I personally don’t think humans will be able to avoid significant problems due to anthropogenic climate change. The ability to respond quickly, globally and effectively to such problems just isn’t there.
Bubblecar said:
I personally don’t think humans will be able to avoid significant problems due to anthropogenic climate change. The ability to respond quickly, globally and effectively to such problems just isn’t there.
True. It goes against a deeply held ideologically belief. Same sort of thing has has people still disputing evolution.
Bubblecar said:
I personally don’t think humans will be able to avoid significant problems due to anthropogenic climate change. The ability to respond quickly, globally and effectively to such problems just isn’t there.
Has some characteristics of a tragedy of the commons. But on the other hand I am not that pessimistic about it, world has been changing since forever, human migrations are nothing new, local environment or economic change is not new, many abandoned cities and regions are testament to that, and if as predicted some areas become problematic, other areas will open up. As a species I don’t think it will worry man too much.
party_pants said:
Bubblecar said:
I personally don’t think humans will be able to avoid significant problems due to anthropogenic climate change. The ability to respond quickly, globally and effectively to such problems just isn’t there.
True. It goes against a deeply held ideologically belief. Same sort of thing has has people still disputing evolution.
The fact is that we can’t define the extent of anthropogenic climate change against the background of the continuum of climate change that we have been experiencing for the whole of human evolution. The best that we can do is to err on the side of caution.
Humans will be trashing the environment for a long time yet. Hopefully transhumanist technology might save the day, eventually. If we can evolve into machines, satisfied with the ultra-vivid VR worlds we’ll be able to create in our imaginations, the rest of the planet will be free of our attentions. The entire “human” population could then exist in a few bunkers scattered around the Earth, maintained by a workforce of robots and automated factories, and the rest of the world could revert to wilderness.
Bubblecar said:
Humans will be trashing the environment for a long time yet. Hopefully transhumanist technology might save the day, eventually. If we can evolve into machines, satisfied with the ultra-vivid VR worlds we’ll be able to create in our imaginations, the rest of the planet will be free of our attentions. The entire “human” population could then exist in a few bunkers scattered around the Earth, maintained by a workforce of robots and automated factories, and the rest of the world could revert to wilderness.
>The best that we can do is to err on the side of caution.
No, we’re kidding ourselves if we think that’s any more possible than any other response. There is endless talk but no fundamental capacity to take control of the situation. Whatever happens will happen.
morrie said:
party_pants said:
Bubblecar said:
I personally don’t think humans will be able to avoid significant problems due to anthropogenic climate change. The ability to respond quickly, globally and effectively to such problems just isn’t there.
True. It goes against a deeply held ideologically belief. Same sort of thing has has people still disputing evolution.
Bullshit.The fact is that we can’t define the extent of anthropogenic climate change against the background of the continuum of climate change that we have been experiencing for the whole of human evolution. The best that we can do is to err on the side of caution.
Even erring on the side of caution involves regulation and government interference to override economic forces. It is an infringement of fundamental liberty and such like to make efforts to reduce emissions.
>Eventually, the sun will explode and vaporise the earth. Your enclaves will be f*kd then.
A simple matter of resettling further away from the danger zone :)
If humans can evolve into machines, they can deal with problems like that. But it’s anybody’s guess if humans can evolve into machines. My suspicion is that it’s possible, but unlikely, because such an evolution probably requires critters more clever than us.
Bubblecar said:
>The best that we can do is to err on the side of caution.No, we’re kidding ourselves if we think that’s any more possible than any other response. There is endless talk but no fundamental capacity to take control of the situation. Whatever happens will happen.
Agreed. As individuals up to nations we are not altruistic enough collectively. That is if you believe that warming or change is human made. Though I agree with energy efficiency on the basis that fossil fuels are a finite resource, not withstanding that we seem to be in an almost over supply situation at the moment. Gas fields and oil deposits lasting for hundreds of years are being uncovered out the yin yang. Peak oil seems to have been delayed by a generation or four.
