megalithWell for my money she looked her best in her red and yellow drone colours.
Steve
megalithHPSauce for your info; I’m not ‘grinding a political axe,’ in fact I am broardly in agreement with CreakingDoors replies to my post – which I consider to be an honest and balanced response. The important point being that nothing is black and white and all aspects of a question military, political, historical, technical should be considered in any analysis.
Questions about the politics behind any conflict are just as interesting to many of us as Shars and Vulcans – In fact how can one truly understand the significance of the raids and the bravery of the military, without understanding also the political landscape against which they were played out?
Also one thing intrigues me, you say ‘when did legality – even supposing our invasion to have been “illegal” – ever rate as importantly as our national self interest? Why should it?.’ Do you apply the same principle to your personnal interests when compared with the national law of the UK? :diablo:
Steve
megalithI said when we got them that the cost would go up by £1 billion a year – I guess I was optimistic.
Steve.
megalithI said when we got them that the cost would go up by £1 billion a year – I guess I was optimistic.
Steve.
megalithSo Creaking Door,
Were we the British justified in using military force to build our empire? including our original aquisition of the Falklands.
Was our use of military force during the Suez crisis justified?
Or how about our ‘illegal’ invasion of Iraq?
The problem is that the justification for the use of force depends upon one’s viewpoint. To your average Argentinian the invasion (to regain something that they saw as rightfully thiers) was as well justified, as our liberation of the Falklands was to you or me.
And it should always be born in mind that politics has been described as the ‘conduct of public policy, for private ends,’ and as such most politicians act for their own benefit be it to garner votes or line pockets.
Certainly to say it was purely the fault of the Argentine Junto, is at best not taking in the whole of the political picture.
Steve.
megalithActually ATFS_CRASH, the bulk of what you say is totally irrelevant to this debate, since we are not discussing mass extinction events (fascinating as they are), but the impact of human CO2 emissions upon global climate. Super erruptions and large meteor strikes are rare events over which humanity has no control, where as the burning of fossil fuels is something that mankind is directly responsible for.
If we consider that we have been burning fossil fuels in increasing bulk since about 1700, I hope you can see that the time frame under discussion is substantially less that geological and in this period there have been no super erruptions – indeed the last one was 70,000 years ago, long enough ago, to be totally irrelevant, and if Yellowstone went of tomorrow human CO2 emissions would be the least of our worries.
What we are concerned with here are the effects of human v natural CO2 emissions over the time frame since roughly 1700 and during this period volcanic output has been roughly inline with the USGS’s figures. ie. Volcanoes have produced far less CO2 than man.
Anybody involved with proffessional modelling and prediction knows all about ‘wild cards’ as you put it, so whilst your comments are correct at one level; the real trick is to ask the correct questions (ie. what happens to the price of copper? if demand follows current trends, there are no stockmarket crashes and no wars breaking out in producing countries etc etc.) – I think your reply shows that you have little or no experience of modelling and predicting trends
Moving on your suggestion that ‘The movement to stop CO2 production is not practical and it may actually increase the odds of a global extinction release of greenhouse gases.’ Is almost laughable, huge quantities of methane are locked up in the worlds permafrost and this is already starting to thaw, burning more fossil fuels will only exasperate this trend. And as I am sure you are aware methane is ten times as potent a green house gas as methane…….
Finally your closing remarks show an unwarranted arrogance; ‘By the way this information is much more deeper than you’ll find on most online resources,’ is a fatuous claim because it isn’t. Also what makes you think that ‘most will find it hard to understand or believe?’ Most people on here are well educated, and there is nothing complex in your ramblings indeed if people don’t understand it is probably more down to poor english than anything intrinsicley difficult in your ideas.
Steve.
megalithActually ATFS_CRASH, the bulk of what you say is totally irrelevant to this debate, since we are not discussing mass extinction events (fascinating as they are), but the impact of human CO2 emissions upon global climate. Super erruptions and large meteor strikes are rare events over which humanity has no control, where as the burning of fossil fuels is something that mankind is directly responsible for.
If we consider that we have been burning fossil fuels in increasing bulk since about 1700, I hope you can see that the time frame under discussion is substantially less that geological and in this period there have been no super erruptions – indeed the last one was 70,000 years ago, long enough ago, to be totally irrelevant, and if Yellowstone went of tomorrow human CO2 emissions would be the least of our worries.
