Global Warming is happening

[Madaya]

Look, I aint a greeny or similar, just a plain old bloke like yourself. I've spent the last several years trying, and sometimes finding, holes in the Global Warming argument.
The last several months have swayed my opinion. It is real, it is happening. End of the World = No. But big changes will have to happen, driven by climate and rising sea levels.
Okay, so the data is in (doesn't matter whether you are Labor or Liberal at question time).
From what I have researched = the following...
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as well as CH4 (Methane) absorb Infra Red light. This is predominently supplied by the Sun, but a small fraction is supplied by us. When I say absorbed, this basically means, they retain the heat (energy) imparted to them, hence warming the particular enviroment they are contained in, i.e. the Earths Atmosphere.
How to fix...
A friend once showed me a series of graphs, concerning absorbed and reflected light (heat).
Bottom line was that if everyone built or painted ther house roofs with 'white' paint (I guess off white is okay), and world wide, it is a lot of houses, we may well be faced with Global Cooling. The reflected light would bounce back into outer space and not interact with our atmosphere.
A black, or dark roof, absorbs light, and emmits Infra Red (heat), ready to be gobbled up by CO2 and etc.
What astounds me, is the number of newly built houses that have black or dark roofs. Mate, this is Australia, you want to reflect the heat, not draw it in. This works in reverse in what we used to call winter. The light coloured roof, reflects heat back into the house, keeping you warmer. The black roof is an open radiator to the atmosphere.

[superyob]

I don't think it's called global warming anymore, climate change seems to be the fashionable term now. I think the original argument was not so much about its existence but rather its causes.

[pottery beige]

a big rock may come flying through the sky n crash into our planet an the dust that dont settle will black out the sky n then we will be cold cos of no sun n we will go to sleep like the dinosaurs

[Moby Vic]

We can regulate heat a little better than the dinosaurs could.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Madaya

Look, I aint a greeny or similar, just a plain old bloke like yourself. I've spent the last several years trying, and sometimes finding, holes in the Global Warming argument.
The last several months have swayed my opinion. It is real, it is happening. End of the World = No. But big changes will have to happen, driven by climate and rising sea levels.
Okay, so the data is in (doesn't matter whether you are Labor or Liberal at question time).
From what I have researched = the following...
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as well as CH4 (Methane) absorb Infra Red light. This is predominently supplied by the Sun, but a small fraction is supplied by us. When I say absorbed, this basically means, they retain the heat (energy) imparted to them, hence warming the particular enviroment they are contained in, i.e. the Earths Atmosphere.
How to fix...
A friend once showed me a series of graphs, concerning absorbed and reflected light (heat).
Bottom line was that if everyone built or painted ther house roofs with 'white' paint (I guess off white is okay), and world wide, it is a lot of houses, we may well be faced with Global Cooling. The reflected light would bounce back into outer space and not interact with our atmosphere.
A black, or dark roof, absorbs light, and emmits Infra Red (heat), ready to be gobbled up by CO2 and etc.
What astounds me, is the number of newly built houses that have black or dark roofs. Mate, this is Australia, you want to reflect the heat, not draw it in. This works in reverse in what we used to call winter. The light coloured roof, reflects heat back into the house, keeping you warmer. The black roof is an open radiator to the atmosphere.

What your describing is localised effect (which overall can affect global temperatures).

Recent news stories on King George square in Brisbane had (a political stunt i know) the opposition lay down a square meter of turf. Because the entire square had been turned into a concrete (granite by the looks?) jungle, the radiating heat from the square had risen because there was NO grass there anymore.

The same can be said when you look at a housing estate which gets built in what used to be a forest. I'll give a local example.
"Bushland beach" just outside town here used to be... bush! Mostly acre blocks and scrubland. Suddenly developers got their hands on 11000 hectares of scrublands and cleared the lot... every single tree was bulldozed.

Suddenly what used be a "cool" area is now a few degrees hotter.
Bitumen roads all radiating heat... dark grey roofs... all radiating heat... and funny enough, not one tree was planted in anyones yards to provide shade.

A while ago on TV (sbs or abc) they were talking about temperatures and the localised affect buildings/ city landscape has on it.

