Global Warming

[Kokoba]

I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" a few days ago, and now I am on something of a globa warming kick. If you're not concerned...I think you should be.

If you haven't seen it already, the website for the movie is here:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/ (has some music embedded, very mellow and tasteful, but just to give you a fair warning)

I think the evidence presented in the movie--regardless of what you think of Al Gore--is an extremely compelling argument concerning the importance of global warming, but perhaps (well, it probably most certainly is) biased. I'm a bit exhausted at the moment and don't have the energy to pray to Google for more information on the subject, so for now I'm going to tenatively work on the going assumption that there is not a SIGNIFICANT bias in Gore's presentation.

Do you agree with him? Is he exaggerating?

I will dig up some more information in due time. There may be some interesting stuff on the website, though.

I do have some links to eco-friendly sort of products, like solar-powered battery chargers, but unfortunately they're saved on my laptop that I can't use since I stupidly brought the wrong kind of adapter with me to Europe (god dag från Stockholm!), so it'll be a little bit until I get them.

[GeoffBoulton]

That global warming is happening is a fact. As is that man's activities are the main reason behind it. What is still up for grabs is exactly what the repercussions will be and how long they will take to occur.

Personally, I think that some of the timescales and effects predicted by Gore are being hyped up to fuel the bandwagon. Of course, nobody really knows with any certainty. There is plenty of evidence to support sudden run-away effects that might be irreversible.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that global warming is fuelling climate change and that those changes are already with us. In the UK the hottest years in recorded history have all happened within the last 20 years. There has also been an increase in 'extreme' weather events ranging from extended periods of drought, periods of far higher than normal rainfall and even tornados.

Whether this can be attributed to man's activities or whether they are just part of the natural cycle of things is not clear.

[Alice Shade]

Well... I have to agree, that there is a truth to "Global Warming" wornings.

Especially, considering that it`s middle of January, yet I`ve not seen a single snowflake this winter, yet.

[GeoffBoulton]

Warmest autumn on record in Poland but we have had snow, less than 1cm that stayed for about 3 days.

We should have been knee-deep in the stuff by now ;)

[punkinside]

Climate's gone bananas thats for sure... 5+ C temperatures in europe in the middle of January... We've had rain here in Venezuela these past couple of days (unthinkable in January also).

its starting [/paranoid]

[Alice Shade]

It`s not starting.

It`s already well underway.

[Kokoba]

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that global warming is fuelling climate change and that those changes are already with us. In the UK the hottest years in recorded history have all happened within the last 20 years. There has also been an increase in 'extreme' weather events ranging from extended periods of drought, periods of far higher than normal rainfall and even tornados.



The climate seems to be going nuts everywhere. I go to school in central New York, where there's quite a bit of lake air effect and so SNOW! But this year it snowed and stuck once. One or two more times there were flurries. That was it. And at home, near Philly, it didn't stick at all, I think there were flurries about twice since the official beginning of winter until now. In Stockholm, it's been equally warm.


Whether this can be attributed to man's activities or whether they are just part of the natural cycle of things is not clear.

I dunno, evidence seems to point to a drastic increase beyond previous cycles that coincides neatly with the development of fossil fuels and the release of surplus carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Carl Sagan made a brief point in Cosmos that Venus' atmosphere resembles something like Earth's would, if CO2 levels continue to rise, and also adds speculation that perhaps something similar happened with civilization on Venus. More of a facetious thing to say than anything, but still kind of a disturbing image. Earth turning into something like Venus.

[GeoffBoulton]

One cause for concern is the massive amount of CO2 (Edit: that should be Methane) that is currently locked up in hydrate sediments on the sea floor. The high pressure and low ocean temperature keep them from changing into a gaseous form.

There is the possiblity that the increasing sea temperatures could destabilise these hydrate sediments resulting in the release of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The release would increase the temperature causing more hydrates to become unstable and so on and so on. There is evidence that these sediments are already destabilising and several small scale releases have been witnessed.

A runaway, positive feedback mechanism such as this could have dire consequences for the planet. Earth becoming like Venus may seem far-fetched but the truth is we really just don't know.

[Kokoba]

I wonder if there would be anyway to use CO2 as a fuel source.

[Alice Shade]

Sorry, no.

