Tekforums

Hottest Year so far was?
1998 not this year or last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

So what happened to it getting hotter and hotter?
Good read this article.

I think I agree with it not being us, well it is not all us. Yes CO2 levels and what we do to the world is NOT a good thing and we need to keep things down and a do a better job looking after the world but are we destroying the polar ice caps to the scale we are seeing? No, I do not think so.
I agree that the world has cycles and recent times have just been hotter and I agree that there will be colder as well. Things will freeze up and temperatures drop. Another Ice Age will not happen soon and before that the world was like an entire tropical island when the Dinos walked the earth but I think the world does indeed have its hot and cold cycles.
After all we do call it mother earth, lol.

I am sure if things suddenly cool and have a cool period it will still be down to us causing harm to the world from some people.

On another note I still find it interesting how it is you and me, our fault. We are doing the worst damage to the world and we are the ones told to turn off our TVs and we have to pay more taxes and what not. BOLLUX, sort out the companies and the governments themselves who do 1000 times more damage then we do.

Quote from: neXusI think I agree with it not being us

LOL

You know the earth 4500 years old right ?

Sam stop being a dick, Nexus didnt suggest any such thing and tbh writing anything about global warming is quite a challenge, anyone who doesnt think so is a leading figure in the subject, or does not have a full grasp of the bigger picture. Its like trying to make a decent global weather forecast, you can get a rough idea but its still going to be wrong in places. And I dont claim to have the facts before anyone says anything of the sort.

The world does indeed have cycle, but therere cycles within cycles etc. Ultimately I dont think it matters so long as human kind gets its act together. But I dont think we will, I really do believe the analogy of humans being like a virus on the earth is pretty true. When you consider our advances in the last 150-200 years, the resource usage, and the speed at which this is increasing, I cant help but feel as a virus wed be in the final stages before the host dies. It scares the crap out of me, considering whats happened so far has occurred in what by todays standards is only 2 lifetimes.

Im not being a dick, Im just amazed an intelligent and educated man things global warming isnt caused by us. I dont want to have to lump Nexus in with George Bush and Glenn Beck.

Youd be amazed at the number of "intelligent and educated" doctors and professors of environmental sciences that are skeptics of some sort or another regarding global warming/climate change then. I certainly wouldnt want to lump then in with the likes of George Bush, considering theyve spent decades researching related subjects, rather than getting 2nd hand information from the media.

Let the flaming commence.

To save me reposting my opinion....

http://www.tekforum.co.uk/posts/preList/15666/155469.page#155469

its all cycles.. we have some of the hottest sun spots coming our way.. a few hundred/thousand years & it will be cooler anyway.

What happens then? global cooling & everyone is forced to use co2 stuff? & taxed if they dont have big carbon footprints?

Quote from: Eggtasticoits all cycles.. we have some of the hottest sun spots coming our way.. a few hundred/thousand years & it will be cooler anyway.

What happens then? global cooling & everyone is forced to use co2 stuff? & taxed if they dont have big carbon footprints?

probably that is about how stupid all these hippies running the country are.

The UKs entire CO2 emissions are less than the emissions from the worlds 15 Biggest ships, so me turning my tele off standby is going to help isnt it.

Plenty of small brooks makes a big river.

Quote from: DEViANCEThe UKs entire CO2 emissions are less than the emissions from the worlds 15 Biggest ships, so me turning my tele off standby is going to help isnt it.

Can you back that up with facts as that does seem a rather remarkable statement to make.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

Its a media report, rather than a scientific report, so read into it what you will. Wasnt too hard to find either.

The answer is in the article, were in the down part of a natural global cycle which is cancelling out global warming temporarily.

QuoteBoth sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Of course being the Met office your guess on this is as good as mine. Overall temperature trends are still up though, and, if this is right, are going to get worse.

you cant believe many scientific reports either, as their budgets depend on climate change.

Carbon credits and swaps is a whole new multi euro/pound/dollar industry now - too much revenue being generated to go back!

