bexrbetter

Yup, same in China, keeps you on your toes - as it should be. My industrial city with all it's machining and milling factories are all unguarded/unfenced and the incident of industrial accidents is very low. But anyway, I love this video, wait till the river crossing at 8.30! http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XODU0OTU2Nzcy.html?from=y1.2-1-176.3.3-1.1-1-1-2-0

Some of you do-gooders should try having a brother of '40 years a heroin addict', I assure you your perspective will change. Doesn't work, like the majority of people who make the comment, you just simply haven't had experience in the area. Anytime you want to go spend a day with my Daughter at a rehab clinic (clinical assistant), or meet my Brother, let me know. The only way is to stop supply. I see the biggest issue here is the pathetic lack of information about the sufferers at the hands of these mongrels. You never see pictures of the drug overdosed, the murdered, the raped, the bashed - all you ever see is those "poor suffering remorseful hard done by" criminals with their suffering mothers in tears. Pathetic. I'll limit myself of what I really want to say and show because I'm sure Ian never meant this forum to be the place for it, but the information is out there at your fingertips. Rather than replying to me, spend the same amount of energy educating yourselves. Respectfully Dazza, you don't know how the system, and the kids, are played. Not the thread's topic is it.

Subliminal messages really work, 'Birdseye' keeps saying "batter" and now I want some fish fingers .....

Under 200,000, semantics, but I missed what you are comparing that too?

Since airbags became common from late 1970's, in the US, over 25,000 people are attributed to have had their lives saved - figures 'til 2007. In that time, 47 children were also killed attributed to the explosive force of airbag deployment (had they died or not due to the actual accident is not discernible so lets say half). Should airbags have been banned? Of course not, and in no way should we knowingly have a situation where 25000 die for the sake of 25. And how about keeping it analytical thanks, eg; without the emotion.

No, I'm not, I have another purpose. I'm like the cognac I was drinking last night, not very clear and end up giving you a headache Oh and I would never be such a lowlife to introduce a product and then try to get it forced onto people by law, I've simply seen what seatbelts do for people and see what Cirrus chutes do for people and don't think it's such a bad idea at all. You meant "sorry Sam" of course.

Phhttt, a Kiwi uttering a multi-syllable word, try something believable next time. I'd prefer the crocs.

"Mel-bun" actually. Geez, not sure where he went, that's why we carry sticks!

Well that's what consumption of red will do to you .... Hope you don't own a boat!

Are you serious? Peers of that era were using calculations from centuries before that made satellites and computers even possible. The only thing satellites and computers have done is confirm their findings and made things a bit faster. A human being still has to do all the calculations at some point or do you think satellites and the software for them were left on Earth by Aliens? The abacus is over 4000 years old and the slide rule was invented in the 1600's btw. But anyway, if your stance is to null and void any information prior to satellites then you fail badly with GW because any reasonable person from either side will not deny for a moment that to prove it either way means historical evidence over a very long period, it's called "Science", and 50 years of satellite info just doesn't cut it at all. sci·ence (sī′əns) n. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limited class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

I will find it according to the facts, not knee jerk internet reactions or money grubbing bandwagoners thanks. The Earth is warming, so says 600,000 years of ice core samples, but it's warming exactly in the cycle that it's supposed to be. FWIW, the God of Global Warming Science, Svante August Arrhenius, said in a nutshell; "GW will be awesome, with the ever growing population, with up to an 8 degree increase over the next 200 years, we will have the capability to feed those people". He said that around 1900, look it up. Here it is ... "Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries. Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." Go argue with him.

You mean the elderly who rely on gas and coal to keep their feet warm during winter? Not sure where you're going with it FT but fossil fuels is our life and occasionally there's going to be bad consequences because of that - simple fact of modern, industrialised life. I don't like it either but I'm a selfish azzhole just like everybody else, just not a hypocrite.

I used to work on Rig 19 for Mitchells. Rig 19, a fancy name for a 1960's truck, was one of Australia's deepest mobile exploration drills; Down to 1000mtrs and we regularly were getting 'gas in coal seam' cores between 600 to 800mts. Choose anywhere along the upper half of the Newell Hwy. When finished, we would plug the hole with concrete at levels dictated by the Geo's.