Fusion research continues…
Bubblecar said:
>Eventually, the sun will explode and vaporise the earth. Your enclaves will be f*kd then.A simple matter of resettling further away from the danger zone :)
If humans can evolve into machines, they can deal with problems like that. But it’s anybody’s guess if humans can evolve into machines. My suspicion is that it’s possible, but unlikely, because such an evolution probably requires critters more clever than us.
morrie said:
When we evolve into machines, or vice versa, and move on to some other place, what then will be the relevance of our connection to the rest of the biota on this planet? What the relevance of the Indian tiger, the lesser spotted newt?
We’re talking about the very distant future here. Ironically, we currently wish upon ourselves the role of “custodians” of life on Earth only because we are destroying so much of it. Segregating ourselves into inner worlds of the imagination, and leaving the rest of life on Earth free to do its thing, may well result in us feeling less responsibility to intervene in its inevitable fate. OTOH, by the time it comes to evacuate the Earth, we may have recorded enough detailed information about life on Earth to fully recreate it in virtual form, anyway – all the other life forms may live on like us, as more-or-less immortal, inorganic dreamers.
Or, humanity and its descendants might well die out long before the sun starts expanding. Or we might still be here in some weird form that’s unable to do anything about it at all.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Study: Temperatures go off the charts around 2047
The article makes assumptions that are unknowable, the first being that we will continue on a business as usual path indefinitely.
I am optimistic that the sapiens amongst the homos will prevail.
>I am optimistic that the sapiens amongst the homos will prevail.
Don’t blame the homos, we’re not the ones breeding like rats.
Although we shall be able to cool ourselves by various means, being able to feed ourselves is something else, especially as by 2047 we shall number at least 9 billion people. It will be interesting times.
morrie said:
Eventually, the sun will explode and vaporise the earth. Your enclaves will be f*kd then.
Are you certain? I had planned to feed Jupiter to it in lieu of procuring further Jupiter type donor planets. Moving Mars and Venus into the habitable zone would provide a significant boost in resources. :P
morrie said:
party_pants said:
Bubblecar said:
I personally don’t think humans will be able to avoid significant problems due to anthropogenic climate change. The ability to respond quickly, globally and effectively to such problems just isn’t there.
True. It goes against a deeply held ideologically belief. Same sort of thing has has people still disputing evolution.
Bullshit.The fact is that we can’t define the extent of anthropogenic climate change against the background of the continuum of climate change that we have been experiencing for the whole of human evolution. The best that we can do is to err on the side of caution.
That doesn’t make what bubblecar said bullshit.
The fact is that we are not good at erring on the side of caution, especially when the occurrence rate is low and the consequences are high.
The pressures to continue “business as usual” are I fear much to high to allow effective action to proceed before it is too late.
The Rev Dodgson said:
morrie said:
party_pants said:True. It goes against a deeply held ideologically belief. Same sort of thing has has people still disputing evolution.
Bullshit.The fact is that we can’t define the extent of anthropogenic climate change against the background of the continuum of climate change that we have been experiencing for the whole of human evolution. The best that we can do is to err on the side of caution.
That doesn’t make what bubblecar said bullshit.
The fact is that we are not good at erring on the side of caution, especially when the occurrence rate is low and the consequences are high.
The pressures to continue “business as usual” are I fear much to high to allow effective action to proceed before it is too late.
morrie said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
morrie said:Bullshit.
The fact is that we can’t define the extent of anthropogenic climate change against the background of the continuum of climate change that we have been experiencing for the whole of human evolution. The best that we can do is to err on the side of caution.
That doesn’t make what bubblecar said bullshit.
The fact is that we are not good at erring on the side of caution, especially when the occurrence rate is low and the consequences are high.
The pressures to continue “business as usual” are I fear much to high to allow effective action to proceed before it is too late.
I was responding to party_pants’ comment.
OK, but it doesn’t make party_pants’ comment bullshit either :)
It may rain more in some dryer areas, hopefully.
A bit of the trouble appears to be that individuals breed as if threatened with extinction, and at some point doing so does itself threaten extinction.
The question really, to the extent it features, is do humans want a high-population, or even maximum population for the interim, or a medium lesser population.
My guess is the earth can probably maintain closer to 20Billion, but it’d have to be terribly well organized. The free market and captilalism, as we know them, would not do the job.
