# Earth Hour



## white.grant (27/3/10)

Earth Hour tonight at 8.30 - 9.30. Just dug out the candles. Who else is dimming the lights?

cheers

grant


----------



## manticle (27/3/10)

Not sure what difference it will make to anything but giving it a go nonetheless.


----------



## bum (27/3/10)

Not me. It's a way to pretend you're doing something about a problem you don't really believe exists. I try to minimise my wastage everyday. Earth Hour is a complete waste of time (and energy if the power companies are to be believed (which they most likely are not)).


----------



## manticle (27/3/10)

I agree but the piddly amount of time and impact on your life makes doing it slightly possibly maybe better than taking a cynical stand.

Also my girlfriend said I have to.


----------



## bum (27/3/10)

How is doing thinking about this every day more cynical than pretending for an hour a year?


----------



## Bribie G (27/3/10)

I'm off to the bathroom to shave my balls for Watt, Ohm and Coulomb.

Shave to save B)


----------



## manticle (27/3/10)

bum said:


> How is doing thinking about this every day more cynical than pretending for an hour a year?




You'll have to rephrase.

I try and not waste electricity and water or generate other kinds of waste any more than I need to as well. I agree there's a possibility (actually likelihood) of feelgood tokenism. What I mean is that the feelgood tokenny youtube rubbish in this instance probably doesn't hurt and may on a tiny scale somewhere make a beesdick of difference.

Quite possibly not but unlike some things it doesn't make me angry enough to tell the lady love that she has a head full of charcoal.


----------



## Kleiny (27/3/10)

not likely to turn the power off while there is footy on the idiot box, i will do earth hour between 3am and 4am tonight while im a sleep and all the lights and appliances are off.


----------



## spog (27/3/10)

nah bugga that,a bloke might stumble in the dark and spill his beer B) ...cheers...spog......


----------



## zoidbergmerc (27/3/10)

bum said:


> How is doing thinking about this every day more cynical than pretending for an hour a year?



Exactly.

It's just so all the people with their AC and CH going on all year round can think they're not killing the planet.


----------



## brettprevans (27/3/10)

And miss iron chef???! No sorry. Will
do something to compensate. I'll make earth hour tomorrow and the next day


----------



## roo_dr (27/3/10)

zoidbergmerc said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It's just so all the people with their AC and CH going on all year round can think they're not killing the planet.




But my AC is cooling the world down, not warming it... :blink:


----------



## marksfish (27/3/10)

Kleiny said:


> not likely to turn the power off while there is footy on the idiot box, i will do earth hour between 3am and 4am tonight while im a sleep and all the lights and appliances are off.



knowing my luck if i tried this i would piss on my feet when the urge hits :lol:


----------



## bum (27/3/10)

manticle said:


> You'll have to rephrase.


 I _may_ have started drinking a bit earlier today than usual.


manticle said:


> Quite possibly not but unlike some things it doesn't make me angry enough to tell the lady love that she has a head full of charcoal.


 
Yeah, I haven't been drinking that much.


----------



## brettprevans (27/3/10)

I want to say ghat my post is exactlty what earth hour us about.... And the fact that iron chef ingediant tonight is shark fin. Thats bad. So I'm conflicted . Also blown another keg. That's bad. Down to 2 kegs and no beer in fermentir. I'm in trouble. Sorryearth I need to fire up burner and make beer.


----------



## bum (27/3/10)

And then comes the methane.


----------



## Howlingdog (27/3/10)

Bum, you have too much sense of humour for someone from below twenty-eight degrees south

HD



bum said:


> And then comes the methane.


----------



## marksfish (27/3/10)

the methane comes from the rear end with all the yeast we consume


----------



## glaab (27/3/10)

manticle said:


> ...possibly not but unlike some things it doesn't make me angry



huh?? that doesn't not sound like double talk, maybe I need more beer :icon_drunk:


----------



## Pollux (27/3/10)

It's earth hour???

We have the light on in the bathroom and kitchen, no-one is in either room, the LCD is on, all 3 fridges are on.....

I suppose I could turn the lights off, but I'm not touching the fridges.


----------



## Nick JD (27/3/10)

i FIND TOKEN ENVIRONMENTAL GESTURES MORE ANNOYING THAN THE CAPS LOCK BEING ON WHEN i DON'T KNOW IT IT. 

Everyone already knows. If you don't then your head's in the sand and you are already in the dark. 

But people arriving at Coles in their Landcruiser V8 opening the back to get out their "green" bags? BULLSHIT to that. 

Token gestures are actually bad because they make people feel good about doing essentially ... nothing. 

Earthhour is a token gesture. I will be burning an effigy of Al Gore on my front lawn during Earthhour made entirely of plastic bags.


----------



## praxis178 (27/3/10)

Nick JD said:


> i FIND TOKEN ENVIRONMENTAL GESTURES MORE ANNOYING THAN THE CAPS LOCK BEING ON WHEN i DON'T KNOW IT IT.
> 
> Everyone already knows. If you don't then your head's in the sand and you are already in the dark.
> 
> ...



I'd pay to see that video!  

And no we don't participate in our house, for the obvious reasons, by this time of night we're all too pissed to not have the lights on, it's just the OH&S rules here.


----------



## manticle (27/3/10)

glaab said:


> huh?? that doesn't not sound like double talk, maybe I need more beer :icon_drunk:



At the risk of Bum accusing me of wearing a monocle once again:

_Rephrased sentence_

'Possibly not. However (unlike some other things) the concept of Earth Hour doesn't make me angry enough to tell my lady that that she has a head full of charcoal.'

Had an hour out the back drinking beer and talking to my lady. I don't feel like I saved the world (did that earlier while wearing a spandex cape) but it wasn't so bad. Tomorrow I'm going to donate an old doona to the local St Vincent's and tell myself all is right with the world.


----------



## bum (27/3/10)

manticle said:


> At the risk of Bum accusing me of wearing a monocle once again:


 
You know I only have eye for you.


----------



## manticle (27/3/10)

Nick JD said:


> i FIND TOKEN ENVIRONMENTAL GESTURES MORE ANNOYING THAN THE CAPS LOCK BEING ON WHEN i DON'T KNOW IT IT.
> 
> Everyone already knows. If you don't then your head's in the sand and you are already in the dark.
> 
> ...



You could burn some green bags.

They're made of plastic.


----------



## BEC26 (27/3/10)

We do it.

Plus, to make up for the slckers in our street, we make it no TV/etc.

I go and turn the power off for an hour.

Is a bit of fun, but rises awareness.

Love seeing how the kids react.

Cheers


----------



## rendo (27/3/10)

Hands up.........Who would turn off their fermentation fridge for earth hour??

hahaha...BULLSHIT....no way!

I'd go without a shower for a day rather than do that. It would prob save more energy and a shit load of water anyway.

Hmmm maybe I can stop showering all together.


Earth hour is not so much about being good for one hour and then being a sinner for the rest of the year. It is more so about raising awareness and getting people to think about ways they can improve their energy consumption, carbon footprint, blah blah blah and not be so wasteful etc.

Anyway.....I know I do the right thing, generally  

EDIT: and if there are ppl who turn out their lights for one hour and think they have done a good deed and dont change anything in their wasteful day to day lives, then there is really no helping those ppl anyway....maybe they need to be turned off  (ooooooooooh.........touchy)


----------



## bum (27/3/10)

rendo said:


> Hands up.........Who would turn off their fermentation fridge for earth hour??


 
My fermenting fridge turns itself off for over an hour regularly - doubt it'd make a difference (no matter how you look at the issue).


----------



## white.grant (27/3/10)

Relax guys, you only had to turn off your lights and even doing that token flick of the switch makes a pretty big difference to our collective power consumption. 

If you switched off, all power to you!

cheers

grant


----------



## rendo (27/3/10)

bum said:


> My fermenting fridge turns itself off for over an hour regularly - doubt it'd make a difference (no matter how you look at the issue).


----------



## bum (27/3/10)

Mine was in the brackets (in case you missed it).


----------



## kelbygreen (27/3/10)

I agree i that a hour wont matter people need to learn to not waste so much water and electricity there is heaps of ways to do it alot cost money but most dont! turn off lights, tv and appliances when you dont use them this means off at the wall not the remote as everything goes on standby now and you might as well turn everything off at the wall for a week then the lights off for 1 hour you will save the same amount (if not more energy) also have showers as cold as you can have them (if electric hot water service), have shorter showers, use fan instead of aircon and the list can go on for hours but this will save 1000% more then turning lights off for a hour


----------



## jyo (28/3/10)

Our Earth Hour was adequately seen to during the fookin hail storm in Perth earlier this week. No power for 26 hours...


----------



## QldKev (28/3/10)

Grantw said:


> Earth Hour tonight at 8.30 - 9.30. Just dug out the candles. Who else is dimming the lights?
> 
> cheers
> 
> grant



Why is it always bum, manticle and bum chum BribieG always have to respond to every post? Then Kleiny and citymorgue2 to follow up the rears

guys Get a life!!!!! Post something useless; geese guuys you are good at that 


QldKev


----------



## katzke (28/3/10)

Didnt you guys get the memo? It is the 27th and that is tonight not yesterday.

I for one will be participating fully. I plan on turning on all of my lights. May even turn the electric heat up instead of tossing some wood on the fire.

From your banter I think you have been sniffing way too many broken CFLs and have mercury poisoning.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

Arhh f' the earth, we'll be able to find another one before this one is f'ed. 
Dam all the rivers, seek out any forest that is old growth and either chop it down or burn it. Kill all the native animals, we don't need them, it cows and sheep we need. 
Why should we have respect for the planet, it's a good little money maker. Just another usable resource.
The masses will die but not before we are rich, ha ha aha aha ahhahhha ha ha.


----------



## Scruffy (28/3/10)

Imagine for a moment the drain on each and every generator as it struggles to meet demand AFTER urth our.

They have to stagger the premier league kick off times in Blighty because of demand at half time with all those kettles going on... 

I love a bit of altruism as much as the next man, but they've not really thought this one through have they...