Theres no doubt that climate change is happening though. But the extent to which it is happening depends on how much money is changing hands.

They mostly know what affects the system, and have been fairly good at predicting it. Where they have gone wrong is underestimation and local effects which can be difficult.

There are certainly enough of us to put a spanner in the works, we have been doing that for at least hundreds of years. We need to change how we affect the system, there is plenty of power available, all we need to do is change the sources.

Quote from: zpyderhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

Its a media report, rather than a scientific report, so read into it what you will. Wasnt too hard to find either.

It relates to sulphur output, not to CO2 output of the ships. Sulphur dioxide isnt a greenhouse gas, quite the reverse, it cools down the earth by reflecting light back into space.

Eliminating it might reduce effects on health and acid rain but, if anything. its going to increase global warming.

a more relevant link I found that page

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution1

Quote from: SeriousThey mostly know what affects the system, and have been fairly good at predicting it. Where they have gone wrong is underestimation and local effects which can be difficult.

as I understand it (limited, I did one module in meterology and atmospheric physics at uni but by no means an expert) the climate averaged over the whole planet is relatively easy to predict compared to local effects, since to predict the latter you have to take a great many more initial conditions into account.

a bit like how it was easier to write a high level emulator for the N64 when it first came out!

Quote from: zpyderhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

Its a media report, rather than a scientific report, so read into it what you will. Wasnt too hard to find either.

Wooohhhh, I dont see any such claim in there.

It claims that shipping causes max 4% of world pollution (all ships). I dont see anything about only 15 ships causing the same as the entire uk. Which if you think about it sounds rather stupid.

Facts guys, facts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-heres-another-phoney-war-the-one-on-climate-change-1801798.html

Thats a good article I read in the paper today. Just hunted it down to link it in here. Im very much in the camp that believe the vast majority of climate change is out of our hands.

Quote from: Sam

Quote from: zpyderhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

Its a media report, rather than a scientific report, so read into it what you will. Wasnt too hard to find either.

Wooohhhh, I dont see any such claim in there.

It claims that shipping causes max 4% of world pollution (all ships). I dont see anything about only 15 ships causing the same as the entire uk. Which if you think about it sounds rather stupid.

Facts guys, facts.

As I said, wasnt too hard to find. Not worth putting much effort into finding an article someone else mentioned considering its doubtful anything anyone says here will change anyone elses opinion on the subject.

A lot of them have truth in them. Just being sensible really.
Business and large companies together with their manufacturing plants and material product for these are a big problem. They churn out to much crap. Resources need like coal cause issues. I would agree to a point about the shipping and travel and what that does.

Taking into account every odd bod like us and what we do, that adds up. But not to the extent governments make us pay or try and get us to save the planet, AND PAY! Just a way to get more money out of us that in my opinion.
Yeah we can do better but still... I mean here the recycling is 10 times better then what we had in Leicester. Every week I am just putting out 1 orange bag of pure rubbish, a full bin of recyclable and food waste is disposed off Down the sync muncher. But I would be doing what I do now in Leicester if they gave me the options! A small blue box that can hold bugger all is pointless. If it was overflowing or you put plastics in a bag separate they would not take them!

Anyway... I think we should keep it up to reduce emissions etc. This drive is helping develop the hydrogen fuel cells which will be in laptops, cars, phones if they get them small enough etc which will be more viable really soon. Just add water.
BUT I do agree with the world and its cycles and it was just a warm cycle and I bet in a few years it will get colder. I am also sure the environmentalists will shout out that it is worse then they thought, what we are doing has made it worse then being to hot but global freezing as a result of global damage or something, lol.

Quote from: Sam

Quote from: zpyderhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

Its a media report, rather than a scientific report, so read into it what you will. Wasnt too hard to find either.

Wooohhhh, I dont see any such claim in there.

It claims that shipping causes max 4% of world pollution (all ships). I dont see anything about only 15 ships causing the same as the entire uk. Which if you think about it sounds rather stupid.

Facts guys, facts.

