Thanks Thanks:  25
Likes Likes:  203
Page 11 of 55 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 545
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here there and everywhere
    Posts
    5,901

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by Secret Angler View Post
    Didn't you live in the 80s, it was tried in Africa and didn't make much difference.
    Are you sure about that? I don't think so. We're not talking about a bit of famine relief.[/QUOTE]

    Yes I am, although provided with contraception and a bit of education they were still holding starving babies years after, and why just education for women, I'd say that's a bit sexist.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Moray, Scotland
    Posts
    1,708

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    I believe that due to human nature, humanity will eventually wipe itself out. We can’t even stop killing each other over looney beliefs in fictitious gods let alone manage our use of global resources including controlling our population.

    Just imagine our (yours and mine) descendants fighting to the death over the last bits of unpolluted food and water. I don’t think that is an unlikely scenario.

    But that’s ok as long as we can just keep on behaving as we want, in our lifetimes.
    Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught and the last river poisoned, will we realise, we cannot eat money.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,051
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by lee71 View Post

    Yes I am, although provided with contraception and a bit of education they were still holding starving babies years after, and why just education for women, I'd say that's a bit sexist.
    I'd say you're a bit ill informed (as you nearly always are).

    PS Why are you ascribing your posts to me?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by morayfisher View Post
    I believe that due to human nature, humanity will eventually wipe itself out. We can’t even stop killing each other over looney beliefs in fictitious gods let alone manage our use of global resources including controlling our population.

    Just imagine our (yours and mine) descendants fighting to the death over the last bits of unpolluted food and water. I don’t think that is an unlikely scenario.

    But that’s ok as long as we can just keep on behaving as we want, in our lifetimes.
    You're probably right.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeNZ View Post
    Contraception and education especially that given to women; who actually do listen - unlike the males in both India and Africa (and probably everwhere) - it has made a significant difference in both those countries.

    The number of children a couple has though reducing - still needs to be 2 or less (in my opinion).
    You need to brush up your editing. That highlighted quote above is not from me.

    But yes, education and poverty relief work. There's just not nearly enough.

    There is plenty of money - it just gets absorbed by the "infrastructure"..
    Probably the effect of living upside down all your life. Or inhaling too much at work!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeNZ View Post
    Every country that signs up to address GW can all make exactly the same contribution with a one child per couple policy, starting today - end date today in 50 years.

    GW done and dusted, and probably a great many other issues.
    And how long would that take to have an effect, even presuming it were possible, which it isn't?

  4. #104
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Too far away from the wild places!
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by morayfisher View Post
    I believe that due to human nature, humanity will eventually wipe itself out. We can’t even stop killing each other over looney beliefs in fictitious gods let alone manage our use of global resources including controlling our population.

    Just imagine our (yours and mine) descendants fighting to the death over the last bits of unpolluted food and water. I don’t think that is an unlikely scenario.

    But that’s ok as long as we can just keep on behaving as we want, in our lifetimes.
    It always makes me laugh when folk go on about the dinosaurs in some way as being "doomed" or unsuccessful as a species as they went extinct. The dinosaurs were around for 165 million years. Modern humans have been around for 300,000 years max. So, a rough back of there envelope calculation suggests the dinosaurs were around for 550 times the length of time modern humans have been so far.

    Of course, prior to the industrial age we probably lacked the tools to kill ourselves off completely. In the last 200 years things have changed. Climate change in itself is unlikely to see us off as a species, nuclear weapons may though.
    Last edited by shropshire_lad; 14-11-2019 at 12:13 PM.
    There is a local saying, referring to salmon and sea trout rivers, that these will not fish well "until the bracken is tall enough to hide your bicycle"

  5. #105

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    That's the last time I call Tony a dinosaur then .
    Musha rig um du rum da

  6. #106
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Too far away from the wild places!
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by diawl bach View Post
    That's the last time I call Tony a dinosaur then .
    I dunno, I reckon he'll still be trying to convince us of the merits of Brexit in 165 million years time
    There is a local saying, referring to salmon and sea trout rivers, that these will not fish well "until the bracken is tall enough to hide your bicycle"

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by shropshire_lad View Post
    It always makes me laugh when folk go on about the dinosaurs in some way as being "doomed" or unsuccessful as a species as they went extinct. The dinosaurs were around for 165 million years. Modern humans have been around for 300,000 years max. So, a rough back of there envelope calculation suggests the dinosaurs were around for 550 times the length of time modern humans have been so far.

    Of course, prior to the industrial age we probably lacked the tools to kill ourselves off completely. In the last 200 years things have changed. Climate change in itself is unlikely to see us off as a species, nuclear weapons may though.
    'Broadly' I don't disagree with you, but you have to be careful with the longevity.