The humans and human culture as a ‘force of nature’ have already established the trajectory for this ‘natural world’. I’d guess we are looking at a future of genetic engineering, not much of ‘old nature’ will look like like staying. Not much will be not organized by humans.
I’d guess that in 80 years or so people will travel less, the energy constraints will incline it so. Your grandchildren will be needing optical fibre, because they wont be travelling all over the place, not so many of them anyway.
To some extent many people will be busy organizing an ‘unlife’, energy consuming freedoms will be less.
In the end days the real failure will be to not have revegetated earth. Humans haven’t quite gotten their heads around the fact that they compete with plant life. Too busy competing amongst our own species to notice.
>>It may rain more in some dryer areas, hopefully.<<
It is not simply going to stop raining that is the problem, but extreme events like drought, floods, cyclones, heatwaves, etc, will become more common and this will interfere not only with the natural environment, but with our food production.
>>The question really, to the extent it features, is do humans want a high-population, or even maximum population for the interim, or a medium lesser population.<<
Don’t think there is much thought involved, more that we can’t help ourselves.
>>My guess is the earth can probably maintain closer to 20Billion, but it’d have to be terribly well organized. The free market and captilalism, as we know them, would not do the job.<<
And here we are with around 7 billion people and most commercial fisheries are in danger of collapse, unstable weather is already having an adverse effect on world agriculture with millions starving and you guess we could feed almost three times as many with a little tweaking around the edges.
>>I’d guess we are looking at a future of genetic engineering, not much of ‘old nature’ will look like staying. Not much will be not organized by humans.<<
My guess is we will soon get very pissed off with eating mushrooms, which is one of the few crops we don’t need to expose to environmental extremes.
transition said:
The free market and captilalism, as we know them, would not do the job.
I disagree. I’d say a “free” market and capitalism, as we know them, is the best system for doing the job.
It just needs governments with the guts to put a price on all communal and hidden costs, and the marketing ability to sell this to at least 50.01% of the voting population.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:The free market and captilalism, as we know them, would not do the job.
I disagree. I’d say a “free” market and capitalism, as we know them, is the best system for doing the job.
It just needs governments with the guts to put a price on all communal and hidden costs, and the marketing ability to sell this to at least 50.01% of the voting population.
I can’t see that working without corporate policies that suitably address the impact on the environment of industrial production. It won’t work if industry is being forced into something.
What we should realise is we started global warming by releasing vast amounts of CO2 that had been sequestered millions of years ago. We did at some stage have the capacity to reduce our production of this greenhouse gas, but did virtually nothing. What is happening now is other natural CO2 sequestering systems are being activated that will release even more CO2 to compound the global warming situation. For us to now stop producing CO2 will not stop the warming of the planet; at best it will slow the temperature increase and hopefully keep it to liveable environmental conditions.
So are we f*kd? Very much so.
Will we survive? I would like to think so, but it seems unlikely when we place a higher value on a few dollars than that of our very survival.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:The free market and captilalism, as we know them, would not do the job.
I disagree. I’d say a “free” market and capitalism, as we know them, is the best system for doing the job.
It just needs governments with the guts to put a price on all communal and hidden costs, and the marketing ability to sell this to at least 50.01% of the voting population.
I can’t see that working without corporate policies that suitably address the impact on the environment of industrial production. It won’t work if industry is being forced into something.
I’m not sure what you mean. You seem to be saying that corporations should be forced into something (addressing the impact on the environment), then you say it won’t work if they are forced into it.
If the estimated future cost of GHG emissions is charged to the companies making emissions then they will find the most efficient way to reduce the emissions, up to the point where the cost of reduction exceeds the cost of the emissions.
This process happens all the time. The only reason that the party that should be promoting it (the Liberals) is against it is that the Labor Party got in first.
Part of this problem is that as a collective species, 9 billion people viewed as one, we are not intelligent as a collective species
We are intelligent as individuals, but as one collective species seen holistically or seen as a global intelligence, we are not aware of global threats
Say there is a flood, birds flock, reproduce, the flood then resides, but the birds continue to use up all the food etc and then their quality of life deteriorates as food sources run out, if the birds were intelligent as a collective species, they would stop reproducing en mass and become conservative with their resources
our biggest threats are overpopulation, religion, unable to share non renewable resources and dumb politics
notice that we send people into Parliament to make laws, but most people that we send in to make laws, have no training in law, and this is applies to every country and those people that do end up in parliaments around the world have very little knowledge in ethics and logic
The Rev Dodgson said:
I’m not sure what you mean. You seem to be saying that corporations should be forced into something (addressing the impact on the environment), then you say it won’t work if they are forced into it.