I can recall the city (it was the USA), but they decided to grow grass/ gardens on the roofs of buildings to reduce heat and try different styles of roads... concrete, bitumen, coloured (painted bitumen), cobble stone pathways, pathways with grass growing etc.... in order to see what effect it has overall.

Sadly whenever we build housing estates in scrublands/ forests, the effect it has locally is all but ignored....

[coupxb]

Its all just a lie to get more money.

[hawkgirl]

there was a very good interview some time ago on the ABC with some aussie geologists.

they had predicted new undersea volcanos in the indian ocean, which would affect sea temps, which in turn would affect land temps & weather cycles. They could NOT get further research funding as they were not parroting "climate change due to people".
Well, those volcanoes have indeed been found, and been found the be affecting water temps & currents.

Something to consider

[comagutsa]

the earth has been heating up and cooling down for billions of years , it just a cycle the earth goes in...

[cs123]

Climate change discussions need to be lumped in with religious/political debates and be banished from this forum.

People are going to believe what they want to believe, no amount of discussion will change it.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Madaya

Look, I aint a greeny or similar, just a plain old bloke like yourself. I've spent the last several years trying, and sometimes finding, holes in the Global Warming argument.
The last several months have swayed my opinion. It is real, it is happening. End of the World = No. But big changes will have to happen, driven by climate and rising sea levels.
Okay, so the data is in (doesn't matter whether you are Labor or Liberal at question time).
From what I have researched = the following...
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as well as CH4 (Methane) absorb Infra Red light. This is predominently supplied by the Sun, but a small fraction is supplied by us. When I say absorbed, this basically means, they retain the heat (energy) imparted to them, hence warming the particular enviroment they are contained in, i.e. the Earths Atmosphere.
How to fix...
A friend once showed me a series of graphs, concerning absorbed and reflected light (heat).
Bottom line was that if everyone built or painted ther house roofs with 'white' paint (I guess off white is okay), and world wide, it is a lot of houses, we may well be faced with Global Cooling. The reflected light would bounce back into outer space and not interact with our atmosphere.
A black, or dark roof, absorbs light, and emmits Infra Red (heat), ready to be gobbled up by CO2 and etc.
What astounds me, is the number of newly built houses that have black or dark roofs. Mate, this is Australia, you want to reflect the heat, not draw it in. This works in reverse in what we used to call winter. The light coloured roof, reflects heat back into the house, keeping you warmer. The black roof is an open radiator to the atmosphere.

Ah of course.

This explains why all the sand in the all the deserts worldwide is black......

[ltd]

Originally Posted by comagutsa

the earth has been heating up and cooling down for billions of years , it just a cycle the earth goes in...

Correct, and it's influenced by solar activity (that's how Mars climate mirrored earths). We're in a global cooling period at the moment, which is why there has been no warming for 16 years.
Fact is, smog and particulate matter is our friend. For example, in the USA where there is a constant visible layer of pollution, incidence of skin cancer per head of population is very low. In Australia we have very little particulate matter etc in a comparison and we have up to 13 times the amount of skin cancer per head of population. Smog blocks UV and other hazardous radiation. Just look at Tasmania, every day is ultra-high UV day.

Can this be extrapolated and tortured to scare the western populace into submission for an egregious socialist agenda? No.
Can the case for more smog to prevent melanomas be twisted to make billions for the intelligentsia in a manufactured pseudo science industry? No.

Bugger it then, let's have a climate change then and make everyone pay us to fix a non issue.

[turbodewd]

Well I cant help but notice lots of reports of ice melting at both caps and in Greenland and North America.

If scientists can put a man on the moon and also say that the earth is warming due to us then Im all for the carbon tax.

People should stop buying 55" LCD TVs, those things are power hungry!

At least my economy in my turbo is 10.5L/100km.....better than 14 in my old POS camaro that I sold in 2003 (God, what a rubbish car that was!)

[flappist]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

Well I cant help but notice lots of reports of ice melting at both caps and in Greenland and North America.

If scientists can put a man on the moon and also say that the earth is warming due to us then Im all for the carbon tax.

People should stop buying 55" LCD TVs, those things are power hungry!

At least my economy in my turbo is 10.5L/100km.....better than 14 in my old POS camaro that I sold in 2003 (God, what a rubbish car that was!)