    Humans are only one species of mammalia whereas you are comparing all species of dinosauria with that one species.

    'Scientific' TV dinosaur programmes and even more so dinosaur movies both often tend to show (for example) one species of dinosaur chasing another when in fact those two species would have never met because the periods of their existence was separated by tens of millions of years or much longer.
    For example the last Stegosaurus was separated from the first Tyrannosaurus by around 90 million years.

    So really you should compare the overall lifespan of mammalia with the overall lifespan of dinosauria. Or randomly pick several dinosaur species (to get a 'general picture') and compare the life of each one separately with the life of humans. And of course we aren't extinct yet.
    Last edited by flyfisher222; 14-11-2019 at 01:18 PM.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here there and everywhere
    Posts
    5,901

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    [QUOTE=Secret Angler;2599692]




    PS Why are you ascribing your posts to me?

    It's the forum messing things up not me.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Too far away from the wild places!
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by flyfisher222 View Post
    'Broadly' I don't disagree with you, but you have to be careful with the longevity.

    Humans are only one species of mammalia whereas you are comparing all species of dinosauria with that one species.

    'Scientific' TV dinosaur programmes and even more so dinosaur movies both often tend to show (for example) one species of dinosaur chasing another when in fact those two species would have never met because the periods of their existence was separated by tens of millions of years or much longer.
    For example the last Stegosaurus was separated from the first Tyrannosaurus by around 90 million years.

    So really you should compare the overall lifespan of mammalia with the overall lifespan of dinosauria. Or randomly pick several dinosaur species (to get a 'general picture') and compare the life of each one separately with the life of humans. And of course we aren't extinct yet.
    Thanks for the clarification and, yes, it did occur to me that this may be the case. Unfortunately, I never took much of an interest in Palaeontology, etc, when I was a Geology student and it shows! I think the mass extinction at the Cretaceous - Tertiary boundary was still a mystery when I was a student whereas it now seems widely accepted it was the result of the Chicxulub meteor strike.

    I believe geologically the most successful species in longevity terms have been the simplest. Maybe therein lies our downfall - we are too intelligent, our brains are too big.

    Too wide a subject to go into here but there is a broader philosophical question as to why dealing with climate change is important (and I feel it is). What are we protecting? Ourselves? Other biodiversity and, if so, only because we are dependent on it? The "planet" - the planet will survive and adapt whatever in my opinion. Does it come down to a moral responsibility? Then there's the "spiritual" aspect for want of a better description. Nature makes humans feel good and behave better....or most humans. Most people on this Forum should appreciate that. So why do so many take it for granted or at worst seem hell bent on abusing it, the very system that makes it worth living? I don't have the answers.
    There is a local saying, referring to salmon and sea trout rivers, that these will not fish well "until the bracken is tall enough to hide your bicycle"

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Global warming? Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by shropshire_lad View Post
    Thanks for the clarification and, yes, it did occur to me that this may be the case. Unfortunately, I never took much of an interest in Palaeontology, etc, when I was a Geology student and it shows! I think the mass extinction at the Cretaceous - Tertiary boundary was still a mystery when I was a student whereas it now seems widely accepted it was the result of the Chicxulub meteor strike.

    I believe geologically the most successful species in longevity terms have been the simplest. Maybe therein lies our downfall - we are too intelligent, our brains are too big.

    Too wide a subject to go into here but there is a broader philosophical question as to why dealing with climate change is important (and I feel it is). What are we protecting? Ourselves? Other biodiversity and, if so, only because we are dependent on it? The "planet" - the planet will survive and adapt whatever in my opinion. Does it come down to a moral responsibility? Then there's the "spiritual" aspect for want of a better description. Nature makes humans feel good and behave better....or most humans. Most people on this Forum should appreciate that. So why do so many take it for granted or at worst seem hell bent on abusing it, the very system that makes it worth living? I don't have the answers.
    I never studied geology at all, I'm just a interested amateur in palaeontology too.

    But I wish I had studied geology. A mate is a geologist who works for an oil company. Even when he goes on holiday it gives him a much greater knowledge of why the local scenery is as it is than most people have.

    I live fairly near the mouth of the river Test in Hampshire. The Test mostly flows over chalk but from about six miles upstream down to the mouth there is a thin layer of peat on top of the chalk which changes the land vegetation (but not the waterweed) completely from what's further upstream.
    The mouth itself is marshy with two or three square miles of 'Norfolk reed' and several channels of the river itself spread over about a mile. But where I live there is a thick layer of tertiary clay on top of the chalk and as you drive west over the lowest bridging point on the river you can see the sudden rise of about 20-40 feet where the clay begins quite clearly.

Page 11 of 55 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •