Jump to content


Photo

Prost, Thatcher, F1, Politics


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 15:13

I just came across this interesting little bit on youtube.



Thatcher, globalization, F1, capitalism etc etc Which leads me to ask, are all F1 fans neo-liberals? Are you all proud to be F1 fans considering the big picture?

Advertisement

#2 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 March 2008 - 16:15

:confused: Que??

#3 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 16:54

F1 as we know it is a by-product of capitalism. It is essentially a platform for multinationals to promote their products/services. I think there can be little argument about that. I thought the Iron Lady visiting Woking talking with Ron in I assume 1986 is quite symbolic. She insisted on privatization, open markets. How proud she must have been of Ron Dennis and the McLaren enterprise - a team sponsored by Marlboro and Shell. 1986 was the year of the first GP in Hungary behind the Iron curtain. Competition and genuine belief of the Modernization Theory rather than the Dependency Theory. All in the name of 'Development.'

Just thought the clip was interesting and somehow asks the question can you justify F1 in a broader context or does it promote global inequality? Just think of some of the places the F1 circus travels to, think of the sponsors involved, their role in poor nations.

I was wondering, does this mean all F1 fans are neo-liberals and if not, hypocrites?

#4 Apogee

Apogee
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 08 March 2008 - 17:14

It's just racing. Sure it's used as an advertising platform for multinationals, but I would recommend attaching more importance to it than that.

And Labour, not the tories, were the first party to privatise a previously nationalised industry of course...

#5 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 17:27

Originally posted by man
F1 as we know it is a by-product of capitalism. It is essentially a platform for multinationals to promote their products/services. I think there can be little argument about that. I thought the Iron Lady visiting Woking talking with Ron in I assume 1986 is quite symbolic. She insisted on privatization, open markets. How proud she must have been of Ron Dennis and the McLaren enterprise - a team sponsored by Marlboro and Shell. 1986 was the year of the first GP in Hungary behind the Iron curtain. Competition and genuine belief of the Modernization Theory rather than the Dependency Theory. All in the name of 'Development.'

Just thought the clip was interesting and somehow asks the question can you justify F1 in a broader context or does it promote global inequality? Just think of some of the places the F1 circus travels to, think of the sponsors involved, their role in poor nations.

I was wondering, does this mean all F1 fans are neo-liberals and if not, hypocrites?


These days all sports are about advertising multinationals. I am not sure that you could call it particuarly neo liberal, since if anything governments have been getting more involved in the sport. The government of Abu Dhabi owns 5% of Ferrari and the government of Bahrain own 30% of McLaren. Neoliberalism also relies upon deregulation, and you can hardly say that the FIA have been big believers in deregulation.

You can talk about going to places such as China as supporting a country with terrible human rights records, but to be honest, these days ethical buying of pretty much anything is a very tricky situation if you refuse to buy any "made in China" wares.

Anyway, personally I don't really give a crap, I just enjoy watching really fast cars being driven by really fast drivers.

#6 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 17:46

Originally posted by Josta


These days all sports are about advertising multinationals.


Perhaps, but I suppose there is a slight difference between F1, its effect on the environment, the constant stream of colours generated by sponsorship from ethically questionable multi-nats and the huge amounts of capital involved and lets say test match Cricket for instance.

Originally posted by Josta
I am not sure that you could call it particuarly neo liberal, since if anything governments have been getting more involved in the sport.


And why are they getting involved? To put their nation on the shop window and attract the business of more multi-nationals?

Originally posted by Josta


You can talk about going to places such as China as supporting a country with terrible human rights records, but to be honest, these days ethical buying of pretty much anything is a very tricky situation if you refuse to buy any "made in China" wares.


Although China is always mentioned, I think the issue of human rights could be addressed to quite a few other GP locations - nations that tend to constantly harp on about China.

Originally posted by Josta

Anyway, personally I don't really give a crap, I just enjoy watching really fast cars being driven by really fast drivers.


Thanks for your opinion. Would be nice if we could somehow ask how F1 is perceived by those who live in regions where they get the raw end of the deal in terms of global trade.

#7 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,333 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 19:12

Thatcher, the best since Winston

#8 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 19:58

"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."


Dunno about neo-liberals. This "neo" everything is confusing. Must be better than neo-conservatives. Otherwise F1 would race with fighter planes. The first pilot to bomb...oops, liberate the people of Bahrain of their riches...oops, tyrants wins the race. Oops, I meant Battle for Freedom.

#9 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 20:15

On more serious note, I am not sure if F1 represents "neo-liberalism"...or anything else, for that matter. It´s business. They follow whatever "political" agenda that happens to suit them at the time. Naturally some (eg Bernie) make loads of money. Globalization? Well, it doesn´t make sense to have 18 races in one country. NASCAR would do exactly the same, if they had the opportunity to gain 300 million TV audiences. Running huge racing series like F1 isn´t about moral principles, that´s for sure.

#10 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 08 March 2008 - 21:53

Neo-Liberal is a slander word made by leftists against Liberals( The European meaning term which is different than American one ) and others that believe in Economic Freedom, based in works by Adam Smith to Mises, Hayek, to Freedman, and many others and of course some variants . No one calls itself Neo-Liberal. They call Liberal, Liberal(Economic)-Conservative(Social), Libertarian or Classical Liberal for an American.

The F1 certainly in the Past meant freedom, but unfortunately that is being reduced with overrulling by an organisation like FIA, that like all organisations that dont face competition just indulges in being much more fat and bureaucratic every year that passes on. As such we see much less freedom and as result creativity in engineering projects.

#11 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 21:59

What are you people going to do when Margaret Thatcher pops her clogs? Who will you blame then?

#12 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 22:00

Anything that makes huge money is a tool for the Government.

Bernie knows this, yence the Silverstone threats, if a country is taking it's place on the f1 calender for granted, then Bernie will notice.

England should have a state of art entertainment center around Silverstone, were getting it, but very late, and step by step. Meanwhile the places that badly want a GP, will build anything to get it done.


I'll always be a f1 fan, but how much money I give to my passion, I think about that more closely now, cost of living has gone up, the world is changing, even Pizza prices have gone up, F1 has to be more affordable and fun, and without a Senna and Schumacher, F1 is lacking a GOD to follow, these are tough times for f1, but then again everything eventually must pass as is life and as is f1, one day it will stop. :smoking: :smoking:





#13 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 22:37

Originally posted by Bloggsworth
What are you people going to do when Margaret Thatcher pops her clogs? Who will you blame then?


Her voters of course! :up:

#14 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 March 2008 - 22:59

Originally posted by SeanValen
England should have a state of art entertainment center around Silverstone, were getting it, but very late, and step by step. Meanwhile the places that badly want a GP, will build anything to get it done.


Wrong. State of the art entertainment center around Silverstone would do absolutely nothing to keep the GP in England. Have you noticed how they have GPs in the middle of desert, for half-empty grandstands?

There is only one rule: how big pile of cash Bernie gets? The oil shejks will always pay more than democratic countries that cannot use tax payers money at will. Hence, F1 is moving from Europe to Middle East.


#15 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 23:53

Perhaps, but I suppose there is a slight difference between F1, its effect on the environment, the constant stream of colours generated by sponsorship from ethically questionable multi-nats and the huge amounts of capital involved and lets say test match Cricket for instance.



Hmm, what you were talking about was the advertising of corporations. Now it has turned to environmental issues. Well, you can watch F1 safe in the knowledge that it has been carbon neutral since 1996. Look at football for example. People will pay rediculous prices to buy an Arsenal T shirt that advertises a footwear firm that has employed child labour for decades.

And why are they getting involved? To put their nation on the shop window and attract the business of more multi-nationals?



Ahh, but you were talking about neo liberalism. Neo liberalism involves the government butting the hell out of corporations. Bahrain for example, not only owns 30% of McLaren, but 100% of the Bahrain track. In other words, the Bahrain GP is a nationalised industry. Hardly neo liberalism.

Although China is always mentioned, I think the issue of human rights could be addressed to quite a few other GP locations - nations that tend to constantly harp on about China.



Indeed they could, I was just using China as an example, (given the fact that China executes more people than the rest of the world combined for example). With regards to human rights, China is by far the biggest abuser of all of the GP's in the world. My point is that ultimately, if you want to decide who gets what on human rights records, then there is very little scope because China is about to become a superpower. Look at where the next olympics are due to be held.


Thanks for your opinion. Would be nice if we could somehow ask how F1 is perceived by those who live in regions where they get the raw end of the deal in terms of global trade.



