General > RANT

Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!

<< < (9/9)

Peter:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---I'm saying that you must be willfully ignorant, because some of your assertions are so far off base that it boggles my mind.  I meant it not as an insult but as a chastisement (sp?).
--- End quote ---
Well, I can say I learnt a new word 'chastisement' I try to remember the definition.  

And 'willfully ignorant', are you saying I am purposely ignoring facts. A well me sleepy me don't care. I try to answer soon now.


--- Quote ---A thicker atmosphere just changes the planet's specific heat, ie: the amount of energy it can absorb without changing temperature dramatically.  By itself an atmosphere of N2 would have no greenhouse effect.  It would just take a long time to heat up or cool down.

But yes, if the atmosphere is thicker because it has more greenhouse gases, it would have a larger greenhouse effect.

I'm not crazy.  Also, according to Wiki: "The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases. This is because homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation, as there is no net change in the dipole moment of these molecules when they vibrate."
--- End quote ---
Lots of links. I'll add one I just seen. Solar radiation spectrum, the yellow area's are absorbed and the red goes through, I'd have to use the favorites tab more often, to quickly see where I found that oxygen in a greenhouse gas, but you see it also in this graph. I'll look later for real facts. If you tend to react to the link, please keep yours in it, me too lazy to type in oxygen  .


--- Quote ---There's like one or two for real scientists who say that.  And a lot of crackpots.  Every scientific organization says that man made global warming accounts for the majority of the observed warming.  Even the guys who say it could be solar effects are saying that at best half the observed warming is solar.

Al Gore didn't invent this idea.  It's not new.  It's been a major concern in science since at least the 60s.  People just didn't seem to care that much before the movie.  Go figure.  Gore only used a small fraction of the evidence for global warming in his video.  The parts that are easy for lay people to understand.  Your right that it is propoganda.  It plays on people's emotions to influence them to change.  It just so happens that this propoganda is also strongly supported with empiracle evidence.

He was independantly wealthy before this.  And the nobel prize wasn't for the movie.  It was for an entire career dedicated to this.  I'll bet anything he's either donated the money to charity or is using it on enviro-friendly causes.  He's not doing this to make money.  It basically cost him the US Presidency in 2000.

You got that backwards.  The oil companies are the ones spending money supporting anti-greenhouse research.  Sort of like the Tobacco industry 30 years ago.  Don't ever trust research that supports the funder.  it's just bad science.
--- End quote ---
Can you say that the movie has really made people change, I don't think. Maybe they think about the issue but have they changed, not that I believe that human really coused the big part of the global warming neither that people could change the futore. But have people really changed. Have they used less pertrol are they traveling less, do they use less electricity, or let I ask this different, do you.
And it is rather ironic Al Gore himself uses a lot of energie, and no I can't see a way he can have an good answer to it.
I would almost think that he just likes the publicity, the money doesn't matter, the film doesn't have an effect to my idea. What is left.



--- Quote ---Yes, that's possible.  But this is part of a lot of other data.  It all points to the same conclusion.  It's still possible that the planet will stabalize and humanity won't have to do anything.  Do you want to bet billions of lives on it?

Yes, it was colder 400 years ago.  And it was colder 1K-2K years ago.  Right now is the hottest time of recorded human history.  It's hotter than the medieval warm period.  It's hot.
--- End quote ---
In my opinion human can't do anything, even if it where true. So betting is out of the question. I meant during the colder time that was 400 years ago, it was colder then 1k or 2k years ago. But your statement is right.


--- Quote ---Okay, the last 30 years have been hotter than any previous 30 year period in the history of man.  Or if not the hottest, damn near close to the hottest.  It's still hotter than the medieval warm period.
--- End quote ---
Well okay, yes your right. I have mislooked, it is today warmer then in the medieval warm period, as I also see standing here. It is still not hotter then 100.000 years ago. I keep my point about 'what does it mean?'