Hmm why is Greenland called Greenland and not "Whiteland"?

Hint: Research climate over the last couple of thousand years not the last 15 minutes........

[Madaya]

Originally Posted by cs123

Climate change discussions need to be lumped in with religious/political debates and be banished from this forum.

People are going to believe what they want to believe, no amount of discussion will change it.

Oops, didn't mean to start a scrub fire. Err, I believe the sun is up right now, as it is shining through my window. Even a blind person can tell, they feel its warmth on their skin, and can hear nature's orchestra which confirms that the sun is up.

So this is not about believing what we want.

comagutsa says, "the earth has been heating up and cooling down for billions of years , it just a cycle the earth goes in". Totally agree, and yes Greenland used to have a warmer climate, and yes, I have seen the landing site of the Normans when they invaded England in 1066, it's a kilometer inland from the present shore line. No, not all deserts are white/yellow sand and devoid of plant life, check the picture books. The driest deserts are in Antartica.

But like Moby Vic says, we can regulate heat a little better than the dinosaurs could. And if a big rock was hurtling through space, heading for the Earth, given time, we could deflect it and stop the event from happening. That is what makes us human.

However, if this thread becomes all too much, and becomes a farce, then by all means, stop it now.

[290GTP]

Climate change... one of the largest conspiracy theories ever drummed up by mankind & it's all designed by the powers at be to make YOU, the general public, feel so bad about how we are trashing the planet that we will all happily open our wallets to make it all go away.

As stated above, the worlds climate has been changing constantly for billions of years, long before mankind came on the scene.

[turbodewd]

Originally Posted by 290GTP

As stated above, the worlds climate has been changing constantly for billions of years, long before mankind came on the scene.

Fair call, but the scientists say that the speed of this climate change is what is different.

Neither you nor I are climate scientists. We should err on the side of caution and follow their advice.

There is no harm in making solar farms, wind farms, efficient houses, etc

There is no good reason not to get on board the climate change caper.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Madaya

Oops, didn't mean to start a scrub fire.

Wasn't having a dig at you. These threads always go south on past form.

People have generally made up their mind and most passionately believe one side or the other.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

Fair call, but the scientists say that the speed of this climate change is what is different.

Neither you nor I are climate scientists. We should err on the side of caution and follow their advice.

There is no harm in making solar farms, wind farms, efficient houses, etc

There is no good reason not to get on board the climate change caper.

While this may be a good theory have you noticed that every single solution is a permutation of "Increase taxation and use funds for purposes other than creating energy"

[flappist]

I have let this thread run as all of the posts (except the one above I deleted) have been sensible, on topic and aimed at points made by others.

While it remains like this the thread will stay.

If it becomes a slanging match with personal attacks then it will be closed and deleted.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by flappist

While this may be a good theory have you noticed that every single solution is a permutation of "Increase taxation and use funds for purposes other than creating energy"

Agreed.
That and all these green companies are unable to survive without government subsidy; meanwhile all the consumers are slugged with higher costs of energy driving businesses offshore and impoverishing the nation.

[2011G6E]

A few facts:
* The atmosphere is made up of various gases, with only 0.0387% being Carbon Dioxide.
* Humans contribute 3.4% of this amount. Australia contributes about 0.001% of this amount.

Where does Australia stand on the ranking of carbon emitters? We're "the worst" right? We're "massive" polluters, aren't we? We're "the worst per capita", right?

No. Well...yes...depending on how you put the figures on paper.

Australia is always quoted...always...as "per capita" polluters. This makes us appear very bad, because of our tiny population.
The real figures are easy to find...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions
Australia sits way down the list of polluters at a true ranking of number 17 by 2011 figures...behind such "economic industrial polluting powerhouses" as Indonesia.

The interesting figure beside that is when they divide emissions by head of population...only then do you come out with a figure that puts us not at the top, but third, behind the USA and Saudi Arabia. China, which is a massive polluter, the largest in the world by a long way, comes out (when you do this rediculous sum) as being a "clean looking" figure waaaay down the list of polluters.

China is repeatedly given as an example of "clean energy"...we were told they are shutting down 20 old dirty coal fired power stations...and they are, but we weren't told at the same time that they are replacing thios 20 with over sixty brand new coal fired power stations...