Ok I got it wrong. The fact was that 15 of the worlds biggest ships emit as much pollution as the entire worlds 760,000,000 cars.

I think that is an even more impressive statistic than the whole of the UK one anyway.

/Goes and boils a full kettle for 1 cup of tea and turns the thermostat up a couple of degrees...

Quote from: DEViANCEOk I got it wrong. The fact was that 15 of the worlds biggest ships emit as much pollution as the entire worlds 760,000,000 cars.

I think that is an even more impressive statistic than the whole of the UK one anyway.

/Goes and boils a full kettle for 1 cup of tea and turns the thermostat up a couple of degrees...

Ships use the last dregs of the oil after all the otherwise useable stuff has been removed, that means its very high in sulphur, which is bad for the environment, producing nasty effects on health and acid rain. Carbon wise its about the same as burning tar.

Which is all fine and well saying this, but you cannot overlook the quantity even still, its still a crapload >< (for want of technical terms, its too early!)

Quote from: DEViANCEOk I got it wrong. The fact was that 15 of the worlds biggest ships emit as much pollution as the entire worlds 760,000,000 cars.

I think that is an even more impressive statistic than the whole of the UK one anyway.

I think it depends on how much pollution 760m cars make. Is that better or worse than say a ton of factories?

This is where it becomes a bit grey, how many of those cars are making single person trips 1 mile down the road every day? And how many of those factories are producing "wasteful" products etc...

Lots of cars and almost all factories.

Just to venture into this debate once more, probably a mistake, but something Ive always found interesting since reading it whilst at uni, was someone called William Gray who predicted global cooling would begin in 2009/2010. Sources I could find tonight state he predicted this in 2006, though Im sure the paper I read whilst at uni was a few years earlier than that.

I wonder how much longer it will be before people like him who managed to predict the cooling farely well get in the papers with big "I told you so"s, or how many years in a row it will need to be cool before its acknowledged?

I should also add that this doesnt mean that he/i think global warming doesnt exist, only that he predicted (fairly well) that the trend of warming would take a dip for a while...

OLast iceage is supposed to have been preceeded by a warming period.

the depressing thing about an ice age is.... you think itll be ok... weve got nuclear power etc... its not like the human race will die out... I could put up with a few years or ice age.....

then you realise itll last hundreds of years...

cba being old in an ice age.... grannies slip over easily enough as it is without a fricking ice age making it worse !

Quote from: knightythe depressing thing about an ice age is.... you think itll be ok... weve got nuclear power etc... its not like the human race will die out... I could put up with a few years or ice age.....

then you realise itll last hundreds of years...

cba being old in an ice age.... grannies slip over easily enough as it is without a fricking ice age making it worse !

3rd World Countries will be fkced if it hit them, Millions would die :(

Quote from: neXus3rd World Countries will be fkced if it hit them, Millions would die :(

would that really be a bad thing?

Im thinking of ways to spend my tax savings already.

I remember reading several different things a few years ago that suggested various radical things that would solve various issues.*

#1 was that at the resource consumption levels of the developed world, the sustainable population was thought to be around 2 billion (were at what, 7-8 billion now?)

#2 was that using the existing solar technology it was estimated that if they covered an area the size of texas (and somewhere sunny like texas) in solar cells it would provide enough energy to power the worlds needs.

I think in one of my environmental law papers I actually suggested that in a way mass genocide of africa would be a good thing in environmental terms if the continent could be turned into a resource farm. Though really you want to get rid of Asia, given the population and resource consumption compared to Africa.

I dont mean the above in a racist manner, it is solely based upon figures, before anyone accuses me of such things.

Quote from: zpyderI dont mean the above in a racist manner, it is solely based upon figures, before anyone accuses me of such things.

why is that racist?

imagine the mess this planet would really be in if everyone had access to anything & everything.

Its not, but you know the way things can be taken out of context in an arguement, best to cover your bases. If someone wanted they could counter argue and say "Why get rid of africa, why not the UK, we consume more, is it because theyre black?" just for the sake of it. My dad would probably agree with it just because he doesnt like Africa (I worry that hed vote BNP).