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

We all know what it's like when the power goes off and I think that the message wouldn't go through unless it was all shut down for a whole week.
F' all your so called profit. We have have all learned to depend upon a non-sustainable source for the profit of a minority.


----------



## rendo (28/3/10)

Hey.....Leave Manticle and BribieG alone or I will have to find somewhere to shove that big banana from coffs (close enough to QLD)

http://www.bigbanana.com/ (NO, THIS ISNT P0RN)

Manticle and BribieG have helped 100's (prob more) brewers learn alot of stuff and make better beer. Bum tries in his sarcastic and negative ways that offends most people, but alas I think he is trying to help.....i think.

rendo



QldKev said:


> Why is it always bum, manticle and bum chum BribieG always have to respond to every post? Then Kleiny and citymorgue2 to follow up the rears
> 
> guys Get a life!!!!! Post something useless; geese guuys you are good at that
> 
> ...


----------



## brettprevans (28/3/10)

QldKev said:


> Why is it always bum, manticle and bum chum BribieG always have to respond to every post? Then Kleiny and citymorgue2 to follow up the rears
> 
> guys Get a life!!!!! Post something useless; geese guuys you are good at that
> 
> ...


Something useful huh. Ok how about some economic therory behind earth hour? Govt supports earth hour becuase it aims to correct market failure through market choice failures with the need for govt to step in and correct with regulation. However this is a precusoe to the govt stepping in with regulation in the form of carbon trading. Earth hour is a blow softener to all involved and then govt comes in with regulation as a follow up. 

Because of gross market failure govt will also use others forms of market correction to focus on price and not just quantity ie increasing prices of electricity and water. This will have a significant cost impact on everyone including us brewers who have generally excl water/elec cost from brewing cost thinking because it been so cheap. No longer. NSW essential servies commission gas already reported that NSW can expect increases of about 40-60% to water/elect bc of carbon trading 

I could go on but it's a bit boring compared to light hearted quips. 

Is that Better mate?


----------



## DUANNE (28/3/10)

by carbon trading you are refering to carbon taxing yes? the govt doesnt believe in this global warming farce any way.for them its just another chance to put there hands out for more money and hide under a cloak of its all for youre own good.just think how much money the main players in spreading this garbage are making. flying around in jets spewing out fumes so they can tell you to ride a bike to work and save the world.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

As far as I know the globe has been warming since we were attached to the north island and th eoceans have been higher than they are now.
So it should be OK to keep f'ing the planet up and make as much money out if it as possible.


----------



## manticle (28/3/10)

QldKev said:


> Why is it always bum, manticle and bum chum BribieG always have to respond to every post? Then Kleiny and citymorgue2 to follow up the rears
> 
> guys Get a life!!!!! Post something useless; geese guuys you are good at that
> 
> ...




Like this post mate?

Sorry to have upset you.


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

Yeah, no more on topic posts, manticle. Random insults are the order of the day.

According to some moron.

[EDIT: QldKev leading by example http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum//ind...st&p=613765]


----------



## yardy (28/3/10)

QldKev said:


> Why is it always bum, manticle and bum chum BribieG always have to respond to every post? Then Kleiny and citymorgue2 to follow up the rears
> 
> guys Get a life!!!!! Post something useless; geese guuys you are good at that
> 
> ...




:lol: 

*note to self for pending brewday.

send Kev home before 12.39 AM (gets cranky)...


----------



## joebejeckel (28/3/10)

earth hour is about turning the lights off not the beer fridge, that would be called dumb arse hour, 
and I heard Dr Karl say something like if we all turned our lights out and burnt wax candles we would put more carbon into the air than we normally do, 

joe


----------



## jyo (28/3/10)

QldKev said:


> Why is it always bum, manticle and bum chum BribieG always have to respond to every post? Then Kleiny and citymorgue2 to follow up the rears
> 
> guys Get a life!!!!! Post something useless; geese guuys you are good at that
> 
> ...



I find this amusing, as the first three members you have mentioned have all answered my stupid questions in some way.


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> As far as I know the globe has been warming since we were attached to the north island and th eoceans have been higher than they are now.
> So it should be OK to keep f'ing the planet up and make as much money out if it as possible.


 
This is an argument that gets bandied about pretty regularly and it seems pretty reasonable on the face of it. It only continues to make sense if you ignore two things - the first thing you must ignore is that these changes have never occurred in so short a period of time as the 100 years we're talking about here - this makes it kinda difficult to prove that we've had no influence on the situation; the second is that these extremes on the natural cycle that are mentioned made the Earth an extremely inhospitable place for life to exist - even if it were a natural occurrence we should be doing all that we can to slow it down even if only out of self-interest.


----------



## browndog (28/3/10)

Overpopulation is going to destroy the earth before climate change does. It scares me when I think about what kind of world my kid's kids will be living in.

-BD


----------



## bradsbrew (28/3/10)

I took the human acheivement hour option......I turned all the lights on, 3 TV's, most of the appliances, I turned one split system onto 16 and the other onto 30 to get a good ambient temperature and sat back and looked at all man has achieved..............until the power tripped out and took me an hour to get it fixed......................................yeah i participated.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

bum said:


> This is an argument that gets bandied about pretty regularly and it seems pretty reasonable on the face of it. It only continues to make sense if you ignore two things - the first thing you must ignore is that these changes have never occurred in so short a period of time as the 100 years we're talking about here - this makes it kinda difficult to prove that we've had no influence on the situation; the second is that these extremes on the natural cycle that are mentioned made the Earth an extremely inhospitable place for life to exist - even if it were a natural occurrence we should be doing all that we can to slow it down even if only out of self-interest.



I agree Bum, I was just being sarcastic.
You have summed it up nicely. 
I can imagine that during periods of high volcanic activity the air would of been almost unbreathable. I'm pretty sure mankind has survived an ice age or two though. It appears to me that there are long term climatic seasons in the cycles of the solar system. 
We are the biggest threat to our own existance and the earth itself, it's inevitable. The best thing that could happen to earth would be the end of mankind's existance. When it comes down to it that is the only way the earth will survive.


----------



## Nick JD (28/3/10)

For everyone in the world to live like we do, we need 4 more earths. 

Yes, the globe is warming - but being "green" has a lot more to do with resource distribution than the environment.

Almost every war at its core has been about natural resources. 

There's people who are employed to think about the future and they know the only way to get fat kids to share is via guilt.


----------



## katzke (28/3/10)

browndog said:


> Overpopulation is going to destroy the earth before climate change does. It scares me when I think about what kind of world my kid's kids will be living in.
> 
> -BD



If overpopulation is what is killing the earth why did you have kids?

Earth killer!


----------



## browndog (28/3/10)

katzke said:


> If overpopulation is what is killing the earth why did you have kids?
> 
> Earth killer!



I've got two, one to replace me and one to replace the missus. That good enough for you?


----------



## Nick JD (28/3/10)

browndog said:


> I've got two, one to replace me and one to replace the missus. That good enough for you?



That won't even keep the population stable. I think you need to have something like 2.18 kids (yes, 2 kids - and one that's just a head) because not all people breed or make it to breeding age.


----------



## FNQ Bunyip (28/3/10)

Its not the family with 1 or 2 thats over populateing the planet ,, its the ones with 5 or 7 or 17 ,, 
When I was in Afrika our House boy had 3 wives and 17 kids , thats not sustainable in anyones terms .. lol 

I too worry about the world our kids will inherit , I only have 1 ,, makes up for the neighbour with 3 .. lol
but I'll be too drunk too notice so I left the 7 fridges running and was in bed pissed by 20:30 so all lights were off anyway .. win win win..


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

the earth can get much hotter and we will be fine. MUCH hotter. and it's almost certainly a good thing IF it is getting hotter. a cold world is one we have no food production in. it's one where we all crowd around the equator. without a suitable atmosphere the earth's average temperature is freezing cold. we would all die. 

any fool who worries about carbon has no clue on how it came to be and where it goes. carbon as the issue knows it has it bound by ancient fauna and flora. this carbon fuel was made by one the most vibrant ecologies that has ever existed. we can't get it all back out of the ground. therefore if we liberate all the fossil fuel we can possibly lay our hands on there will be less carbon available than was present when dinosaurs were larking about in the sunshine. 

get a grip people. we will run out of fuel long before any really significant changes. use less if you want to. industry laughs at your feeble attempts to cut usage though. 

chicken little people are a pain in the arse. please go back to worrying about nuclear things. (you know the only real alternative energy source)


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> (you know the only real alternative energy source)


 
What's that big yellow thing in the sky?


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

you know that big yellow thing in the sky is nuclear?
oh you do good. then you must have figured out how i can use that energy without utilising more energy to make the system than the system will produce?

i said real alternative. if you had a serious point to make you should have said wind.


----------



## manticle (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> the earth can get much hotter and we will be fine.




How much hotter?


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

dinosaur eras put the earth's average temp as UP TO 10 Celsius hotter than now.


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

Listen, rimjobber, we needn't mine and enrich uranium in order to harness the sun's energy. We needn't find something to do with copious quantities of terribly dangerous waste by-products. Your point is absolutely facile.

Yes, current systems need to be used to make future systems - including nuclear (and wind for that matter). Are you even thinking about these stupid points you think are shutting me down?


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> the earth can get much hotter and we will be fine. MUCH hotter. and it's almost certainly a good thing IF it is getting hotter. a cold world is one we have no food production in. it's one where we all crowd around the equator. without a suitable atmosphere the earth's average temperature is freezing cold. we would all die.
> 
> any fool who worries about carbon has no clue on how it came to be and where it goes. carbon as the issue knows it has it bound by ancient fauna and flora. this carbon fuel was made by one the most vibrant ecologies that has ever existed. we can't get it all back out of the ground. therefore if we liberate all the fossil fuel we can possibly lay our hands on there will be less carbon available than was present when dinosaurs were larking about in the sunshine.
> 
> ...


Any wonder the world is a mess if that's the general consensus.
It's a bit hard to grow food when there are extremes of weather conditions ruining crops and stock. 
So we use it all till it's gone and then.........
I think you may find that pain in the arse is your head stuck up there.


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> dinosaur eras put the earth's average temp as UP TO 10 Celsius hotter than now.


