Careful, this topic may cause a sudden outbreak of pies.
I find, IMHO, etc., that the whole argument over whether or not we have man-made, man-caused, weather differences is tiresome.
What I find easy to believe is that we, as mankind, can not simply puke crap into the air we breath in ever increasing quantities. I believe we have a moral obligation to not mess up the planet, to pass it on to the next generations in as good or better shape.
When this topic first it the political waves, the big problem was that the US was obviously the prime cause, our industry puked all kinds of chemicals into the air. So if we were to "fix" it, we would have to puke less stuff. We could do that by having less in the economy. Or by putting diapers on all the chimneys that are puking out stuff. Both of these will have serious costs, they could be considered "taxes" on the US. So the Conservatives, who hate all taxes, went nuts.
Funny thing. In recent years, Europe has changed from using a lot of natural gas and nuclear power to burning a lot of coal. And India and China have grown their economies, so that while the exact numbers are hard to pin down, its likely that each of India and China are puking more crap into the air than the US is. So instead of the developing world whining about the US, we get to whine about India and China. I bet the Indian and Chinese politicians won't like it any more than the US politicians did.
The name of the game here is to identify a group which is putting out a lot of greenhouse gases, and then to identify a group which is not putting out as much, and to try to identify yourself as being part of the second group. Then say "Those guys are producing more than us so they should clean up their act first."
The easiest way for an individual to do that is to say something like "I'm only one person, how I can I be causing this problem? Now those guys over there, they are much worse than I am so they should clean up their act first." And I suggest that this is exactly what most of us do, consciously or otherwise, as individuals.
By the way I recall reading about a theory that the development of rice farming in China, about 3000 years ago, produced enough atmospheric methane to prevent the climate from returning to the Ice Age temperatures which it would otherwise have had.
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:
Right, weather change is going to affect us whether it's man made or not
There are, unfortunately, a group of people who think that we can cure anything if we just roll in a big enough army. Yet strangely, they become helpless crying babies when it comes to stuff like this.
I looked out the window this morning and for the first time in 2-3 years saw frost on the ground. The historical average at this location for days where the temperate drops below freezing per year is 30-35. Instead, I've had to fight to keep from switching on air conditioning. And I'm not a person who lives in a subtropical climate just so I can form artificial ice on the walls.
I don't actually care whether all of this is man-made, sunspots, or even Alien Invasion. Or, for that matter, a combination of the above. I only care about the bottom line. Yes, I'm harvesting tomatoes long after the plants should have frozen into mush and my lime trees are happy when they should be threatened. But I'll pay for it come Summer. Which comes awfully early these days. And departs awfully late.
Some things are truly beyond our control. But I fail to see the virtue in measurably altering the atmospheric composition without regard to consequences when that's something we can control. We went through that before in the 1960s with acid rain. People screamed about how it would be too expensive and cost jobs. You can now make a good living making and installing pollution control equipment and manufactured goods are more inexpensive and (mostly) better-made than they were in the 1960s. Even the "cheap junk" would often qualify as top-of-the-line for the Mad Men.
So I don't buy the Victim card. Even if I did, what good is a job if you can't survive? And in the meantime, where are all these jobs? Why is it that the same people who wail about job destruction seem to be the ones most in favor of moving them away?
It's a favorite hobby-horse of mine these days to rail against excessive efficiency. Mostly because "efficiency" is so often measured by bean-counters, and if it doesn't look like a bean to them, it doesn't count. But also because you gain efficiency after a certain point at the cost of overload capacity, and that isn't efficient. Still, any sort of effluent is inefficient, and I would hope that instead of endlessly arguing about who shot whom, we could actually spend some time and effort on converting greenhouse wastes into something practical. Or eliminating them. Whichever works better.
An IDE is no substitute for an Intelligent Developer.