I am an F1 fan, and this is an F1 forum. It therefore follows that ultimately the reason why I watch F1 has bugger all to do with politics and everything to do with the sport. Yes, I am a supporter of Amnesty, and I buy free trade, but at the end of the day if you decide everything that you do depending on whether it goes to places that are a bit nasty, then you can't support anything.

For instance, what footwear do you buy? If you have children, how many of their toys come from China? Do you own a car? In which case, where does the oil come from that fills your tank?

BTW, are you a university student by any chance? All ideals and no idea of the real world.

#16 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 09 March 2008 - 00:36

Originally posted by man


Perhaps, but I suppose there is a slight difference between F1, its effect on the environment, the constant stream of colours generated by sponsorship from ethically questionable multi-nats and the huge amounts of capital involved and lets say test match Cricket for instance.


What are these "ethically questionable multi-nats"?

You´ll find equally questionable "national" companies as well, assuming they are big enough to bend the rules. Use of child labour and hazardous materials, screwing smaller competitors, sponsoring lobbyists to deny global warming...you name it. The same thing with countries. All superpowers do nasty things, whether it´s human right violations or bombing other countries for oil. It happens all the time. The role of F1 in this? Very small.

When it comes to effect on enviroment, I would guess there is no difference between F1 GP and cricket match. In both cases, the cars of spectators/bus companies cause thousands of times more pollution than 22 open-wheelers driving in circles for 1,5 hours. Even if you count testing, F1 cars are small problem.

Josta pretty much nailed it:

but at the end of the day if you decide everything that you do depending on whether it goes to places that are a bit nasty, then you can't support anything.



#17 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 09 March 2008 - 03:10

sponsoring lobbyists to deny global warming



Well there is much more money sponsoring lobbyists to Believe Global Warming...

#18 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 09 March 2008 - 10:36

Originally posted by AlexS


Well there is much more money sponsoring lobbyists to Believe Global Warming...


Nope. Stop and think. Who has the money: oil and coal industry or Greenpeace? You tell me. Not to mention car industry, military industry, and zillions of plants that pump up carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The "enviromentalists" are outgunned, plain and simple.

The fact is scientists have reached consensus on this. And yet, thanks to small but powerful group of lobbyists (Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Frederick Seitz, Tim Ball, etc) lots of people believe it´s all unclear or even lies by enviromentalists. Or furriners.

The IPCC reached consensus. One study investigated no less than 928 randomly selected scientific articles on global warming. Not even one denied or questioned global warming. But of course, most average Joes get their info from TV shows, newspaper columns, etc.

I realize this is OT, but global warming is scientific fact. Just as tobacco vs cancer. It´s Deja Vu. The arguments are the same. The people are the same. Who told us tobacco isn´t harmful and links between smoking and lung cancer are so unclear? Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Frederick Seitz...formerly funded by Philip Morris, now funded by ExxonMobil. Despite - oops, because - of this, all three get more visibility than 1000 legitimate scientists put together. Hence, it appears there is big debate going on.

Money talks, AlexS.

#19 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 09 March 2008 - 13:43

1- So your argument that Global Warming* is a reality is made by a World Organisation founded by billions from taxpayers money and private funds and somewhat you say that the Money is in the other side.
Plus Global Warming Industry, Billions of Carbon Credits, Billions from advertising Green Products(Some of them only Green) and a Major Media acritical take? Do you want to make a sum of that?

2-Consensus? Since when Concensus is Science? When Global Warmists fail to adress the History of Co2 Vs Temperature.

3- Consensus? Where is the Consensus? When thousands of important scientists(people that were already important before the crazyness) deny much of Global Warming Religion. To not forget the dozens of scientists that were in IPCC and disagreed with it.

4-No you are wrong. Politics always talk before Money.
You just have to look to XX Century.
Neverthless you forget there is much more money to win in Global Warming Industry than to deny it.

5- It is prospeterous that you talk about Media. Without them you would never get the acritical Global Warming bandwagon. Most of them went for it. Do you want to measure how many Billions that is? And they made it with lies: Like the BBC and others saying that Northwestern Passage was opened to traffic for first time recently, when Amudsen made that travel at begin of the XX Century and many other ships made it later. Thankfull that is changing and they are not more so acritical.

