charlie farnsbarns

About as believable as North Korean election results.

4 hours ago, CharlieH said:

" shoe glue" is readily available for 15 baht a tube, that and a little patience and good as new !. ????????

 

Should be good to go for atleast  6+ months or more depending on abuse.

If you mean the 15 baht brown gunk from Mr DIY - just don't. That stuff's khrap. It goes crisp and nasty.

Try the Nianba brand glue from Aliexpress which is clear and flexible and so far working fine for me.

Change the reckless and incendiary title of this thread.

Susceptibility to viruses is Nature's way of keeping populations in check. Humans have clearly overstepped the mark and this is the price. Perhaps we should stop whining, let the virus do its job, and learn the lessons.

Actually, this mini-apocalypse actually gives me some hope there might be a restart along more sensible lines - a lifeline for humanity that no one had ever envisaged even a few months ago. If the virus is quashed too easily though it will only breed more human complacency and we will be back to the addiction for growth.

I say let it run, and if the reaper comes for me, well, I will hold out my hand.

If his seduction technique was too heavy handed why didn't the women just say "sorry Harvey, I'm just not in the market/I have a boyfriend" and leave the room?

This ruling is effectively saying that grown women are of diminished responsibility and unable to look out for themselves. So much for equality.

Symptomatic of the way things are going.  Control creep. The world losing its sense of humour. When there's too many people the rules become more nuanced. We are less free now than we have ever been, in terms of permissible eccentricity.

44 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i missed this one: can you specify what is unnatural and do you have any data

and indeed logic to back up why you are 'certain' of it ?

or is it just some unspecified 'feeling' uncertainty and doubt ?

the reason im asking is because i see an awful lot of

reasoning not based on observations, but rather an epidemic fearmongering

that contradict observations.

 

case in point the president of maldives decided to

make a meeting submerged in fear of drowning,

the leading expert on sea levels had just concluded a study

that sea levels at maldives are stable, and sent a letter

to maldive president to get some sense back in him,

but the president of maldives was so psychotic he didnt want to

listen to reason, he went as far as banning publishing the letter

in newspapers in maldives, cant have facts interfering with politics

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/maldives_letter.pdf

 

The definition of 'unnatural' is pretty much 'anything that was not part of evolution', which for practical purposes is pretty much 'anything which is produced by technology'.

It's not just a 'feeling' - the evidence is all around.

For example,  the invention of the gun, that suddenly gave humans an unnatural competitive advantage, allowing the killing of anything from a cowardly distance. The rapid obliteration of bison was a real and disastrous consequence. Nobody ever foresees the consequences of technology - they are on such a high with it that they are deliberately not looking, they deliberately don't want to know until it is too late to worry about it.

I call myself a naturalist - I've spent a large part of my life out there, knee deep in nature. I've seen the changes and much of the human activity that has caused those changes is perfectly visible. I extrapolate from that evidence. It's harder when we're talking about molecules in the air - both fear-mongering and apathy-mongering exist - there's a lot of noise to make sense of but one tries to make a rational objective judgement. You keep showing us that chart, but the future of the planet cannot hinge on one chart derived from who-knows-what methodology. I choose rather to believe the many scientists that have made a career-long study of the matter.

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

where you lost me was

1] too much CO2 produces global warming

when i look at history, i see inverse correlation over millions of years, see graph,

an inverse correlation going on for million of years prove there is definitely no positive feedback

 

2] natural proper quantity you say ? it has been fluctuating between 3000 ppm during the peak of

evolution to 180 ppm at the depth of the latest glacial period.

by all accounts, plants and algae, which form the basis for all other multi cellular life

thrive at 1500 to 2000 ppm co2, that as far as i can judge is a proper natural quantity,

in the sense that its optimum conditions for life on earth

 

3] Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally

there is no chemical difference between the co2 we recycle

and the co2 that has been sequestered, its basically corpses of life organisms,

they took it with them into their grave and we are recycling it back into the atmosphere,

restoring the natural proper quantity towards what it was during the times of more biomass.

the plants do not suffer a sudden influx of co2 just as you wouldnt suffer

a steak if you had been starving for hundreds of millions of years,

they are craving more food as would you if you had been on a diet that deplete your mass

 

4] the air and the seas will seek an equilibrium in co2 saturation depending on temperature

 

5] the plants cant get more food soon enough, they are starving, even at todays levels,

they die altogether at 150 ppm, an analogy would be people in concentration camps

that resemble skeletons more then living humans, and a philosophic observer

nod that the skeletons must only be fed no more then a cookie per day

on behalf of all that is prudent

 

6] the status quo of plant starvation is an option, but not a sensible option,

specially as we know both that co2 concentration in atmosphere plummet

during glacial periods, and we know that plants go extinct if it drops to 150 ppm,

and with them all other complex life.

on a 2nd thought i agree with you, status quo is not an option,

we simply have to take responsibility and raise co2 levels sufficient

that a drop in upcoming glacial period will not wipe out life for good,

we need a safety margin well above current level of co2

 

recycle or bring down life on earth, the only life we know of exist in universe,

its not really an option on the face of it

 

 

 

 

May I ask what are your academic credentials? For almost all of us, it is a question of deciding who is worth believing.

To some extent, though, we can see what is happening out of the window and draw our own conclusions. I do so and only see devastating deviations from the natural state - and if there is one thing I am certain of it is that anything unnatural will ultimately have dire consequences.

Perhaps the real point is this: that one simple error in your reasoning, one simple unforeseen consequence of this whole CO2 debate could put the earth's delicate system in jeopardy. Far more reasonable, no, to consider there is a risk, and act prudently?

What I draw from all this. Tell me where I lose you:

- More CO2 enhances plant growth - which is nice - but too much CO2 produces global warming - which could conceivably collapse the whole system.

- There has to be CO2, but in proper, natural quantity in order to maintain the delicate balance of things.

- Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally into the atmosphere very suddenly (in geological terms).

- Such activity has unforeseen and knock-on effects, for example, it gets into the oceans and affects weather systems.

- Clearly the climate is extremely sensitive - we are still discovering that.

- The prudent, rational, intelligent thing is to get the balance right, which means not going too far too fast.

- The status quo - which is the goal of climate change deniers and guilt avoiders - is not an option.

- The only solution is gradual deceleration of human activity to a rate at which the harmful effects can be dealt with by ingenuity/technology before the damage is done.

- Slow down or go down. The choice is everyone's.