About as much chance, as fuel nuclear reaction with lead.

[AaronD]

It hasn't snowed once in New Jersey, and it's even stayed a constant 60 degrees F.

[punkinside]

The thing with the oceans is that raising temperatures causes much worse things than just freeing CO2 into the atmosphere. In the mayority of the seas and oceans of the world beyond a certain depth there is a thin layer of anoxic bacteria that exhale Sulfuric Acid. I can't remember the details of the Scientific American Article I read, but suffice to say that while the ocean temperatures rise and become increasingly anoxic, these bacteria will flourish and start filling the atmosphere with very, very poisonous Sulfuric Acid.

So, don't worry, we'll probably be poisoned to death before we die in the floods.

[AaronD]

That's comforting to know. Is it painful?

[GeoffBoulton]

So, don't worry, we'll probably be poisoned to death before we die in the floods.

I guess the 'Rapture' must be taking too long to arrive so George W figured he could give it a helping hand. Must have been one of the other things God told him to do! ;)

[punkinside]

I can only find comfort in the fact that while I die, I'm going to be watching a bunch of self righteous christians going: Why am I not being raptured? Oh Lord, why hast thou forsaken me!?

:) good times

[punkinside]

That's comforting to know. Is it painful?

From wikipedia:


* 0.0047 ppm is the recognition threshold, the concentration at which 50% of humans can detect the characteristic rotten egg odor of hydrogen sulfide [2]
* 10-20 ppm is the borderline concentration for eye irritation.
* 50-100 ppm leads to eye damage.
* At 150-250 ppm the olfactory nerve is paralyzed after a few inhalations, and the sense of smell disappears, often together with awareness of danger,
* 320-530 ppm leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death.
* 530-1000 ppm causes strong stimulation of the central nervous system and rapid breathing, leading to loss of breathing;
o 800 ppm is the lethal concentration for 50% of humans for 5 minutes exposition (LC50).
* Concentrations over 1000 ppm cause immediate collapse with loss of breathing, even after inhalation of a single breath.


Prayed to google, heres the Scientific American Article:

http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

Enjoy!

[Alice Shade]

Well, I woulnd`t say, that Sulphuric acid is the most imminent danger.

Here in Odessa (Black Sea north coast), "red tide" is pretty common, though not too often. When it happens, sea washes up bunches of dead jellyfish, and sometimes, real fish too. It`s been happening as early, as in time of Ancient Greece (Ellinic documents, found at the dig of Odessos (dig of greek colony about ten miles to the west from city), mention "red tides", and also mention, that those are mostly periodic occurances, which do not poison the sea for a considerable amount of time, let alone air.)

So, I don`t think sulphur or CO2 are most imminent dangers.

Rather, I`m thinking about polar caps melting, which would release gigatons of additional water into oceans, and most likely, rise overall water level for a considerable amount.

[GeoffBoulton]

Talking about Red Tides ;)

And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.

[Kokoba]

Plus if Greenland disappears (all the ice melts, which granted won't happen anytime SOON but still) then there goes the Gulf Stream and there goes whatever warm air places like Sweden and Norway get.

[GeoffBoulton]

The Gulf Stream is alreaady slowing down but fortunately the scientists say that a total shut-down or "the day after tomorrow" scenario is unlikely.

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html)

[jon_hill987]

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

I watched it last night and I must say that if their results are correct it is nothing to do with CO2 emissions. CO2 doesn't cause global warming, global warming causes CO2, there is actually a lag of several hundred years in the correlation with CO2 levels following temperature as the warming of the oceans releases more CO2. Apparently the Idea was cooked up because Margret Thatcher wanted to promote nuclear power when the coal miners went on strike, so the government payed scientists to find evidence to support it.

From a different source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

it isn't very clear but with a few exceptions the temperature always changes before the CO2.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about carbon emissions, we still should,and extensive deforestation is not exactly a good idea either. It is just that the current media frenzy is possibly over the top.

[Alice Shade]

As far as I know, CO2 emissions are caused by same things, that cause warming - so preventing emissions helps to prevent warming. It is wrong to claim it to be the main cause of warming, but nevertheless, acting against it will help slowing the warming, AFAIK.