 
Good point. Let's ask them how they dealt with that situation.


----------



## manticle (28/3/10)

Not trying to have a go because I don't pretend to be a climate change scientist but what was acceptable for large reptilian creatures' survival x million years ago may not be suitable for current flora and fauna.

I don't for a second believe that turning off my lights for one hour will make one iota of difference to anything. I'm actually more fearful of pollution and overpopulation and many other things than I am global warming but I can't imagine the perceived/assumed climate from millions of years ago on a planet that contained entirely different zoology has much to do with our longevity or that of the species around us today.

I am happy to be wrong if you have some more specific information.

Myself I just don't see the need to drive to the supermarket, water the concrete, run 16 airconditioners when it's 22 degrees or use the clothes dryer on a sunny day. Nothing to do with climate change/global warming/politicians/carbon emissions/special tax schemes/wank- just unnecessary.


----------



## brettprevans (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> dinosaur eras put the earth's average temp as UP TO 10 Celsius hotter than now.


Dinisaus were cold blooded. They need the heat. Silly argument


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> Any wonder the world is a mess if that's the general consensus.
> It's a bit hard to grow food when there are extremes of weather conditions ruining crops and stock.
> So we use it all till it's gone and then.........
> I think you may find that pain in the arse is your head stuck up there.


a quick look at even recent history over the last thousand years says you have no idea. greenland was green when discoverd you know?
climate fluctuations are a result of living on a rock with a molten core circling a nuclear furnace. there are no more extemes of weather now than there was 5 thousand years ago. there is only people with short memories thinking it's all their fault.


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

bum said:


> Listen, rimjobber, we needn't mine and enrich uranium in order to harness the sun's energy. We needn't find something to do with copious quantities of terribly dangerous waste by-products. Your point is absolutely facile.
> 
> Yes, current systems need to be used to make future systems - including nuclear (and wind for that matter). Are you even thinking about these stupid points you think are shutting me down?


your one of those people who don't understand that uranium still is radiactive where it is then?we need economicly viable energy not fairy tales. 

way to attack the man and not the argument.


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

bum said:


> Good point. Let's ask them how they dealt with that situation.


they died out, probably from a massive upset in the climate. a COLD one, not a hot one. as for the other guy who mentioned they were cold blooded well done but there were mammals then. 

also way to miss the point where i said we can't possibly use all the fossil fuels up and that the temperature therfore can not reach that level.


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> your one of those people who don't understand that uranium still is radiactive where it is then?


 The sun is radioactive too, and yet I'm pretty happy to present it as a viable energy source. You're confusing me but not in the way you're hoping to. But you're right, I lose a great amount of sleep over uranium being radioactive sealed deep, deep below the earth's crust. It is absolutely terrifying. 



rimrunner said:


> way to attack the man and not the argument.


 
I'm pretty sure I did address your points (such as they are) as well as your sexual activities.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> a quick look at even recent history over the last thousand years says you have no idea. greenland was green when discoverd you know?
> climate fluctuations are a result of living on a rock with a molten core circling a nuclear furnace. there are no more extemes of weather now than there was 5 thousand years ago. there is only people with short memories thinking it's all their fault.




Blaming the molten core of the earth for climate change, that's a newy. Perhaps with increased volcanic activity this may happen.
Well it's true there have always been extremes of weather. 
You haven't noticed that these extremes have become more frequent and more extreme in a relatively short time?


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

i bring up dinosaurs only because they are the fuel we are using. we need that fuel. we will need it until we have viable RELIABLE alternatives in place. 

come up with a better solution. i suggest we get the **** off this planet before a meteorite wipes us out of the equation. there a frikken whole moon made of methane in our solar system. there is enough tritium on our moon to power us for thousands of years. not many people seem to grasp how tenuous our position really is.

if you can get that half a kilowatt out of the sun economically great. i'm all for it. but to insist that is a real alternative right now? you have no idea.


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

bum said:


> The sun is radioactive too, and yet I'm pretty happy to present it as a viable energy source. You're confusing me but not in the way you're hoping to. But you're right, I lose a great amount of sleep over uranium being radioactive sealed deep, deep below the earth's crust. It is absolutely terrifying.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I did address your points (such as they are) as well as your sexual activities.


well bumhole. that radioactive material is thown into the atmosphere every time someone digs a hole. it's no sealed anywhere it's IN YOUR BED. coal power produces more radiation in our atmoshpere than nuclear ever will.

but it's good that at least your not arguing i should pay taxes on anything that makes carbon anymore. i even heard i should pay carbon tax on planting tree recently because it uses water.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

How many Brontosaurus does it take to run a light bulb?


----------



## Pollux (28/3/10)

lol, who would have thought this thread would go this way?


----------



## marksfish (28/3/10)

not to mention the half-arsed science :lol:


----------



## brettprevans (28/3/10)

Greenland has always been full of ice and Iceland is more green. Believe it or not it's true. Greenland has been used for geological studies because of it's ice content


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> How many Brontosaurus does it take to run a light bulb?


i can do the math if you tell me what wattage it uses and how long you want to use it for lol.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> well bumhole. that radioactive material is thown into the atmosphere every time someone digs a hole. it's no sealed anywhere it's IN YOUR BED. coal power produces more radiation in our atmoshpere than nuclear ever will.




Let's build the reactor next door to rimrunner.


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

citymorgue2 said:


> Greenland has always been full of ice and Iceland is more green. Believe it or not it's true. Greenland has been used for geological studies because of it's ice content


yeah those ancient farmhouses that are turning up from under the ice are totally planted.


----------



## brettprevans (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> yeah those ancient farmhouses that are turning up from under the ice are totally planted.


Check ur atlas or wiki. 80% of Greenland is ice


----------



## jyo (28/3/10)

Rimrunner, it's got sweet **** all to do with alternatives of supplying power to the masses and you know it. 

The fact that we aren't fully utilising the available renewable energy resources that are available to us has more to do with the monetary cost of changing current infrastructures to suit and that fossil fuels are still relatively cheap to obtain.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> i can do the math if you tell me what wattage it uses and how long you want to use it for lol.




15 watts for 1 hour (That should keep the mad scientist busy for a while counting fossils, lol)


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> yeah those ancient farmhouses that are turning up from under the ice are totally planted.


 
Is your suggestion that people have never lived on ice? 

That isn't even the biggest issue here: 

WHAT THE **** DO YOU THINK IT IS THAT IS CAUSING THESE 'ANCIENT FARMHOUSES' TO RE-APPEAR SO SUDDENLY? Does global warming only exist when you wish to use it to refute the science that backs it up? You're fucked in the head, pal.


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> 15 watts for 1 hour (That should keep the mad scientist busy for a while counting fossils, lol)


 
Incandescent or energy saver? 

Boagsy, the dude can't even spell - as if he can count.

[EDIT: Sorry, Mods.]


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> Let's build the reactor next door to rimrunner.



if there was a coal power station next to me i'd be all for it. but being an ass you forget that they don't generally put power stations of any sort right next to people. 

all i get from your posts is that you know nothing about nuclear power and less about solar. i guess you can do without power? burn some renewable logs for a while? well that might work for a while in australia where it's a bit warm but those europeans need more than that. 

come on people, you can't be really serious about a fictional problem that will not be affected by laws that only apply to our country while other countries just destroy their environment for products we consume?

there is always a case for using less. but earth hour does nothing. worse, it legitimises bad science.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> if there was a coal power station next to me i'd be all for it. but being an ass you forget that they don't generally put power stations of any sort right next to people.
> 
> all i get from your posts is that you know nothing about nuclear power and less about solar. i guess you can do without power? burn some renewable logs for a while? well that might work for a while in australia where it's a bit warm but those europeans need more than that.




I was suggesting where they should build one not where they do.

I know enough about nuclear to know there is a good reason for not building reactors near people, well, some people.


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

jyo said:


> Rimrunner, it's got sweet **** all to do with alternatives of supplying power to the masses and you know it.
> 
> The fact that we aren't fully utilising the available renewable energy resources that are available to us has more to do with the monetary cost of changing current infrastructures to suit and that fossil fuels are still relatively cheap to obtain.


yeah thats what i said. fossil fuel is chaep. renewable isn't cheap. fossil fuel is reliable, renewable isn't. fossil fuel pollutes, so does renewable.
assuming you want to make 10 terawatts of solar energy how much land do you need to cover in mirrors? half the worlds current power? thats over 20 trillion square meters. not much impact on the environment huh. and then you have a cloudy day and we have to turn on the battries.

it's not doable. forget monetary costs. it's just not a plan. the suns energy is not dense enough.


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> I was suggesting where they should build one not where they do.
> 
> I know enough about nuclear to know there is a good reason for not building reactors near people, well, some people.



no you know about nuclear power from the seventies. new nuclear is safe. they wouln'dt even make reactors now.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> no you know about nuclear power from the seventies. new nuclear is safe. they wouln'dt even make reactors now.




Well in that case we'll just bury the waste under your house then.


----------



## Leigh (28/3/10)

Good posts rimrunner. 

Part of the problem is the people that think they know the answer, but don't really have a clue what the question was...

A lot of typical climate rhetoric in this thread from newspaper researchers, but you're posts are a pleasure to read. They demonstrate a knowledge in this field.


----------



## bum (28/3/10)

He's saying oil is made from dinosaurs.


----------



## Leigh (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> Well in that case we'll just bury the waste under your house then.



You best go and stick you're head in a modern text book and see what the new fleet of nukes look like...


----------



## Barley Belly (28/3/10)

I can't work it out.

Did you guys all turn your lights out for Earth hour or not?


----------



## Leigh (28/3/10)

bum said:


> He's saying oil is made from dinosaurs.



Unlikely. Wrong chemistry. Oil (and coal) is made from really old plants that died and got buried for a wee bit. Did you know that plants happen to be an efficient collector of solar energy? Did you also know that plants are also a really good way of storing that solar energy?

Please pick a scientific mistruth there...because that is all fact.

Coal and oil is just biomass which is just stored solar energy...


----------



## Leigh (28/3/10)

Barley Belly said:


> I can't work it out.
> 
> Did you guys all turn your lights out for Earth hour or not?