The breakthroughs you read about life-saving things and increased longevity freak me the hell out. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone lived to 80-90, including the people in 3rd world countries? Within 100 years the planet would be like an organism with a terminal bacterial infection in the final stages, with us as the bacteria.

Quote from: zpyderIts not, but you know the way things can be taken out of context in an arguement, best to cover your bases. If someone wanted they could counter argue and say "Why get rid of africa, why not the UK, we consume more, is it because theyre black?" just for the sake of it. My dad would probably agree with it just because he doesnt like Africa (I worry that hed vote BNP).

The breakthroughs you read about life-saving things and increased longevity freak me the hell out. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone lived to 80-90, including the people in 3rd world countries? Within 100 years the planet would be like an organism with a terminal bacterial infection in the final stages, with us as the bacteria.

One thing is you can never touch certain subjects or mention things as you get called Racist instantly, so you have to avoid them even if it was true.
India for example, The way they treat their surroundings is not very good, many places stink to high heaven and things are very polluted, litter and sh*t on the streets etc. A lot of it is down to the attitude. When I saw in just one day a few people dropping their draws and taking a dump right where the felt the need - made me heave. To a point Egg is right in the sense certain places wiped clean would not be a bad thing. China being the biggest country causing harm to the earth for example, who also sees fit to prevent any form of unified consensus to help protect the earth from polution because it will make them look worse could do with a kick up the backside from mother nature.

So in a way I can see what Egg is getting at, but there is also a downside, a lot of these 3rd world countries contain or produce a lot of important and essential things to 1st world countries, so if they go under 1st world countries will suffer.

The world and ALL the countries live in an ecosystem from nature to economic.  And we are at a point where we need each other, like it or not. Ice Age hits and any part of the world is not set for it we will all feel the ramifications of them being screwed.

I am tired and hot and it is 2am so I am quite cranky at the moment, sorry.

I think the point of the whole "get rid of xxx population" or "build on xxx" isnt to say, wipe out africa and leave it as a wasteland. For instance if we got rid of chinas population itd dramatically lower global human population and reduce various consumption and emissions levels, but it would indeed be stupid to leave the resources there.

In "zpyder world" some placed like africa and/or china would be annexed, people moved out/sent to soylent green factories, and the land used for the resources with a crew of farmers/workers. This would supply the resources needed for the rest of the world.

Quote from: zpyderI think the point of the whole "get rid of xxx population" or "build on xxx" isnt to say, wipe out africa and leave it as a wasteland. For instance if we got rid of chinas population itd dramatically lower global human population and reduce various consumption and emissions levels, but it would indeed be stupid to leave the resources there.

In "zpyder world" some placed like africa and/or china would be annexed, people moved out/sent to soylent green factories, and the land used for the resources with a crew of farmers/workers. This would supply the resources needed for the rest of the world.

With that you have the other side of things.

Cancer 100% cure which is getting there (more and more types now have drugs to cure/prevent them) as well as aids which they probably will cure or prevent permanently in the next 50 years. 3rd world countries are where it will be needed the most of course (aids wise for example) but will be to expensive for them. These need to be cheap as chips to be viable but once they do hit these countries we will run into big problems.
These are horrible things and sad people die from them but they are controlling populations in many parts of the world. A lot of these countries do not mind and do have 3/4//5/6/7 Kids no problem and the population blow out once aides is gone is going to cause a load more problems. China is already getting crazy and they have child family limits already.

