high correlation coefficient with temperature, indicating that solar radiation is another leading factor or global temperature. The environment is a series of inter-connecting systems, cycles and feedback loops, the most important of which is the Albedo effect, which determines the level of light that is reflected from the atmosphere, and trapped inside the atmosphere. For example though aerosols are accredited as a cause of global warming, the terrestrial layer they create can actually reflect more solar radiation away, causing cooling. This effect has been cited as a cause of the 1940-1970 global cooling period. So, there isn't necessarily global warming.

There is a very acute irony at play here. Religion frequently preaches inter-cultural tolerance but breeds zealotry and aggression. Virtually every war in history has some kind of causal basis in religion, whether its the tensions in the Middle East, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or civil war in Africa. While religions teach peace, they cause war.

A trading scheme is also known as a tradeable Pollution Permits (TPP) which are example of a market-based instrument that can be used to lower pollution or emissions. The regulator decides upon a level of pollution for the entire industry and then distributes permits to pollute to all the firms in the market. The level of pollution is likely to be below the current level of pollution because otherwise it would not be binding. Upon receiving their permits, firms have three choices; the first is to buy permits from other firms so its pollution can remain constant (and above the level of permits it was issued), the second is to lower pollution equal to their level of permits, and finally the firm could reduce pollution below the level of its permits and could therefore sell the remaining permits on to another firm. Non-polluters can also purchase spare permits, thus reducing the maximum level of pollution possible within the industry. Also, this cost of abating pollution by a unit and purchasing another permit should be exactly the same so that the firm is indifferent between the two options.In my opinion, TPPs are one of the most effective instruments available to policy makers in this area. Only by valuing environmental resources within a market framework, and assigning a cost to environmental pollution causes the firm to, in theory, act according to the equi-marginal principle. With regards to Copenhagen, I have an upcoming essay on it, and I was at the demonstrations (hitch-hiked there from Manchester, UK!) so I've been following it quite closely. By the end of the summit, all the UNFCCC had come up with was the Copenhagen accord, an agreement between America, Brazil, India, China and South Africa that is not legally binding in anyway, but simply acknowledges the need for cuts. This acknowledgement for cuts is appreciated but simply not sufficient as any framework has to be legally binding in order to function at all. In looking at the global issue there has become a three distinct groups of countries;European Union membersAnnex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol not in the European UnionAnnex 2 countries under the Kyoto Protocol (which includes India, China and Brazil)European union members have all been mandated emissions targets below Kyoto levels, and most countries were close to meeting Kyoto deadlines, and if not have met the deadline by now and continue to cut emissions. In a sense, EU members are 'ahead' in the race to cut emissions, and should find further adaptation well within their capability.Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol not in the European Union including USA, Canada and Australia were all mandated to cuts by Kyoto though many failed to get anywhere near these targets. The USA did not even ratify the protocol, undermining it somewhat and one of the most significant positive outcomes of Copenhagen is that Obama has led the formation of this Copenhagen Accord. Annex 2 countries under the Kyoto Protocol which includes India, China, Brazil and all of Africa were not mandated to emissions cuts under Kyoto, and therefore the fact that India, Brazil and China are all on board with this agreement is also going to be significant. However, the African nations, along with Pacific Island and Caribbean Nations wanted $100m pledged in order to help them adapt to impending climate change. There is a clear switch of emphasis between these two conferences was that Kyoto, in 1997, was about avoiding potential disaster, but not stopping anyone who wants to from developing. Now a clear shift has taken place, with the poorest countries in the world demanding money for the cost they will bear, of the problem, they say, the rich countries caused. The other significant development is that China, Brazil, India and America, (approximately half of the worlds population) have all agreed to hold further talks and sort a framework out.

I think that the only serious way you can go about analysing the bible is as an allegory or anecdote. It is simply a guiding message, cultural relevant at its time of writing, culture is forever changing however and we must reassess. Thus I think a belief in the bible does not necessarily represent a belief in every thing the bible says. But what do I am an atheist, which I find quite unfulfilling and I am considering converting to Islam.

Following an audit by Sir Thomas Legg MPs have been ordered to repay over Ł1m see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8496729.stm But my question is where does it leave UK politics? At first the British public were outraged, but after the Daily Telegraphs onslaught the public were also clambering - for absolutely anything to read or hear about in the news - because this outrage soon turned to apathy. This apathy, so close to a general election, is a threat to political engagement in this country as well as trust in politicians.

Yeah, I really think it is an urban art-form and should be respected as such - I hate reading stories of clean-shirted bigwigs ordering these unique and masterful pieces to be destroyed.