[jon_hill987]

I can't myself explain everything that was on the program (not my field, so I would probably get a lot wrong). They think that the sun warming up causes the warming which in turn alters CO2. I would recommend watching the program *cough* torrent *cough*. I would be interested to see what people thought after watching it. It wasn't just a load of statements, I was skeptical when I started to watch it but they did back up their facts with evidence.

[Wallis89]

Well my belife is that we actually isn't causing the global warming just speeding it up. This isn't my area either. But if I have understod correct the climate on the earth have shifted under it's whole existence going up and down. So I think global warming is a natural phenomena. One thing is for sure we are making it worse and happen faster.

[Alice Shade]

Pretty much llike that, as far as I know.

There`s a whole lot of factors in it, and frankly, I don`t think all the things could be explained in layman terms. Some details require expertise - and not smarts, per ce, as much as just a big amount of knowledge in those particular fields.

[Saramon]

Since we were on the topic of co2,
I found a weird site, it lists the birth/death rate, and the Co2 levels of every country in the world, in real time, just kinda neato http://www.breathingearth.net/

[Aullios]

The fact is that of all potential factors in global warming, the one that seems to best describe our current warming trend is Carbon Dioxide. parts per million. I might look for some hard data and set up a regression model to further illustrate this if I find the time.

[Aullios]

Here we go... the black line is global average temperature anomaly since 1980 (the baseline is an average of temperatures since 1880), and the red line are the results of my regression model based on one variable, increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide content in parts per million. Both of these datasets are available from http://www.noaa.gov.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/aullios/gwmodel2.jpg
The model shows an R-squared value of 76.5, which is probably the best single variable model I've ever seen.
However, just as a disclaimer, the model really doesn't have any forecasting power because it would have to rely on a forecasted variable to forecast the global average temperature... that is, by the time we know the change in carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, we'll also know the temperature anomaly for that particular year.

[Aullios]

By factoring in other variables such as ENSO, AO, and insolation, I could probably make a better model that explains the deviation a bit better, but I really don't feel like looking up more data in order to do a better job.

[jon_hill987]

Here we go... the black line is global average temperature anomaly since 1980 (the baseline is an average of temperatures since 1880), and the red line are the results of my regression model based on one variable, increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide content in parts per million. Both of these datasets are available from http://www.noaa.gov.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/aullios/gwmodel2.jpg
The model shows an R-squared value of 76.5, which is probably the best single variable model I've ever seen.
However, just as a disclaimer, the model really doesn't have any forecasting power because it would have to rely on a forecasted variable to forecast the global average temperature... that is, by the time we know the change in carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, we'll also know the temperature anomaly for that particular year.

And yet just before that, when the industrial boom was at its height the temperature was going down. Go back further before the industrial revolution and you will find the temperature rising faster than it is today. (Sorry no time to find numbers, will do it later)

[Aullios]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/aullios/tempcurve.jpg
This is the full extent of the temperature data since 1880 (around the time these observations started being recorded on any kind of global scale). Sadly, our CO2 observations don't go back nearly as far.

[Aullios]

Another thing I feel I need to address... an individually warm year is not cause for sounding the global warming alarm. While many places may have had below average snowfall this year, I know of some places (Oswego County, New York...) that got over 10 feet in less than two weeks. When speaking of Global Warming, meteorologists talk about long term climatologies that record temperatures over a large area. In addition, one warm or cool year is perfectly within normal fluctuations.

As for the Day After Tomorrow reference earlier in the thread... don't even get me started on that movie. The whole premise of the "superstorms" was flawed. Due to compressional warming, the "stratospheric air" that was sucked down in the storms' eyes would be incredibly hot, not cold as the movie implies.

[jon_hill987]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/aullios/tempcurve.jpg
This is the full extent of the temperature data since 1880 (around the time these observations started being recorded on any kind of global scale). Sadly, our CO2 observations don't go back nearly as far.

And as you can see it has dropped from 1940 to 1980. It was far warmer in medieval times than it was today as well. Grapes used to grow well across most of England, but they won't anymore.

[Kokoba]

Warmer in medieval times than today?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I suppose it depends on who you talk to.