--- Quote ---It's weird, so I don't blame you for being skeptical.  Basically what happens is that as you grow more (and everyone else grows more), the supply of food outpaces its demand, and the price drops dramatically.  The result is that farmers as a whole make less money than if they didn't grow as much.  I think it's called a negative price elasticity or something like that.  Most products operate on a positive price elasticity, so the more you produce the more you make, generally speaking.
--- End quote ---
Well I think I do understand, not fully but that is hard for every market.
Food industry works at world scale, the times everybodys crops around the world grow good is rare. Therefore you never know when there are many or when there are lesser. Any farmer in america jumps and is happy if it goes wrong in australia and the reverse is also right, and of course in europe we're also happy if it goes wrong is america and the reverse is also right. Making a complicated market where there is much trading going on. Any trader could gamble on a bad harvest and try to win money. With grain reserves and alike they keep to have the price stable it isn't like when you harvest more you get less. It is true if it goes on for multiple years, then the price have to drop and there will be less farmers becouse many already know when the price is low.
Already confused, well I am, seems strange but everything is walking through eachother. And I probably missed some importend points.
There are many farmers, much other products have much less suppliers. Together with a product that is unstable. You could make profit one year and lose the other one. And a crop-farm has to invest the whole year and get it all out it the last months very unpredictable.
Very simple you make more money if you're a bigger farmer then a smaller one. Farm-land makes money. More land makes more money, with the extra crop demand there is going to be, the extra amazone area could become profitable.
Comparely to other sectors the in the farming, the profit-percentages are lower mainly becouse they tend to outcompete eachother. If everyone tries to produce much they all could suffer.


--- Quote ---Except that environmental groups are not-for-profits.  Meaning that they're carefully regulated by governments.  If they were suddenly making all kinds of money, like you assert, they wouldn't be able to claim not-for-profit status, and their taxes would suddenly balloon.  If they make money at all, it's through donations from rich environmentalists, like Al Gore.
--- End quote ---
Well, regulated by goverment, I tend to find it awfully strange that in the Netherlands(not sure about other countrys), many old politicans are working in higher places in enviromental organisation and are earning a lot of money with it. Would it be ethical to draw the line further, I wonder. Well let you draw it.


--- Quote ---Prices are actually dropping in Mexico.  You see, the US suddenly has decided that it doesn't like it's open door policy with Mexico, and so it requires a lot of work to get food imported from Mexico.  Meaning that the Mexican farmers have no market for their food.  Their on hand supply rises, and they're forced to drop prices to keep selling it.  A price increase in food would be great for the mostly Agrarian Mexico.  Price increases in food are good for farmers.  They're just bad for (poor) urban populations.
--- End quote ---
I have read that they have risen, and that the '(poor) urban populations' like you call it was having food schortage. I really have to use favorites.  bashing myself.


--- Quote ---I don't know European economics, but I have a hard time believing that 100% of arable land will be farmed.  Can you provide a reference?
--- End quote ---
Trouble is that it is setted up pretty recently, facts is that the farmers don't get a penny if they don't use it next growing season and draw the conclusion. Keep also in mind it has been a ragulation, settup up in 1975 and it just suddenly without warning it has changed for the first time if I am not wrong, and too inmidiatly to 0%. I would give you the link but I don't know the english word for 'braak'(unused) land. And I gues you don't know dutch.


--- Quote ---Did you read the links I used?  I'm not making this up.  The Amazon basin could easily turn in to a vast scrubland, with a fertile river running through the middle.
--- End quote ---
I have read some links, I am going to look at them later to be sure if I missed something.


--- Quote ---Ugh, let's hope it doesn't come to that.  Then we'd have to fight a war with an alien bug race, and recruit children to fight the war, and then get saved by a "Third".  And no one wants that
--- End quote ---
 


--- Quote ---Get on google earth and try to find the columbia border in south america.  I think it's columbia.  Could be honduras and belize.  Anyway, you can see on one side of the border is grassland savannah, and the other side is dense forest.
--- End quote ---
Will I do also.

spike43884:
And that, is why I will be an architect people, I only have to read the title and the first line of the first post.
But, dont hate to much on product desginers, hate on interior designers
How many times have you seen on TV, an amazing building (by an architect, because there awesome) then some weird ass interior which looks horrific, or a bedroom which looks ok, then you realise its not got a TV, a WARDROBE or a computer. My bedroom is more space-weird than most of the ones these interior designers work with, and I still have a wardrobe, many cupboards, a computer (with desk), TV on swivel, 2 fishtanks a model railway set, 2 chairs, games consoles...Space on sides for all my junk, a draw for all my various rocks...yeah...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page