Nuke it! Yeah that will fix itBut its true mowerman the damage has
been done, and I think we,ll just have to hang on to our sits and go for
the ride. From what I understand, it cant be fixed,
and the clock is ticking.
signed tunaman
Nuke it! Yeah that will fix it
been done, and I think we,ll just have to hang on to our sits and go for
the ride. From what I understand, it cant be fixed,
and the clock is ticking.
signed tunaman
Jim, which came first????
the capitalist ###### or the scientist. I don't see a capitalist
walking into a bank and deciding I think today I will create
a refrigerant gas.
Bay fisher, Having lived in the tropics most my life, I can
tell you that not all tropical rainfall is associated with cyclones
or thunderstorms causing flooding and inundation. And as far
as food production is concerned, Rice the most staple of diets
is a tropical crop, where do we grow it, the temperate zones
of NSW, highly efficient, No way. With all our agricultural
technology, we stil cant equal the tonnage rates of most Asian
countries.
Is it just chance that an Australian meeting on Irrigation and
drainage is being held in Darwin, to look at ways to better utilise
our Northern water supplies for increased food production.
Our Agricultural endeavours have been moving further to
the north of Australia for the last 30yrs, and this is not just
due to the proximity to the massive asian markets.
cheers Mick
"I am sick and tired of all this doom and gloom..it all seems to come down to one thing..scientists looking for bucks to suit their model of the future..'Originally Posted by Jim_Tait
Pinhead,
you can bet that R134A was bought to us not by scientist but capitalist wankers - who believe in the right of consumer access to what ever (including toxic shit if the profit margins are good enough). The scientist would have been in the employ of these wankers and would have been working to a narrow brief set by legal wankers who would have hamstrung their ability to communicate anything other than what they were contracted to do - find an 'ozone friendly' alternative to CFC's for use in refrigerants - which they did.
By the way their are alternatives to R134A which are hydrocarbon (propane) based 'green kool' or something like that - although still greenhouse gasses they deliver about 1/1000 the damage of R12 in the atmosphere.
[/quote]
Thank you Jim..as a scientist, you have proven my point for me...that scientists dance for the puppeteers that are holding the purse strings. Scientists rely on someone to pay for their research and I am sure they always seem to arrive at the conclusion that the puppeteer wants...and the pupeteer is usually a capitalist as they are the ones with the money.
So you believe that there are more learned people making more money out of trying to fix the problem than there are those who choose to be unlearned making maoney out of the status quo??
I supose you belive in fairies at the bottom of the garden as well - well yes you do (or near enough!) you believe in Jonnie How-war-had's answer - nuclear energy - that should make for some more interesting national security policy - perhaps we''ll even put Australian kids behind razor wire as well this time around while we're making sure that the products of nuclear energy don't fall into the hands of 'terrorists'.
Stuffing it back in the box and screwing the lid shut?? what are you talking about stuffing in a box?? your conscience? awareness? knowledge? - bit like stuffing you head in the sand really..or yeah and we can do jack shit about it - sounds really dis-empowered give up now you reakon - may as well, sounds as though you already have - I'm sorry for you mate and the rest of us who have to cope with the masses that follow your enlightened approach to coping with challenges
'Stick to fishing instead of fighting' - JC
Madmix, Your right not all rain in the tropics is associated with cyclones
or thunderstorms causing flooding and inundation. But the there is a lot more of such weather in the tropics then in temperate climates. Rice is a tropical crop but wheat is probably globally the most important food grain and does not grow so well in the tropics. Surely you cant unequivocally say hotter weather and more rain means better growing conditions for all crops.
Hi Bayfisher,
Never said that it was better conditions for all crops, however
those that don't favour such conditions, can always be genetically
modified or selectively bred, just as we have been doing for
two hundred years with temperate crops.
