Welcome To The Depression...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Probably the only place Crosbie was taken seriously was in Newfoundland. The only real question is if he would have made the same comment if Campbell had been a male.

Maybe Baird should try running for election in a Toronto area riding.

Regarding gay marriage, I can't see how it should be anything I should either oppose or endorse. I've never treated people any differently if their sexual orientation is different than mine.

With the municipal elections, they are now every 4 years. I think 4 years is too long.

I guess I might as well get controversial. I think the American system of government is better than ours, although I think the Queen is great. Our GG is not up to the standard of others we have had, in my opinion. I'd like to vote on our Prime Minister, rather than have a party leader as Prime Minister. I'd like to vote for the senators and think they should have fixed terms, the same as the H of C. The current practice of picking the person we want for Prime Minister and electing whoever his political party puts up in our riding is a joke. In this riding McTeague is a lock. Doesn't seem to matter who spends money to run against him. Judging by the turnout in the last federal election, I'd say others share my view. Simply not interested in supporting the candidate of the party leader they support.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Regarding gay marriage, I can't see how it should be anything I should either oppose or endorse. I've never treated people any differently if their sexual orientation is different than mine.

Here's a rhetorical question that might be of interest, based on a hypothetical scenario: Other-worldly being A, without sounding judgemental, tells person B about tendencies they may have had, including even a latent one they haven't acted upon. What should person B conclude?

With the municipal elections, they are now every 4 years. I think 4 years is too long.

At least in Ottawa, the fault seems more to be with the system than the time between elections. Almost all the incumbants have all won time after time, so having elections more often probably would not matter. Things like name recognition and other factors favouring the incumbant matter greatly when voter turn-out is so low. Yet municipal politics can have a big effect on peoples lives. Perhaps now that more of Ottawa's citizen's seem to have become more aware of how things (don't) work at city hall, at least some councillers will be replaced in next year's election.

I guess I might as well get controversial. I think the American system of government is better than ours, although I think the Queen is great. Our GG is not up to the standard of others we have had, in my opinion. I'd like to vote on our Prime Minister, rather than have a party leader as Prime Minister. I'd like to vote for the senators and think they should have fixed terms, the same as the H of C. The current practice of picking the person we want for Prime Minister and electing whoever his political party puts up in our riding is a joke. In this riding McTeague is a lock. Doesn't seem to matter who spends money to run against him. Judging by the turnout in the last federal election, I'd say others share my view. Simply not interested in supporting the candidate of the party leader they support.

Oddly enough I don't find much of this to be that controversial, and wouldn't mind the changes you suggest.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

L
3. On environmentalist issues, global warming seems to have more dissenters in the scientific community every day.

Actually the scientific consensus is stronger than it ever was, and the long term trend is not in doubt. You can "prove" anything you want by selecting the data that confirms your beliefs and ignoring any that doesn't. But the long term trend is perfectly clear:

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Before it's convincing, I think you'd need to provide such graphs for temperatures that go back a lot further in time, if the data was available. Say back to the last Ice Age or two. The average temperatures for the years 2007 onwards could also be interesting to see.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Unfortunately - there are only accurate temperature/weather records going back 100-150 years - otherwise you have to deal with tree rings,etc.

London (UK) has kept track of major weather changes over the last 1000 years - such as the number of times the Thames froze over (usually once or twice a century).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
http://www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Connecting this topic to the main topic of the thread, I once watched a show about how some economist's model failed to predict the recent economic meltdown. Their model went back only a few decades, totally missing out on the 70's oil shock and the Great Depression, for example.

I noticed in Ed's average gobal temperature graph there is a dip right at the end, towards 2006. Like I alluded to in an earlier post.

All in all I feel serene about this. I personally know God exists. The world is facing worse peril at the moment than any possible climate change, but all will come right.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

The scientists are probably right about global warming, not that you would know it this summer - in this area.

Questions like if CO2 cause causing warming or being the result of warming seem to be in dispute with some.

In any case, I can't imagine automobile pollution is something I should worry about with the forest fires in BC this summer, or the amount of pollution generated from industry and the coal mined in Alberta, BC and other provinces and states in the U.S, and burned somewhere in the world. It's a fact of life that Thermal coal is in demand, as is metalurgical coal. Volcanoes pollute and we can't deny there was a time when volcanic activity on this planet was much greater than now. Oil and natural gas is what makes our dollar a petrol currency.