It's all about sums...not climate.

The climate is going to change...it's always changed, with or without us. We're along for the ride, and it's been through a lot worse than mankind.
The Barrier Reef is also given as another emotive issue. How old is it? Millions of years? Tens of millions? Nope...the reef as we see it now has only been there for...wait for it...14,000 years. It was formed from coastal plains which were flooded over a period of about 300 years after a world wide "meltwater pulse event". It's amazing to think that aborigines were here to see that happen. There are fossil reef remains out on the continental shelf of older reef formations.
We should enjoy the reef while it is there...because it wasn't there once, and it probably won't be again, no matter what we do.


Sure...keep the environment clean, try to reduce power consumption...but don't for a second think that humans can "destroy" the Earth short of a nuclear holocaust, and even then the world would eventually recover, as it has from past disaster events.

We are insignificant...merely an intelligent species of animal that has been around for a few hundred thousand years, and will probably pass on to something else after another hundred thousand or so. Make then most of it while we can.

[steve.zissou]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

A few facts:
* The atmosphere is made up of various gases, with only 0.0387% being Carbon Dioxide.
* Humans contribute 3.4% of this amount. Australia contributes about 0.001% of this amount.

Where does Australia stand on the ranking of carbon emitters? We're "the worst" right? We're "massive" polluters, aren't we? We're "the worst per capita", right?

No. Well...yes...depending on how you put the figures on paper.

Australia is always quoted...always...as "per capita" polluters. This makes us appear very bad, because of our tiny population.
The real figures are easy to find...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions
Australia sits way down the list of polluters at a true ranking of number 17 by 2011 figures...behind such "economic industrial polluting powerhouses" as Indonesia.

The interesting figure beside that is when they divide emissions by head of population...only then do you come out with a figure that puts us not at the top, but third, behind the USA and Saudi Arabia. China, which is a massive polluter, the largest in the world by a long way, comes out (when you do this rediculous sum) as being a "clean looking" figure waaaay down the list of polluters.

China is repeatedly given as an example of "clean energy"...we were told they are shutting down 20 old dirty coal fired power stations...and they are, but we weren't told at the same time that they are replacing thios 20 with over sixty brand new coal fired power stations...

It's all about sums...not climate.

The climate is going to change...it's always changed, with or without us. We're along for the ride, and it's been through a lot worse than mankind.
The Barrier Reef is also given as another emotive issue. How old is it? Millions of years? Tens of millions? Nope...the reef as we see it now has only been there for...wait for it...14,000 years. It was formed from coastal plains which were flooded over a period of about 300 years after a world wide "meltwater pulse event". It's amazing to think that aborigines were here to see that happen. There are fossil reef remains out on the continental shelf of older reef formations.
We should enjoy the reef while it is there...because it wasn't there once, and it probably won't be again, no matter what we do.


Sure...keep the environment clean, try to reduce power consumption...but don't for a second think that humans can "destroy" the Earth short of a nuclear holocaust, and even then the world would eventually recover, as it has from past disaster events.

We are insignificant...merely an intelligent species of animal that has been around for a few hundred thousand years, and will probably pass on to something else after another hundred thousand or so. Make then most of it while we can.

great stuff, except for that last bit about reduce our energy consumption - sort of. We should be working on ways to have so much energy we can do basically anything with it. that is the key to the next evolution of human development.

even bill gate is as smart as i am on this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HxI3-DzPWU

[2011G6E]

I should just add: "erring on the side of caution" is usually a sensible thing to do...on a small scale such as in your private or work life.

However, when you try and do it on a national economic and social scale, it brings many problems.
You end up with high electricity prices which impact everyones standard of living (because green groups say we "should pay more for energy to discourage it's use"), you end up with high fuel prices for petrol which again affects peoples lives. You end up with carbon taxes on an nationwide scale which have so-far-unknown consequences in the long term. You get taxpayers dollars poured endlessely into green power schemes which never have and probably never will pay for themselves without ongoing subsidies and government support.