What we are concerned with here are the effects of human v natural CO2 emissions over the time frame since roughly 1700 and during this period volcanic output has been roughly inline with the USGS’s figures. ie. Volcanoes have produced far less CO2 than man.
Anybody involved with proffessional modelling and prediction knows all about ‘wild cards’ as you put it, so whilst your comments are correct at one level; the real trick is to ask the correct questions (ie. what happens to the price of copper? if demand follows current trends, there are no stockmarket crashes and no wars breaking out in producing countries etc etc.) – I think your reply shows that you have little or no experience of modelling and predicting trends
Moving on your suggestion that ‘The movement to stop CO2 production is not practical and it may actually increase the odds of a global extinction release of greenhouse gases.’ Is almost laughable, huge quantities of methane are locked up in the worlds permafrost and this is already starting to thaw, burning more fossil fuels will only exasperate this trend. And as I am sure you are aware methane is ten times as potent a green house gas as methane…….
Finally your closing remarks show an unwarranted arrogance; ‘By the way this information is much more deeper than you’ll find on most online resources,’ is a fatuous claim because it isn’t. Also what makes you think that ‘most will find it hard to understand or believe?’ Most people on here are well educated, and there is nothing complex in your ramblings indeed if people don’t understand it is probably more down to poor english than anything intrinsicley difficult in your ideas.
Steve.
megalithRoscaria, actually I haven’t missed the point , yes change is inevitable and nowhere have I advocated a ‘steady state’ model for the earths climatic systems. It is the rate of change which is at issue here.
The ice ages came and receeded over tens/hundreds of thousand of years, we however are now talking of comparable changes in one or two centuries. Why? That is what the science seeks to answer. Unfortunately as this is an ‘inconvenient truth’ many seek to dismiss what is sound science with pseudo science.
For example having accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, some people have argued that man’s output is insignificant in comparrison with volcanic output. This myth has entered into the conciesness of those who seek to deny mans influence on climate change – and is frequentlyu encountered in debates such as this. It is however utter rubbish. Please look at this link
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Which is the US Geological Survey and contains the following ;
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) – The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
More generally however the models for climate change have been through the peer review system where people more knowledgable than us have vetted them and found them to be good solid science. These people do not assume a ‘steady state’ either.
Steve.
megalithRoscaria, actually I haven’t missed the point , yes change is inevitable and nowhere have I advocated a ‘steady state’ model for the earths climatic systems. It is the rate of change which is at issue here.
The ice ages came and receeded over tens/hundreds of thousand of years, we however are now talking of comparable changes in one or two centuries. Why? That is what the science seeks to answer. Unfortunately as this is an ‘inconvenient truth’ many seek to dismiss what is sound science with pseudo science.
For example having accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, some people have argued that man’s output is insignificant in comparrison with volcanic output. This myth has entered into the conciesness of those who seek to deny mans influence on climate change – and is frequentlyu encountered in debates such as this. It is however utter rubbish. Please look at this link
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Which is the US Geological Survey and contains the following ;
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) – The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
More generally however the models for climate change have been through the peer review system where people more knowledgable than us have vetted them and found them to be good solid science. These people do not assume a ‘steady state’ either.
Steve.
megalithRoscaria,
Global warming is real, the science is good, it is mainly caused by humans, and action now can be effective – in reducing the worst effects.
You are falling into the common human trap of believing what you want to believe, not what you have reason to. NO ONE in their right mind wants to give up the comfortable life we are all accustomed to, and many people are in denial, grasping at the most absurd straws of hope and pseudo scientific claims, such as the program on Channel 4. A program that was about as accademically credible as Eric von Danniken!
Nearly all scientists are in agreement upon climate change being a ‘clear and present’ danger, and those who aren’t are invariablly in denial and looking for straws or prostituted to energy companies. READ THE SCIENCE AND GET REAL, or else it is you children who will suffer the consequences.
Remember a 2 degree rise in the UK gives us a mediterranian climate, but in much of the world it makes it uninhabitabal.
Steve.
megalithRoscaria,
Global warming is real, the science is good, it is mainly caused by humans, and action now can be effective – in reducing the worst effects.
You are falling into the common human trap of believing what you want to believe, not what you have reason to. NO ONE in their right mind wants to give up the comfortable life we are all accustomed to, and many people are in denial, grasping at the most absurd straws of hope and pseudo scientific claims, such as the program on Channel 4. A program that was about as accademically credible as Eric von Danniken!