I do care for the earth, so I left my lights on because when electricity demand drops, renewables are the first to be displaced...as the demand begins to increase at the end of the hour, coal takes up the slack until the renewables can be switched back on...

That's just the way the NEM works...


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

Leigh said:


> You best go and stick you're head in a modern text book and see what the new fleet of nukes look like...




No reactors and no nuclear waste sounds like a good thing to me.
It doesn't solve the problem of Rimrunners head stuck up his arse though.
I'm no scientist but I will take the word of one over his anyday.


----------



## rimrunner (28/3/10)

true that. maybe some fossil lube?

now if we get a scientist we can your head out too. happy days.


----------



## Leigh (28/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> No reactors and no nuclear waste sounds like a good thing to me.
> It doesn't solve the problem of Rimrunners head stuck up his arse though.



Nothing we do on this place creates zero waste, but I'd rather some wastes over others...

I wish everybody would look at a lifecycle for all (energy) technologies and not just for nukes...


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> true that. maybe some fossil lube?
> 
> now if we get a scientist we can your head out too. happy days.




Nice one.
Might work on the scientists head too.

There is energy all around us produced from nature, if only we could harness it all efficiently. There will never be enough energy no matter what we do.


----------



## manticle (28/3/10)

Maybe if there was a little less emotive arguing (from both sides) and some properly explained science (from both sides) that laypeople could follow we'd all be better off.

I see a lot of people making sweeping statements, no references to back any of it up and a lot of personal insults. No wonder no-one actually knows what's going on.


----------



## rendo (28/3/10)

What is earth hour about anyway??  

HAHAHAHA ROFLMAO.....running for cover (from nuclear bombs)



manticle said:


> Maybe if there was a little less emotive arguing (from both sides) and some properly explained science (from both sides) that laypeople could follow we'd all be better off.
> 
> I see a lot of people making sweeping statements, no references to back any of it up and a lot of personal insults. No wonder no-one actually knows what's going on.


----------



## Dazza_devil (28/3/10)

It's all about sitting in the dark when it comes to climate change. Makes no difference really if you are blinded by science.


----------



## Leigh (29/3/10)

...


----------



## rimrunner (29/3/10)

Leigh said:


> ...


i agree.


----------



## Scruffy (29/3/10)

+1


----------



## petesbrew (29/3/10)

I reckon we ought to harvest whale & dolphin blubber and refine it as an alternative to petrol.


----------



## beers (29/3/10)

I brewed 2x beers yesterday.


----------



## Dazza_devil (29/3/10)

Perhaps it would be wise to think carefully about what energy resource that we become dependant upon in the future. We wouldn't want to make the mistakes we have made in the past. A quick fix or what seems like a good idea at the time may lead to catastophic outcomes.

Here you go Leigh, hope this helps answer some of your questions regarding CO2 in the Ocean.

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Car...Atmosphere.html


----------



## Fourstar (29/3/10)

BribieG said:


> I'm off to the bathroom to shave my balls for Watt, Ohm and Coulomb.
> Shave to save B)



This is as far as i had to read into this thread. The most meaningful post ive read today. :lol:


----------



## WarmBeer (29/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> Here you go Leigh, hope this helps answer some of your questions regarding CO2 in the Ocean.
> 
> http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Car...Atmosphere.html


After he's finished reading that handily linked article, he should probably read this one next.


----------



## DUANNE (29/3/10)

if we are to beleive these barrow pushing climate scientists then melbourne ,sydney and brisbane are all underwater already.the dams are all bone dry,and the earth is flat.my question is about those houses in greenland though.bum asks a good question why are they all suddenly reappearing. i counter this with why did they dissapear suddenly?the climate has always changed, and we have about 100 years of truly accurate data to base predictions on.every time we get a hot day its global warming.every storm is global warming.until i see facts and accurate moddeling i will remain a sceptic.


----------



## Dazza_devil (29/3/10)

And by the time every man and his dog were convinced it would be too late.
Unfortunately for us it will take that to change the mind of a die hard sceptic.


----------



## bum (29/3/10)

BEERHOG said:


> my question is about those houses in greenland though.bum asks a good question why are they all suddenly reappearing. i counter this with why did they dissapear suddenly?


 
Fair point. I guess we'd need to ask rimrunner what "ancient" means in this context. It may not be a case of them having disappeared "suddenly" at all.

Assuming they did freeze over suddenly (as either some freak event or as part of a natural cycle) that still wouldn't discount the idea that the climate change that has caused them to reappear could have been influenced by the unforeseen side-effects of Industrialisation.


----------



## DUANNE (29/3/10)

yeah i think you have hit the nail fair on the head there bum.you cant discount industrialisation as a cause but on the same token theres no conclusive evidence to prove it either.i think a rational debate needs to be had on the issue but this is never gonna happen while there are so many self serving groups on both sides.i wont pretend i know all the science behind it but i do know the more i look into it the less one sided it really is.


----------



## rimrunner (29/3/10)

my counter. at layman level. 

these are Viking age houses i refer to. i assume they migrated there during the warm medieval period and left when the ice closed in on them during the mini ice age. 
there is a lot of info here on vikings in greenland


----------



## Dazza_devil (29/3/10)

Those sunspots show us how vulnerable the earth is to climatic change and what a delicate balance there is between it and the environment. Is it any wonder that human intervention is playing a part? The trends shown in the solar cycles from 1750 to 2000 would of been invaluable to scientists when determining the additional effects that human activity has had on the climate.


----------



## beerbrewer76543 (29/3/10)

It occurs naturally anyway. If smelling your own farts gives you that smug feeling then "good for you!" *thumbs up*


----------



## rimrunner (29/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> Those sunspots show us how vulnerable the earth is to climatic change and what a delicate balance there is between it and the environment. Is it any wonder that human intervention is playing a part? The trends shown in the solar cycles from 1750 to 2000 would of been invaluable to scientists when determining the additional effects that human activity has had on the climate.



my objection is you calling it "vulnerable to climate change" yet there is no real danger to us that has not been faced by humans for thousands of years. 3 degrees warmer and the earth thrives. colder and people die. if there is a side to be cautious on it's the warmer one.

i believe the video did show both expected warming/cooling by sunspots and by sunspots and CO2 combined.

glad real talking is being done now without namecalling.


----------



## Dazza_devil (29/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> my objection is you calling it "vulnerable to climate change" yet there is no real danger to us that has not been faced by humans for thousands of years. 3 degrees warmer and the earth thrives. colder and people die. if there is a side to be cautious on it's the warmer one.
> 
> i believe the video did show both expected warming/cooling by sunspots and by sunspots and CO2 combined.
> 
> glad real talking is being done now without namecalling.





The only name I have called you is Rimrunner and as I recall the name calling began with you,

"chicken little people are a pain in the arse. please go back to worrying about nuclear things."

And there is a reason why I should take your presentation of no real danger to us over an educated factual presentation from a Scientist? Do we need to have a threat in front of us so profound that it cannot be avoided until we take measures that are all too little and too late?
Where do you get your information Rimrunner, are they your personal theories? 
It's my understanding that a rise in average temperatures as little as 2 degrees and we are in real trouble. "We" being all or any living thing on this planet, not just humans. Some of us value life on this planet in all it's forms. Or do we just need to preserve one cell so that we can evolve again?

Edit- Humans have survived an Ice Age before.


----------



## rimrunner (29/3/10)

that link i showed you was put together by scientists. they are more educated than us both yet you dismiss them? they are not my personal theories. my personal theory is that climate change happens all the time. even if i think carbon emissions are the cause, the actual threat is mostly hype. storms? rising sea levels? these aren't going to kill millions of people. 

as for 2 degrees warmer that link also proved that it's not particularly worrisome. in our recorded history the earth's temperature has been higher than that for extended periods of time. imagining what could happen is not real science. checking the history books and reading accounts of people living in the times that have endured both higher and lower temperatures would be far more productive.

yes we need an actual threat before we do anything. to present i have not seen any sources say we will be in any real danger should the earth warm by 3-5 degrees. if you have some sources that say otherwise please link them. please don't bother if it's storms and sea levels. or desertification. 

you say humans survived an ice age? not to be too picky but we are still IN an ice age. the earth has been warmer for far longer than it's been colder. the Cambrian period had the first huge rush of life as we know it. it was 7 degrees hotter and had a CO2 of 4500 PPM!!!! LIFE likes it warmer! life blossomed during the warm millions of years. it grew and moved and evolved to cover every niche it could. don't tell me life will have a hard time. it won't. 

in hindsight the chicken little crack was probably not the best line to have in my opening. i do think they are a pain but i can see how it would invite hostility. hostility i can handle, but please make a point during it. if you didn't call me names then why would you think i was referring to you?


----------



## bum (29/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> storms? rising sea levels? these aren't going to kill millions of people.


 
Wait. What? Storms can easily kill a great many people. They can also ravage crops. Reduce people's access to, well, everything due to flooding. Natural disasters are bad. Leaning on the word "natural" doesn't change a god damned thing. Raising sea levels can displace millions of people - where would you have them go? You acknowledge these things as potential outcomes (of a phenomena you seem to wish to deny - which is pretty odd, really) but you dismiss them as actual issues like they don't mean anything. These things (should they occur) will have real and terrible consequences for millions of people. 

But, hey, I don't know them so be fucked if I'll turn my AC off. 

The issue here is how this will effect Humanity. It isn't Earth that will die off with a slight change in climate. We're the fragile ones. Not sure what the Cambrian period has to do with Mankind, mate.


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> that link i showed you was put together by scientists. they are more educated than us both yet you dismiss them? they are not my personal theories. my personal theory is that climate change happens all the time. even if i think carbon emissions are the cause, the actual threat is mostly hype. storms? rising sea levels? these aren't going to kill millions of people.
> 
> as for 2 degrees warmer that link also proved that it's not particularly worrisome. in our recorded history the earth's temperature has been higher than that for extended periods of time. imagining what could happen is not real science. checking the history books and reading accounts of people living in the times that have endured both higher and lower temperatures would be far more productive.
> 
> ...




