Hahah! THIS.

Wouldn't industrialisation make wine production in extreme situations easier not harder?

Also, I'm loving your complete denial of the world ever being warmer than it is today. That's got to be on a par with flat-earthism.

When has a couple of degrees C rise in global temperature ever wiped out a very large number of humans?

As another poster (DaveAtFraud) in this thread put it, all I'm looking for is proper back-testing of the apocalyptic predictions. Until I see one, I'm going to remain a skeptic.

Exactly my point. If these strong positive feedback loops existed, then they would have already occured in the course of human history.

This frozen methane? Worst case scenario the global methane output goes up by 5-10%. That's about the same as the can be attributed to cow farts.

1) The temperature changes predicted are very small compared to the various "great dyings" we do see in the fossil record.
2) Temperature changes of this size have already occured in the course of human history and were non-fatal. Which was my original point.
3) I am neither american, christian nor rich. Just skeptical. Keep your trollish statements to yourself.

ok let me rephrase because you clearly didn't understand.

If global temperatures are going to go up by 2 C, then it would be useful to find out when the last time in history the earth was 2 C warmer than it is now and what happened as a result, no?

Because of the constant change in global temperatures (I assume you're not going to argue against the fact that there have been ice ages) it is likely that this temperature has happened at some point in the past.

If it has happened in human history (and evidence suggests that it has) then any catastrophe that they are predicting would have happened already.

I'm not denying that the climate changes, and I'm not denying that humans have had an impact, I'm simply questioning the doomsday senarios that appear hyped up in the media and from politicians. It is you, by angrily dismissing this out of hand, that is showing religious fevour, not I.

We know there has been natural global cooling - ice ages and the like, so it would make complete sense for there to have been natural global warming at some point too.

We also know in the UK the romans (circa 100BC) grew grapes almost up to the scottish borders, something not possible today because it's too cold.

So, the climate has always been changing, and while it's almost certain that humans have made an impact on the environment, I find it very hard to believe that the results will be catastrophic.

You're wrong.

High frequency trading means that more trades happen in general. This extra competition to fill orders drives down the difference between the buy and sell prices and greatly reduces arbitrage situations (ie, the difference in price between the same stock listed on different exchanges and possibly in different currencies).

So, if you buy or sell a something, you're giving less money to the market-makers and you're getting a more "correct" price. It levels the playing field.

And it's true that arbitrage and hifi trading are a zero-sum game. That's why it's an arms-race at this point.

Almost! It's actually about the location of the data center, i.e, close to the exchange. A fast, low latency connection to the exchange gives you a crucial edge over the competition. It means when things change you can get your trades in before your competition does. This is ever more important in the up-and-coming automated trading systems.