We should first assess what the affect on the hip pockets of the populace will be, and only if it is a positive, go ahead with whatever scheme is being proposed. If it is something that is going to hurt people, take their money, tax them to death, and require ongoing subsidies on a huge scale, with little or no environmental benefit, then don't do it.

What you don't do is lie to your tiny population (I'm looking at you Australian government) that anything our country can do is going to change the world climate one iota. We could literally shut down all industry, turn off every power station, shut off all vehicles of all sorts, and it would not make one bit of difference to the world climate.
Australia is nothing in the big scheme of things...go and talk to the real polluters first and get them to change...try starting with India and China, who make up nearly half the worlds population yet are not required to do anything to cut back emissions...and, by the way, what I said above is precisely how those large real "big polluters" reason and refuse to "change their ways"...they simply shrug and say it will affect their economy negatively, and will impact the lives of their populace at large, so why bother.

If any country could truly and honestly use this argument, it's Australia.

[mik]

If you do a bit of research , it's not hard to find that some of the most vocal celeb doom sayers on global warming, are actually making a big quid on the sustainable gizmo's and carbon credits.
I go along with the thought that our little planet is much more suseptible to it's own climate timetable .
With out side forces such as the sun, moon, etc solar flares, gravitation/magnetism/vulcanism.
There's plenty of geological evidence that co2 levels, sea levels and extreme's of tempreture have been happening long before we where around and will continue to do so long after we are gone.

[Spinner77]

Here is why I don't buy the warmist argument.

1. The climate is always changing
The Romans were able to grow wine grapes in northern England, something not now possible. It is now apparent that the climate then was warmer than now. In the mid-17th century, Europe experienced the Little Ice Age, and people used to ice-skate on the Thames. If you think the climate is subject to cycles, your better bet is another Ice Age - one is well overdue. The onus is on the warmists to show that climate change is man-made; it is not on us to prove that change is not man-made CO2. By the way, ever noticed how the warmists never want to talk about the sun?

2. The warmist predictions depend on models
The problems with models is that they depend on simplification. They have to leave bits out. Otherwise they would be too complex to handle. The Australian Treasury uses economic models. When do they get their predictions right? In the 1990s not one but two Nobel Prize winners in economics set up an investment fund, Long Term Capital, with a model based on all the smartest thinking around. In 1998 it lost $4.6 billion in less than 4 months, before going bust.

3. The warmist models depend on advanced statistics.
Standard economic and finance theory depends on statistics. I saw Ross Garnaut say the very same techniques are used in climate science. This reassured him greatly. Ross should know.

Now standard finance theory, based on statistics, predicts a market crash only every 10,000 years or so. Yet there were crashes in 1929 and 1987.

4. There is no climate science
There are mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and geology. Anyone studying the climate uses these sciences. To claim that there is some special expertise in "the climate" is fraudulent.

5. Don't forget the scandals in "climate science"
Lots of examples, and the best ones came from leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, a centre of alleged climate experts, which showed they were cooking the books.

6. Don't forget the predictions already shown to be wrong.
My favourite was Penny Wong screwing up her little face on the banks of the Murray in the middle of the drought, declaring the river would never be the same again.

7. Predictions are mostly worthless, and the most important things are not predicted.
You would think that financial markets would have trembled as World War I was approaching. They didn't. Almost nobody predicted it. Nobody predicted the rise of a Hitler to power in Germany. Almost nobody, not even in science fiction, predicted the Internet. And who predicted 9/11?

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Spinner77

And who predicted 9/11?

The CIA.... They predicted it and warned Duba. He ignored them.....

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Spinner77

Here is why I don't buy the warmist argument.

1. The climate is always changing
The Romans were able to grow wine grapes in northern England, something not now possible. It is now apparent that the climate then was warmer than now. In the mid-17th century, Europe experienced the Little Ice Age, and people used to ice-skate on the Thames. If you think the climate is subject to cycles, your better bet is another Ice Age - one is well overdue. The onus is on the warmists to show that climate change is man-made; it is not on us to prove that change is not man-made CO2. By the way, ever noticed how the warmists never want to talk about the sun?

2. The warmist predictions depend on models
The problems with models is that they depend on simplification. They have to leave bits out. Otherwise they would be too complex to handle. The Australian Treasury uses economic models. When do they get their predictions right? In the 1990s not one but two Nobel Prize winners in economics set up an investment fund, Long Term Capital, with a model based on all the smartest thinking around. In 1998 it lost $4.6 billion in less than 4 months, before going bust.