It's most certainly not a revelation that scientists have had to rely on funding or grants for literally the entire history of science dating back to the Greeks. Global Warming Causes Global Spending: Follow the Money Global warming causes, when you follow the money, are shown to be nothing but political excuses to waste trillions in unnecessary global spending. Billions of those tax dollars are taken from an unsuspecting public, then given – tax-free – to the global warming gurus who keep the lie going; so it really should come as no surprise that those very gurus do all they can to keep their cash-cow alive and kicking. Some estimates put the spending on global warming causes at one billion dollars a day. Governments around the world, at the behest of the U.N., spend vast amounts of money on a problem which only exists in computer models. Climate change research has become big business; driven by political ideology and greed, instead of a quest for truth. There are reams of real-world data available which effortlessly debunk the myth of climate change. However; if it is ever mentioned publicly, the data is laughed off as conspiracy theory “denial,” obviously being spread by agents of Big Energy. If any individual or organization – with more than two dimes to rub together – should decide to fund climate research not predicated on anthropogenic global warming causes, they will be accused of employing “dark money.” – particularly if the donors have opted to keep their identities to themselves. Since the global warming cause faithful will picket, protest, threaten, intimidate and lie about any person involved in “heresy” against their religion, who can blame people for wanting to remain anonymous? Here in America, DOE stimulus loans – the entire Energy Department loan portfolio, in fact – have gone to people and companies with significant connections to Democratic politicians. Those recipients all seem to have been top donors, fundraisers and bundlers for Obama and other Democrats in high office. Following the global warming money shows that it causes American spending almost equal to the amount of global spending. The U.N. has very little on the U.S., when it comes to funding global warming causes. Starting in 2009, the Energy Department has employed three funding and loan programs – along with pressure from President Obama and Vice President Biden – to monetize 33 projects. Section 1705 of the 2009 Recovery Act; Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) and the 1603 Treasury Program. 1705 and the ATVM have guaranteed $34.5 billion in taxpayer money, which has given America such notable losers as Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, Beacon Power, the Vehicle Production Group, Abound Solar and SoloPower. There are more “green” sinkholes out there still, waiting to implode. Treasury Program 1603 alone awarded free taxpayer cash to campaign donors cum green energy execs to the tune of $19,349,675,402.00 How is private money supposed to compete with those kinds of numbers? In Nevada, Senator Harry Reid has been using Green stimulus money to buy his reelections. Nevada Geothermal won a $98.5 million loan in September 2010. Ormat Nevada won $350 million and SolarReserve won $737 million in September 2011. All three companies got their money from the SWIP-E project, which Reid championed and campaigned on. Those three companies – through their executives – have donated more than $58,000 to Reid and other Democrats, since 2008. BrightSource Energy won of $1.6 billion in April 2011for a solar project. BrightSource Energy also held a fundraiser for Senator Reid in their Oakland offices, hosted by none other than then-CEO, John Woolard and then-chairman of PG&E, along with Peter Darbee of BrightSource Energy, in August 2010. A survey of 3247 US research scientists who address global warming causes – all publicly funded through the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services – published in the science journal Nature, showed that 503 of them admitted to altered the design, methodology or results of their studies, due to pressure from funding sources. Those were just the scientists willing to be honest; it is safe to assume a much larger number. Evidently, the key to obtaining grant money resides in what your study says it means to discover. Should a scientist want to study the migratory patterns of a particular butterfly, they might title their grant proposal like this: “A study of the migratory patterns of the Blue Mountain Swallowtail Butterfly.” A perfectly reasonable title for a proposal which will certainly yield greater knowledge of the natural world. However, that scientist is competing against another researcher, whose title is “A study of the effects of Global Warming and Climate Change on the migratory patterns of the Blue Mountain Swallowtail Butterfly.” Both people would be gathering the exact same data, but only one of them purports to forward the global warming cause. There is no doubt as to which scientist will be funded. Of course, the “global warming cause” industry, which collects all those billions in tax-free grants, is not above fudging numbers, data manipulation or lying with a straight face. When they get caught, they say they are only exaggerating to emphasize how important the global warming cause is. It cannot be about the money, since they claim to have absolutely the best of intentions. Therefore, they can only be judged on their ideals; condemning them for the lies they tell, the financial crimes they perpetrate and waste they incur, might jeopardize the “scientific process.” Follow the money and it is easy to see where global warming causes global spending.