And of course the earth goes through cycles naturally. Even such a high extreme looks just about on par with the lowest point marked in the Little Ice Age, at least in terms of straying from the middle. But falling right with our increased times a billion carbon emissions, especially when it's been pretty well documented that carbon emissions are far from environmentally-friendly? I don't know, to me there's no way that can all be entirely "natural."

I will watch that movie you link to, Jon. Because I do think it's good to be as informed as possible, and I'm interested in what could be said against global warming, and how much the case for it may be exaggerated. But I have to say the site you gave describing it had a very sort of..."those damn environmentalists!" sort of tone. It didn't exactly seem neutral.

Personally, I really think anyone who doesn't take the concept of global warming somewhat seriously, or anywho who just writes it off as nonsense, is doing the world a lot of harm. I think at this point, we can all agree that we're affecting the earth's climate. All that's left to determine is just how much.

[jon_hill987]

It was a little biased, they did however talk to some people in well respected positions. One of them was ex president (or someone very high up at least, i can't quite remember) in greenpeace. he said left because they became too political. An editor for new scientist was also among those talked to.

That said it would have been nice if they had shown the argument for man made climate change existing as well.

[mark747]

graphs can prove anything in the wrong hands...

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bgmark_quik/pirates.jpeg

[Fallen Hero]

graphs can prove anything in the wrong hands...

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bgmark_quik/pirates.jpeg

Not yet disproved.. feel free to try though. I know atleast one FSM follower is here.

[Digs]

What about information pirates?

[dajumbles]

I have read Mr. Gore's book, and I think it's a load of bull, that's just me though.

But using only one piece of toilet paper to take a dump is pretty stupid ;)

[Digs]

It'd be cool if everyone had a bidet, I think.

[Fallen Hero]

I have read Mr. Gore's book, and I think it's a load of bull, that's just me though.

But using only one piece of toilet paper to take a dump is pretty stupid ;)

As far as I know.. Al Gore is crazy..

[Serenstar]

Climate change happens naturally. The Greenhouse Effect is also natural. Without it there would be no life. Well, maybe some around the equator but that's it. However, burning fossil fuels (and all the methane from rice fields and cattle) is thickening the layer of greenhouse gases. Yes the climate does go through natural cycles but due to human activity over the past 200 years it's more extreme. The earth will survive this change, life will evolve to cope but humans won't be included.

[Digs]

You underestimate us, Serenstar. The primary virtues of humes are, of course, ingenuity and audacity. We will do anything we can, and very, very little is denied to us.

[Alice Shade]

Primary virtue of HUMANS is an ability to establish a common system of definitions, which could be used to share the information, first and foremost.

Which eliminates the need for every newborn to relearn absolutely whole knowledge by trial&error.

Sadly enough, uniform method of expressing the concepts had been time and time undermined by the very abstract thinking, that birthed it - for humans, despite their naturally-adapted system of uniform communication are well known for their obvious disinclination to use it - starting from developing different languages historically, and ending up with personally-coined words. (Which, sadly, all too rarely describe a new concept, and all too often - take the existing one, and name it with new name in attempt to look sophisticated.)

[Digs]

I do not understand your hatred of neologisms, but that's fine. If you don't like the word, you don't have to use it. I won't even stop you from having a conniption fit every time you see it, if you want. Still going to use it myself <3

[PotatoeOfDoom]

Some of you guys were talking about extreme hot spells?
Well here in New Mexico, in the city where i come from, we got more than 14 inches of snow, whish is 5 inches above the yearly precipitation average.

Personally, I think most of this "Global Warming Hype" is bull.
It is a fact that the earth goes through hot cycles, usually followed by a cold cycle. I know that humans may be speeding it up slightly, but I don't think we have enough power to completely change the climate of the world in just over 200 years.

[Alice Shade]

Neologisms are coined to define NEW concepts.

NOT replace the existing perfectly understandable one.

Let me put it this way - if you discover something genuinely new, and name it as you see fit, you`re scientific hero.
But if you take existing established concept, and start using your own name for it - you`re pretentious talentless hack.

Clear enough?

[Digs]

Oops, got called a name.

I don't think it's hackery to work to redefine or otherwise subvert something I think is wrong about the world. Your unwarranted and frankly weightless judgment, so forcefully delivered on so minor a matter, is pure overreaction. I don't understand why it makes you so angry to see someone say something in a slightly different way from what you prefer.