K lets wipe africa clean. Ok heres what we got:

- No more people dying in africa of easily preventable diseases. Bonus.
- No more retarded charity ads on TV. Bonus.
- So lets plant some crops to feed our growing population. Lets send some people in to do the farming.
- Wait, Africa exports food, diamonds, gold, oil, timber, people, etc. K we better send some people out to take care of that before prices go way way up.
- sh*t. The crops arent growing. Lets bring in some engineers and get them to run some irrigation.
- We best set up some fertiliser factories too.
- Pesticides. We need pesticide factories.
- and food processing plants.
- We need more power. Lets build some solar power stations.
- These people need support. Lets send in some doctors, police, social workers, and geeks.
- Bugger. The farmers know they have a monopoly cos were all hungry and are charging stupid money for Afrifood. Lets send the army in.
- Blah blah.. so we wipe out africa but then industrialise it.

That is complete wank. It aint racist its just dumb.

edit: oh wait actually that is quite bloody racist in a lets wipe out all the black people and gradually replace them with a not-so-black people kinda way, isnt it? Im sure you dont mean it in that way; we all look for the quick n easy solution without thinking too deep huh?

India is sh*t cos people have no money. They arent all like ooh, we could spend £5 a month on sanitary sewer systems but wed rather put £5/m towards a ps3.

edit: if you wiped out china can you imagine how much a laptop or mobile phone would cost?

Quote from: zpyder#2 was that using the existing solar technology it was estimated that if they covered an area the size of texas (and somewhere sunny like texas) in solar cells it would provide enough energy to power the worlds needs.

Get on a plane and fly over texas. Texas is f**king huge. No offence mate but dude.. texas is bigger than france

Dont get me wrong, Im not advocating any of the stuff Ive posted, only stating the figures and scenarios Ive read. If its got people thinking about the scale of the problem, job done.

Yes Texas is huge, thats the point. That is the area required using todays solar tech to provide pretty much the worlds current energy needs. Look at it any way you like, the fact that it is possible, or the fact that it still requires a huge area. And then consider the area covered if all buildings were converted to solar cells. And then consider the resources required to undertake such a feat. Even in countries which had used large government programs to encourage solar energy, leading scientists have turned around and said that in hindsight they should have waited a few years as the benefit from the cells used at the time is minimal compared to what they could have used now.

The fact is the whole issue is hypothetical, you can choose to follow said scenario where africa gets industrialised if you like. Id find a more likely scenario that in the event of a group managing to cull the population to the "sustainable" 2 billion, said group would have the clout and drive to police the areas. Maybe its a dystopian utopia where the people left get along but the route getting there is paved in blood?

If we wiped out china, you might find laptops would cost the same, or less, in the future. Considering the population levels, imagine what will happen when they overtake us in terms of development, and the resource consumption over there when they all have laptops etc. How much will such things cost when the raw materials are scarce?

Quote from: neXusChina is already getting crazy and they have child family limits already.

Yes. China has the 53rd highest population density. OMFG.

Quote from: zpyderDont get me wrong, Im not advocating any of the stuff Ive posted, only stating the figures and scenarios Ive read. If its got people thinking about the scale of the problem, job done.
...
...

So where is the need to wipe anyone out? The world copes. We grow bigger and bigger and find better ways of doing things. Just let things be imo. Africa aint 4 billion people. Who else is gonna go?

Quotewe all look for the quick n easy solution without thinking too deep huh?

How deep can you realistically get when posting on an internet forum, without ending up writing an essay?

If you want the most PC way of looking at things lets say that you remove all people from the world and reset everything, the continents are still there. You can have 2 billion people, and the population isnt allowed to go above 2 billion. Where do you allocate the manpower for the different tasks? In the case of 2 billion people its entirely feasable to have an area devoted to energy, and a continent devoted to resources.

It doesnt work like that.

You have;
- energy required per person.
- food required per person.
- support required per person.

Go back 150 years. If technology hadnt moved forward wed be stuck on 2 billion people. Now go forward 100 years. We get smarter faster than we make babies.

Oops I forgot, you also have energy generated pp, food generated, support generated...

Quote from: Pete

Quote from: zpyderDont get me wrong, Im not advocating any of the stuff Ive posted, only stating the figures and scenarios Ive read. If its got people thinking about the scale of the problem, job done.
...
...