If growth rates under green house/tropical conditions, does not
significantly surpass that of temperate zones, then why are
the worlds tropical rainforests so important to the worlds future.
cheers Mick
Hey Tunaman,maybe you should spend some of the last precious moments the planet has left learning to SPELL mate!!-sorry it's driving me nuts trying to figure out some of the posts you've put up.
One explanation for all the scaremongering we see and hear almost daily via media is the fact that nobody wants to hear about how well things are and how wonderful the planet is because thats not sensational and doesn't attract interest or sell very well,but instilling fear by showing terrible destruction etc gets the heart rate up and definitely gets attention especially when it involves our ultimate fear-total extinction of the human race.If you don't believe that then have a look at what the most popular subject matter is in movies/television/fiction books-overwhelmingly murder..death..torture..destruction..war..killing and other miscellaneous threats to human life.Basically we love being scared to death! and the environment debate is no different-disaster sells.
Jace.
Not all scientists work for capitalist masters-some work for political masters like CSIRO etc.There is good and bad in all things and rubbishing scientists is ridiculous as we all benefit daily from their inventions and discoveries/insights.
Without scientific advancement we would be still back in the dark ages living miserable lives to the ripe old age of 30yrs if lucky!.Having mapped the human genome it's now only a matter of time before science can begin to erradicate many of our diseases and even begin to improve the human condition and lifespan.This isn't science fiction it's fact, just as the replacement of organs and joints was thought of as fiction as early as 60yrs ago.Terraforming other planets will be viable it's just a matter of time and scientific will,then we certainly will be able to colonise other planets, but of course we need the will to do it in the first place though.
Imagine trying to explain to captain Cook how we sit in an aircraft at 35000ft travelling at 600kmh in luxury sipping a cool beer and eating peanuts on our way around the globe to wherever we choose! and yet we have only had controlled flight for what? less than 100yrs.The point is that nothing is perfect but in the end science has given us many great advances to our great benefit but as with anything there are also shortfalls and these shouldn't be allowed to override our thinking.Jace.
Hey! I can reed dit Quit well. Wot scool did you go two.
sinned tunemam
good analogy about ol' Jimmy Cook there Jace..but don't forget to balance things out for the old fella...like telling him that the cannons he has on board would be replaced by a weapon that can kill over 100,000 people in one go...I bet that one would impress him. I would love for all the research scientists that have made statements on global warming to list where their research grants came from..I bet you could make a movie on that alone.
That's better Tuna now you are making far more sense than before mate!.Pinhead I think a lot of people just drone along in day to day life and don't really think about the BIG picture much,but if you do think about where we are now compared to say even 100yrs ago,which ain't that long ago,it is absolutely mind boggling.That being said now imagine where we'll be in say 400yrs time bearing in mind that technology increases exponentially and it is incredible to imagine the things science would have given us.
It always makes me laugh when I see or hear of people who rubbish scientific development and focus on the negative aspects or failures -most religious folk seem to dwell on these negative aspects and ignore the good things I've noticed-but when it hits the fan or someone gets seriously ill etc the first people they turn to are the scientists and the machines built by scientists through research and investigation.
Personally I wish I could be around to see what marvels science will provide us with in future and who knows maybe they'll even be able to slow aging or even eliminate it altogether-CRIKEY!! then we could fish for ever! lol.Jace.
yep..some of us just drone along and accept everything and never question anything..like bloody hell we do.
yes..there have been some great advances in the past 100 years..and there has been some abominable ones also (how about thalidomide as one good example)...no need to talk to me about people being seriously ill etc..I could give you a long winded lecture on that subject...as for religion..not into that..BUT..I will not accept blindly what some organisation..scientific or otherwise..start preaching without questioning same..if you do then you are the one following along blindly. As for the environmental studies...there are various schools of thought ..some for and some against global warming etc so who do you believe???
AHH....Mr Tait.
Where in hell did you get "kids behind razor wire" and "enlightened approach to coping with challenges" out of my previous post.
Are you a journalist? Take 2 words and make a 10 page essay out of them.