[Alice Shade]

Because, I consider that a plagiarism.

Think about it.

What you are doing tantamount to stealing a car, painting it in different color, and calling your own.

You made NO input in the concept overall. NOT a bit. You just took the existing concept, and "redefined it" by using your own name for it. Which, I must add, is not all that suitable for this application, to boot.

Ever seen words "exhume" and "inhume"? Note the shared root "hume", and note, that it means dead body and burial.

Still think it`s applicable to the humanity? Not all of us are brain-dead, and even less of us are rotting alive, yet.


Getting back on the topic of "redefining" - there is NO sense in renaming the existing established concepts with new names, except to look smart and confuse people.

As someone with great respect to science, I find such pseudo-scientifical attempts to look sophisticated nothing short of appaling, and think that people who do that contribute to regression of scientific thought by adding confusion into communication.

Try to understand, that redefining means NOT finding the new name, but offering a new concept or definition for existing name. Naming is absolutely the last thing, that any honest philosopher must do. Those who seek to just name everything as they see fit are lower then thiefs, for they demand respect for their thievery.


Specifically you - you haven`t changed ONE IOTA with your new fancy-shmancy word. It serves only one purpose - to protray you as intellectual rebel (Pretentiousness at it`s maximum.).

Want to define a new concept? MAKE YOUR OWN.

Want to change the world? OFFER NEW DEFINITION.

Renaming shit to rose won`t make it smell any better.

[Digs]

Plagiarism? Okay, show me the creator of the word "human". You can't, it public domain and free for people to do with as they please? Goodness me, imagine that. I guess you must be wrong. Your car-theft analogy fails because English is available to everyone to screw with as they will. In that our language is more like a public bus someone has sprayed some graffiti on the side of.

Your assumption that the word is adequate already is also flawed. The word itself most likely comes from homo, meaning "same". The fact that it's spelled with a u suggests that the creator may have been thinking of humus, "earth". This is technically correct, as we're made of carbon, water, lime salt, saltpeter, ammonia, iron, et cetera, stuff from the earth, but it's misleading to Johnny Speaker. Homan would actually be closer to accurate in this case, but it colloqial failings related to the language it's in. The humus component isn't the main flaw of the word, though: the suffix, "man", is the problem. Say what you will about feminism or whatever, but the terms in which you think affect how you interact with the world.

I'm not adding to a word's definition and I'm not leaving it unchanged, I'm cutting away useless parts of the word.

Let's stop talking about this, you're not going to change your mind and I'm not going to change mine. I'll keep doing what I want to with my words, and you can have whatever fits you are pleased to have.

[Alice Shade]

For the last time.

"Human" is ALREADY established term. By renaming it as you see fit you both confuse everyone, who attempts to speak with you, and imply, that it`s YOU, who thought whole idea up, since you named it. Which, obviously, isn`t true, since you haven`t contributed to concept of "human" not a bit. Thus - plagiarising. You take the work of everyone, who ever gave real contributions to concept, and make it look like you`re the one who thought it all up.

Frankly, this renaming is akin to babytalk. Grow up, and use the established language, finally.

[Fallen Hero]

You realize Alice, that languages evolve throught the changing of words and their meanings.

but I think this is bit of a miscommunication problem. Alice is more saying that someone who says

"Hey! I just discovered Quntaan Mechanismics!" then explains Quantum Mechanics is just an idiot.

I personally have nothing against someone who decides to make up a word.

where do you think words like gitch geech or gotch come from? A word like that is simple slang. All Digs has done is made her own slang instead of using the same old word everytime. So IMHO Digs: Keep on making words as you see fit.

[Alice Shade]

You miss the point.

All new words are made to decribe new concepts. There was no word describing the concept of "glitch", therefore "glitch" is acceptable neologism.

What I don`t agree with, is taking the existing concept, and slapping on a new word. If Digs meant something different then "humans" (even a small nuance would be it), it would be all dandy and fine. Ain`t the case, though.

I do NOT mind new words, I mind OLD words twisted around. As far as I see it, it`s intellectual`s version of leet. And matters ain`t getting better, if we consider, that "hume" is an EXISTING latin root, which has more to do with funeral, then humans.