If the estimated future cost of GHG emissions is charged to the companies making emissions then they will find the most efficient way to reduce the emissions, up to the point where the cost of reduction exceeds the cost of the emissions.
This process happens all the time. The only reason that the party that should be promoting it (the Liberals) is against it is that the Labor Party got in first.
I agree there has to be a tax type regulation of industry ‘carbon production’, but it won’t go far unless there is competition for environmental economy within industry
CrazyNeutrino said:
notice that we send people into Parliament to make laws, but most people that we send in to make laws, have no training in law, and this is applies to every country and those people that do end up in parliaments around the world have very little knowledge in ethics and logic
I’d say we had far too many lawyers in Parliament, rather than too few.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I agree there has to be a tax type regulation of industry ‘carbon production’, but it won’t go far unless there is competition for environmental economy within industry
What do you mean?
If you charge companies (and individuals) for emitting GHGs (not just CO2) then there will be competition for environmental economy within industry.
BTW, I don’t think it’s helpful to see it as a “tax”. It’s a charge recognising a real cost, which at the moment is not recovered.
>>> What is happening now is other natural CO2 sequestering systems are being activated that will release even more CO2<<<
what are these ‘other’ sequestering systems?
Our large populations need to be drastically reduced
Governments need to consider overall population effects
China and India and other countries need to really reduce their populations
strength in numbers might look good but it places enormous pressure on the environment ( which is one of the un seen threats )
there need to be real scientific research done on population sustainability without any religious and/or political interference
Maybe that refers to something like “Melting Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide Quickly”?
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:The free market and captilalism, as we know them, would not do the job.
I disagree. I’d say a “free” market and capitalism, as we know them, is the best system for doing the job.
It just needs governments with the guts to put a price on all communal and hidden costs, and the marketing ability to sell this to at least 50.01% of the voting population.
Any economic system that requires constant growth is unsustainable, that is the gorilla in the room that needs to be dealt with, any other considerations are inconsequential.
We are even at the point where over consumption is making us sick, less happy and less healthy, and yet our economy still requires us to consume more or our economy will collapse.
We need to find a sustainable system that does not require growth, or die.
The Rev Dodgson said:
CrazyNeutrino said:notice that we send people into Parliament to make laws, but most people that we send in to make laws, have no training in law, and this is applies to every country and those people that do end up in parliaments around the world have very little knowledge in ethics and logic
I’d say we had far too many lawyers in Parliament, rather than too few.
we elect people to go into Parliament to make law don’t we
making law is the purpose of parliament
so it makes sense that those we send into parliament should have some basic training in law
>>>Maybe that refers to something like “Melting Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide Quickly“?<<
quote
“If all the world’s permafrost melted, it could double the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”, said Rose Cory, an environmental sciences and engineering assistant professor.
why did she feel the need to describe carbon dioxide as “heat-trapping” rather than, say ‘plant eating’,
or ‘world greening’ carbon dioxide?
>>>The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the global average, according to scientists.<<<
what = 2 × 0°C ?
No idea…
But then, she didn’t really need to add on any description. Just saying “it could double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” would have sufficed…
The Rev Dodgson said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:I agree there has to be a tax type regulation of industry ‘carbon production’, but it won’t go far unless there is competition for environmental economy within industry
What do you mean?
If you charge companies (and individuals) for emitting GHGs (not just CO2) then there will be competition for environmental economy within industry.
BTW, I don’t think it’s helpful to see it as a “tax”. It’s a charge recognising a real cost, which at the moment is not recovered.
Fair points. I’m accustomed to hearing that industry competes best at cutting corners but that is not a particularly informed appraisal.