Rimrunner you just aren't reading what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth to support your argument.
I never dismissed what sunspots do, I suggested that other scientists use these sorts of facts to see how human intervention is playing a role. Would they not have to take all other factors into account? Are you suggesting that climate change scientists are idiots?
Almost all previous data collected regarding climate change doesn't account for human impact. It's the future we are worried about here not a time when we didn't exist or didn't have the abilitly or the numbers to severely impact the climate.

I've taken the time to download that video in your link you mentioned which takes some time at dialup speeds. I see you base your whole argument on this one article. Perhaps this is where your judgement is being blinded. The video appears to be making many assumptions, loading selected facts to support a particular side of the argument and failing to account for many other variables. Our impact on the earth will make us more vulnerable to the effects of the sun. There is more to life than carefully selected graphs and figures, we are talking about living things and peoples lives. Assuming our impact on the earth is to remain constant would be a big mistake. It is increasing at an alarming rate. 

So you have made some ground then, you do believe CO2 emmissions are a major cause of global warming. 
Would you accept that we as a race now emit a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Would you accept that we as a race can cut these emmissions and this would have a positive effect on the climate?

I see that you have checked the history books and found that cooler is not going to kills us all and that we have survived an ice age before but you haven't worked out exactly what an ice age is. 

Here's one link, just the first I found, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...balwarming.html , it only touches the surface.
Another, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_Dang..._Climate_Change . Another http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...s.climatechange
The facts are too numerous to ignore. You don't need me to post links, just google climate change, CO2, global warming etc etc. You must have got excited when you found that one article. I must admit that it is a good one and very cleverly disguises the issues. A nice peice of propaganda for the industrialists. 

I know we need a threat to do anything but you are saying it's not there at all, many reliable studies would suggest otherwise. I said a profound threat, what does it take? You're reading what you want to hear into my words again.

Bum has already suggested to you that desertification, floods etc can kill many people and their means of survival. The rate of these natural disasters is on the rise, dramatically. 
Looking at pre-human history is of no use to us in this case. Unless you want to plunge the whole human race into this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian and see how many survive. "While life prospered in the oceans, the land was barren with nothing more than a microbial 'crud' gracing the soils." Is this the world you like to leave for our descendants? How did your sunspots affect the planet in this period of the planets life as it and life on it was evolving to what we know it as today? Did a sunspot cause this? 

As for making a point, I think your statements make a good point. One about your ability to see all the facts and put forward a logical argument.


Did I say you was refering to me about the name calling?

What I am arguing here is that we can do something about dropping the amount of CO2 that we produce and this can have a positive effect on the rates of climate change. We all know climate change happens. 
The earth's ecosystems are very delicately balanced and fragile to high ratios of change. We are dependant on these ecosystems to survive as we know it. The earth to me is a beautiful place and worth preserving. At least we can take some steps to minimise our negative impact upon it. Isn't that the least we should do?

As for industy laughing at feeble attempts, I don't think that it will be industry that will be having the last laugh. Regardless, I will continue to make my feeble attempts as an individual while the big industrial money makers laugh but I will feel better as a person for doing so and I can see them for what they really are. F'n environmental vandals.


----------



## petesbrew (30/3/10)

bum said:


> But, hey, I don't know them so be fucked if I'll turn my AC off.


Totally couldn't be arsed reading this thread, just skim through for the name calling and entertaining comments like this.
Pretty much sums up one side of the arguement, Bum. Nicely said. :lol:


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

petesbrew said:


> Totally couldn't be arsed reading this thread, just skim through for the name calling and entertaining comments like this.
> Pretty much sums up one side of the arguement, Bum. Nicely said. :lol:




I know what you mean Pete, I pissed myself laughing at some parts. Some classic lines from Bum.
I haven't started name calling, yet. I suspect that when I do the mods will step in. I'm actually surprised they haven't already but we'll see how it goes.
All my posts in this thread have been sober so far, having a few days off and just finished putting some more CO2 into the atmosphere by feeding yeast. I must put some more plants around my fermenting fridge just to offset it.


----------



## petesbrew (30/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> I know what you mean Pete, I pissed myself laughing at some parts. Some classic lines from Bum.
> I haven't started name calling, yet. I suspect that when I do the mods will step in. I'm actually surprised they haven't already but we'll see how it goes.
> All my posts in this thread have been sober so far, having a few days off and just finished putting some more CO2 into the atmosphere by feeding yeast. I must put some more plants around my fermenting fridge just to offset it.


For the record, we did earth hour while we were away for the weekend. Very romantic. Lit up some candles, and watched a dvd... but that's okay, it was the caravan park's power.


----------



## Fourstar (30/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> my counter. at layman level.


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

I think Earth Hour makes us more aware of 'us all' on a Global level and how we can affect each others lives on a global level as one people and not just as an individual. 
It did me anyway.


----------



## microbe (30/3/10)

Nice one 4*

microbe


----------



## TasChris (30/3/10)

I am a climate change sceptic. I might be right however what if I am wrong the consequences would be catastrophic. 
So its not about whether there is man caused climate change or not its about risk management. 
If we take steps to minimise our carbon footprint and reduce our impact on the world etc and this reduces global warming then this is a great outcome and if it has no impact on global warming then at least we will have a cleaner world to live (baste) in. 
Basically its a win win scenario.

I know this is an over simplified view of the issue.

Mind you I do get tired of the scientific community tying everything into climate change in order to receive funding or gain credibility.
Eg The propulsion systems of Jellyfish and there effect on climate change (not real just an example)
Chris


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

Here's a bit of info on Ice Age for rimrunner.

The last Glacial maximum of the Quaternary Ice age ended 10 000 years ago. Yep we survived a glacial advance . 
Glacialogically speaking we are in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age, so we are not in a glacial period but in glacial retreat. 
Given a glacialogical definition of Ice Age, the current Ice age has been running for 2.58 million years. Yep we are surviving in an Ice Age. 
For our purposes the term "ice age" would refer to the last glacial maximum.

These delicately balanced cycles of the earth's climate could easily be put out of balance by human impact causing catastrophic outcomes. Things could happen much faster than what they do naturally and they are already. 

What's it got to do with Earth Hour? - Global Awareness


----------



## Leigh (30/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> These delicately balanced cycles of the earth's climate could easily be put out of balance by human impact causing catastrophic outcomes. Things could happen much faster than what they do naturally and they are already.



Can you please provide the facts to support this statement? 

Delicately balanced?

Easily put out of balance?

Are humans somehow above nature?

Are we not natural?

Bees evolved to collect pollen and convert that to honey in bee-constructed hives. Is that NATURAL?

...and the fundamental question of all, is beer natural?


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

We can blow up the world many times over with nuclear warheads, is that natural?


----------



## bum (30/3/10)

Are you really suggesting that Industrialisation is part of our evolution? Who wants to play Boggle with my mind? I must warn you, it will win - it's boggling pretty hard right now.

I would think it was blatantly apparent that there is very little about our behaviours that is natural any more.

Surely anyone who is suggesting that mankind is causing harm to nature can't be accused of thinking man is above nature?


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

bum said:


> Are you really suggesting that Industrialisation is part of our evolution? Who wants to play Boggle with my mind? I must warn you, it will win - it's boggling pretty hard right now.
> 
> I would think it was blatantly apparent that there is very little about our behaviours that is natural any more.
> 
> Surely anyone who is suggesting that mankind is causing harm to nature can't be accused of thinking man is above nature?




I'm with Bum,
Nature is definitely above humans and that we will find out if we continue to tamper with it in a careless and arrogant way. The earth has a wonderful way of cleansing it's rubbish and nature may bring about the end to us all. 



Anything that has taken billions of years to evolve is gonna be delicately balanced in my opinion, but I may be wrong. I've been wrong before.


----------



## stm (30/3/10)

Yep, you're wrong again Boagsy. Phil Jones, one of the leading pro-warming climate "scientists" admits that the recent warming 1975-1998 is not exceptional, but is in fact about the same rate and magnitude of warming as previously measured warming periods (when there was not significant man-made CO2 emmissions), with cooling in intervening periods (even when man-made CO2 emissions were rising, for example, 1945-1975). In any case the medieval warming period about 1000 years ago was warmer than now, and there has been cooling in the last 10 years.

Link below for Dr Jones's admissions:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil...settled-issues/

Global warming is a scam and I marked Earth Hour with a celebration of human progress by turning all my lights on. Better than darkness, ignorance and repression.


----------



## rimrunner (30/3/10)

"for our purposes ice age would refer to the last glacial maximum" boagsy (sorry my browser is giving me all sorts of grief with posting in this forum. you'll have to live with a little paraphrasing)

no. ice age would be what the experts refer to, and that's what we are in right now. why you would insist on using ice age to refer to something it's not when we both know what it means is beyond me. yes we are in an interglacial but it's still an ice age. we know this by looking at this sort of information. you will notice that in the last four interglacials the maximum temperature at least 3 degrees warmer and up to 4. this is without mankinds help. if the temperature goes up another 3 degrees from todays then that is to be EXPECTED. you maintain we will be ok given the past history of the ice but then baulk at a few more degrees that we have also repeatedly survived.

i know CO2 has an effect on the temperature of the planet. water vapour has an even larger effect. this fundamental of science allows us to be here at all. but compared to things like the planets albedo and solar activity, CO2s contribution is relatively small. and it's contribution does not increase with higher PPM in a linear line. i'm well aware of what carbon is and how it affects us. dropping carbon emissions is probably a good thing and i don't stand in the way of people who want to do that. but i will fight long and hard against people who think something has to be done and justify themselves forcing bad ideas onto people for the sake of doing something. 

as for the storms and rising sea levels i asked you specifically to find something else. you didn't so i can assume then thats all your worried about. 

firstly storms are not a likely threat. precipitation would be due to higher water vapour in atmosphere, however storms require a temperature gradient to propagate. if the polar regions become warmer they will become warmer more than the equatorial regions. if anything massive storms could become less likely. 
rising sea levels can or would displace many people. of course there would be some friction as all the coastal population needs somewhere to live. but this will be a fairly lengthy process and no-one will just die from drowning in the ocean. 

on the other hand three degrees cooler and you find millions dying of famine. with migration from polar regions in europe because it's just too cold. we can survive a glacial period but you have to realise that ice sheets reached to texas during the last glaciation. if you think rising sea levels will displace a lot of people then you should be able to understand how much more effect cold can have. yes we survived but we huddled in one continent. do you think fitting all of the human race into afrcia is a good plan?

i mentioned desertification first and said don't bother. deserts are not caused by heat. desertification damage done today is a result of sand moving. most non-sandy deserts can recover with enough rainfall. (something global warming could help with) but the sandy deserts like the sahara and gobi are blown around by the wind and destroy everything in it's path with no chance of rainfall fixing affected areas. given that both areas are ancient i doubt your going to blame them on us, or at least industrialisation.

mr boagsy i hope you don't really think i just read one article and ran with it do you? i have read the IPCC reports. they are full of the sort of information picking you blame me of. for instance how may climatologists are saying "don't worry it's actually colder than we expected it to be" or "warming the earth by 3 degrees will result in better crop yields helping with world feeding." 
you don't see this because too many global warming proponents are not using science but scare tactics. when someone try's to scare you into submission they rarely have real authority on their side.