3. The warmist models depend on advanced statistics.
Standard economic and finance theory depends on statistics. I saw Ross Garnaut say the very same techniques are used in climate science. This reassured him greatly. Ross should know.

Now standard finance theory, based on statistics, predicts a market crash only every 10,000 years or so. Yet there were crashes in 1929 and 1987.

4. There is no climate science
There are mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and geology. Anyone studying the climate uses these sciences. To claim that there is some special expertise in "the climate" is fraudulent.

5. Don't forget the scandals in "climate science"
Lots of examples, and the best ones came from leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, a centre of alleged climate experts, which showed they were cooking the books.

6. Don't forget the predictions already shown to be wrong.
My favourite was Penny Wong screwing up her little face on the banks of the Murray in the middle of the drought, declaring the river would never be the same again.

7. Predictions are mostly worthless, and the most important things are not predicted.
You would think that financial markets would have trembled as World War I was approaching. They didn't. Almost nobody predicted it. Nobody predicted the rise of a Hitler to power in Germany. Almost nobody, not even in science fiction, predicted the Internet. And who predicted 9/11?

Well said.
I love how the often mentioned Peer Reviewed IPCC paper of 50 bazillion scientists was actually 6 or 7 undergraduates who reviewed each others work; as if giving it impetus based on a number.
What irks me about this whole fraud is the fact that there are literally people dying (the elderly) in both Summer and Winter thanks to skyrocketing energy costs driven by a green socialist agenda and their thought of Australia not using any coal by the year 2050.
May seem extreme but look at what the Greens have done to Tasmania; it's an economic basket case down there reliant on commonwealth subsidy to survive.

Like everything else, I don't want government telling me what to do, and funnily enough in my job these megalomaniacs actually place their miserable lives in my hands.

[robbyj]

Originally Posted by Spinner77

who predicted 9/11?

Lets not go there.

The sun is the main source of global warming as well as global cooling

[ltd]

Originally Posted by cs123

The CIA.... They predicted it and warned Duba. He ignored them.....

Not to go too far off topic, but you know this how?

For mine it was mainly the CIA who had gathered intelligence on the operatives in the USA doing flight training as well as intercepted communications, who didn't tell the FBI. The FBI knew an attack was imminent but not sure what it was to be.
One of the major changes introduced since the 911 commission report was that the CIA and FBI had to start working a lot closer together to prevent attacks on US soil.
As for Dubya, he was only a few months into the job and was apparently livid that some public servants had some prior knowledge; several senior intelligence chiefs were sacked over 911.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by cs123

The CIA.... They predicted it and warned Duba. He ignored them.....

Slightly off topic, but I heard an interview with a former FBI top guy who said "Every week the CIA and FBI receive literally hundreds to thousands of either leads or outright threats. Most are able to be dismissed straight away, some are looked into, a tiny amount are taken seriously". He asked "Which one of the thousands we get every week are to be taken seriously and which are put aside as too outlandish to bother wasting time with? We can't check them all".
If you want to get a scare, have a look in an average week at any of the official cautions and warnings for common tourist destinations near to Australia...Bali, Indonesia, Thailand...doesn't stop people going. Even after the Bali Bombing people still kept going there shortly after on holiday even though our government was warning westerners to stay away.

This is similar to the predictions of climate alarmists like Ross Garnault and other government talking heads. They put out so many predictions and dire threats of horror that the public doesn't know what to believe...so it's easiest just to go along with it..."just in case".

It was said early on in the climate change "debate" (ever remember an actual debate being allowed to happen? Thought not...) that "unless we predict disasters, no one will listen", and that the public should be kept in a constant state of worry about the future, so restrictions and laws and taxes can be brought in more easily.

To the subject: Earths climate.
It always changes. The worrying fact is that our entire civilisation for the last 10,000 years has arisin during one unseasonably temperate and calm period of Earths history...it's normally either much hotter or much colder than we experience now, and it inevitably will change to one extreme or another in the future. Thinking we can do anything to affect it in a real way is foolish in the extreme...