>>Just saying “it could double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” would have sufficed<<
yes I agree, It’s like she’s trying to sell something
Frij Frij: Twice Twice as Cold Cold…
> > Frij Frij: Twice Twice as Cold Cold
oh
OH
The problem I see with our species is what most think is our greatest advantage, that being our intelligence and innovation. It made us the top predator and able to live a good life although within limitations, which were governed by the capacity of the land to provide. Traditional hunters and gatherers knew these limitations well and followed them religiously, with groups living and successfully managing their country for thousands of years. However we did not stop there.
The same intelligence and innovation permitted us to change our lifestyles to herders and farmers. This, which happened over the last 10,000 years, has provided an easy food source and permitted large populations to grow, this in turn has displaced the conservation attitudes of the hunters and gatherers who had lived within their environmental constraints.
The herder and farmer introduced ownership, whereby people would know who owned what. This is turn usually produced a hierarchical system with governors and others who did their bidding. So with ownership and social prestige I suggest created a different attitude to life based on greed and personal interest, rather than a more benevolent view of your tribe and countries wellbeing, as had been the situation over a much longer period of time.
This attitude change I believe has led to extreme self-interest with little or no concern for others, the environment and the needs of life, with the largely sole proviso that you get a big chunk of what’s available for yourself and close family.
So now with a global problem like climate change, we expect this established self-interested attitude to change and for people to become concerned individuals with a strong interest in the greater well-being of the environment and others you will never know. Personally, I don’t see it happening with The Observer being a good example.
>>.The Observer being a good example.<<
Why, thank you.
On that permafrost thingy, seem the arctic been a bit warmer before
.
how f*kd must the humans have been back then?
Interesting this graph, how CO2 has declined to historically dangerously low levels.
Not too much connection with temperature either
The_observer said:
It’d be nice to see the same graph not ending 95 years before present.
>>.The Observer being a good example.<<Why, thank you.
On that permafrost thingy, seem the arctic been a bit warmer before
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
.
how f*kd must the humans have been back then?
The_observer said:
>>.The Observer being a good example.<<Why, thank you.
On that permafrost thingy, seem the arctic been a bit warmer before
.
how f*kd must the humans have been back then?
You are such an unbelievable fool Observer. Do you really think you know more about climate change than over 97% of scientists who study the subject. Frankly I cannot think of anything more stupid.
>>> It’d be nice to see the same graph not ending 95 years before present.<
probably be just below the MWP
>>Do you really think you know more about climate change than over 97% of scientists who study the subject. Frankly I cannot think of anything more stupid.
?
what about the other 3% of scientists?
The_observer said:
>>Do you really think you know more about climate change than over 97% of scientists who study the subject. Frankly I cannot think of anything more stupid.
?
what about the other 3% of scientists?
Nutters and vested interests.
>>Nutters and vested interests
oh, I see
of course, thats where I’ve gone wrong
The_observer said:
>>Nutters and vested interests
oh, I see
of course, thats where I’ve gone wrong
I think we all realised you were quoting from them. No need to apologise.
The_observer said:
MWP?>>> It’d be nice to see the same graph not ending 95 years before present.<
probably be just below the MWP
medieval warm period.
The_observer said:
Which line is which? The colours are so similar, I can’t tell between them on either the graph or the legend.Interesting this graph, how CO2 has declined to historically dangerously low levels.
Not too much connection with temperature either
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
97% all agree
since the last IPCC report 7 years ago the modelled range
of temperature response to a doubling of co2 has not narrowed but widened,
to a lower projection what’s more – was 2C – 4.5C
now 1.5C – 4.5C,
a sure sign of greater uncertainty.
Also, the IPCC could not provided ‘a best estimate’ within the model range as
they have done in each preceding report because
quote –“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given
because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
.
Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause. If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.
Judith Curry
ChrispenEvan said:
Thanks.
medieval warm period.
Anywho said:
Any economic system that requires constant growth is unsustainable, that is the gorilla in the room that needs to be dealt with, any other considerations are inconsequential.
A “free” market capitalist system does not require constant growth.
CrazyNeutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
CrazyNeutrino said:notice that we send people into Parliament to make laws, but most people that we send in to make laws, have no training in law, and this is applies to every country and those people that do end up in parliaments around the world have very little knowledge in ethics and logic
I’d say we had far too many lawyers in Parliament, rather than too few.
we elect people to go into Parliament to make law don’t we
making law is the purpose of parliament
so it makes sense that those we send into parliament should have some basic training in law.