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

stm said:


> Yep, you're wrong again Boagsy. Phil Jones, one of the leading pro-warming climate "scientists" admits that the recent warming 1975-1998 is not exceptional, but is in fact about the same rate and magnitude of warming as previously measured warming periods (when there was not significant man-made CO2 emmissions), with cooling in intervening periods (even when man-made CO2 emissions were rising, for example, 1945-1975). In any case the medieval warming period about 1000 years ago was warmer than now, and there has been cooling in the last 10 years.
> 
> Link below for Dr Jones's admissions:
> 
> ...



We know the earth has been warmer and cooler in the past and that was without human impact. Now with increasing human impact who knows what the future holds, that's what we have to be concerned with. Human impact at a high increasing rate will have an effect on the future, we can't rule it out surely.
I reckon better safe to be sorry, what do we have to lose?

The attitude, it's not fucked yet so let's keep trying to **** it doesn't sit with me. 
Darkness, ignorance and repression - that could be the outcome indeed. 
How in any way can caring for the earth we live on be an act of repression? The only real way forward is to learn how to live on the planet sustainably.


----------



## bum (30/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> dropping carbon emissions is probably a good thing and i don't stand in the way of people who want to do that. but i will fight long and hard against people who think something has to be done and justify themselves forcing bad ideas onto people for the sake of doing something.


 
My poor boggling brain! This is the most ludicrous thing I have read in this entire thread. "I agree that your position is a good one. I will argue against anyone expressing your position." 

Nothing else needs addressing in light of this (despite some massive holes in both your logic and your rhetoric).


----------



## boingk (30/3/10)

Facts:

* The planet has been warmer, without our help.
* Human civilisation is not helping the current warming trend.
* We are going to suffer quite badly if the warming continues.

So. . . why don't we try and help the planet chill out a bit by cutting emissions? Seems like a pretty simple arguement.



> The only real way forward is to learn how to live on the planet sustainably.



Exactly. We all flush our toilets and get our vehicles maintained, right? Throw out food thats on the turn? Well, thats also called sustainable living - if we didn't do those things our established physical environment and the things in it would not be helping us, it'd be a fetid blody mess of rotten food, sh!t and broken cars/houses/tools etc.

So. . . why not try and live sustainably on the planet?

- boingk


----------



## manticle (30/3/10)

stm said:


> Global warming is a scam and I marked Earth Hour with a celebration of human progress by turning all my lights on. Better than darkness, ignorance and repression.



Scam or not that's a bit like cooking a steak just because your next door neighbour is a vegetarian. Chalk it up.


----------



## Duff (30/3/10)

citymorgue2 said:


> Greenland has always been full of ice and Iceland is more green. Believe it or not it's true. Greenland has been used for geological studies because of it's ice content



CM2,

Greenland was called that because the Vikings/Dutch grew wheat and grapes there. Wasn't always ice.


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> "for our purposes ice age would refer to the last glacial maximum" boagsy (sorry my browser is giving me all sorts of grief with posting in this forum. you'll have to live with a little paraphrasing)
> 
> no. ice age would be what the experts refer to, and that's what we are in right now. why you would insist on using ice age to refer to something it's not when we both know what it means is beyond me. yes we are in an interglacial but it's still an ice age. we know this by looking at this sort of information. you will notice that in the last four interglacials the maximum temperature at least 3 degrees warmer and up to 4. this is without mankinds help. if the temperature goes up another 3 degrees from todays then that is to be EXPECTED. you maintain we will be ok given the past history of the ice but then baulk at a few more degrees that we have also repeatedly survived.
> 
> ...




Re-read my post on ice age. For our terms(colloquially speaking) not the experts, an ice age would be a glacial maximum, we haven't been around 2.58 million years. Perhaps you misunderstood my point.

You can't predict the future or deny human impact is increasing can you? Scientist can't tell us how much hotter it's going to get so how are you gonna do it?
We could prematurely trigger the end of an ice age in an extreme way. We have evolved completely in an ice age which has continued for the last 2.58 million years, you reckon we'll be right if the change is suddenly put into an exponential rise because of increased human activity bringing it to a premature end?
I'm not using any tactics to scare peolpe, just putting forward the possibilty of it happening. Perhaps it's worth thinking about. 
Can you safely say that if we continue the way that we are then we will have no serious impact on the climate? The facts are not there to prove it either way, you can't rule it out because we are having an effect and it is increasing. 
As for the weather, it's been covered, extremes of weather kill people we all know that.
What's wrong with making the place a cleaner and safer place to live? Is that such a bad idea?
Science can't produce an accurate prediction, it's based on facts. We have no facts on the future. We only have assumptions based on trends with variables that are beyond our comprehension.

Edited to say this is beginning to interest me but I've got chores to do. I'll read up all your links, do some more research and attempt to give you my alternate swing on it later.


----------



## boingk (30/3/10)

bum, I think he meant 'forcing' as in possible economic sanctions. However, you're right - its total BS.

Us refusing some economic sanctions that could help reduce any possible global warming is tantamount to the medieval Lords and Ladies dining on fine meats and wines and living in castles while the poor paid them taxes and starved. Most of the world is doing a hellava lot worse then us when it comes to living standards - I believe we're currently #2 in the world, behind Norway ([email protected]).

- boingk


----------



## haysie (30/3/10)

big PP type posts here, when was this umm lights out thing? Did Crown/Star/West/ etc Casinos participate? Sure, we can all do samll things (to reduce our bill) yet whom sucks the most! Us or them.


----------



## bum (30/3/10)

boingk said:


> bum, I think he meant 'forcing' as in possible economic sanctions. However, you're right - its total BS.


 
Well, if that is indeed the case then I'll dial down the scorn of my post but the position is still incongruous at best.


----------



## manticle (30/3/10)

haysie said:


> big PP type posts here, when was this umm lights out thing? Did Crown/Star/West/ etc Casinos participate? Sure, we can all do samll things (to reduce our bill) yet whom sucks the most! Us or them.




Would be good if they did but I doubt it. Those gas burner eyesores out the front of crown would probably power the next four decades of AG brewing for me in just one week's usage.


----------



## bum (30/3/10)

manticle said:


> Would be good if they did but I doubt it. Those gas burner eyesores out the front of crown would probably power the next four decades of AG brewing for me in just one week's usgae.


 
For all of us, manticle. At opening, Crown stated those eyesores cost $1000 every time they let them off.


----------



## geoffi (30/3/10)

Duff said:


> CM2,
> 
> Greenland was called that because the Vikings/Dutch grew wheat and grapes there. Wasn't always ice.



I think you'll find that it has been mostly ice for a long, long time.

The period of Viking settlement coincided with a warm period which created a relatively hospitable southern coastal fringe.


----------



## Steve (30/3/10)

FFS what is the world coming to (pun intended) when shite like this isnt in the off topic section!


----------



## Pollux (30/3/10)

haysie said:


> big PP type posts here, when was this umm lights out thing? Did Crown/Star/West/ etc Casinos participate? Sure, we can all do samll things (to reduce our bill) yet whom sucks the most! Us or them.



Star City tends to turn off the big neons and does a dinner by candlelight thing in the rooftop restaurant.....

Security concerns are the usual claim as to why they don't do much else.


----------



## roo_dr (30/3/10)

:blink: Is our horrific over-population and extending desertification not the greatest threat to our existence? 

The planet will recover and carry on long after we're gone and the monkey's are in control...


----------



## bradsbrew (30/3/10)

So how much energy has been wasted on this thread???


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

Not as much energy as it takes to rape the planet


----------



## haysie (30/3/10)

Pollux said:


> Star City tends to turn off the big neons and does a dinner by candlelight thing in the rooftop restaurant.....
> 
> Security concerns are the usual claim as to why they don't do much else.



Forget Oceans 11, AHB Goons!! Now there`s a reason for em to dip the lights!


----------



## Bribie G (30/3/10)

Duff said:


> CM2,
> 
> Greenland was called that because the Vikings/Dutch grew wheat and grapes there. Wasn't always ice.



The ice cap only covers 80% of the country. 





In the Summer an area the size of Victoria is green and pleasant. I once dated a Danish lass who had been born and grew up in Nuuk (Capital) and she says it's almost like Scotland in the summer and they would go on school camping trips into the hills, BBQs etc (prolly no skinny dipping however  )




Edit: not looking too hot at the moment, though  




obviously suffering from that gobble warming today


----------



## rimrunner (30/3/10)

roo_dr said:


> :blink: Is our horrific over-population and extending desertification not the greatest threat to our existence?
> 
> The planet will recover and carry on long after we're gone and the monkey's are in control...


these scenarios are far more important to us than CO2. i'd also add epidemics and space borne dangers like meteorites.

i'm actually very scared on chinas part for their upcoming battle with the desert. what other natural disaster has been so overwhleming that china is seriously considering moving bejing.

you do know we are monkeys right? advanced perhaps but still monkeys.