So where is the need to wipe anyone out? The world copes. We grow bigger and bigger and find better ways of doing things. Just let things be imo. Africa aint 4 billion people. Who else is gonna go?

Where is the need? The need is in the rate of population growth and the findings of various scientists which have estimated that with the resource use of the developed world the sustainable population is 2 billion. Sure we can adapt, but well hit a wall at some point where the planet just cant support the population, provided something like a pandemic or massive war doesnt help lower the numbers. Things like this scare the crap out of me:


What would be interesting would be to see the same resource use studies calibrated to resource use of different ages in human history, in the sense of whether technological advancements would increase or decrease the maximum sustainable population figures. Back in the old days a person may have survived off of a small plot of land. Using modern tech their output would be increased, but at the same time the resource footprint of the technology would be much greater.

As to why Africa? fair point, America would be better :P

Quote from: PeteGo back 150 years. If technology hadnt moved forward wed be stuck on 2 billion people. Now go forward 100 years. We get smarter faster than we make babies.

No sh*t. I figured seeing as I was talking about removing the global populace and playing god, I might as well go the whole hog and include a means of population control however.

Weve been past 2billion for nigh on 100 years now. Birth rates are declining though - sh*t just happens and works out.

I got totally side tracked. I just meant to write a global warming is bollocks post but meh. No offense intended in any of my posts Chris, I know youre a diamond geezer.

We should wipe out Southampton, Slough, Newport, the Isle of Wight and Crewe tbh. That would make sense.

No offense taken, I rarely get the chance to spread the doom and gloom I was subjected to whilst at Uni, and have some form of discussion on it. I think the first week I was there I was shown a presentation of piles of dead bodies (it was for forensics people but we shared some units), and in another lecture told were all f**ked.

Ive always been in favour of using the Isle of Wight as a venue for a battle royale. I thought putting 100 chavs on the island with nothing but sticks at one end, and half a dozen of the PC brigade (in this instance the people that believe its everyones fault except the repeat offender that hes been charged for the 50th time for GBH) at the other with guns should prove an interesting mix.

hehe

It would be interesting to get hold cold facts without all the media and aid bullcrap.

We need to sort things in a lot of areas like pollution - Hell yes, but we are getting a lot of bullcrap at the moment from a lot of people.

Quote from: neXusIt would be interesting to get hold cold facts without all the media and aid bullcrap.

We need to sort things in a lot of areas like pollution - Hell yes, but we are getting a lot of bullcrap at the moment from a lot of people.

If you have a friend at a uni get them to see if they can get an Athens account for you, or whatever the NZ equivalent is. Its basically a system where you can access the scientific journals the uni subscribes to, which usually is nearly all of them. Certainly the facts I remember are ones from the original published papers, rather than from the media :D

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: zpyderI think the point of the whole "get rid of xxx population" or "build on xxx" isnt to say, wipe out africa and leave it as a wasteland. For instance if we got rid of chinas population itd dramatically lower global human population and reduce various consumption and emissions levels, but it would indeed be stupid to leave the resources there.

In "zpyder world" some placed like africa and/or china would be annexed, people moved out/sent to soylent green factories, and the land used for the resources with a crew of farmers/workers. This would supply the resources needed for the rest of the world.

With that you have the other side of things.

Cancer 100% cure which is getting there (more and more types now have drugs to cure/prevent them) as well as aids which they probably will cure or prevent permanently in the next 50 years. 3rd world countries are where it will be needed the most of course (aids wise for example) but will be to expensive for them. These need to be cheap as chips to be viable but once they do hit these countries we will run into big problems.
These are horrible things and sad people die from them but they are controlling populations in many parts of the world. A lot of these countries do not mind and do have 3/4//5/6/7 Kids no problem and the population blow out once aides is gone is going to cause a load more problems. China is already getting crazy and they have child family limits already.

Cancer is unlikely to be cured - at least a cure is never likely t be released.

The pharma companies make too much money from the drugs used to treat the symptoms.

Just the same way as we wont see true alternative energy in earnest for years, the oil companies are making too much money.