6- In the end more and more scientists are talking against the bandwagon. A recent example http://www.dailytech...rticle10973.htm

"Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end i'll give you with a link to chapter XXXIX of Va Pensiero from Giacomo Leopardi written in 1830.

http://www.leopardi.it/pensieri.php

già un secolo e mezzo addietro, ai contemporanei del Magalotti, il quale nelle Lettere familiari scriveva: "egli è pur certo che l'ordine antico delle stagioni par che vada pervertendosi. Qui in Italia è voce e querela comune, che i mezzi tempi non vi son più; e in questo smarrimento di confini, non vi è dubbio che il freddo acquista terreno. Io ho udito dire a mio padre, che in sua gioventù, a Roma, la mattina di pasqua di resurrezione, ognuno si rivestiva da state. Adesso chi non ha bisogno d'impegnar la camiciuola, vi so dire che si guarda molto bene di non alleggerirsi della minima cosa di quelle ch'ei portava nel cuor dell'inverno". Ouesto scriveva il Magalotti in data del 1683.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*:I suppose you want to mean that Global Warming mainly made by Humans are a "scientific fact" and that humans can fight against it.

Well my opinion is that Global Warming cannot be measured reliably with much of Earth surface without sensors to measure it plus land temperatures dependent on cloud cover. Neither there is a Historical reliable data. For Strategic Reasons and also Air Quality specially in cities i am all for alternative energy in Car and other Industries when economically viable. That is the reason i am all for deregulation in F1 and that KERS and other solutions should have free hands.
Not because of hack political Government bureaucrat job of a supposed "Global Warming" which is being replaced for obvious reasons by "Climate Change" .

Advertisement

#20 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 09 March 2008 - 13:51

Global warming is real. Reasons are disputed. But even if we remove the global warming from the equation we can clearly see that pollution is a huge problem. Not only pollution from fossil fuels, also from nuclear waste, chemicals and general garbage. If the industry would be forced to take responsibility for their garbage and the pollution that their products creates, it would cost them huge amounts of money. Huge amounts.

#21 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 09 March 2008 - 14:55

F1 needs to get away from petrol engines and use renewal sources. I would be prouder to support a Green Ferrari one day running on garbage like Back to the future 2 :p

#22 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 09 March 2008 - 15:43

Originally posted by StefanV
Global warming is real. Reasons are disputed. But even if we remove the global warming from the equation we can clearly see that pollution is a huge problem. Not only pollution from fossil fuels, also from nuclear waste, chemicals and general garbage. If the industry would be forced to take responsibility for their garbage and the pollution that their products creates, it would cost them huge amounts of money. Huge amounts.


Yep. That is the flaw in theories of AlexS. Sure, producers of alternative energy have much to gain. But if we compare this to potential losses for oil and coal industry (not to forget folks who rely on oil and coal!!!), we can see why it makes sense to hire lobbyists. They know eventually new, cleaner ways to produce energy will replace gas-guzzling pickups and coil plants. But they don´t want that to happen any time soon.

How about responding to the challenge? George Bush should be happy about Kyoto protocol. His country has the most advanced technology, the best scientific minds...by all logic American enviromental-friendly products should kick weak-a** Chinese/Euro garbage to high heaven.

When Global Warmists fail to adress the History of Co2 Vs Temperature.



How come? Co2 and temperature have always gone hand in hand. Now Co2 levels are extremely high (in fact, higher than ever in at least 600.000 years or so) and rising. That´s the point, they are above the normal cycle that has been going on for long long time. How about sun activity? Usually nice match with temperature. Unfortunately, if we look at last 20 years or so...this hasn´t been the case.

Consensus? Where is the Consensus? When thousands of important scientists(people that were already important before the crazyness) deny much of Global Warming Religion. To not forget the dozens of scientists that were in IPCC and disagreed with it.



But, it is extremely hard to find "sceptics" who are A) experts on climate issues B) aren´t funded (directly or indirectly) by oil & coal industry C) or White House.

It is prospeterous that you talk about Media. Without them you would never get the acritical Global Warming bandwagon. Most of them went for it.



Let me put it this way: out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles, ZERO denied/questioned global warming or the role of humans in it. Similar study was done with newspaper articles, and it was found out more than 50% denied/questioned global warming. Doesn´t sound right to me.