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

BribieG said:


> I once dated a Danish lass who had been born and grew up in Nuuk (Capital)



You lucky bugga BribieG, I bet she was a real honey.


----------



## tcraig20 (30/3/10)

Duff said:


> CM2,
> 
> Greenland was called that because the Vikings/Dutch grew wheat and grapes there. Wasn't always ice.



Actually, according to the sagas it was called "Greenland" because Erik the Red thought it would be a good idea for the place to have a 'fortunate name'. I could give you a quote, but unfortunately my copy of the saga is still packed away with most of my other books. 

The climate was probably a little warmer than today, and certainly warmer than conditions in the little ice age which probably killed off the Scandinavian colonies, but it was by no means a verdant wonderland. However, it probably was warm enough to draw the Inuit back north - the Icelanders found evidence that they had been there in the past when they arrived (bits of old canoes, etc. from memory). At any rate, there has been some kind of permanent ice cover on Greenland for at least 800,000 years.

Mind you, 6000 odd years ago we had dugong and coral reefs in Sydney harbour...


----------



## jyo (30/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> You lucky bugga BribieG, I bet she was a real honey.



Can someone post a pic of lovely Danish Lass...I need something to break this thread up a bit...

Ok then:


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

jyo said:


> Can someone post a pic of lovely Danish Lass...I need something to break this thread up a bit...
> 
> Ok then:
> 
> View attachment 36776




Now she has gotta cause an increase in emmisions.


----------



## rendo (30/3/10)

Hi Guys

Watch this dude....hilarious..hhahahaha

this guy says his arguement is so POWERFUL its not worth talking about......

hahaha is this 'bum' ???? (ahhh u can take a joke mate.......)

http://www.3news.co.nz/Some-Earth-Hour-det...32/Default.aspx


----------



## bcp (30/3/10)

THE CLIMATE CHANGE BIT OF THIS THREAD
We can look out the window and look at the newspaper for anecdotes to see whether climate change is real, but i'm not sure that's completely helpful. The long-term analysis is relatively alarming.




http://planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
But it's probably just a conspiracy from scientists who have nothing to gain but all got together and decided to wreck the economy or something.

THE GREENLAND BIT


But whether it melts or not, greenland can be quite hot

THE BEER BIT


And i'm trying to be relevant to all, and have to finish here because my wife is calling me for dinner.


----------



## roo_dr (30/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> you do know we are monkeys right? advanced perhaps but still monkeys.



Sorry, I was making a (clearly overly subtle) homage to the late, Great, Charlton Heston, another neigh sayer to the end, and also to the previously expressed concerns about fissile material in earlier posts.

We'll probably take the monkeys with us, given that most are on the verge of extinction anyway, if the propaganda is to be believed


----------



## Dazza_devil (30/3/10)

bcp said:


> THE GREENLAND BIT
> View attachment 36783
> 
> But whether it melts or not, greenland can be quite hot



Hooly dooly, I've just thought of something new to google.


----------



## bum (30/3/10)

I'm sure we can all take a firm position on this issue.


----------



## Bribie G (30/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> You lucky bugga BribieG, I bet she was a real honey.



ja, straw haired viking. I reckon Nuuk is Greenlandic for Nookie because apparently that is the major activity during the dark sunless months


----------



## Dazza_devil (31/3/10)

stm said:


> Yep, you're wrong again Boagsy. Phil Jones, one of the leading pro-warming climate "scientists" admits that the recent warming 1975-1998 is not exceptional, but is in fact about the same rate and magnitude of warming as previously measured warming periods (when there was not significant man-made CO2 emmissions), with cooling in intervening periods (even when man-made CO2 emissions were rising, for example, 1945-1975). In any case the medieval warming period about 1000 years ago was warmer than now, and there has been cooling in the last 10 years.
> 
> Link below for Dr Jones's admissions:
> 
> ...




That article doesn't prove I'm wrong. It only proves that Dr Jones is a substandard scientist and that methods for estimating pre-technology data about climate don't give an accurate representation of facts. Global temperatue fluctuations vary from region to region. While the earth was cooling the polar caps were melting. We are in a glacial decline but it's getting colder? 


Mr Rimrunner is like the rest of the sceptics clutching at straws so they can maintain a non-sustainable way of life, profiting from the destruction of our planet. They are the ones with something to lose, not the people who are willing to accept that we are having a negative impact on the planet and ourselves. Another thing he has wrong is that he thinks he is more advanced than a monkey. At least they aren't ******* the planet they have to live on and they live sustainably. If you honestly think that humans aren't having a negative impact on the earth and something doesn't have to be done to change our ways or we will be shitting in our own nest, then, you have got your head up your arse.

Rebut all you want and ignore any valid points that I have made while you are at it. The facts are that if it's happening without us, it's gonna be worse with us unless we do something.

I hope this thread gets dumped in the off-topic section. I'm going fishing and thinking about beer for the rest of the day.


----------



## WarmBeer (31/3/10)

It's all about the pirates. Blame the pirates.


----------



## Sydneybrewer (31/3/10)

rendo said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> Watch this dude....hilarious..hhahahaha
> 
> ...



is it just me or does anyone else feel the urge to choke the life out of that guy. i think i am actually now slightly dumber for having watched that video.


----------



## Leigh (31/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> Rebut all you want and ignore any valid points that I have made while you are at it. _*The facts are that if it's happening without us, it's gonna be worse with us unless we do something.*_



What you state as a fact is only one scientific theory...there is a huge debate over the level of impact our CO2 emissions make on temperature variations, from 0% impact to 75% impact...

Now to use your name calling, you pro-climate changers (who also have something to gain) also only look at one set of data...

I love how in this debate, non-scientists get involved to defend data they don't really understand...


----------



## Leigh (31/3/10)

WarmBeer said:


> It's all about the pirates. Blame the pirates.



...and the number of pirates has recently increased, hence the recent cooling


----------



## bum (31/3/10)

Trying not to wade into the sciency stuff but if I remember correctly this cooling was predicted by some pro-climate changers who suggest melting polar ice-caps will ultimately interrupt the Great Conveyor which will **** up all sorts of shit (sorry for the boffiny science talk, guys - in layman's terms this means something bad could happen).

Not presenting this as fact but more suggesting that a changing climate doesn't really do much to disprove the notion of climate change.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/3/10)

Personaly, I blame the pirates......


----------



## Leigh (31/3/10)

bum said:


> Trying not to wade into the sciency stuff but if I remember correctly this cooling was predicted by some pro-climate changers who suggest melting polar ice-caps will ultimately interrupt the Great Conveyor which will **** up all sorts of shit (sorry for the boffiny science talk, guys - in layman's terms this means something bad could happen).
> 
> Not presenting this as fact but more suggesting that a changing climate doesn't really do much to disprove the notion of climate change.



Basically another mini-ice age...we went from "global warming" terminology to "climate change" because the ipcc finally conceded that while some places will warm, others will cool...


----------



## bum (31/3/10)

Now all they need to do is get the doubters to acknowledge that's not a tops thing to happen.


----------



## Nick JD (31/3/10)

Thinking that "global warming" is a cut and dried issue that simply equals: CO2 = hotter, is missing the point a little. It's a much more complicated issue, and I'm not talking about the science. 

Everyone wants a car. 2 billion people (1/3 of the world's population) are getting richer and richer every day. They are nearing the point where they also want to own a car and drive to work like us. 

There ain't that much oil to sustain this for much longer than a decade or two. By then China and India will be as rich as us. 

So who gets the remaining oil? And for how much? And will this break down the world economy? Yes.

There's people much smarter than us who can see these situations about to happen. They know full-well that we rich westerners aren't just going to get out of bed one day and say, "I'm selling the car". 

They know we need to be weaned off our dependance. They know we won't do it unless we are assured we're breaking the very thing that supports us. 

I say PHOOEY to Global Warming - it's got nothing to do with the globe warming, but it's probably a good idea if we stop thinking we are going to be able to buy cheap petrol anymore. Last time it went up heaps it nearly collapsed the economy (OPEC searching for breaking points). 

2c.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/3/10)

I'm tellen ya's, its them bloody pirates


----------



## Dazza_devil (31/3/10)

Leigh said:


> What you state as a fact is only one scientific theory...there is a huge debate over the level of impact our CO2 emissions make on temperature variations, from 0% impact to 75% impact...
> 
> Now to use your name calling, you pro-climate changers (who also have something to gain) also only look at one set of data...
> 
> I love how in this debate, non-scientists get involved to defend data they don't really understand...




I'd have to go over points I've already made to rebut your comments on science and facts. 

Our CO2 emissions is only part of the equation.
I'm talking more on what other things we are doing to the planet that will make things worse given the impending rise in global temperature that we all have to admit is upon us regardless of our impact.

Clearing all the forsests.
Poisoning the waterways and atmosphere.
Killing off species of animals.
Overpopulating.
Over-using the land,
Primitive farming methods which are non-sustainable,
the list is endless - how, if we continue in the manner that we are will we cope with a warming earth. A question worth contemplating even if you do think we will have no impact on the climate.


----------



## chappo1970 (31/3/10)

I too blame the pirates <_< 

BUT the pirates I am taking about are within the scientific community that profit, AKA, get big sexy multi-million dollar grants drummed up from scare tactics that suit government agenda's eg CLIMATE CHANGE. Stuff a duck we don't know fully how a tornado works and how they are formed let alone the full FACTUAL effects of CO2 emmissions on our atmosphere and global climate change. This is about oil! Without the population scared governments cannot effect or get the mandate for change. Would we have gone to Iraq for a second time if we knew WMD (weapons of Mass Destruction) were about as real as Mary Poppins? Was there any real out cry to behead our politicians for lying to the public again? No! Why?

Commonsense says we need to change our habits and how wasteful we are as a species if we want to survive on this planet. Personally I would like to see zero fossil fuels consumed not only from the obvious benefits to the health of our planet but also to shift the power play away from little PITA states. What worth would Iraq, Saudi etc etc have if they had no oil?

Hmm who are the big oil producers?

