Climate Change, yes again!

Durks: I wish that were true, but most people actually believe what they're first told. I know I did, but a whole series of events lead me to start questioning things... and I started to realize that information is only repeatedly released to mould your thought (public opinion)... I did some basic research in to marketing psychology and other techniques developed by Anna Freud...

Long story short, we're all being lied to on a massive scale and most people are taking it in without questioning it. Everybody kind of knows it but they don't care; truly amazing.

Most countries don't have laws against lying, and those that do their media get around it by buying stories from foreign sources (reuters, bbc).

But I digress from the topic... Climate change... pollution... water management... the only options are to minimize the human stain on the environment.

Jellyfish... a lot of fish eat them, but we eat too many fish. Algae & Jelliyfish like the nitrogen based fertilizers but we use it to grow food.

Maybe the solution is to tax us, so that plebs can sleep at night thinking they're making a difference... I'll lose sleep cos I know it's built on a lie.

Anyway it's been freaking raining for 2 days, and the forecast isn't looking any better!

And round and round we go!

Perhaps change your request to clean cheap fuel that mulitinationals can make ****loads of money out of like they do with fossil fuels and you have the answer

Already done. We just have to finish the project:

http://www.agrifuels.com.au

(Apologies in advance for the blatant self-promotion...)

http://www.agrifuels.com.au/project_overview.html

I care about the planet, but I dont want to pay for it, If the Chineese wernt allowed to pump out all the dioxins, CO2 heavy metals, pesticides, what ever else industry has to pump out into the air sea and onto the land, I wont get my new kites, LCD/plasma screen, mobile phone, laptop, I-pod, furniture, car, cool surf wear, fridge, washing machine, camera, batteries, power tools, cheap any more, and thats why I will vote for the poly who will make sure we can continue to sell all our resources to China, and and who realy cares about rising sealevels, sure we might lose Lano, but theres enough money to build seawalls to make sure the ocean stays where it is, Gene technology will be so advanced in a couple of years to cure my kids of the child hood cancer they will shurly have a higher chance of getting.
Sleep well Australia, we are in safe hands.

Oh really?




^ Refer to my previous post.

Jimmyz: wtf?

There ya go -- more evidence of why half the issues we face on the planet today never have a chance--uninformed, "armchair experts" babbling half-baked, plebeian criticisms against viable options while simultaneously proposing frivolous, inviable alternatives. Perhaps you should consider taking up alternative pursuits (like learning to read) (I suppose the avatar is only a coincidence?)

SE QLD, Murray-Darling Basin great ROFL. And the rest of the world can just chop down so mo'forest, use mo'fertilizers, mo'water, reduce food crops... way to go, some of your best thinking yet, bravo.

Hell Robbo, why don't you get nasa & esa to start cultivating it for use on their space probes.

If you know what e=mc2 means, then you know the only way forward is nuclear... the only reason we're not using it now is cos most of us r too stupid to understand it, and prefer to get Art degrees, watch Big Brother and grow ****.

And Robbo very body knows crop based fuels r useless, if u really want to grow **, grow some algae x30 IO, turn in to diesel, run a generator.

where the desert or was it SE QLD?

Micro reactors maybe expensive, but that's ONLY because we haven't got the economies of scale... imagine how much making a TV from scratch would cost... $160000?

radioisotope generators are cheap to make if you disregard the fuel processing (varies by isotope), and since the fuel decays quickly they don't pose long term threats. Imagine a 2kw battery that lasts 90 years, and after that they're dead and completely safe? They've been around since the 50's.


I'm going to spell this out for you guys, so pay attention:
converting 1 gram of matter completely into energy yields 8.9876e+13 joules, or the energy of 21.481 kilotons of TNT... this is around 200 million times the energy of a litre of petrol.

So all we need to do is learn how to safely harness a small amount of this energy.

Behold the power of the atom.


Trant, I've noticed you can't really string more than a sentence together. Do you want to know, or are you questioning whether I know?

I just thought it was amusing to note.

Anyway, it seems pretty obvious from this thread that a little bit of knowledge (mistaken for complete knowledge) is indeed a dangerous thing.

^^ Note that makes two sentences in the same post. Wait, this makes four! (Now I just have to wait for the grammar police to point out that it's is in fact two phrases and three sentences.)

first anyone who thinks burning millions tonnes of stuff everyday doesn't make anything to the planet is kidding himself.

even if climate change isn't real, does it means it's ok to pollute air, water, ground and everything else? because there is not only CO2 released when coal and petrol is burnt, there is a lot of sh!t coming with it.

do we wait until we run out of petrol and coal to start thinking what do to do next? or do we use the fossil fuels we have left to build a civilisation that doesn't rely on fossil fuels as soon as possible so the transition will be as easy as possible.

there are studies that found on a level playing ground (same level of subsidies from the government), renewable energy is cheaper that fossil fuels.

max 200w? The Mrs hair dryer is 2000w.

I'd buy an electric bike if the lithium batteries were cheaper, and our stupid peasant class government allowed more than 200w power... wtf!

Here's what I'd buy if I had mo'money and lived in a modern society:

Ah yes .now there is a real transport option for sure and could prove VERY popular .Cupla probs tho . That size motor sucks power big time and range is drastically reduced .Also how are governments going to tax such a beast and the small amount of power (in comparison to an internal combustion engine ) that it needs

And it will make not an ounce of friggin difference!

Australians could all go back to the ice age and it wouldn't make a bleedin' difference...

That's the point....why even consider a stupid thing like the ETS ?... when it doesn't solve (or change) a flukin thing?!!!!!


sigh>>>

Lol this thread has restarted... but it's late and I can't sleep because there are big waves tomoz and I'm excited :D

Kalavas - there is more 'proof' for climate change than there is against it... simple.

While no it is not strictly proven in the scientific sense it is however proven well beyond reasonable doubt in the legal/debate sense - which is the context of what you are citing, they are two very different conclusions.

This is a matter of risk management on a global scale, how is causation to be proven without the planet/humans succumbing to that which we ought to protect it from in the first place?

At the moment all we know is only known in a probabilistic sense, which is why it is still a theory and not a law. Even if we were 99.99999% sure it existed we could not call it a law until it is 100% proven (ie: conclusively observed) - causation; and by then it would be too late.

Well au_rick it could work to a varying extent, and it's a good point as I myself definitley do not think that the Australian govt. are at all efficient with their spending, so why pay more tax to have it 'wasted'.

The Law of Demand states that we will consume less of these things as their prices increase - the extent to which we do this would depend on their elasticities, which depend on several other factors - wiki it if you need.