Now, if you ask the people...expect 50% or so :D

No you are wrong. Politics always talk before Money.



In several countries these two are the same thing...

Well my opinion is that Global Warming cannot be measured reliably with much of Earth surface without sensors to measure it plus land temperatures dependent on cloud cover.



Right. We cannot measure how big impact exactly Co2 emissions have, so let´s do nothing. This reminds me of Tobacco Wars. Who can say if you´ll get lung cancer or not? Many non-smokers get it, many smokers don´t. Since there is no reliable way to measure and predict it, let´s keep smoking. Things never change, I guess.

To summarize, lobbyists...politicians...corporations...have managed to turn rational, scientific discussion into slugfest. In most cases, people believe what they want to believe. Many cheered to this film called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", because it supported their POV. Despite of the fact that scientific data in that pseudo-documentary was screwed up, either by omitting last 20 years or by creating nice graphs out of thin air.

#23 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 09 March 2008 - 16:18

I really, and I rarely do, laughed out loud when I saw this quote:

"Politics always talk before Money."

I can not deny a certain good-feeling that there is someone that really believes it is true. Sad that the world has become so cynical.

#24 Haddock

Haddock
  • Member

  • 917 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 March 2008 - 18:33

I wouldn't read anything too much into this. Its a visit by a politician to a high profile British success story. I've worked for governments of different hues, and they all like this kind of thing.

Is Dennis a Tory? Probably, but then the impression I've got is that motorsport is a world populated by fiscal conservatives - not least because its largely a world of rich people.

Its an oversimplification to say that the rich favour laissez-faire economics and the poor favour redistributive economics, but there's a fair amount of truth in it.

#25 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 10 March 2008 - 10:49

Originally posted by man
I just came across this interesting little bit on youtube.



Thatcher, globalization, F1, capitalism etc etc Which leads me to ask, are all F1 fans neo-liberals? Are you all proud to be F1 fans considering the big picture?



Well, at one point in time, Castro's thugs kidnapped Juan Manuel Fangio just to make a point about their strength in Cuba. One could say that the kidnapping of the most famed F1 figure, back in the 50s, was perfectly in sync with the current "green", anti-corporate currents of today. Does it make you question the self-assumed moral high-horse of leftism, considering the big picture?

#26 howardt

howardt
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 10 March 2008 - 13:06

Originally posted by man
Although China is always mentioned, I think the issue of human rights could be addressed to quite a few other GP locations - nations that tend to constantly harp on about China.
.


Simply semantics - this applies wherever you are :
We are protecting the security of our people.
You have a questionable human rights record.
They imprison dissidents.

#27 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 10 March 2008 - 13:58

But even if we remove the global warming from the equation we can clearly see that pollution is a huge problem. Not only pollution from fossil fuels, also from nuclear waste, chemicals and general garbage. If the industry would be forced to take responsibility for their garbage and the pollution that their products creates, it would cost them huge amounts of money. Huge amounts.



Hmm, something tells me you dont see the big picture...it is like corporate taxes...Guess who pays them in the end. The Clients or the Taxpayers! Tell me one thing CO2 is pollution?

How about responding to the challenge? George Bush should be happy about Kyoto protocol. His country has the most advanced technology, the best scientific minds...by all logic American enviromental-friendly products should kick weak-a** Chinese/Euro garbage to high heaven.



Kyoto is a hack job made bureacrats that have no grasp in reality to please people like you and many mainstream journalists. Tell me how many countries that signed it are in line to respect what they signed?

How come? Co2 and temperature have always gone hand in hand. Now Co2 levels are extremely high (in fact, higher than ever in at least 600.000 years or so) and rising.



Good more food for plants...So why we arent burning already? If it is the highest? By Artic measures hundreds of years lagged between increase of temperatures and increase of CO2.

out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles, ZERO denied/questioned global warming or the role of humans in it.



Since when only 928 articles were made concerning Global Warming?
read a rebutal here: http://www.staff.liv...ienceletter.htm
And here:
http://www.telegraph...01/ixworld.html

Please give your source for 50% claim.
There is even a study that says that the terminology "global temperatures" is wrong since atmosphere isnt homogenous.

I can not deny a certain good-feeling that there is someone that really believes it is true. Sad that the world has become so cynical.



You will be wrong. Politics killed Billions of Human Beings in Last 100 years: Communism, Maoism, Nazism and Fascism are Politics.