Both these industries effectively control world government.

Quote from: zpyder

Quote from: neXusIt would be interesting to get hold cold facts without all the media and aid bullcrap.

We need to sort things in a lot of areas like pollution - Hell yes, but we are getting a lot of bullcrap at the moment from a lot of people.

If you have a friend at a uni get them to see if they can get an Athens account for you, or whatever the NZ equivalent is. Its basically a system where you can access the scientific journals the uni subscribes to, which usually is nearly all of them. Certainly the facts I remember are ones from the original published papers, rather than from the media :D

This is what pisses me off about academics. They want to hide and keep secret among themselves all their research - lest someone else might actually understand that 99% of it is BS.

Really? What academics do you know? The ones I know all strive to publish as much as they can, which is surely the exact opposite to what you have just described, as generally to get some work published you need to be clear enough in your metholody so that anyone can go away and reproduce your findings.

Cant get much clearer than that, climategate aside.

If youre referring to the Athens thing for access to the papers, anyone can subscribe to the papers if they want to pay the fees.

I do agree though on the pharmaceutical and energy companies though. Well only see such products when existing things are no longer profitable for them. Keep raising the oil prices and so when ultimately we switch fuel types were happy to pay prices which could and should be much lower than they charge.

All research should be made available to everyone. That is what I mean. They shouldnt be hidden behind fees. There is also a lot of medical research (That doesnt affect patents or products) that isnt released.

I can see why there is a need for stuff not to be released until its done (And from what I can tell from where the Mrs works - until they can fabricate the results to get their drugs approved!), but once its done - public domain. I think things would come along a lot more quickly that way.

As for academics,

1 x Dr in Artificial intelligence
1  is a GP doing his MD
1 x Dr in town planning
1 x Dr in cell microbiology, specialises in something to do with cancer (The Mrs)
2 x Drs of Law (One of whom is my best mate)

I should also add - my bitterness is based on 4 months spent in a major nuclear research centre! It was a total bitch fest.

While partly Mark it is true treatment over cure makes money it also costs them. IF they can develop an effective cure or new machine, new medicine etc and can produce it, with things like cancer and aides the number of people involved they will be wanting to get these out on the market in my opinion and from a bit of reading it seems the case for many others. These cures would be a premium to start off with then mass produced when cheaper and would make a lot of money, the publicity for the company/s that first offer these as well would send stocks soaring etc. Oh I can see them holding on to it for the right time, they may even be doing so already but they will get them out there to make their money.

Quote from: MarkAll research should be made available to everyone. That is what I mean. They shouldnt be hidden behind fees. There is also a lot of medical research (That doesnt affect patents or products) that isnt released.

I can see why there is a need for stuff not to be released until its done (And from what I can tell from where the Mrs works - until they can fabricate the results to get their drugs approved!), but once its done - public domain. I think things would come along a lot more quickly that way.

From my understanding though a lot of the fees for the journals goes back into science in the form of grants and funding. Cut out the fees and the science will suffer. The journals with the highest fees tend to be the more prestigious in the field. The fees are high because they only publish the best quality work, as a result the scientists aiming to get published in them strive to produce quality work to get in. If everything was free Id imagine the editorial/review standards could slip on the basis of there being less incentive to cherry pick the papers?

Id also say that when Ive been doing literature reviews, maybe 25% of the papers Ive come across that Ive needed to read have been freely available in the public domain. Its not much I admit, but its something. In general the other papers are accessible one way or another if the person really wants to read them, and 99% of the time the abstract is available which will give you the skeleton of the paper anyway.

As to research that isnt released, Id agree that it should be if it is actually important (such as research that shows drug x can cause undesirable side effects). I dont think research not being released is down to the academics though, all the ones I know would want ANY findings they have made publicy available, the blame almost always falls to the people paying the bills, so in medical terms its the pharma company, not the researchers at fault, and in other cases usually the client funding the research. There is a difference IMHO between academic research and commercial research.

Any grants I have been involved in have come from industry or large companies. Depends what area you work in I suppose.