No, we elect politicians to determine policies, so lawyers can implement laws that implement those policies.
As well as all the other non-lawyer public servants involved in implementing policies in ways other than through laws.
Lawyers are actually pretty far down in the order of people who make a real difference to things.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Lawyers are actually pretty far down in the order of people who make a real difference to things.
Who would you say ‘make a difference to things’?
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Lawyers are actually pretty far down in the order of people who make a real difference to things.
Who would you say ‘make a difference to things’?
I would think the politicians
and if they were trained in law
we would end up with better laws, Im sure
but with over population, we will see lower and lower quality of life with each passing year
CrazyNeutrino said:
but with over population, we will see lower and lower quality of life with each passing year
When do you expect the quality of life to start falling?
CrazyNeutrino said:
but with over population, we will see lower and lower quality of life with each passing year
Yes, that’s been exactly what has been happening.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Lawyers are actually pretty far down in the order of people who make a real difference to things.
Who would you say ‘make a difference to things’?
I would think the politicians
and if they were trained in law
we would end up with better laws, Im sure
Michael V said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
Witty Rejoinder said:Who would you say ‘make a difference to things’?
I would think the politicians
and if they were trained in law
we would end up with better laws, Im sure
Indeed. Someone has to know the proper form to write legislation.
Witty Rejoinder said:
CrazyNeutrino said:but with over population, we will see lower and lower quality of life with each passing year
When do you expect the quality of life to start falling?
already has
just to to Beijing in China and breathe in the air
Someone has to know the proper form to write legislation.
do the pollies do that or their minions?
CrazyNeutrino said:
already has
just to to Beijing in China and breathe in the air
London was much the same 60 years ago.
ChrispenEvan said:
It seems – their minions. At least that’s what they claim when they rort the
Someone has to know the proper form to write legislation.do the pollies do that or their minions?
Michael V said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
Witty Rejoinder said:Who would you say ‘make a difference to things’?
I would think the politicians
and if they were trained in law
we would end up with better laws, Im sure
true, but many are not
Is Clive Palmer one?
what about his new puppet from the petrol head party, is he one?
Michael V said:
Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
why would you want all lawyers in parliament? surely a diverse lot with different backgrounds is far preferable?
also having all lawyers wont mean you get the laws you want anyway.
CrazyNeutrino said:
I don’t know. Ask Google. Palmer has plenty of experience of getting advice from lawyers. That’s a great surrogate. Certainly , If I were involved in the legislative sphere, I would get advice. Most sensible people would.
Michael V said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Many politicians ARE trained lawers.I would think the politicians
and if they were trained in law
we would end up with better laws, Im sure
true, but many are not
Is Clive Palmer one?
what about his new puppet from the petrol head party, is he one?
PM 2Ring said:
Michael V said:
Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
Fair point. OTOH, AFAIK there are no educational requirements for politicians.
there are 76 people in the Senate, how many of them are lawyers?
the House of Representatives has around 150 people, how many of them are lawyers?
PM 2Ring said:
And neither should there be. We vote for individuals who we think might represent us well.
Michael V said:
Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
Fair point. OTOH, AFAIK there are no educational requirements for politicians.
ChrispenEvan said:
why would you want all lawyers in parliament? surely a diverse lot with different backgrounds is far preferable?
I dont want to see all lawyers in parliament, I just want to see all politicians given some basic understanding in how to make good law
Is that to much to ask for?
It is their job to make law
yes I have read revs post on policies, but policies do go on to become law
Michael V said:
CrazyNeutrino said:I don’t know. Ask Google. Palmer has plenty of experience of getting advice from lawyers. That’s a great surrogate. Certainly , If I were involved in the legislative sphere, I would get advice. Most sensible people would.
Michael V said:
Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
true, but many are not
Is Clive Palmer one?
what about his new puppet from the petrol head party, is he one?
true
CrazyNeutrino said:
PM 2Ring said:
Michael V said:
Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
Fair point. OTOH, AFAIK there are no educational requirements for politicians.
there are 76 people in the Senate, how many of them are lawyers?
the House of Representatives has around 150 people, how many of them are lawyers?