To say at any point, that country except Zimbabwe has been in depression recently is sensationalist and over stated. Yes, almost every country in the world went into recession, and many have now recession, including France, Germany and Japan. As well as the UK, though they registered just 0.1% economic growth in the last quarter, so revisions may well reveal we never left recession. However, this was to be expected given the nature of the global credit crisis, as it has now become known. People must remember though, that throughout the recession, economies suffered compound negative growth, so even once we leave recession, it is a long way back to even early 2008 levels (pre credit crunch) let alone building beyond there.I also think it is that the worlds rising economic powerhouse, China, managed to steer clear of recession altogether, and are already back to experiencing levels of growth comparable with pre credit crunch times. There was however, a bilateral, mass migration across China, thought to be greatest migration in history. As the credit crunch hit, the 200m Chinese people from rural areas who had come to the urban centres for employment were forced back to the villages until the global economy started to pick up again, at which point these workers returned to urban centres to reseek the worker they had lost a year earlier.

I think that, ultimately, everyone in the UK should consider themselves lucky to be given state provided healthcare, and should also appreciate the decision to allow slight privatisation and thus further increased standards and competition, some essential to avoid stagnation.

I do smoke marijuana, I am currently smoking marijuana, and therefore I definitely think that it should be legal. I enjoy nothing more than a relaxing smoke and a current affairs program, online debate or creative/entrepreneurial project. I rarely drink alcohol as I generally dislike the taste of it, which exceptions of cider and heavily mixed spirits, so I never go out to clubs or whatever, occasionally the pub for a pints (for example this Saturday for England vs Wales in the Six Nations Rugby Union tournament ) and from my point of view as an "outsider" to alcohol I seriously think that if it is legal, as I believe it should be, then should marijuana be. Both tobacco and alcohol create greater externalities (that is, negative external social cost i.e health services, lost productivity) than marijuana. The decriminalization of marijuana would easily raise hundreds of millions of pounds in taxation revenue, (one estimate says the US market is worth $12bn dollars, thus a 12.5% tax rate would generate $1bn dollar tax revenue) which would more than cover the negative external social cost. Whereas alcohol costs millions and millions of pounds/dollars more than it generates for Governments or even private individuals.

For me, there is a minimum amount of money I would like to earn (what I consider a comfortable life, for me in the UK, say ?40k pre tax) after which the only important indicator would be happiness, unless I were (to use an Economics term) indifferent between the two, in which case money would be the determinant again.

I am that confident about seeing nuclear fission energy as part of a renewable energy future, and I do not think nuclear energy will be viable as an answer until we master nuclear fusion, which is unlikely to happen in the short term. Were it to happen though, we would have a source of energy which, given equi-proportional inputs, is significantly more efficient than any form of energy currently known to man - renewable or otherwise. Only when this technology becomes a reality will our energy needs become less of a concern.

I do not think that there should be a ban on this kind of stuff on television. Frequently television shows tackle strong and hard hitting topics not just to gain viewers but also to raise awareness and encourage people to speak out if they have. Many soaps in the UK are now followed by a "if you have been affected by the issues portrayed here called the X-helpline on :.....". I think that this goes beyond rape, it includes domestic violence, child abuse, abortion, drug abuse and mental health. I think that as long as these issues are afforded the appropriate respect given the context and time of day, that it is, unfortunately, simply representative of society.

Yeah I've read significant excerpts from Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital (in particularly Book 1 Chapter 4: The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secrets Thereof, seminal Marxian critique), The Holy Family and Der Grundrisse.I believe most of his works are available (along with Friedrick Engels) at https://www.marxists.org/ but I may be wrong. I recently posted an essay I wrote for university in the Debates section about the aforementioned chapter of Das Kapital.

Tensions between the US and Iran have been getting worse and worse for a while now. Between Al Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran has two leaders willing to regularly taunt the West with their nuclear acquirement policy. Iran's political leaders opinions on Israel are certainly something for concern for the West, particularly as Israel is a nuclear armed, and presumably willing, state. If tensions in the region continue to rise then eventually the situation will reach breaking point, and a result of a potentially minor catalyst, the Middle East could be plunged into a destructive war. Ironically, however, this may be the very moment that Western intervention in the area ceases, with countries pulling out of Iraq and talking about an Afghan withdrawal, and world leaders extremely hesitant to send troops into new wars, with thoughts of domestic policy and reelection at the forefront of their mind. However Iran does not have problems solely on the foreign stage, the country is deeply divided as last years elections showed. The return of Ahmadinejad was following by days, even weeks, of demonstrations on the streets by Iranian reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi supporters literally flooded the streets, bringing the cities to a stand still. Even to this day there are sporadic demonstrations on the street and if Mr Ahmadinejad doesn't deal with his domestic unrest soon, the country may well be plunged into civil war before he has a chance to plunge it into war with the West.