But, it is extremely hard to find "sceptics" who are A) experts on climate issues B) aren´t funded (directly or indirectly) by oil & coal industry C) or White House.



That fits the typical reaction of "believers". Well i could say that is very difiicult to find "believers" that arent funded("Directly or Indirectly") by the Church of Global Warmism: United Nations, Government Apparatchiks, and many would loose their jobs without it.


This reminds me of Tobacco Wars. Who can say if you´ll get lung cancer or not? Many non-smokers get it, many smokers don´t. Since there is no reliable way to measure and predict it, let´s keep smoking.



It is freedom. If information is plain and simple for everyone to see, why not? I certainly smoke a cigar in some circusntances like End of the Year and others. It is my responsability.



But like i have said i have nothing against that Cars and F1 have alternative energies if that isnt closed to all technologies. It is desirable for strategic reasons environmental reasons and even economic reasons. If we can make energy cheaper , technology and science evolve faster and can help us resolve problems faster.
Not because of Global Warming Believers.
But i have all against bandwagons without making the Pros and Cons. We just have to read about the Biofuel debacle, waste of batteries etc, to understand it.

#28 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 March 2008 - 20:28

Originally posted by AlexS
Kyoto is a hack job made bureacrats that have no grasp in reality to please people like you and many mainstream journalists. Tell me how many countries that signed it are in line to respect what they signed?


We´ll see. I´m sure there are big and heated debates ahead. Kyoto isn´t perfect, but then again nothing will ever be. You cannot make deals that solve all problems and make everybody happy. Another excuse to do nothing, I guess.

Good more food for plants...So why we arent burning already? If it is the highest? By Artic measures hundreds of years lagged between increase of temperatures and increase of CO2.


Been listening to Fred Singer again? Much is based on current climate. Starting from where people live, how people live, etc. In this situation, warmer temperatures (and their side effects: eg increased wind speeds, flooding on some areas) aren´t particularly good thing. Now I suppose you will point out there will be some temperature changes anyway. Well, there was lung cancer even before tobacco, so I guess it´s all fine and dandy...

Since when only 928 articles were made concerning Global Warming?
read a rebutal here: http://www.staff.liv...ienceletter.htm
And here:
http://www.telegraph...01/ixworld.html


The first link doesn´t work for me, sorry. I´ll try again later!

They only picked up scientific, peer-reviewed articles.

Not that "ordinary" news are completely worthless. Read this:

http://www.cbsnews.c...in1415985.shtml

(don´t forget to check out the video!)

EDIT - full story here, on 60 Minutes:



Politics killed Billions of Human Beings in Last 100 years: Communism, Maoism, Nazism and Fascism are Politics.


Let´s not forget Capitalism and Democracy ;)

Unfortunately most wars are about land, power, money, resources, and so on. That kind of politics. Less about ideals, principles, "honor" and other stuff you hear in public speeches. Good words are used to JUSTIFY wars when other common reasonings (eg national security) cannot be used. You know; "we must fight for Freedom/Democracy/Communism/Nazism/Christianity/Islam. It´s all the same, in different package. The question is: how to make people support the war?

It is freedom. If information is plain and simple for everyone to see, why not? I certainly smoke a cigar in some circusntances like End of the Year and others. It is my responsability.


Sure. But you know tobacco causes cancer. Thanks to corporate puppies like Fred and Pat, years ago lots of folks believed tobacco wasn´t dangerous at all. The information wasn´t "plain and simple for everyone to see". It was purposely muddied by Philip Morris. I like their slogan (found from internal memo) - "Doubt Is Our Product".

But like i have said i have nothing against that Cars and F1 have alternative energies if that isnt closed to all technologies. It is desirable for strategic reasons environmental reasons and even economic reasons. If we can make energy cheaper , technology and science evolve faster and can help us resolve problems faster.


Agreed.

#29 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 10 March 2008 - 21:20

Yeah you are right it is off now. You have the Google cache below for the text. It was on when i posted.

http://64.233.183.10...clnk&cd=1&gl=pt

I dont have time now for a full answer so i'll get back tomorrow.

#30 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 March 2008 - 21:40

Originally posted by AlexS
Yeah you are right it is off now. You have the Google cache below for the text. It was on when i posted.

http://64.233.183.10...enceletter.htm http://www.staff.liv...clnk&cd=1&gl=pt

I dont have time now for a full answer so i'll get back tomorrow.