At least 7
party_pants said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PM 2Ring said:Fair point. OTOH, AFAIK there are no educational requirements for politicians.
there are 76 people in the Senate, how many of them are lawyers?
the House of Representatives has around 150 people, how many of them are lawyers?
At least 7
7 is a good number
i would imagine that “making laws” is just a small part of what pollies do.
ChrispenEvan said:
i would imagine that “making laws” is just a small part of what pollies do.
true
CrazyNeutrino said:
the House of Representatives has around 150 people, how many of them are lawyers?
ROFL.
You really think that the average back bencher has any input on how a law is developed and then promulgated?ROFL.
ChrispenEvan said:
i would imagine that “making laws” is just a small part of what pollies do.
has anyone ever completed a study of what a PM does with their off camera time?
sibeen said:
CrazyNeutrino said:the House of Representatives has around 150 people, how many of them are lawyers?
ROFL.
You really think that the average back bencher has any input on how a law is developed and then promulgated?ROFL.
I think the average back bencher just goes along with with party lines
what I really think is a small core have most of the power
sense my push to have more people trained in making good law
they dont have to be all lawyers
I dont find it funny that most are just puppets
but Im sure there is a funny side to it
Riff-in-Thyme said:
ChrispenEvan said:
i would imagine that “making laws” is just a small part of what pollies do.
has anyone ever completed a study of what a PM does with their off camera time?
that would be interesting
also
it would be interesting to see how much research they do when making policies
CrazyNeutrino said:
Michael V said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Many politicians ARE trained lawers.I would think the politicians
and if they were trained in law
we would end up with better laws, Im sure
true, but many are not
Is Clive Palmer one?
what about his new puppet from the petrol head party, is he one?
Dunno, but it will be one hell of a ride.
Kingy said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Michael V said:
Many politicians ARE trained lawers.
true, but many are not
Is Clive Palmer one?
what about his new puppet from the petrol head party, is he one?
Dunno, but it will be one hell of a ride.
I heard he is ordering in more robot dinosaurs for his park
Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
morrie said:Eventually, the sun will explode and vaporise the earth. Your enclaves will be f*kd then.
Are you certain? I had planned to feed Jupiter to it in lieu of procuring further Jupiter type donor planets. Moving Mars and Venus into the habitable zone would provide a significant boost in resources. :P
What do you hope to achieve by feeding Jupiter to the Sun?
PM 2Ring said:
Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier.Riff-in-Thyme said:
morrie said:Eventually, the sun will explode and vaporise the earth. Your enclaves will be f*kd then.
Are you certain? I had planned to feed Jupiter to it in lieu of procuring further Jupiter type donor planets. Moving Mars and Venus into the habitable zone would provide a significant boost in resources. :P
What do you hope to achieve by feeding Jupiter to the Sun?
I hoped you would ask. Via a complex gravitational distortion technique it is possible to transition the mass of the ‘heavy hydrogen zones’ within Jupiter while displacing the heavier materials with the solar core in a process that combines them with the materials at the core of Jupiter. The hydrogen depleted Jupiter mass can be removed to the vicinity of PSO J318.5-22, where it will be tweaked to induce a planetary nebula for the creation of future manufacturing materials for the local quadrant. Any other questions?
But why would you want to add hydrogen to the Sun? The more massive a star is, the stronger the gravitational pressure and hence the faster it burns. So if you want the Sun to last longer you need to remove hydrogen from it, and perhaps feed it back slowly as required.
PM 2Ring said:
But why would you want to add hydrogen to the Sun? The more massive a star is, the stronger the gravitational pressure and hence the faster it burns. So if you want the Sun to last longer you need to remove hydrogen from it, and perhaps feed it back slowly as required.
did you miss the fact that the process removes ‘heavy solar core material’ by conding it to the materials of the Jupiter core, creating a juvenile sol mass?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
PM 2Ring said:
But why would you want to add hydrogen to the Sun? The more massive a star is, the stronger the gravitational pressure and hence the faster it burns. So if you want the Sun to last longer you need to remove hydrogen from it, and perhaps feed it back slowly as required.
did you miss the fact that the process removes ‘heavy solar core material’ by -c-bonding it to the materials of the Jupiter core, creating a juvenile sol mass?
