I'm sick of hearing GLOBAL WARMING AGGHHH

[Grunt]

I think that we've established that surfing for is bad for the environment.

Bugger, I just thought it was bad for my eyes.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Well certainly has been a good discussion by all.

But I'm afraid none of us have reached a consensus, and most likely won't.

But it is good to see the other side of the argument. I just can't find it in myself to agree, just too many shady areas no one is comming out and saying anything other than this is a definite maybe based on this circumstancial evidence. With so many vested interests at stake on both sides I doubt if the facts will ever be accurate.

Maybe better to go back to Grunt! to hell with the little blip in the co2.

[Honorary Bloke]

I think that we've established that surfing for is bad for the environment.

Bugger, I just thought it was bad for my eyes.

Arrgh, that's what everyone's mother says. Anyhoo, this global warming wheeze is interesting (sometimes) or boring (sometimes) but in either case we seem to be going round and round and round. It suggests lack of focus.

Now salmon will swim far upstream to spawn and then die. The Black Widow spider eats her suitor (unless he's cat-quick) but the males keep coming anyway. When sex comes in the window, logic leaves by the door. If we could somehow harness that kind of dedication to the problem (if it IS a problem), we would solve it or die trying.

Just hoping to keep the thread on topic by unifying the and warming sub-plots.

[rhancock]

Well certainly has been a good discussion by all.

But I'm afraid none of us have reached a consensus, and most likely won't.

But it is good to see the other side of the argument. I just can't find it in myself to agree, just too many shady areas no one is comming out and saying anything other than this is a definite maybe based on this circumstancial evidence. With so many vested interests at stake on both sides I doubt if the facts will ever be accurate.

Maybe better to go back to Grunt! to hell with the little blip in the co2.

Good on ya! Put your head back in the sand, where it's nice and quiet and there's nothing too difficult to think about...

Sorry, Rod, please don't take this personally, but even if we can't agree on our views, we have to decide whether and what action to take. Deciding that its too hard to make a decision is not allowed!

[rhancock]

Arrgh, that's what everyone's mother says. Anyhoo, this global warming wheeze is interesting (sometimes) or boring (sometimes) but in either case we seem to be going round and round and round. It suggests lack of focus.

Now salmon will swim far upstream to spawn and then die. The Black Widow spider eats her suitor (unless he's cat-quick) but the males keep coming anyway. When sex comes in the window, logic leaves by the door. If we could somehow harness that kind of dedication to the problem (if it IS a problem), we would solve it or die trying.

Just hoping to keep the thread on topic by unifying the and warming sub-plots.

Are you sure that bringing salmon and black widows into a debate on global warming is keeping on topic....?

[Honorary Bloke]

Are you sure that bringing salmon and black widows into a debate on global warming is keeping on topic....?

Well, yes, actually. First off, this thread was not started as a debate on global warming, just as a mild rant from someone tired of hearing about it. Of course it turned into one straight away, which I'm sure surprised no one.

Secondly, my analogy to salmon and Black Widows, though apparently a bit too subtle for some, was in fact meant fairly seriously. While there are zealots on both sides of the debate, the average citizen thinks more about food, shelter, and yes, even sex, than he/she does about global warming. So if you want to "do something" about it, you had best find a better motivating factor than has heretofor been put forth. Charts and graphs and trends and peaks are important, but not sexy. Dire predictions about some "future calamity" are two bob the dozen. The pollies, for all their faults, know this much--and act accordingly. No one is going to be elected solely on the Global Warming ballot, whether for or against.

So I believe it was quite in keeping with the topic. And as hard as it may be for some to accept, my personal opinion is that it makes for a lively exchange of views but it is hardly going to be resolved finally on a woodworking forum.

[Gingermick]

. Charts and graphs and trends and peaks are important, but not sexy.

Speak for yourself. People who make generalisations are all idiots. (someone else's line)

[rhancock]

Well, yes, actually. First off, this thread was not started as a debate on global warming, just as a mild rant from someone tired of hearing about it. Of course it turned into one straight away, which I'm sure surprised no one.