<H3 class=dynamic>Top Ten Oil Producing Countries</H3>1. Saudi Arabia 11 million barrels per day (13.9% of estimated world total)

2. *Russia 9.9 million bpd (12.5%)*

3. *United States 8.3 million bpd (10.5%)*

4. Iran 4.2 million bpd (5.3%)

5. Mexico 3.8 million bpd (4.8%)

6. *China 3.7 million bpd (4.7%)*

7. *Canada 3.1 million bpd (3.9%)*

8. Norway 3 million bpd (3.8%)

9. Venezuela 2.8 million bpd (3.6%)

10. Kuwait 2.7 million bpd (3.4%).

Why are the yanks soooooo interested? They consume 3 x what they produce domestically. So? Current account deficeit sky rocketing? National debt is out of control? Or all of the above? Forget their bullshit reluctance for the Kyoto protocol. That was more game play on the world stage and to bargain a bigger bite of the apple.

So where's the money for the sovereign state you ask? Taxes on air! Yep that's the cash cow. How can we legitimately tax air and make the population swallow it? Oh I know Climate Change! Hell yeah at least we won't be as unpopular as raising income taxes huh?

Sorry I can digest the bullshit being fed as scientific facts on this so called "Climate Change" because this isn't climate change this is mass paradigm change of a global scale. Open your eyes people and see the wool being pulled over them.


----------



## bum (31/3/10)

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Hope this helps, guys.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/3/10)

Mmmm...Pirates wearing foil hats


----------



## katzke (31/3/10)

Well was going to start a new thread but this one will not die.

Who heard of “World Water Day”?

Yep I missed it too. I guess we were all supposed to not take a shower and stop brewing for the day to show our concern for the lack of drinkable water in the world.

Guess it got missed because no one to champion it like our great one Al Gore. Course he has become filthy rich talking about global warming and blaming man for it while flying around the world in privet jets and travailing in multi carbon pooping vehicle caravans. Not to mention he lives in a whopping big house that poops out as much carbon as most outposts in the outback.

Now if he could sell pollution trapping water plants like he sells carbon trapping trees he may get on the band wagon. Want to buy some potable water credits? I am selling.

Now if any of you climate changers were really willing to make a difference you would stop home brewing and even give up all alcoholic beverages because we all know the brewing process releases plant trapped CO2. You would give up all carbonated drinks because they contain CO2. You would work at home because traveling even by walking releases CO2. Your work would give up the use of all electronics because their use not only creates CO2 emissions but other planet killing pollutants. Even if you get your power from hydro like I do you would give up because the dams are killing fish and impacting the world’s oceans. Hell I guess you would have to just off yourself and be buried in a lead lined coffin to keep the CO2 in your body from escaping. No concrete liners as concrete is a big CO2 emitter.

So if you are truly a climate change believer no need to respond, as any response will emit CO2.

Do you believe? Really Believe? Your silence is proof.

I knew you were not a real believer! You just had to add planet killing CO2 to tell me I am wrong.

Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.


----------



## manticle (31/3/10)

katzke said:


> Al Gore



Al Gore? Everytime I hear his name I just think of Tipper. If ever a spokesperson was likely to make me less sympathetic to a cause it would be him.


----------



## Dazza_devil (31/3/10)

There will always be people willing to jump on the bandwagon and milk major issues for what they can. Those are the people that stand in the way of real progress.
Don't get me wrong, I think these include people from both sides of the climate change issue.


----------



## manticle (31/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> There will always be people willing to jump on the bandwagon and milk major issues for what they can. Those are the people that stand in the way of real progress.
> Don't get me wrong, I think these include people from both sides of the climate change issue.



Fortunately my attitude towards my surrounding environment is not formed by my reaction to him or to his missus.


----------



## Dazza_devil (31/3/10)

manticle said:


> Fortunately my attitude towards my surrounding environment is not formed by my reaction to him or to his missus.




My attitude may seem a little over the top to some. I put it down to growing up in one of the most beautiful, unique and contraversial environments in the world.
My attitude toward the environment comes from the environment itself.


----------



## bum (31/3/10)

katzke said:


> flying around the world in privet jets


 
You can't say this isn't green! Definitely one-upped the Prius there!


----------



## manticle (31/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> My attitude may seem a little over the top to some.



No.

As I said I cannot state categorically whether or not the science on either side is accurate and I won't even try. I still believe in attempting to live sustainably.


----------



## Katherine (31/3/10)

http://www.news.com.au/business/billionair...i-1225846500573


----------



## Dazza_devil (31/3/10)

Katie said:


> http://www.news.com.au/business/billionair...i-1225846500573




Sounds odd Katie, I really can't see how eating meat could harm the mansion. As long as they don't leave the waste from the product on the premises you would think it shouldn't be an issue. Perhaps it makes the old girl salivate.


----------



## chappo1970 (31/3/10)

bum said:


> http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
> 
> Hope this helps, guys.




:lol: 

X-files anyone?


----------



## Katherine (31/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> Sounds odd Katie, I really can't see how eating meat could harm the mansion. As long as they don't leave the waste from the product on the premises you would think it shouldn't be an issue. Perhaps it makes the old girl salivate.



And have you seen what they do for a living.? Wierdo's. I think they believe that the methane gases from cows will help the planet.


----------



## bcp (31/3/10)

manticle said:


> No.
> 
> As I said I cannot state categorically whether or not the science on either side is accurate and I won't even try. I still believe in attempting to live sustainably.



It's an interesting discussion. (Dear moderator, I will link it to beer before i finish). 

THE LONG BORING BIT ABOUT SCIENCE & THE PLANET
The challenge is that 'science' in reality has to employ a range of different methods for different enquiries, and different approaches to substantiation. 'Proof' is a remarkably difficult beastie to find in human knowledge. It'd be nice to have 500 identical planets to do a double blind trial... and we can't do with our understanding of history either. We study history with a different type of enquiry & an understanding of the limitations. No proof Caesar existed, but some pretty good evidence. In my field of community development, we work with one unique community. The levels of evidence we seek to substantiate something are partly defined by the usefulness of the findings and the costs of compiling data. Understanding the climate future for either side relies on modelling, assumptions and a wide range of investigations and unclear data. 

With one planet to play with, we should err on the side of caution, but should look for substantive evidences to support the argument.

What I am reading into climate change debate is not absolute, but very significant, agreement amongst the scientific community. They have put strong arguments and evidences on the table. In most cases, (but not all, let's be honest), they have nothing to gain. They aren't trying to 'bring down the economy' and 'stop progress'. (Are you still actually reading this? I'm surprised...)

There is some remarkably interesting contradictory evidences that argue against evolution, but a lot more that is supportive, and the weight of scientific opinion in favour. (Sorry - i guarantee that's hacked someone off somewhere using that analogy!). I am impressed by weight of opinion, but it shouldn't substitute for thinking either. 

THE BIT ABOUT A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO EACH BATCH OF BEER
So I like to base my beer practice on science where i can. But mostly i'm looking for substantial agreement amongst those with space to do that kind of research. My own experiments don't go far - each batch is like planet earth - too precious to risk - I'm not throwing a batch away just to satisfy my curiousity. I want every learning to be drinkable. 

So that kind of lines up with Manticle's philosophy about the planet.


----------



## rimrunner (31/3/10)

Boagsy said:


> That article doesn't prove I'm wrong. It only proves that Dr Jones is a substandard scientist and that methods for estimating pre-technology data about climate don't give an accurate representation of facts. Global temperatue fluctuations vary from region to region. While the earth was cooling the polar caps were melting. We are in a glacial decline but it's getting colder?
> 
> 
> Mr Rimrunner is like the rest of the sceptics clutching at straws so they can maintain a non-sustainable way of life, profiting from the destruction of our planet. They are the ones with something to lose, not the people who are willing to accept that we are having a negative impact on the planet and ourselves. Another thing he has wrong is that he thinks he is more advanced than a monkey. At least they aren't ******* the planet they have to live on and they live sustainably. If you honestly think that humans aren't having a negative impact on the earth and something doesn't have to be done to change our ways or we will be shitting in our own nest, then, you have got your head up your arse.
> ...



you've missed the mark on my way of life there sorry. reguardless of my dislike for politics corruption of science my energy bill says i use 5 KWHs less than the average home (3 occupants) and we have always used less water than the level 6 restrictions we had on us recently. i drive an economical 4cyclinder car in good tune and don't have A/C. it might be a lot still, but it's a damn sight less than most peoples in australia.

due to good managment and enough money to fund research australia is pretty clean for it's GDP. it could be better and a lot of people are working to ensure it will become so. but we are 14th on the world GDP stage. america, china and the EEC dwarf our efforts by factors.

i doubt anyone on this thread really wants to just wantonly destroy the environment. they just want good science and better yet, good plans, to be the road followed. not knee jerk laws and rushed technology rolled out before proper life analysis can be done.


----------



## tcraig20 (31/3/10)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I'm tellen ya's, its them bloody pirates


----------



## Dazza_devil (31/3/10)

rimrunner said:


> they just want good science and better yet, good plans, to be the road followed. not knee jerk laws and rushed technology rolled out before proper life analysis can be done.




I'll have to agree with your there rimrunner


----------



## chappo1970 (31/3/10)

JamesCraig said:


>



Well that's enough proof for me! Damn pirates!


----------



## peas_and_corn (31/3/10)




----------



## yardy (31/3/10)

Like a few blokes here I build and maintain draglines, coal fired power stations, alumina refineries etc, when you witness first hand what these places suck out and spew back into the environment, you quickly realise that turning the kitchen light off for an hour is a ******* joke.


----------



## Dazza_devil (31/3/10)

yardy said:


> Like a few blokes here I build and maintain draglines, coal fired power stations, alumina refineries etc, when you witness first hand what these places suck out and spew back into the environment, you quickly realise that turning the kitchen light off for an hour is a ******* joke.




I can understand that.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/3/10)

Fckn Coal fired aluminium smog producing lesbian Pirates...


The world is fucked  

Can I have a vegan, hairy arm pitt, crystal waving bull dyke hippy for a girlfriend...please...


----------



## tcraig20 (31/3/10)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Can I have a vegan, hairy arm pitt, crystal waving bull dyke hippy for a girlfriend...please...



Move 120 km north


----------

