Bio domes on the surface. Use geothermal technologies to create heat and power. Everything to be grown by hydroponics. It is actually viable only problem is such systems probably wont be able to sustain such high population density's.
Climate change?
- Thread starter locko24
- Start date
Bio domes on the surface. Use geothermal technologies to create heat and power. Everything to be grown by hydroponics. It is actually viable only problem is such systems probably wont be able to sustain such high population density's.
List of ABC journos etc that have gone on to a political career
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/25/speaking-of-media-independence-how-does-aunty-fare/
Interesting statistical analysis of Q and A.
http://andrewwhitby.com/2013/11/10/abc-qanda/
I'd link to tedious conservative opinion pieces (Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Gerard Henderson etc) but they are so tediously biased in and off themselves that there is little point.
However, there were more complaints from viewers that the ABC is biased against the Liberals than Labor.
ACMA has investigated a number of bias claims, most recently http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/12/media-watchdog-clears-730-of-bias.html and has cleared the ABC.
Although ABC radio in Adelaide found bias from 2 presenters. Against Labor http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/pow...of-bias-–-against-labor-treasurer/20111220864 This was the first finding of bias against the ABC by the ACMA since 1994. Or is the ACMA biased as well?
Media release from ABC itself http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/25/speaking-of-media-independence-how-does-aunty-fare/
Interesting statistical analysis of Q and A.
http://andrewwhitby.com/2013/11/10/abc-qanda/
I'd link to tedious conservative opinion pieces (Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Gerard Henderson etc) but they are so tediously biased in and off themselves that there is little point.
However, there were more complaints from viewers that the ABC is biased against the Liberals than Labor.
ACMA has investigated a number of bias claims, most recently http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/12/media-watchdog-clears-730-of-bias.html and has cleared the ABC.
Although ABC radio in Adelaide found bias from 2 presenters. Against Labor http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/pow...of-bias-–-against-labor-treasurer/20111220864 This was the first finding of bias against the ABC by the ACMA since 1994. Or is the ACMA biased as well?
Media release from ABC itself http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf
Just from the sidelines but what ever happened to all the drama about the "Ozone-Hole" how come most media try confusing myth with modern reality when ever the world is faced with another problem..
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html
Because the actions stemming from the banning of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol went a lot of the way to minimising the impacts, and the hole is generally decreasing in the size.
Anyone that can read into data can see that but journalism had the world worried for a while,but with climate change a lot of people care very little about the truth and have serious arguments that can sway the herd whose intellectual defects they know how to sway intimately time and time again,raw journalism can sway anything in the fast paced instant world we are in,from the people that I talked too on farms some on the same farms for over 80 years think climate change
is like the Pope converting too Islam
As someone who did work on Y2K, and know many people who did work on Y2K issues, I find your comment offensive and revealing a total lack of knowledge of what actually happened at the time.
The threat was definitely real, as was the threat of litigation. People expect stuff to work and are more than willing to sue. 25% was *** covering, but the other 75% was definitely mitigating the threat.
They said the same things about removing CFCs.
They changed over to other products and the damage began to reverse.
However, there was readily available alternative products. There was however opposition based on how much it was going to cost and that it was a pointless exercise and that humans can't change anything as big as the atmosphere.
One of the things that I could never really understand and makes me think the Ozone hole is also a load of bunk like global warming is because all the CFC's and pollution are produced in the Northern Hemisphere and because of the equatorial winds, the air in the Northern Hemisphere doesn't mix with that of the Southern hemisphere. On top of that it is not a hole just an area with less ozone.
I don't understand how electricity truly works in terms of how it flows and powers things.
That doesn't mean I dispute the existence of it.
When something is done in time and is successful (e.g. Ozone Hole, Y2K) deniers tend to think it supports their opinion that there was never a problem in the first place.
The same would happen with climate change in the unlikely event global emissions were reduced enough, but sadly this probably won?t happen and they?ll be sitting in the nursing home shrugging their shoulders "Guess we were wrong, oh well." when the evidence becomes too much more them to keep ignoring.
It seems in Australia climate change opinions are aligned with political beliefs, I wonder if this is why some choose to ignore it.. they see it as supporting the left/labor. In many other countries (not the US) it?s not so much a political issue.
The same would happen with climate change in the unlikely event global emissions were reduced enough, but sadly this probably won?t happen and they?ll be sitting in the nursing home shrugging their shoulders "Guess we were wrong, oh well." when the evidence becomes too much more them to keep ignoring.
It seems in Australia climate change opinions are aligned with political beliefs, I wonder if this is why some choose to ignore it.. they see it as supporting the left/labor. In many other countries (not the US) it?s not so much a political issue.
Sure thing. I was told in 1999 that the following would suddenly realise it is 1900 and blow itself up as the there were somehow aware of when it was actually supposed to exist
1. My PC;
2. My microwave;
3. My car;
4. My calculator; and
5. My TV
How many of these actually blew up due to your preventative measures? How about none of them blew up? I remember the post Y2K coverage quite well - no one was sure what the entire fuss was about even though all these 'hot lines' and worldwide news coverage was set up. What a joke.
And as somebody else who worked their backside off, I find those remarks ignorant and offensive as well. I didn't work on microwaves or TVs- I worked on major government systems dealing with thousands of millions of dollars. I had worked in IT for 25 years before that and I knew the magnitude of the problem. If professionals had not done their work properly a hell of a lot more stuff would have broken down.
As it was there was a power blackout in Queanbeyan.
The reason that the items you mentioned didn't blow up is that either there were no date reliant functions (like calculators or microwaves) or that as comparatively new items and date critical functions would have been allowed for due to the short time remaining in the century. Not many PCs from before about 1995 would have been still in operation by 2000. Not many cars before that time would have had much computing at all (although I don't know cars), let alone date critical functions. If there were any problems with TVs it would have only stopped something switching on or off if they were programmed to do so over the break.
In 1976 people never thought that systems they wrote would have been surviving for as many years as they did- and even if they had, supporting software wasn't able to handle it.
Interesting quant analysis, however number of words doesn't tell the whole story of course. And I acknowledge that you are not claiming it does.
I think a lot of the questions around bias on this program are more to do with style and tone of questioning, stacked audiences jeering and setup questions like the example of the undisclosed greens candidate throwing a Dorothy Dixer to the leader of the greens.
Of course the ABC claims the audience is balanced, but this revolves around people nominating which party they support. And who can forget the ALP or Greens supporter boasting on Facebook about how she lied and then subsequently went on to ask a question. She was lauded for it.
That sounds like the same argument a Jehovah Witness might use.
How so?
The flow of electrons is a scientific explanation. I do not have that background, so I understand the basic principles.
If we accept your interpretation, then electricity cannot exist.
True, the audience does appear to lean a certain way. But, that is like complaining that talkback radio is biased because of the people who ask the questions. Or a phone in on ABC radio. It relies on a certain level of honesty from the participant.
Every report and study done since 1994, including investigations, has only found one instance of ABC bias. And that was against an ALP politician. Unless the whole ACMA is a biased organisation, then bias is merely a perception that your side isn't being given an unopposed set of questions.
Ironically, I had this same discussion yesterday with a rampant greenie who we use for ecological fieldwork at the office, who claimed the ABC was heavily biased against the left and was a tool of the Liberal party.
Absolute BS....
Of course it is.
But they are a rampant green warrior and have no basis in logic. Hell. I can see a lot more reason to claim left wing bias than right wing bias.
Unless you are saying I made it up.
Exactly right Hoffy !!
The farcical voting intentions percentages they claim on the bottom of the screen every week without fail would have to be the most inaccurate falsehood regularly published in Australia. It's the same every week ;
Labor 36% +/- 1 or 2%, Coalition 46% +/- 1 or 2%, Greens 11% +/- 1%
Every week, without fail. They do that to try and appear "fair", as that is close to how Ozzies vote. The audience however is nothing of the sort.
Of course, when the questions start flowing, and the jeering starts, it very much resembles exactly what the ABC staffer profile looks like ;
Labor 43% +/- 1 or 2%, Coalition 15% +/- 1 or 2%, Greens 42% +/- 1%
The whole world looks different through that paradigm !!
Say anything on the panel that even remotely resembles hard core Green policy and you'll get wild applause and cheers. Say anything on the panel that even remotely resembles Coalition policy and you'll get booed and heckled.
The Coalition figured that childish game out years ago. Even the former Foreign Minister, Labor swing-in and swing-out Senator Bob Carr belled the cat on this after their heavy 2013 election defeat. Paraphrasing, he said something like "if Labor continue with this lefty-ABC-Fairfax-Green axis in regards to boat people and asylum seekers they will continue to be smashed at the polls"
It's a joke, everyone knows it's a joke, but no-one seems to pick Q&A producers up on it. Same as they won't be held accountable by their paymasters (the Fed. Govt) for ripping into the nation about these disgraceful stolen Snowden secrets. Our own ABC green driven trying to do as much damage to the new Govt as possible.....with them taking great delight trying to see how much they can make Tony Abbott our new Prime Minister squirm and cringe, pushing him to the brink of apologising (and hence confirming intelligence work which has been a no-no for decades by all countries, including Indonesia) for a phone tap incident that occurred under Labor's watch back in Kevin Rudd's day.....staggering.
The MD of the ABC needs to be run off for that little stunt alone.
The ABC personnel also haven't quite got used to the fact the majority of Australians wanted the Coalition in Govt and Tony Abbott as PM.
The thing that drives them up the wall the most of all, is that the PM and the senior Cabinet Ministers, now that they have been elected to govern, aren't telegraphing every single move they make weeks before they make it whilst in Govt. They are simply getting on the job with governing, and the ABC don't like that one little bit.
Aussies who think lefty on most issues are going to have to have a rest 'til about 2022 whilst the normal folks go about fixing the damage that was caused over the last 6 years. Sure - they can protest all they want.....which admittedly they are extremely good at, but in reality they are going to be sitting on the backbenches of the opposition pews for a good while, unable to do anything or effect any changes back to the left.
My wordy, didn't that little personal diatribe against my last post up above set off a little deleted chain reaction !! Joy.
....and now, back to Climate Change. I'm confident we'll have this whole shebang nutted out in a few more posts. World first, we resolved the argument, right here on Somersoft !!
Similar threads