Well it all started with a brother and sister anyway and we turned out alright. Well, most of us. http://knitting-nannas.com/

You any good at knitting FT? You got a headache? 97% you say? Did you meant 97% of Department Heads who need to be on the funding bandwagon? Seriously, a Department today says "No we don't agree with GW" - what are their chances of getting research funding? Lip biting reaps rewards. 'Global Warming’ Fear is about Money Not Science Posted on August 26, 2012 by Gary DeMar Filed under Economics, Education, Environment, Global Warming, Liberalism, Politics, Socialism, Taxes League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is spending $1.5 million to defeat five of the most outspoken members of the House of Representatives who believe man-made global warming is a hoax. NB: The use of a negative title here .. The campaign, called "Defeat the Flat Earth Five" will focus on running TV, mail and phone initiatives to spread the message that the members are ignoring science and out of touch with what most Americans believe. Equating these anti-global warming congressmen with a belief in a flat earth shows how the folks at the LCV are as out of touch with the history of science as they are with the science behind climate change (it changes every day) since no one of any reputation ever believed in a flat earth. In the end, it’s not about science; it’s about government (tax-payer) grant money. Scientists live or die by grant money. A long time ago universities began to realize that there's big money to be made in doing research for the government. Campus protests in the 1960s and early 1970s were often directed at schools that were doing work for the "Military-Industrial Complex." The Sterling Hall Bombing that occurred on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1970 was committed by four young people as a protest against the University's research connections with the US military during the Vietnam War. It resulted in the death of a university physics researcher. The bombers were after the Army Math Research Center (AMRC) that was housed in the building. The Manhattan Project, which began in 1939, was led and developed by university professors. The Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion ($22 billion in current value). The majority of the money came from the Federal government. Research is big business that is most often driven by ideology. Those who know how to write the grants get the money. A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded by the National Institutes of Health which is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health-related research. It consists of 27 separate institutes and centers. Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source. With this very brief background study, should we be surprised if scientists who are pushing Global Warming as a man-made disaster would be reluctant to criticize the claim if they knew their funding would be cut? There are big bucks in Global Warming. Those who are pushing it are mostly ideologues with a larger political agenda. Most Americans have an idealized opinion of scientists, that they are somehow detached from the mundane world of power, prestige, and fortune. If you believe this, then you also believe that Tiger Woods only cares about golf and the purity of the sport. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has written: “The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”1 Scientists are just like everybody else. They want the same things. We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities so they can work for a university that gets grant money. If these scientists and politicians were really concerned about Global Warming, would 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists, and 98 world leaders meet in far way places for a Climate Summit?2 Why not set up a teleconferencing system? Really show the world what can be done to “save the planet.” More than 1200 limos were called into service for a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, said that there weren’t enough limos in the country to fulfill the demand. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden,” she says. This does not count the huge carbon footprint that was created by the number of private jets (more than 140) that were used. The eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, created a total of 41,000 tons of “carbon dioxide equivalent.” It’s all a scam. Newsweek “did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported ‘many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.’” In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next ice age.” Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, makes the point: You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.3 Of course, they can be blamed when they (1) claim that they are doing real science, (2) there is no contrary evidence, and (3) what contrary evidence they do find they suppress it. So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting? ........................................... Also The government is overreacting to a largely unreal threat of global warming and NASA isn't helping, states a report issued by The Right Climate Stuff (TCRS) research team. Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists, the team acknowledges in their report that "climate science is not one of our data technical specialties," but that, nonetheless, given their experience in their separate fields of physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology and others, they felt the need to speak out. Specifically, the report responds to what the group feels is unfounded pulpit pounding by certain NASA bureaus regarding a false damnation of global warming that is seen strictly the result of human sin in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. "Many of us felt these alarming and premature predictions of a climate disaster with so little empirical data to support these claims, would eventually damage NASA's reputation for excellent and objective science and engineering achievement," the report states. First of all, the group states, the argument over whether or not human-induced carbons are at fault for the rise the global rise in temperatures is not "settled," despite what James Hansen or others of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies may say. To support this statement, the report cited several groups all with varying opinions on the subject, including the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, Hansen himself, Richard Alley of Penn State, Rchard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Roger A. Pielke Sr. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. Second, the report argues that natural processes dominate climate change, though many are poorly understood. This includes ice age cycles natural to the world's climate fluctuations, which scientists, including the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have shown affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Specifically, the IPCC's 4th assesment report states that the lag in carbon dioxide increases following temperature increases is roughly 800 years. "Ergo, CO2 does not appear to be the throttle that controlled the temperature cycles of the last 700,000 years." Though, they argue, the temperature appears to affect the levels of CO2 - a concept that for many may feel like standing on one's head. Other cycles include the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. Of them, the report states, "Little is known about the cause of these cycles, but it is apparent that when their warm phases coincide, extra warmth is added to the atmosphere. Indeed this was the case in the latter part of the last century." The third main point the report makes is the importance of the influence of humankind on the environment in ways besides carbon dioxide emissions. This includes aerosols as well as changing biomass, which, Pielke Sr., argues, creates islands of urban heat that can affect not only climate, but the measurement of climate change. Fourth, the report argues that carbon-based AGW impact appears to be "muted." The physics of warming by atmospheric carbon dioxide is firmly established, the report states, as most agree that each time it doubles from pre-industrial levels, the planet gets 1 degree Celsius warmer. "The issue in dispute is the amount of amplification that would come from humidification of a warmer mid-to-upper troposphere," the report explains. And here, once again, they argue that, based on severalstudies the answer at present "is far from clear." Next, the group states that the empirical evidence for carbon-based AGW "does not support a catastrophe." Given the amount the word is bandied about, the group says, "somewhere there must be a direct connection of 2 - 4.5 degree Celsius average warming to something 'catastrophic' worldwide." However, they explain, "so far, we have seen no specific papers alluding to anything so specific." This includes, they believe, even major weather events and the rising sea level, the first of which, they argue, despite being brought to the forefront of our consciousness through vigilant and extreme media coverage, lacks "hard evidence of anything that has not been see before, and well before, the last few decades." As for the rise in sea level, it states, "the only real sources of significant sea level rise are the Greenland ice sheets and those in Antarctica." And, it says, there are no projections for either to produce large meltwater for another few centuries. For these reasons, the group ultimately argues that the threat of "net harmful total global warming" is "not immediate and thus does not require swift corrective action." Rather, they believe, "A potential global warming issue has been identified that should be treated as a potential problem for which root cause is not definitely known." For this reason, they argue, the U.S. government is "over-reacting" to the concerns of the media, scientists and activists and that a more "rational process for allocation of research funds without the constant media hype of an AGW crisis is needed."

