Hey Rod
I've just been funnin :D
cheers
dazzler
Printable View
Hey Rod
I've just been funnin :D
cheers
dazzler
So I'm guessing we should add Greg Ward to the Skeptics list.
Near the top. :)
woodbe
Np Daz,
I wasn't ever likely to go to the trouble :)
hey Big Shed
re overpopulation
thats ok,
we australians are not replacing ourselves, so theyll be plenty of room for the refugees from the islands:)
which we will in true Australian spirit, welcome and absorb into our wonderful multiculturel community.
Astrid
Well thank you for that Astrid, I'm so happy to hear that. :2tsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by astrid
Two minor points, I haven't talked about overpopulation and secondly I am too old to be the cause of same, but thank you for your concern:doh:
I'd add him to the "troll" list. Most of his last post is contradictory in nature. On the one hand he calls carbon credits a con, but then says something about yellow bellied parots...? Was that the study where they said that statistically they may get one parrot per year hit by the mill blades?? Also conveniently ignores the fact that if nothing is done and it goes to pot, then EVERYONE pays then too. Who's conning who?Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
So, troll I say.
Guys I have had to sit through your videos pro global warming will you sit through this one?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related"]YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4[/ame]
Silent,
One of those videos you posted was the focus of the following thread
http://woodworkforums.com/showthread...light=argument
I picked a hole in it then. I think it still applies.
Strangely enough, my post was the last.
For me its not about who has proved whatever, its more about what I think is responsible and acceptable behaviour. You dont have to believe the hype. We should however support viable alternatives.
And does anybody know who these carbon taxes/fines go to. How does it work? Sounds fishy to me.
FWIW, my new house will be fairly big, but we plan to generate all our own electricity and capture enough water to do everything we want. Not to mention the materials we will be using. All this however comes at a very large cost.
Yep the smoke and mirrors gets em every time Boban.
Please chaps, name calling is even banned in schools now.Quote:
Originally Posted by q9
I'm just glad that you are really serious about this.
This being the case I am sure that this will not be all hot air and you will all be taking personal action to save the planet.
So ...... I look forward to the future posting of photos of your investments in GW reductions in your own lifestyles, the solar systems on your roof, the wind chimes to replace the stereo, the new Prius, the push bikes for the kids to ride to school, the biodegradable veggie garden, photos of the garage sale where you sell your electric heater and TV.
... and if you want to buy some carbon credits, I'm sure there will be many only too happy to take your money and plant a tree bearing your name.
....and of course this course of action comes with an admirable commitment never again to use wood in your shed, or read a newspaper or book as these use timber from trees which must be left standing to soak up CO2
We salute you
Greg
Sorry big shed,
It was Groggy,
Astrid
Merry XMAS to all and hope Santa brings you all the goodies you have wished for, drive safely and do not get too tipsy during this festive season. Thanks for your company and your valued thoughts throughout this past year
Regards Mike :2tsup::2tsup::2tsup:
Sorry Boban,Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
I let it go, broke my leg. Just reread the posts on the precautionary principle. Why should solving an overconsumption problem (ie using lots of carbon based fuel) cause a depression? I would have thought that there was an major opportunity for new industries to emerge and generate new wealth. The aging carbon based energy infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced in time anyway. I dont see how that would cause depression. I see it as part of a reinvestment cycle with lots of opportunity.
Good on you for your house. Did you you a total cost of ownership because Im sure that there would be savings over the 40-100 years of its lifespan. A lot of these strategies make very good financial sense. I know a number of people now who get a cheque from the electricity companies every quarter. Mind you it took then 11 years to pay off the initial investment. Do an NPV on that one!
BTW NSW Govt privatising electricity says to me that they dont have the nouse/balls/money to get out of carbon. When carbon pricing hits they will have got rid of the liability and hopefully some smart business people will make more money by transitioning to another power source. I wonder what the depreciation on the current infrastructure will be.
Good Vid Rod. Geologists bring another perspective. This is why I think a scientific approach is needed. At least the dialogue can be amended by facts. The pressing problems whether man made or natural are still the survival of millions of Bangladeshi's, New Orleaners etc. There will be cold comfort for them to know that its just natural and the rest of the world stood by and watched. We need adaptive as well as carbon reducing strategies as well as now.
Sebastiaan
You should contact him then because he invites anyone to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
I'm referring to the conclusions drawn by the author/presenter. Your conclusion may be arguable but the same must be true on both sides of that argument or at the end of either column. The financial result does not alter because the problem is real. You will spend the same amount of money whether it is real or not.
I suspect that the reason it is done, is for a more positive outcome for the argument to do something. I'm obviously not against the proposition of doing something, its just that this particular argument is flawed.
For example, if we have $10 in the bank and it will cost us $20 to fix the problem, then, whether the problem is real or not (and we decide to act) ,then we will go broke regardless of whether our response is justified. If the problem is not real and we don't act then we must be financially better off. We will still have our $10 because we did nothing.