Nations are testing nuclear weapons. Hugh bombs drop around the world and then people wonder why there are earthquakes.

The only real fuel for mass production of electricity is either coal or natural gas. Nuclear is too expensive to build and maintain. I don't know if wind turbine farms will produce enough and most people don't want those in their back yard. Of course, gas from garbage dumps or from sewage treatment plants is useable for making electricity and heating. I'm not sure if they have the same BTU value as natural gas, but I kind of doubt it. Still I've seen both in use for that purpose. The guy at the sewage treatment plant told me the BTU value was better on a Monday because of the beer people drink on the weekend. I don't know if he was serious or putting me on but the gas they made from that was only a fraction of the natural gas they used.

I've been meaning to do a long post on royalty rates and the oil and gas industry. Something one should take into consideration when investing in that sector. Maybe I'll get around to it.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

The scientists are probably right about global warming, not that you would know it this summer - in this area.

Questions like if CO2 cause causing warming or being the result of warming seem to be in dispute with some.

Yes, there may be global warming after all. But as you more or less say, there is also dispute over whether it is due to natural causes, whether or not they are cyclical.

In any case, I can't imagine automobile pollution is something I should worry about with the forest fires in BC this summer, or the amount of pollution generated from industry and the coal mined in Alberta, BC and other provinces and states in the U.S, and burned somewhere in the world. It's a fact of life that Thermal coal is in demand, as is metalurgical coal. Volcanoes pollute and we can't deny there was a time when volcanic activity on this planet was much greater than now. Oil and natural gas is what makes our dollar a petrol currency.

Curtailing all sorts of pollution, as long as it is economically viable, is a good idea even if one disputes global warming.

Nations are testing nuclear weapons. Hugh bombs drop around the world and then people wonder why there are earthquakes.

That is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote that the world is in peril today, possible climate change included. It's hard to believe we've been merely lucky, so far, all the number of times that a nuclear war might have been triggered - including times we don't know about. Someone seems to be looking out for us.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Before it's convincing, I think you'd need to provide such graphs for temperatures that go back a lot further in time, if the data was available. Say back to the last Ice Age or two. The average temperatures for the years 2007 onwards could also be interesting to see.

And yet you pick ten slightly cooler years and use them to "disprove" global warming. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Yes, there may be global warming after all. But as you more or less say, there is also dispute over whether it is due to natural causes, whether or not they are cyclical.

Even the dissenters are having to admit the warming is real, they can only deny the obvious for so long. Now they are taking refuge in saying it isn't caused by man. But the actual climate scientists say that the evidence is now overwhelming that it is.

Well, if it comes down to a decision I think I'll take the advice of the folks who were right all along on the first point because it seems to me fairly likely that they will also be right on the second, as opposed to those who were wrong all along on the first, but want to convince me that nevertheless they are right on the second. The first group just seems to be a better bet to me, you know?

Whose opinion on a chess position are you going to believe? The B player or the GM?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Well, if it comes down to a decision I think I'll take the advice of the folks who were right all along on the first point because it seems to me fairly likely that they will also be right on the second, as opposed to those who were wrong all along on the first, but want to convince me that nevertheless they are right on the second. The first group just seems to be a better bet to me, you know?

Whose opinion on a chess position are you going to believe? The B player or the GM?

Going through ECO finding errors is major fun. While the evaluation at the end of some lines is quite correct, the line contains Kindergarden Chess. Kindergarden Chess is where you make a move and your opponent busts you the next move. In other words, while the GM may have played the line in a game and the evaluation of the end position is right, the moves are not forced and the opponent simply missed a win. They missed it or never looked at it when it went in the book. Maybe newer versions are better.

Of course, free advice is always worth what you pay for it.

