skeptic36

I'd suggest you probably better get a different "expert". If you get out of Melbourne and have a look around the high rainfall and irrigation districts, you will find them still farming and sowing ryegrass quite happily. I would suggest it may have been the water restrictions your lawns couldn't handle. Dry conditions is something fescue is known to be able to cope with better.

Is she at the bottom of the Thames ( or maybe the Mississippi)?

Well I don't think the CASA should impose any limitations on these, because obviously it is due to the pilot management and maintenance skill level that is the cause of the problem. Even though 50% of all of these engines I've heard about are stuffed....

And the depth of the taxpayers pockets.....

Same for wind turbines, but they keep building those. You just need a bit of taxpayer funding that's all......

In the case of China, they will sign it, then do as they please anyway. In the case of the U.S it is not about what the president knows, it is about what will get his party re-elected

Update! there really is a God. My daughter has just ditched the loser she was using instead of a proper boyfriend. Ahhh my prayers have been answered, it was starting to look like he was going to be my son-in-law phew!

Why bother dreaming about wether the flood was scientifically possible. If you want to believe God made everything in six days in the first place, then you won't have a problem with him whipping up a bit more water in a hurry then making it go away again

So, a while back you where saying how new research was proving the Bible to be accurate, but now the miracles said to have been performed are BS or the results of normal things occurring in nature? As for the rest of your reply, sorry but I can't see how it relates to what I wrote at all

Except for the part about the people saying "it worked for us". Where are these people? That's right they're all dead and dead men don't say much. It is part of what I can't come to terms with about God, there is no sense of fairness in the way the world operates. Why did those lucky enough to be born in Christs time get to see a couple of fish and a loaf of bread feed thousands, Moses part the Red Sea right in front of a lot of people, we don't see any of that today and yet are still expected to believe. Why was I born in Australia where I can feed myself and have money left over for an iPad so I can waste time on this crap, while the little kid in Bangladesh or somewhere has to search through the swamp to find a rat to eat. Again, not fair.....

On June 1, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia voted twice on this matter. To paraphrase: The Congress would have the power to make the decision for war, and The Congress could not delegate the authority to decide on war to the President. [*]Early Congresses passed laws declaring, and delineating, the scope of war. [*]George Washington (who presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and helped form the features of the executive branch as the first person to fill the office of President of the United States), thought it was best for the Country (click and scroll to see GW's Farewell Address). Other early presidents also tried to abide by the will of the Congress. [*]Early Supreme Court decisions, including one written by George Washington's nephew, Justice Bushrod Washington, enforced this idea: The decision to go to war, and the extent of US involvement in a war, are to be decided by Congress. Despite the words of the Constitution, the history of the Convention and the ratification process, and the only Supreme Court cases on this issue, Presidents have been ordering the military into action, without a prior Declaration from Congress, since the start of the Cold War. For more than half a century, the United States has been taken to war by the President. The legal formula to evade the Constitution is called an "Authorization to Use Military Force" (AUMF). The Congress passes a statute seeming to give authority to the President to make the decision, as he determines. Rather than enforcing the Constitution by informing the Congress of its obligation to make that determination, the lower Federal courts - from the Vietnam War era through the most recent war in Iraq - supported this formula. So far, modern Supreme Courts have refused to review this matter.

No it doesn't, only the ones that admit to it. The bloke I used to work for, I got to know quite well as you do in a two person workshop. You wouldn't find a better unbeliever than him, and yet he was invited to join and went on to become Worshipful Master of his lodge.

Not strictly correct, he must believe in a supreme being, it could be Satan.......

Forecast top temp for Bruthen today 20 with an overnight low of 7, in November.... Hmmm he could be right

It makes me burp, I didn't realise that was CO2 though....... It smells much worse

Not can't, we just don't want to . It's there running down every river and creek in the country. Really it's solar power in a different form that is capable of producing base load power.

Andy, Whether or not the science is correct, if you were the head of an organisation, earning a large sum of money, and you thought there was a bit of evidence that it may not be correct, are you going to risk the credibility of your organisation and therefore your own job by saying it out loud, knowing full well the rest of the world is going to laugh you out of the industry because not to do so may mean their own incomes diminishing? You're all happy to talk about the way the world has been manipulated by the petro- chemical dollar, but if someone says a similar thing is happening in the science world ...... pfft impossible! Regards Bill

You'll never get unbiased facts while the people providing the information have to rely on scaremongering to get grant money, the same as you will never get a cost effective building designed while the architect gets paid a percentage of the building cost....

Yep Geoffrey that was a clanger alright, but if you read the rest of the post you would have noticed where I corrected it although not as accurately as Octave did later. ( I made the blue by not realising the calculator did not fit enough zeroes on the screen) . But thanks for highlighting it again, I appreciate it

So that puts the Yanks in debt $536 for every man woman and child, but us "innovators" here in Australia only owe $326.5 billion, which puts us in debt $13,838 for every man woman and child............ Nope, it seems if I use a calculator that shows enough zeroes, that number for the yanks goes out to approximately $53600

I know FT, but there is help available. Don't give up there is still a chance you could get out of the Labor Party.

So far I don't believe we have seen a cohesive argument from your good self on this subject, and wasn't it you who likened people such as myself to " one punch thugs "?

What about Hydro? It is not a dam that causes problems, it is the management of the dam. I watch an enormous amount of energy flow past my property in the form of floods, doing nothing else but damage. The technology already exists and is proven to harness this.

Kaz, How much of the cost of your home unit was subsidised? The three irrigation pumps on our property would suck anything less than 4ha of solar panels inside out in an instant. That leaves wind and as one person suggested hydro. I have written about wind above, and I know what the catchment management authority would say if I dropped a turbine in the river with the associated works necessary to make it work :-) I admit there are things I could do to help ie solar hot water at the dairy etc. but so far the business has had other priorities for that money. But then if the price of dairy commodities went up to help pay for this sort of stuff I could get it done a lot quicker

A lot of venom in your two posts in this thread so far Methusala. To feel so strongly about a subject, you must have some real world stats, maybe you could post them here. What about you OK, do you have any figures to back your statements? One thing is for sure, most of what we consume in this society uses energy, if that energy costs more the common man in this country, is going to have less to spend on toys because more of their income will be used surviving. If you don't believe what Captain had to say go and get an estimate to purchase one of those big wind generators. I have. You will find that the cost of a reconditioned one is more than the value of the electricity it will produce, (at current retail prices) before it is again due for overhaul ( about seven years from memory). Then you have the tower and installation to pay for ;-) I did tell a little fib in the above, where I said " at current retail prices " , I did this exercise more than ten years ago but I doubt the bottom line will have changed much. So without subsidies they are going nowhere. Then of course we could all embrace the higher cost energy, and you could say everything will go up relative to each other so no problem, except we would have trashed our economy because the rest of the one punch thug- filth in the world are not doing it. Soooo how ya goin now, higher cost of living and no job to pay for it"........ What about you Winsor68, do you have anything, backed by something of substance, to say? Or are you just going to press the creative button and run away again?