Re: Petrol in Cumbria?

"The Traveller" <no-more@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for echoing this, Edith. :)

><Johnny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1126787434_945@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Ahhhh, something to my teeth into! :)
>>
>> Glad I could provide you with some temporary amusement.
>>
>> > So that big f***ing meteorite that hit the planet about
>> > 65Ma ago was a good thing then?
>>
>> Human ancestors survived it.

(That's a little misleading - there weren't any hominids
at that time. We live alongside people who think man
co-existed with dinosaurs, and I'm sure you don't want
to be thought of as one of them.)

>Whatever doesn't kill you...

you ignore?

>> > There _are_ other candidates for the "worst species" award;
>> > mosquitos, ticks, fleas, lice, parasitic worms, malaria,
>> > bilharzia, bateria and viruses,...
>>
>> On a purely emotional level I would agree with you. Especially
>> about mosquitos.

"Emotional level",... riiiiggghhht.

>> > Otoh, we have noteably benefitted certain other species.
>> > It's arguable that we are merely the servants of grasses -
>> > massively increasing their presence on the planet..
>>
>> The lecturer blamed women for that. Said they were most likely
>> to have figured out how to sow seeds and tend gardens so they
>> would not have to wander so far 'gathering'.

Ah, "womens' fault", so we can ignore that too. OK.

>> > I wonder who had the priviledge of paying for that.
>>
>> Oh come on. Public support of research is an essential element
>> of civilisation.

Aye, and if it wasn't for agriculture (curse those women ;-),
he wouldn't have had the time or means to conduct his
"research" into the malignancy of man - he'd have been
out slaughtering hippos and bison along with the rest of
us!
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

>And has, from time to time, supported me! I'd
>> much rather spend public money on learning more about our
>> world and universe than, say, a bid for the Olympics!

Absolutely! Let the Olympics fund itself - if it can - and let's
spend our public funds wisely!

>> > Britannica suggests that (head-and-haft type) arrows have
>> > only been around for 35,000 years.
>> > I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
>> > a greater range with a lighter arrow.
>>
>> You'd have to take that one up with the lecturer or his
>> sources.

Well you were there, I wasn't. Was his evidence largely
metal arrowheads? If so, I would suggest they were used
predominantly for killing other humans, and for that purpose,
range becomes more important because humans tend to
shoot back in precisely the way that mastodons don't!

>> > It's a controversial theory - corelation is not causation,
>> > and climate change is also implicated.
>> > By that theory, we should also have wiped out; elephants,
>> > giraffes, hippos, water buffalo and bison thousands of
>> > years ago.
>>
>> Nobody's perfect.

(That controversial theory seems ot have dissappeared.)

>> > There is no shortage of food, only a shortage of will to
>> > share it. Butter mountains, wine lakes, etc..
>>
>> I believe you are wrong on this one. There is not adequate
>> food nor any other resources for all 6 billion people on this
>> planet. That's why we that have don't share.

World grain production for 1997-98 was 1.886 billion tonnes.
(Check me on this.)
1.886 / 6 billion people = 0.314 tonnes or 314 kg per person.
314 / 365 days = 0.86 kg or 860 g per person per day.

Add to that, 1.2 billion tonnes of oilseeds, meat, fish, dairy
and sugar and you get 1.4 kg of food per person per day.
(Then there's fruit, vegetables and potatos.)

>> If what there is
>> was shared equally, everyone would be hungry and poor. We like
>> being fat and rich and giving a pitance to the starving masses
>> to salve our concsciences.

I'll admit it's a little tighter than I thought, but I still think I'm
right. Indeed, you rather gave the game away with the
word "fat": some millions of people are eating 2 and 3
times as much as they probably should.

>> > 2,000 years ago, the romans were growing grapes in York.
>> > You can't do that today - it's too cold.
>>
>> That's a minor climate change.

Well guess what...

>> The lecturer pointed out that
>> in the last 10,000 years, variations in climate have not swung
>> wildly to extremes where crops failed altogether.

Jolly good. Did he have a point?

>>The shifting
>> latitude limit of grape production is rather minor compared to
>> an ice-age for instance.

Indeed, an ice age would we a very serious thing, and would
probably cause starvation on a scale far larger than man has
ever seen [1]. Of course, we are not discussing ice-ages - a
phenomenon resulting from massive global _cooling_: we
are discussing global _warming_ - it's a whole other thing!

[1] But not for the N. Africans. N. Africa tends to be a veritable
"Garden of Eden" when N. Europe and Canada are gripped
by ice.

>> > Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
>> > crops.
>>
>> Not according to projections.

Yes, according to both recent historical measurements,
_and_ future projections

CO2 has risen and is projected to rise.
The planet has warmed and is projected to warm further.
Global rainfall has increased and is projected to rise.

All animals are - directly or indirectly - dependant on plants.
The formula for photosynthesis;...
light
CO2 + H2O ------> carbohydrate + O2

....tells us that plants _need_ a warm, wet, CO2 rich environment.

>>Climate warming is on track to increase exponentially.

Now you're implying a runaway greenhouse effect.
<MP/on> Now stop that! It's silly! <MP/off>

> We're just in the beginning bit where the annual change is
>small and we like it. Perhaps you agree
>> with Bush, who thinks when the temperaturs gets to a nice
>> year-round average, he'll send a NASA mission to the sun to
>> adjust it so we can have that climate permanently.

Now _that_ wasn't very nice, was it? ;-P
(Another missing snip)

>> > Did he then kill himself?
>>
>> He knows he doesn't have to bother going out of his way.
>> Humanity's demise is on the way.

We didn't get where we are today by being as fragile
as you seem to think we are.

>> Now I have to go work in the lab. Perhaps I can figure out a
>> way to save the planet today.

Given that the planet has (very broadly speaking) been cooling
for the last 7,000 years, and warming for the last 250 years, I think
the planet has already been saved - from an early ice-age.

>> Hope you're having a good day, Sleepy.
and you too, Jonny.

>> Johnny-starting-his-day-with-the-big-bang
er,... tmi ! ;-)

>So do I, Sleepy. You're my hero.
>
>Edith.
>
>pst! Don't tell the others.
>

--
Sleepalot aa #1385

.