BBC Blog Network

User Profile

super_critical

Listed below are comments made by super_critical between Monday, 7th December 2009 and Monday, 28th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Are our children to blame? 06:03am on 28 Dec 2009 #75. There in a nutshell is what happens.

We all decide someone is consuming more than us so we increase consumption to keep up just to avoid someone else getting more. Why should I not have kids, if Justin is having three little bundles of pollution?, no benefit for me to be 'good' is there?

Just as now China is #1 emitter, America can point to them as the cause. There is a new enemy and why should we do anything if they don't? It is a race to destruction.
Cup of Nations clash creates friction 04:19am on 27 Dec 2009 This is just European arrogance. I hope Africa stands its ground and takes all this posturing as a compliment to the quality of its players.

What part of management, don't the likes of Hodgeson and Grant understand? I thought management was about managing a squad, increasingly it is just about complaining. If they don't like then buy a half the talent, double the price English player.

On the face of it Piers, it does border on the insane that you consider the whining of Portsmouth and Fulham on the same magnitude as the African Cup of Nations.
Think before you carve 08:16am on 22 Dec 2009 If #189 is the same 'Karen' who claims that developing countries have far more resources to deal with climate change than developed countries because she got caught out by the cold snap, then her comment makes as much sense and the drivel she spouts on other fora.

But anyway, as you mentioned you were going to talk about population next week, can you PLEASE dispel this myth that overpopulation abroad is the cause of our problems: #49 (Krupt) has it right. You cannot talk about population unless you talk about the associated consumption. Half the world don't aren't rich enough to eat meat. The element of population that needs to be controlled (if you want to go down that path) is the part in the globalised consuming world ~ 2bn. The rest contribute next to nothing. There is no end to our greed and removing 4billion of the poorest people (who have the most kids) on Earth will achieve nothing to address problems like meat consumption or carbon emissions.

There are of course sound reasons for family planning particularly local environmental ones but when invoked to talk about problems of consumption, it is lazy thinking and just shifts the blame to the blameless. The increase in consumption from people getting richer. An increasing number of people are being brought into the global economy and adopting Western levels and styles of consumption. Raw population numbers are meaningless.

We will have to learn to share more because more people want a slice of the pie. That is the uncomfortable truth and seeking to limit population in other places so we don't have to change here is conceptually unjust and practically irrelevant.
In praise of scepticism 09:38am on 18 Dec 2009 Tom Forrester-Paton is an even stranger person.

I thought draker had it right because science is about consensus. Einstein's point is that we don't know anything for sure because it has to be open to falsification but the current consensus of course has value. No one has proved the existence of an electron but look how useful consensus on that has been! We don't know for sure what causes gravity, but dare you throw yourself of a building and test the prevailing consensus that it would slam you into the ground at 9.81m/s^2? You may find willing collaborators and even some seed money to help you with this, should you decide this is a worthwhile experiment.

I am confused as to why, with your superior knowledge of science and how it works, you haven't come up with the one silver-bullet experiment that can put this matter to bed.

Stop showing off about how smart you are and get busy!
We need you Tom Forrester-Paton. Start a revolution.

Now the boring bit about models/evidence:

Evidence include measurements of temperature, CO2, ice-core data and other paleoclimatic data.

Models simulate the earth-ocean-atmosphere interactions based on our understanding of physics and chemistry derived from theory and observations. Using scenarios (different assumptions about system feedbacks) a range of values for future climatic variables are produced.

No one can predict the future, but you can produce a range of outcomes and a likelihood associated with each one. This is not evidence, merely a statement of what we understand and where it might be going. The problem may lie with the common usage of the term, scientists know the technical difference.

I don't know how you can talk about evidence for things that haven't happened yet.
In praise of scepticism 08:13am on 18 Dec 2009 So Grahamtuer (62)

Are you going to be the first not to have kids?, because if that is your point, then it is the developed world where fewer people would make the most carbon saving. Most people in the developing world emit next to nothing. People think they're so original talking about population but every country in the world which has it's population under control is a high-emitting country. Any child born in an OECD country is locked into a high emitting infrastructure.

The reason population isn't explicitly discussed is because the best contraceptive is economic growth but that simply means fewer people emitting proportionally a lot more.

You cannot talk about population without the associated consumption. We need to revolutionise our energy systems. This is the only fair way to deal with reducing carbon emissions.

I presume you would be fine with Gordon Brown instituting a child bearing limits, and if not, then why should anyone else?
Obama's Nobel balancing act 07:53am on 11 Dec 2009 "The goal is not to win a popularity contest or to get an award, even one as prestigious as the Nobel peace prize. The goal has been to advance America's interests.”

Obama has used this award to temporarily placate his critics at home. If every country also aims to advance their own interest, then conflict becomes inevitable. The problem is America assumes its interests are the same as everyone else's and then acts accordingly in the name of the pax Americana. If you disagree then you are a target for enforced 'peace'.

Peace is a journey, not a destination; you have to live it, not achieve it through the barrel of a gun. The point Gandhi was trying to make is that you have to be change you want to see, otherwise where does it start? Just because something isn't 'practical' misses the point.

He's basically saying "America will be peaceful when conditions allow".

Obama has gone down in my estimations.
Another spot of bother 07:22am on 09 Dec 2009 With respect to the probability of scoring a penalty. Yes there are two outcomes but quoting from the wiki-bible:

78 penalty kicks taken during FA Premier League 2005-06 season, 57 resulted in a goal, meaning almost 30% of the penalties were unsuccessful.

A German professor who has been studying penalty statistics in the German Bundesliga for 16 years found that 76% of all the penalties during those 16 years went in, and 99% of the shots in the higher half of the goal went in.
Tough World Cup draw for African challengers 4:24pm on 07 Dec 2009 This is a disappointingly negative post and some negative comments.

Why should we 'pity' poor Africans? They have produced great results which shocked major footballing super-powers, such that a win against Brazil wouldn't be such a shock now. Viz:

Argentina 0-1 Cameroon
France 0-1 Senegal

My recollection is that African teams play with total heart and commitment and always surprise people at the World Cup. I think Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria have a great chance of making out of their respective groups. Why do people write them off so soon, it's very patronising to say on one hand they have all these wonderful players but will succumb to Portugal.

It's as stupid as trying to work out who England will meet in the semis (their WAGs..)
The luck of the draw means Europe's time has come 10:42am on 07 Dec 2009 I think it's anyone's game from the quarter finals onwards.
Even the prospect of getting to within one game of the final is enough to get the heart pounding and England need to jump that psychological hurdle. Beckham in 2004 and then Lampard and Gerrard in 2006 all missed their spot kicks.
The luck of the draw means Europe's time has come 10:11am on 07 Dec 2009 Talking about shades of '66.

Portugal are in the same group as Brazil.

Spain are in the same group as Switzerland.

But France (who came bottom of that group) are in group A with the hosts, Uruguay and Mexico...

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

super_critical