The post was in reference to the negative titles used to belittle anyone opposing GW views, nothing to do with GW itself. Here's an interesting man ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

You mean; "For those opposed to us easily excitable doomsayers". Please find other than negative titles thanks.

Glad to see you've finally come across to our side.

Heretic.

That's the one, if it had of been the "God" himself who built and stocked it, it may have been believable (relative statement) but having the story with a mortal man building it is just embarrassing for the gullible ones. The Bible and Christianity have proven a worthwhile guide to establishing our societies, laws and culture, Christians should be proud of, and stick with that, and stay as far as possible from the obvious nonsense written in ignorant and superstitious times. Here is a reply of mine at Easter to this ... "There are reasons to have a day off, Anzac day, Australia Day etc. Queen's birthday is a joke as is Christmas and Easter. A holiday at the end of the year is fine but not to celebrate jebus dying on the cross or whatever those authors made up". Not only do you miss the point, mentioning the preferred holidays "to be celebrated" is a contradiction. The whole fabric of Australian society is founded on Christianity. Our laws, morals, culture, etc. are all directly or indirectly based on the Bible, including decisions of going to War - regardless of the the Bible being a mythical steaming pile of ballshit. Once you start breaking down or distancing our society's connection to Christianity and the Bible, you start opening doors that will break down the very foundations that support what has made Australia what it is today. So let the 30% believe what they want to and let them have their input when and where it's asked for and required, understanding that to have balance you need to take from both ends of the spectrum, otherwise anarchy ensures. So if you're not religious, that's fine, just don't be ignorant in the same breath, simply step back and enjoy the benefits of Australia that were in part afforded to you by the religious end of the spectrum - and a holiday every now and then due to them is just a small part of those benefits. I suddenly have the desire to watch 'Life of Brian', or Woman.

A type of welder?

[ATTACH]47587._xfImport[/ATTACH]

There's an interesting book called "The Soldiers That Won't March", a worthwhile and perspective changing read. Geoff, don't happen to know a Bill Nolan do you? I ask because he was also in for the same "20 years of peace" and got out about the same time as you. He was at Enoggera for the last years.

It could be the test to see which ones they really should get rid of!