Thanks for the link.

Few pointers:

The reason why none of the 928 articles challenged the "popular" theory are simple. If you had 928 scientific articles about 2+2=?, the results would be approximately the same. It´s science - not talk show where 1 person is for and 1 person is against. It appears there are reasons why Dr. Peiser´s article was rejected. This all would require more study (no time for that now, sorry!), but for now I´ll only post an "overview" about current situation:

Oreskes wrote an essay on science and society BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change in the journal Science in December 2004.

In the essay she reported analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’”. The essay stated the analysis was test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change. After the analysis, she concluded that 75% of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. The keywords Oreskes used in the ISI database search were 'global climate change' in order to remove articles about local climactic fluctuations. The database was limited to articles which had appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, i.e., journals where articles are cleared for publication by an expert or panel of experts.

Her conclusions were directly challenged by Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist who enumerated the figure of backing the consensus view at closer to only 30%. However, Peiser’s letters to Science on the subject were rejected by the editors, who stood by the integrity of the original paper. Peiser claimed that he had repeated Oreskes' search and had found 35 articles that supported the position that global warming was not caused by human action. It was subsequently revealed that his search criteria were not the same as Oreskes's, using different search terms and including articles which had not been peer reviewed, which resulted in his finding more abstracts than Oreskes had. Most readers of Peiser's list have claimed that most of the papers he cites do not in fact contest the IPCC's position on anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, the only article which clearly contests the consensus position was published in the journal of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an oil industry publication which has no peer review system. Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms.




Quote...as you know, Dr. Peiser completed his research in 2005.

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.
[snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.
Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blo...mblings-of.html)
Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.

- Benny Peiser, 12 October 2006

Source: Media Watch


I also checked out the research by Dennis Bray. According to Benny Peiser and Bernd Ströher:

"Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity."

The question in this online survey was "climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes."

The answer was given on 7-point scale between "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree"

9% choosed "1" (strongly agree). Thus, fewer than one in 10 agreed. Nice conclusion, huh? :lol:

The 2003 survey was conducted as an on-line survey. The existence of the survey was posted in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the Climlist server, and was sent to institutional lists in Germany Denmark and the U.K. As an effort to prevent general access to the survey, the survey was password protected. The password was contained in the informative message distributed according to the above.


Password...that´s nice! Unfortunately, not all people with passy were climate scientists. And things got worse: the survey found its way on climatesceptics mail list by Timo Hämeranta on 20 September, 2003. Timo´s list had approximately 200 members. As the total number of participants was 557...well, let´s say things aren´t looking good. Mr. Bray merely checked for multiple votes from same person/email - and that´s it.

Dr. Bray´s response:

For the two groups, the ’sceptics’ and the ’saviours’ there seems to have been equal access. If any one knows of other postings I would be interested to note how far the survey was distributed. The purpose of the survey was to attempt to gain an objective view of the state of the science not to provide fodder any camp of activists, but no measurement instrument (survey) is prefect, in any science.


Do you actually suggest ANY scientific paper should have published something like this? What we have here is anonymous questionnaire and researcher who has no clue from whom the responses came from. As pointed out in earlier posts, I´d rather stick with peer-reviewed scientific articles. Now you know why.



BTW, I would like to apoligize American people. I guessed for average citizens it´s around 50-50. However, recent polls suggest I was wrong. This may have been the case years ago, but not in 2008. Interestingly there is noticiable difference between Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Strange, since we are talking about science...not politics. Furthermore, clear majority of Americans believe that greenhouse gas emissions should be cut down - and this can be done without compromising the economy. Last but not least, the support for Kyoto Protocol is surprisingly high.

So cheers :up:

And thanks for an interesting discussion :)

#31 Dunc

Dunc
  • Member

  • 449 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 22:24

F1 drivers certainly don't like the idea of living in a land with high taxes, they're all Thatcherites too!

#32 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 March 2008 - 22:55

Originally posted by Dunc
F1 drivers certainly don't like the idea of living in a land with high taxes, they're all Thatcherites too!


I am not sure if majority of F1 drivers even know about Thatcherism :D

"Kimi, what do you think about neo-liberalism?"

"..."