I believe that gender equality should be absolute. Even in the UK today, men earn on average between 20-30% more than women, so even where there is equality of opportunity there is not equality of pay. The so called glass ceiling is still a pre-eminent idea in gender inequality. Very few women have reached the level of boardroom in the corporate ladder and this remains a problem. The coin can of course be flipped, where, for example, new fathers are not given the same paternity rights as women are maternity rights. This represents a distinct inequality of opportunity for men. Therefore I feel that these advantages and disadvantages of being either male or female should be removed, so that there is absolute equality of opportunity for men and women. On the other hand, the roles of men and women are social constructs that have undergone essential conditioning throughout time immemorial, and this social construct is dynamic, complex and fluid - all concepts attached to culture, of which gender relations are a significant derivative - mean that it is ever evolving and changing. Now I turn to the question posed by the thread starter about what can cause these change, or slow it down. The view of women in society is an absolutely key variable, if they are not seen as equal, then only inequality can follow. But even in a society where women are seen as equal, equality does not follow, therefore there must be further variables in the issue. The next most notable variable would be, conceptually, 'what was the view of women yesterday' (where yesterday is mathematically N-1 in a time series) and the relationship between these two variables would itself be a third, exogenous variable. Other, less significant, factors include the level of proliferation of women through the glass ceiling, Government policy (such as the Equal Pay Act in the UK) and fertility rates, which is more relevant to the developing world.

I don't think there's a single alcoholic drink that actually tastes good. That's why I don't drink, despite being a student.

I think it's pretty interesting how little that map shows European (particularly British) intervention in the area. The British were responsible for the foundation of Afghanistan, and have fought numerous wars there since, as well as across the rest of the Middle East. Fair play for them showing how sneaky Israel have been since the UN agreed boundaries of 1948.

Aha, I take your point about the alien invasion! Our nukes don't have the kind of range to destroy anything but our own planet though!I just feel that as long as the US has the 'big stick' then other countries are going to be trying to obtain sticks as big, if not bigger. Like I said in the OP, it is a very idealistic and liberal viewpoint but the only way to ensure the future safety of the world. Wikipedia now states that North Korea does have nuclear weapons, with Iran rapidly chasing them (to, in Ahmadinejad's own words 'wipe Israel off the map') and Israel already owning them, and with Pakistan and India both owning them (whilst disputing the regions of, for e.g., Kashmir). I feel that nuclear war is an ever increasing likelihood and something that needs to be averted before it is too late.

If IE wasn't bundled with Windows there is no way I would even consider it. As soon as I heard Google were releasing a browser (Chrome) I switched to it and haven't looked back. Sleek. Stylish. Secure.

Or simply a very, very long time? I just think its time people stopped associating symbols with the ideas and practices of those who teach them. The Hitler 'stache is a perfect example but I can think of others. The Burka? A headscarf? Denim Jeans?

I do not think that we should use nuclear weapons or even energy and I'll explain why.Firstly, we are going to run out of oil soon. Nuclear energy simply has to be part of the post oil mix, I accept that, but I hope that it is not part of the long term solution.Secondly, I feel the technology differential between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is too small, and a world in which all countries use nuclear energy, but none have nuclear weapons is a very dangerous one in my opinion. This brings me to my third point, the nuclear deterrent.The Nuclear Deterrent (the phrase used to describe the UK, USA, France, China and Russia's ability to have nuclear weapons as a 'deterrent') is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. Since the Nuclear Deterrent emerged, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran and North Korea have all frantically been chasing the bomb and all but Iran achieved it (SA gave it up). My point is, that as long as the super powers have nuclear weapons, everyone else is going to want them. I feel the superpowers need to get rid of their nuclear weapons, to stop other people trying to obtain them (idealistic and liberal, perhaps) but first they need to make sure India and Pakistan give up theirs (and N Korea obviously). However, I do not think that anyone will convince Israel to surrender it's nuclear weapons because of its history and fear of its neighbours.

Why has one moustache style been able to embody all the fear and evilness normally associated with fascism or Nazism?And while we are on the subject, when will the name Adolf lose the massive stigma attached to it?

Nor am I really if truth be told TrueFusion! Like the thread title says I've just been questioning my atheism recently and certainly don't claim to have come up with the answer! The questions you raise are interesting, particularly the one regarding the atheistic viewpoint being beyond the need proof. This quickly leads me to the conclusion that atheism is as unprovable as any of the major religions. I think it is extremely interesting the extent to which even atheism is based on faith or belief. Especially given that many atheists turn to atheism because they can not put their "faith" in an unprovable religion. This brings me back to the point Rob made about atheism being quite depressing. It seems to me that atheism is believing in something equally unlikely as the stories of mainstream religion, without being given any kind of reconcilitory advice or messages and ultimately leaves me with a feeling of emptiness.

Aha, I wouldn't dare be so conceited! I think its very interesting the points you raise about religions have good morals or values attached them. To an extent I believe that these are either already covered by basic human rights or that they should be the law of a country. I don't believe it is for religion to dictate how to lead ones life, just give a greater sense of the universe. Perhaps my bible is not too far away from science textbook, with a little bit of philosophy thrown in.