Nearly all scientists are in agreement upon climate change being a ‘clear and present’ danger, and those who aren’t are invariablly in denial and looking for straws or prostituted to energy companies. READ THE SCIENCE AND GET REAL, or else it is you children who will suffer the consequences.
Remember a 2 degree rise in the UK gives us a mediterranian climate, but in much of the world it makes it uninhabitabal.
Steve.
megalithWith regards regulating the media;nothing can function without regulation or laws – football is regulated by the referee, business by laws, governments by constitutions – the alternative is anarchy.
The question isn’t should the media be regulated but how and at what level.
How much of the media should one individual/comany be allowed to control?
Should foriegn ownership of national media be allowed?
What sanctions should be impossed for inaccurate or destorted reporting, wether deliberate or accidental?
etc etc etc
Steve
megalithI don’t normally post on this forum but I thought I’d point out the following in Post #77 Phantom II says
“There will ALWAYS be terrorists. They have always existed and they always will. If America had never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, there would still be just as many terrorists…”
This is to all intents and purposes an admission that US foreign policy is a total failure…. unless of course the real motivation was oil and not the so called ‘War on Terror’.
Steve.
megalithRoscoria, I think you’ve missed the point of my post……………
FREEDOM IS THE PROBLEM, or rather people percieveing that their personal freedom is more important than social cohesion; coupled with an increasing tendency not to accept law, and regulate themselves in accordance with it. A problem which with each succsesive generation worsens.
Please reflect upon this, children often have their respect for society’s rules (ie the law)undermined from infancy, for example;
Parents telling children seated in the back of th car ‘it’s ok to do 40 in a 30mph limit.’
Similarly ‘smoking cannabis is harmless, I did it and it didn’t harm me.’
Such comments send out the message that it is ok to selectively obey/disregard the law, at the very stage in life where children’s future attitudes are being nurtured. This is the first step on the road to anarchy, and a direct result of the increasingly prevalent attitude that one’s personnal freedom is more important than the law.
There is also a tendency to be-little the police, and telling childrren that they don’t care or are incompetent this sends out the message that even if you break the law you won’t get caught, and even if you do you will get a disproportionately light sentance. This again damages the next generations respect for society and the law that is there to protect one and all.
Allways remember children turn out the way they do because of all the adults around them, with parents playing the leading role.
Your comment about getting rid of the nanny state is just the sort of remark that has under-mined young peoples social attitudes ie. the state restricts me therefore it is an obstacle and should be derrided and if possible ignored. And please remember NO STATE (nanny or otherwise) = ANARCHY.
Therefore if you want to avoid anarchy, your attitude has to be ‘I will conform,’ and by so doing setting a positive example for the young. It might be painful but it is the only approach that offers any hope of avoiding the total anarchy you fear.
Steve
megalithRoscoria, I think you’ve missed the point of my post……………
FREEDOM IS THE PROBLEM, or rather people percieveing that their personal freedom is more important than social cohesion; coupled with an increasing tendency not to accept law, and regulate themselves in accordance with it. A problem which with each succsesive generation worsens.
Please reflect upon this, children often have their respect for society’s rules (ie the law)undermined from infancy, for example;
Parents telling children seated in the back of th car ‘it’s ok to do 40 in a 30mph limit.’
Similarly ‘smoking cannabis is harmless, I did it and it didn’t harm me.’
Such comments send out the message that it is ok to selectively obey/disregard the law, at the very stage in life where children’s future attitudes are being nurtured. This is the first step on the road to anarchy, and a direct result of the increasingly prevalent attitude that one’s personnal freedom is more important than the law.
There is also a tendency to be-little the police, and telling childrren that they don’t care or are incompetent this sends out the message that even if you break the law you won’t get caught, and even if you do you will get a disproportionately light sentance. This again damages the next generations respect for society and the law that is there to protect one and all.
Allways remember children turn out the way they do because of all the adults around them, with parents playing the leading role.
Your comment about getting rid of the nanny state is just the sort of remark that has under-mined young peoples social attitudes ie. the state restricts me therefore it is an obstacle and should be derrided and if possible ignored. And please remember NO STATE (nanny or otherwise) = ANARCHY.
Therefore if you want to avoid anarchy, your attitude has to be ‘I will conform,’ and by so doing setting a positive example for the young. It might be painful but it is the only approach that offers any hope of avoiding the total anarchy you fear.
Steve
Sign In