[Digs]

It has to more with dirt than either of those things.

You're not moving, I'm not moving. Can we stop this effectively useless discussion? Maybe somebody could, I don't know, post something about global warming in a thread about global warming?

[Alice Shade]

How about posting something about Global Warming, then?

I don`t have much to say about it at the moment.

[Digs]

I understand that China is, if they continue to move at the rate they are now, going to surpass the United States in greenhouse gas emissions in less than five years. Should nations which recently became more developed, like China and India for instance, be allowed by the international community to continue to increase their industrial emissions?

[Alice Shade]

Why do you think they`ll ask for permission in first place?

[Digs]

Well...there's things the community could do if they don't comply with the rest of the world's decisions. Warnings, sanctions, whatever.

[Alice Shade]

Lotsa good those sanctions and warnings did with Iraq nuclear program.

[Kokoba]

Well...there's things the community could do if they don't comply with the rest of the world's decisions. Warnings, sanctions, whatever.
It's my gut instinct (totally unverifiable) that punishments, like in the form of economic sanctions, do not do nearly the good of rewards, or at least incur more harm than is appropriate (ie, Cuba embargo). And besides, I don't think you should talk about punishments unless the country is doing something we can mostly agree is WRONG, like genocide. Environmental issues shouldn't be a morality thing.

I think what would be better would be working to promote green technology and environmentally friendly stuff as much as possible in these nations while they're still developing. That way, they more readily become the norm once things are stabilized. Can you imagine what the US would be like if some other great superpower had swooped down during the twentieth century and pushed and rewarded us for using alternative energy as much as possible?

[Digs]

Positive reinforcement beats negative any day of the week, sure, but how do you do positive reinforcement for a giant, throbbing nation like China?

[Alice Shade]

China? Nohow. They are fairly xenophobic, as of now.

Best of all to leave them alone, and sabre-rattle at them, if they get too cocky.

You can`t quite give a cookie to a wild dog, but sure can scare it away with a stick.

[Digs]

That works with wild wolves and collies, but a wild giant mastiff, like China is growing into, could be problematic, especially considering their continually improving industrialisation, which is the problem in the first place. :icon_confused:

[Alice Shade]

Don`t foeget to consider the simplest limitation they have. Space.

As of now, they live where they are in a pretty crowded environment. Similarly, their industry is also very crowded. This means, they are VERY susceptible to international trade agreements - their own land won`t be able to support their industry for any prolonged perood of time. Considering, that they mine over whole China ever since way before Christ times, it`s pretty hard for them to exist just on their resources even now. They HAVE to keep up trades and relationships, because if they won`t, the only way for them to keep from falling apart would be to annex more and more of neighboring countries.

[Digs]

I hadn't even considered that, actually. The oldest giant nation of any real import in the entire world might be running out of stuff to pull out of the earth. That makes a lot of sense and explains China's recent interest in world politics.

[Kokoba]

Positive reinforcement beats negative any day of the week, sure, but how do you do positive reinforcement for a giant, throbbing nation like China?
Weeeeeeeell. China has loads of other issues going for it. If it should be punished for anything, it should be atrocious working conditions and sweat shops and selling antifreeze to Africa under the guise of "cough syrup." Going green should be the least of their worries right now.

[Alice Shade]

China IS one giant sweatshop, actually.

I guess it`s their national problem - they are used to do things very quickly, but usually, of shoddy nature.

That trait had been one of the reasons for USSR and China falling out after WW2. China had signed up an agreement to provide several billion of tons of steel in exchange for various technical help and military supplies. USSR had provided China with all the technical information mentioned in the treaty, but China had fucked up their end. In their usual - "quicker and shoddier" rush, they started to build primitive furnaces all over the China, and melting ore into iron ingots, which they tried to use to fullfill their end of bargain. Problem was that agreement was for steel, not for pig iron. USSR, after getting several million tons worth of useless iron chunks, had renounced the treaty, and demanded to refine the technology, which was met from China`s side by - "Hey, we`re busting our guts here to get you your iron, what more do you want?" Needless to say, that relationship was a bit tense, after USSR categorically refused to accept the shoddy iron.

[Digs]

I think we can all agree China needs some work in quite a few areas.

[Alice Shade]

And a little less work in other areas.