Secondly, my analogy to salmon and Black Widows, though apparently a bit too subtle for some, was in fact meant fairly seriously. While there are zealots on both sides of the debate, the average citizen thinks more about food, shelter, and yes, even sex, than he/she does about global warming. So if you want to "do something" about it, you had best find a better motivating factor than has heretofor been put forth. Charts and graphs and trends and peaks are important, but not sexy. Dire predictions about some "future calamity" are two bob the dozen. The pollies, for all their faults, know this much--and act accordingly. No one is going to be elected solely on the Global Warming ballot, whether for or against.

So I believe it was quite in keeping with the topic. And as hard as it may be for some to accept, my personal opinion is that it makes for a lively exchange of views but it is hardly going to be resolved finally on a woodworking forum.

My apologies, I haven't worked out the icon for tongue in cheek! I agree with you that the charts and scientists aren't going to motivate people to change their habits which is why a carbon tax scheme of some sort might help.

As for lively debate, I think it is one of the strengths of this forum, that the debates are so lively.

[la Huerta]

humans will distroy themselves in the future anyway, probably from war or something, and not global warming, i don't think it is anything to worry about, when some of the worlds largest volcano's erupted in the past they released so much gas and ash that it bloked out the sun, but we are all still here right..the earth will naturally adjust , centuries ago there where periods where it was warmer than it is today, The hottest day in all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922 ...lets face the facts, they are not going to stop digging for oil, it just is'nt economicly smart to, we have enough for another 100 years or so and by then there would certainly be alternatives already established...i mean even if we all drive electric cars in the next few yrs, we still need oil for the planes and ships, without oil the world would stop...

i was reading somthing the other day, apparently the aboriginies are not concearned at all when asked about the effects of global warming, they seasonly burned millions of hectares of land over 40 thousand years in Aus. as part of there way of life...

we are not going to get an ice age or some global catastrophe, global warming is just something scientist invented to get more funding, there is absolutley no real evidence, only speculation, the hype will likely pass and we'll all get on with our lives, how many times in the past has someone said the world is going to end, or where going to get an ice age or get hit by a meteor, aroung 2000 we were all told there would be huge earthquakes and giant 300ft tsunamis?, that hype passed too...

people should be concentrating on what's right there in front of us, poverty, kids, people and animals being slaughted, just the other day on the news i saw a little African girl that had her hands choped off by the sick people that run the country...The Australian government recently granted $7.8 million to the CSIRO to investigate Greenhouse Gases, the Japanese government funded a $270million per year program. In 1997, after wasting $2.7 billion dollars on no results, the program was axed. A research team is presently in Antarctica to study ice depth. They envisage this to be a 10 year project. In 2004 $4.3 billion was earned by the global warming industry.

all this money wasted , it should be put to better use...like saving kids



La H

[Cliff Rogers]

I think there may be 2 beers left in the fridge... anybody want one?

[la Huerta]

I think there may be 2 beers left in the fridge... anybody want one?

yep...!

[dazzler]

I think there may be 2 beers left in the fridge... anybody want one?

Thats what the wowsers want you to believe. There are heaps of beers left .

[rhancock]

Thats what the wowsers want you to believe. There are heaps of beers left .

I'm sorry to disagree with you dazzler, but if you look at this graph from the Dubisco Beerologic Institute report, you'll see that the current level of beer consumption is leading to an overheating of the global environment due to the volume of hot air produced during drunken debates. Without immediate action by governments around the globe, the planet will explode in a cloud of beer induced flatulence.

[Cliff Rogers]

...a cloud of beer induced flatulence.

You can't say that in here.

[Honorary Bloke]

My apologies, I haven't worked out the icon for tongue in cheek! I agree with you that the charts and scientists aren't going to motivate people to change their habits which is why a carbon tax scheme of some sort might help.

As for lively debate, I think it is one of the strengths of this forum, that the debates are so lively.

No worries, mate. I am sometimes so subtle that I even phizz myself off. It's a serious matter (maybe) but let's not get our grundies all twisted up.