Note...I didnt say that all grants come from papers, only that as far as Im aware a lot of the money goes into grants, which is still only peanuts compared to what the industry will pay.

Dont worry - understand what you meant!

Quote from: zpyder

Quote from: MarkAll research should be made available to everyone. That is what I mean. They shouldnt be hidden behind fees. There is also a lot of medical research (That doesnt affect patents or products) that isnt released.

I can see why there is a need for stuff not to be released until its done (And from what I can tell from where the Mrs works - until they can fabricate the results to get their drugs approved!), but once its done - public domain. I think things would come along a lot more quickly that way.

From my understanding though a lot of the fees for the journals goes back into science in the form of grants and funding. Cut out the fees and the science will suffer. The journals with the highest fees tend to be the more prestigious in the field. The fees are high because they only publish the best quality work, as a result the scientists aiming to get published in them strive to produce quality work to get in. If everything was free Id imagine the editorial/review standards could slip on the basis of there being less incentive to cherry pick the papers?

Id also say that when Ive been doing literature reviews, maybe 25% of the papers Ive come across that Ive needed to read have been freely available in the public domain. Its not much I admit, but its something. In general the other papers are accessible one way or another if the person really wants to read them, and 99% of the time the abstract is available which will give you the skeleton of the paper anyway.

As to research that isnt released, Id agree that it should be if it is actually important (such as research that shows drug x can cause undesirable side effects). I dont think research not being released is down to the academics though, all the ones I know would want ANY findings they have made publicy available, the blame almost always falls to the people paying the bills, so in medical terms its the pharma company, not the researchers at fault, and in other cases usually the client funding the research. There is a difference IMHO between academic research and commercial research.

I would add that getting work published increases a teams visibility and increases their likelihood of getting grants in the future. Letting through a duff or even faked piece of work lowers the standing of the team who produce it when found out but also that of the publisher and those vetting the article.

As for medical research a lot is hidden to try to prevent issues with drugs becoming apparent and prevent other companies benefiting from the original companys work. There have been several instances recently that show the lengths that companies will go to to avoid issues with their drugs becoming known. If a company gets say ten results back from outside organisations as to the efficacy of a new drug but 3 of them are negative they might remove those results from the total and thus increase the apparent benefit. No-one outside the drug company and its testers would be aware of the discarded data so their being caught doing this is relatively low.

Quote from: zpyder

Quote from: Pete

Quote from: zpyderDont get me wrong, Im not advocating any of the stuff Ive posted, only stating the figures and scenarios Ive read. If its got people thinking about the scale of the problem, job done.
...
...

So where is the need to wipe anyone out? The world copes. We grow bigger and bigger and find better ways of doing things. Just let things be IMO. Africa aint 4 billion people. Who else is gonna go?

Where is the need? The need is in the rate of population growth and the findings of various scientists which have estimated that with the resource use of the developed world the sustainable population is 2 billion. Sure we can adapt, but well hit a wall at some point where the planet just cant support the population, provided something like a pandemic or massive war doesnt help lower the numbers. Things like this scare the crap out of me:
(Image removed from quote.)

What would be interesting would be to see the same resource use studies calibrated to resource use of different ages in human history, in the sense of whether technological advancements would increase or decrease the maximum sustainable population figures. Back in the old days a person may have survived off of a small plot of land. Using modern tech their output would be increased, but at the same time the resource footprint of the technology would be much greater.

As to why Africa? Fair point, America would be better :P

Quote from: PeteGo back 150 years. If technology hadnt moved forward wed be stuck on 2 billion people. Now go forward 100 years. We get smarter faster than we make babies.

No sh*t. I figured seeing as I was talking about removing the global populace and playing god, I might as well go the whole hog and include a means of population control however.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/ns_diagrams/027ns_005image2.jpg

Bit warm in Aussie land...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100112/tod-summer-in-an-aussie-city-34c-at-midn-870a197.html

This is interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjILZWW6Ko0&fmt=22