Mate ,if you believe "some" scientists and the screaming media, then the climate will change to such an extant that we will all be slow roasted within the next 6 months. And there is nothing we can do about it. Might as well stick my head and arse and the other bits in the sand and be done with it.
On the other hand. There are scientists who believe that the earths temperature is actually cooler now than it was 500 or a 1000 years ago.
To base your conclusions of a nowhere near exact science on the last 100 to 150 years figures ,and scream its the absolute truth, when the "experiment" has been running since the last major ice age shows a total disregard for the proper scientific process.
Only politicians could make something out of such a small sample.
It all comes down to what you want to believe and where you get your information from. If all you see is the box in the lounge room with the pretty pictures on it or THE WORLD ACCORDING TO RUPERT then,,,enjoy the slow roast.
Scientists (ones I believe) have recently discovered a volcano in Indonesia that exploded about 75000 years ago. To put some perspective on it.
When Mt St.Helens in the US erupted in the 90s, it ejected approx 1 cubic kilometer of magma in the form of sulphur ash.
Looking at ice core samples from Greenland and mollusc shells from sedimentary sea beds in the south Atlantic, They have estimated the discharge from the Indonesian volcano at 1300 cubic kilometers. About 800 billion tons of ash. How many CO2s and CFCs and BCFs and AC/DCs will we need to reach that figure.
And when the sulphur ash combined with water it formed sulphuric acid which proceeded to rain on the entire planet for the next1000 to 2000 years. But nature fixed itself and life survived. Even the grotty little humans.
But then all of that is a load of crap if you believe "some "scientists who say the earth was created 5246 years ago.
My dictionary defines green as ‘unripe, immature, undeveloped'. Perfect description.
Most political parties are seen as interested in what the voters think, the Greens are seen as thinking the community should be interested in what they think.
Evolution, evolution, evolution. The environment is constantly changing and always has been. Whether it be man made pollutants or natural pollutants such as volcanic eruptions life will evolve to tolerate changing conditions.
Just as strains of viruses (or virii if you prefer
Ask yourself why did fish evolve into lizards all those years ago? Was there environmental factors (pollutants) that drove them from the sea, and if not, then why the hell should they leave?
Certain species of fish have evolved to adapt to sudden high temperature and salinity changes such as mullet and other estuarine fish. Nature heals and finds ways of opposing changes in environment although the current change may well be at too fast a rate for nature to cope. Global warming? The world has seen it all before.... long before man as he is today....and global freezing.
kev
Well pinhead I don't know maybe it's just us fishos that are the deep thinkers mate-probably all that time spent bobbing up and down in the water not catching fish,but I meet plenty of people who don't look beyond their own nose and have two x's where their eyes used to be if you talk about anything beyond the w/ends piss up or the footy/cricket/car race and don't get me wrong I also found those things interesting for about the first 30 yrs of my life too but struth it's like a merry go round year in year out so eventually you start to 'wonder' about all sorts of other non sports oriented things eh.
I won't get you started about medical stuff ups and hey thalidamide wasn't good for morning sick mothers to be but nowadays it is being used to successfully treat other nasty diseases and proving invaluable too.Nothing is perfect and that includes doctors and scientists and we all learn by mistakes-it's the nature of the beast,but what is the alternative?do nothing for fear of failure?.I could list plenty of scientific inventions that you and I use daily and take for granted but then my posts would be even longer than they are!!.The point is that science is advancing the human race like never before in our history thats all.
What mowerman says is spot on and it has been said before many times but again most people seem to be conditioned to want to believe the worst and feed their fears these days so I suppose when anyone comes along with some doomsday movie/documentary like the global warming one they will always find a willing audience eager to jump on the scaremongering bandwagon and do little or no actual research for themselves.
Evolution? big subject that one,there are way too many gaps in the classic theory of evolution-far too many to discuss here-but adaptation is often mistakenly confused with evolution.Cheers!Jace.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote