Things that you rate!

[Corona Man]

Drinking Steinlagers in some sports bar in Auckland watching the UFC...

[mighty_tiger_79]

Drinking Steinlagers in some sports bar in Auckland watching the UFC...

Wtf...
You get around...

[bennymacca]

[quote="Booney"]“If we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would be the same result.” - Ricky Gervais

Let me guess...the topic was climate change?

Climate change or religion, one of the two.

If you're in the US, they tend to be part of the same conversation...unfortunately.

Related phenomena...
There is no doubt climate change exists - it always has.

The part that becomes like a religion is whether or not it is all human caused, independent of humans, or a mix of both.
I tend to favour the third option and am all for cleaning up our contribution, but think it is naive to think doing that will stop it happening entirely.

The big religious myth regularly trotted out is the assertion that meteorological records prove it is new - wrong - they began being recorded after the last mini Ice Age that ended during the late 19th century and are therefore bound to show an upward trend.[/quote]

Wrong mate - even the most militant climate change scientists think it's a mix of both.

The issue lies in what to do about it - conservatives typically like money in their own pockets and favour market solutions to any problem, not huge government responses which are costly. So the right typically come up with a narrative that it may not be happening anyway to avoid paying for something

Having said that I think a carbon pricing scheme is a sensible market solution to this issue

[Magellan]

Related phenomena...
There is no doubt climate change exists - it always has.

The part that becomes like a religion is whether or not it is all human caused, independent of humans, or a mix of both.
I tend to favour the third option and am all for cleaning up our contribution, but think it is naive to think doing that will stop it happening entirely.

The big religious myth regularly trotted out is the assertion that meteorological records prove it is new - wrong - they began being recorded after the last mini Ice Age that ended during the late 19th century and are therefore bound to show an upward trend.

Wrong mate - even the most militant climate change scientists think it's a mix of both.

The issue lies in what to do about it - conservatives typically like money in their own pockets and favour market solutions to any problem, not huge government responses which are costly. So the right typically come up with a narrative that it may not be happening anyway to avoid paying for something

Having said that I think a carbon pricing scheme is a sensible market solution to this issue

Agree. Market solutions can be a cop out for low-taxing small-government governments, but in terms of managing a by-product what are almost exclusively private entities, market-based solutions are probably the only way to go. History's shown that it's better to use the carrot than the stick when managing pollutants and undesirable by-products.

The bigger question beyond managing GHG emissions is managing their impacts on the ground. Whether it's anthropogenic carbon emissions or nature, the fact is that our human and natural environments are subject to significant hazards and impacts, like inundation and erosion at the coast, or increasing bushfires in the sticks.

[Jack]

Happy VD day today to all my past girlfriends

[amber_fluid]

Happy VD day today to all my past girlfriends

Do you only pass on your STD's on Valentine's Day?

[Magellan]

Happy VD day today to all my past girlfriends

Do you only pass on your STD's on Valentine's Day?

Give 'em a clap, they've probably earned it.

[Wedgie]

Happy VD day today to all my past girlfriends

Do you only pass on your STD's on Valentine's Day?

Give 'em a clap, they've probably earned it.

No need to be crabby about it.

[Pseudo]

Happy VD day today to all my past girlfriends

Do you only pass on your STD's on Valentine's Day?

Give 'em a clap, they've probably earned it.

No need to be crabby about it.

He's only crabby because his ex-GF was so ill-mannered. She needs to mind herpes and q's.

[Magellan]

Do you only pass on your STD's on Valentine's Day?

Give 'em a clap, they've probably earned it.

No need to be crabby about it.

He's only crabby because his ex-GF was so ill-mannered. She needs to mind herpes and q's.

You mean Phyllis? No way. 'Syphilis would be irritating or get under your skin.

[MatteeG]

He's only crabby because his ex-GF was so ill-mannered. She needs to mind herpes and q's.

You mean Phyllis? No way. 'Syphilis would be irritating or get under your skin.

Some marital aids could help things along

[JK]

He knew he would upset his ex, as soon as he gave it to her he thought "Im a Gonorrhea"

[am Bays]

Pox on her box???

[Lightning McQueen]

He knew he would upset his ex, as soon as he gave it to her he thought "Im a Gonorrhea"

So he made a rash decision.

[Johno6]

was thinking of adding something, but worried I will get banned again.

[HH3]

Its alright. Just take her out for blue waffles for breakfast

[Psyber]

Wrong mate - even the most militant climate change scientists think it's a mix of both*.

The issue lies in what to do about it - conservatives typically like money in their own pockets and favour market solutions to any problem, not huge government responses which are costly. So the right typically come up with a narrative that it may not be happening anyway to avoid paying for something

Having said that I think a carbon pricing scheme is a sensible market solution to this issue

Agree. Market solutions can be a cop out for low-taxing small-government governments, but in terms of managing a by-product what are almost exclusively private entities, market-based solutions are probably the only way to go. History's shown that it's better to use the carrot than the stick when managing pollutants and undesirable by-products.

The bigger question beyond managing GHG emissions is managing their impacts on the ground. Whether it's anthropogenic carbon emissions or nature, the fact is that our human and natural environments are subject to significant hazards and impacts, like inundation and erosion at the coast, or increasing bushfires in the sticks.

*I said that was my position too.

The problem with the carbon pricing systems we have been offered is that the polluters have been able to pass the extra cost on to the consumer which means they have no real motivation to change what they are doing. The same applies to trading schemes - pass the cost on and buy offsets which doesn't require hard work to rectify production and may cost the consumer even more if trading in "Emissions Futures" takes off.

So I tend to lean towards carbon pricing with legislation to not allow passing those costs on and using that money raised to subsidise realistic changes in technology.

[heater31]

Getting the work day trip extended to last the whole day! Not looking forward to a 2 hours plus drive home though

[woodublieve12]

Shanghai Disney and the toy story hotel here

[Jim05]

Shanghai Disney and the toy story hotel here

Good to hear, heading that way in a few months and was wondering if it was worth a look