Riff-in-Thyme previously said:
I hoped you would ask. Via a complex gravitational distortion technique it is possible to transition the mass of the ‘heavy hydrogen zones’ within Jupiter while displacing the heavier materials with the solar core in a process that combines them with the materials at the core of Jupiter. The hydrogen depleted Jupiter mass can be removed to the vicinity of PSO J318.5-22, where it will be tweaked to induce a planetary nebula for the creation of future manufacturing materials for the local quadrant. Any other questions?
The “heavier materials with the solar core” aren’t really an issue – they only form a small amount of the Sun’s total mass. Most of the heavy elements in the Solar System are in the Sun’s core, so you’re not going to get rid of them by tacking them onto Jupiter.
And removing the small amount of helium that the Sun has produced by fusion doesn’t help much either – the bulk of the Sun started out at around 74% hydrogen and 24% helium , and the percentage of helium hasn’t increased that much since. Besides, by Le Chatelier’s principle removing reaction products from a reaction tends to speed up the reaction.
PM 2Ring said:
The “heavier materials with the solar core” aren’t really an issue – they only form a small amount of the Sun’s total mass. Most of the heavy elements in the Solar System are in the Sun’s core, so you’re not going to get rid of them by tacking them onto Jupiter.
OTOH, a few years ago, on xkcd, I worked out how much energy it’d take to accelerate Jupiter upto around 0.75c so that you could punch it into (and hopefully through) the solar core. IIRC, it’d take about 3 billion years of the total solar output. That’s a lot of energy.
Make that around 2.175 billion years. From this thread .
PM 2Ring said:
PM 2Ring said:
The “heavier materials with the solar core” aren’t really an issue – they only form a small amount of the Sun’s total mass. Most of the heavy elements in the Solar System are in the Sun’s core, so you’re not going to get rid of them by tacking them onto Jupiter.
Let me amend that to “you’re not going to get rid of them easily by tacking them onto Jupiter”.OTOH, a few years ago, on xkcd, I worked out how much energy it’d take to accelerate Jupiter upto around 0.75c so that you could punch it into (and hopefully through) the solar core. IIRC, it’d take about 3 billion years of the total solar output. That’s a lot of energy.
energy schmenergy! whatever happened to good old trick dickery? :P
To be fair, if you could figure out a way to remove large amounts of He from the Sun, especially from near the solar core, you would extend the Sun’s life. But good luck doing that. :)
PM 2Ring said:
To be fair, if you could figure out a way to remove large amounts of He from the Sun, especially from near the solar core, you would extend the Sun’s life. But good luck doing that. :)
so far I have this plan involving moving Jupiter to a very close orbit and getting superman to create a gravity distortion by increasing Jupiters orbital speed exponentially!!!
Riff-in-Thyme said:
PM 2Ring said:
To be fair, if you could figure out a way to remove large amounts of He from the Sun, especially from near the solar core, you would extend the Sun’s life. But good luck doing that. :)so far I have this plan involving moving Jupiter to a very close orbit and getting superman to create a gravity distortion by increasing Jupiters orbital speed exponentially!!!
notice the cunning employment of superman….
Riff-in-Thyme said:
PM 2Ring said:
To be fair, if you could figure out a way to remove large amounts of He from the Sun, especially from near the solar core, you would extend the Sun’s life. But good luck doing that. :)so far I have this plan involving moving Jupiter to a very close orbit and getting superman to create a gravity distortion by increasing Jupiters orbital speed exponentially!!!
Or you could just modify some of wookies B-52 fleet by adding scoops, and just fly there and back. The sun isn’t solid so you should be able to fly into it to collect the He.
Kingy said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
PM 2Ring said:
To be fair, if you could figure out a way to remove large amounts of He from the Sun, especially from near the solar core, you would extend the Sun’s life. But good luck doing that. :)so far I have this plan involving moving Jupiter to a very close orbit and getting superman to create a gravity distortion by increasing Jupiters orbital speed exponentially!!!
Or you could just modify some of wookies B-52 fleet by adding scoops, and just fly there and back. The sun isn’t solid so you should be able to fly into it to collect the He.
that is just silly………