When they say global warming is caused by man, to whom do they refer? The average guy in the street or governments which sets general policy, and let off bombs, and sets energy policy? Do you think there is any chance our federal government will mandate stringent anti-polution legislation which will stop us from exporting petroleum and coal to other nations? The Americans seem to be balking at the tar sands.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Actually the scientific consensus is stronger than it ever was, and the long term trend is not in doubt. You can "prove" anything you want by selecting the data that confirms your beliefs and ignoring any that doesn't. But the long term trend is perfectly clear:

Hi Ed,
Looking at the long term trend, around 1800, the 2005 graph shows a -.8. Now we are at a +.9 or sliightly more. I can't make out the line under the shorter study.
If that were a RSI (relative strength index) on a stock, I'd be buying global warming when it started rolling over at -.5 or lower and selling global warming when it started rolling over at around +.2. Actually, I would think the base line of 0 should be lower on that graph but would not prove the point as well. Is it some kind of standard deviation chart? Even those have outliers. What's the source?
I don't know which of those years have had the El Nino effect in the Northern Hemisphere. It seems El Nino has been more prevalent in recent years than has La Nina. Possibly those effect have to do with warming and cooling. I'm not really into global warming in a big way. Now if there was some way to predict stock market movements and trends from this, that would be different.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

When they say global warming is caused by man, to whom do they refer?

Us. All of us. The Human race. Homo sap.

The average guy in the street or governments which sets general policy, and let off bombs, and sets energy policy?

All of the above.

Do you think there is any chance our federal government will mandate stringent anti-polution legislation which will stop us from exporting petroleum and coal to other nations?

If the political pressure is sufficient then they likely will. But we don't have the swiftest and best in Ottawa these days by any means.

The Americans seem to be balking at the tar sands.

A small step in the right direction at least.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

If that were a RSI (relative strength index) on a stock, I'd be buying global warming when it started rolling over at -.5 or lower and selling global warming when it started rolling over at around +.2. Actually, I would think the base line of 0 should be lower on that graph but would not prove the point as well. Is it some kind of standard deviation chart? Even those have outliers.

It isn't a stock market graph, stock market rules won't apply.

What's the source?

The first graph I gave was originally at Paul Krugman's site (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) and you can probably still find it, but it's also still prominently posted at Brad DeLong's site (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/).

The second I saw somewhere in my web browsing and downloaded a local copy of, but I don't know the original source.

The point is, the trends are quite clear, but scientists haven't made up their minds based on just a couple of graphs you know. The graphs themselves are merely visual ways of presenting the data.

I don't know which of those years have had the El Nino effect in the Northern Hemisphere. It seems El Nino has been more prevalent in recent years than has La Nina. Possibly those effect have to do with warming and cooling. I'm not really into global warming in a big way. Now if there was some way to predict stock market movements and trends from this, that would be different.

Well you can do research yourself, if you want. This year is an El Nino year after several La Nina years, actually.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

It isn't a stock market graph, stock market rules won't apply.

The first graph I gave was originally at Paul Krugman's site (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) and you can probably still find it, but it's also still prominently posted at Brad DeLong's site (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/).

The second I saw somewhere in my web browsing and downloaded a local copy of, but I don't know the original source.

The point is, the trends are quite clear, but scientists haven't made up their minds based on just a couple of graphs you know. The graphs themselves are merely visual ways of presenting the data.

Well you can do research yourself, if you want. This year is an El Nino year after several La Nina years, actually.

Here's what I came up with on the El Nino - La Nina years.

http://www.el-nino.com/

I don't know what the sunspot activity was in the warmer years.

Even stock market graphs don't apply to the stock market from what I can see. I use a child psychology course I took many decades ago.

I spent decades working in the Natural Gas industry. Making sure the customer got every cubic ft. he paid for and my employer was paid for every cubic ft. he delivered. It was "picky" work and I can split a hair with the best of them. I worked on switching a lot of customers over to nat gas from oil so I guess I did my bit for the atmosphere. Nat gas burns cleaner.

I started working on that stuff after the years when they had manufactured gas. What they did was manufacture gas from coal and they used that to serve downtown Toronto. Maybe they are using, or thinking of using, a similar process to heat the oil in the tar sands to make it flow and become easier to extract. I've been reading about the use of geothermal and natural gas, but don't know how prevalent that is.

Our natural resources are the foundation of our economy. These days Alberta and BC seem to be competing to see which one can give the best low royalty incentives to the industry to get them to drill new wells. I guess we'll hear lots of "happy talk", but in the long run the royalty rates remain oppressive, in my opinion. I'm reading the rig utilization is low and down from last year.