- This topic has 58 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Nature has a brilliant propensity to balance things out and if disease does not effectively control the population (be it dinosaurs or humans) then it will find another way of controlling the population and restore the balance.
Whilst some of the advances in medicine may be hailed as great is the price not overpopulation and a level of population the planet cannot sustain?
The lifespan of humans, in the developed world at least, has increased immensely over the last 150 years or so.
But to what purpose?At the end of the day everyone is going to die at some point but as people live longer the population of the world goes on increasing – at a level that cannot be sustained.
With the increased life span there will be more elderly people requiring support, in addition to the increased number of children being born. It is not sustainable.
Perhaps the fluctuation in temperature is the planets way of balancing things out. If disease will not kill enough humans to allow for sustainability then climate change will result in lack of food and the population will be “controlled” in that way.
As Pompete pointed out the planet has been and will be around longer than mankind. There will be a time when mankind is extinct, just as the dinosaurs became extinct and quite possibly another life form, probably, insects or virus’s will dominate.
Indeed we arrogantly think we are the masters of this planet – I would contend we are its slaves.
I propose we bring back hanging for anyone wearing a Burberry cap,and for people who put an apostrophe in a plural.
That should help population control no end.
ps-Is it ok to drive my car now without a feeling of guilt?
Sometimes you have to put an apostrophe into a plural in order to make the word clear.
For example, say something called plu existed. If there were several of them, you would have to write plu’s, to differentiate it from the word plus.
Sometimes you have to put an apostrophe into a plural in order to make the word clear.
For example, say something called plu existed. If there were several of them, you would have to write plu’s, to differentiate it from the word plus.
Nah-I’m not having that.
I’m not, either. Moreover, as the rules of pluralisation in English are usually so accommodating as to not require recourse to an illegal apostrophe, what’s to say the correct plural of "plu" wouldn’t be "plues"?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
The plural of bureau is bureaux, so the plural of plu could be plux?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highways..or "Big Buck’s What??", as Lydia Hislop has been known to call him.
I think the apostrophe in Buck’s here is supposed to indicate a possessive adjective, but the noun it possesses has been omitted from the horse’s name. Think of it as "Big Buck’s Horse", as in the horse that Big Buck owns, rather than the plural of Big Bucks as in a lot of money.
There is a Godfrey Maundrell point-to-pointer named Droppy’s at present who carries the apostrophe on the same premise, i.e. he is Droppy’s horse, whoever Droppy is or was.
See also the film
Porky’s
, short for Porky’s Bar.
I knew my TEFL qualifications would come in handy one day.
Names like Echo’s Of Dawn are still wrong as far as I can make out, though, and should be punished by the insertion of hot metal things into the perpertrator.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
I’ve got to Burberry cap’s – so I guess thats me done for
http://www.yahoofreak.com/animated%20emoticons/Violent%20Animated%20Emoticons/hang%20up.gif
Scientists believe that the maximising of carbon emissions has brought about a significant reduction in Polar Bear related street crime, not just in britain but worldwide. People like Al Gore never look at the positives though…
I’ve got to Burberry cap’s – so I guess thats me done for
http://www.yahoofreak.com/animated%20emoticons/Violent%20Animated%20Emoticons/hang%20up.gif
Oh no
http://yoursmiles.org/tsmile/no/t2604.gif
..or "Big Buck’s What??", as Lydia has been known to call him.
I think the apostrophe in Buck’s here is supposed to indicate a possessive adjective, but the noun it possesses has been omitted from the horse’s name. Think of it as "Big Buck’s Horse", as in the horse that Big Buck owns, rather than the plural of Big Bucks as in a lot of money.
There is a Godfrey Maundrell point-to-pointer named Droppy’s at present who carries the apostrophe on the same premise, i.e. he is Droppy’s horse, whoever Droppy is or was.
See also the film
Porky’s
, short for Porky’s Bar.
I knew my TEFL qualifications would come in handy one day.
Names like Echo’s Of Dawn are still wrong as far as I can make out, though, and should be punished by the insertion of hot metal things into the perpertrator.
gc
Could it be Echo Is Of Dawn like Bob’s your Uncle , Fanny’s your Aunt or job’s a good un ?
Funny how the floating/greengrocers/’s/s’ apostrophe debate surfaces on TRF from time to time
Orange’s and lemon’s say the bells’ of St Clements
Private Eye readers will be aware of the random application of apostrophes in their hilarious ‘from the message boards’ column.
Correct usage of apostrophes is pretty simple; it’s the semi-colon and colon that presents a headache, and I’m prone to the over-use of both
When is a sentence a clause and when not etc etc
Great stuff guys!
To get back to the subject of this thread.
I believe in global warming, but am in two minds whether it is caused or influenced by man. Though am willing to be convinced by argument.
What disturbs me is the way media seem to endorse it as a fact, anyone who does not agree is a “flat earth-ist”. The BBC (in my opinion) is equally as biased as anyone else. They show ice melting at the poles and tell us this is our fault. Well, it might be; but it is not proven. Throughout history ice melted to varying degrees; how much depending on whether it’s in a warm or cold cycle.
Why can’t we see both opinions?
Floods, droughts and other natural disasters have always happened and to suggest every time one occurs is down to global warming is stupid. Though of course some might well be, again not proven.
If this warm cycle is caused by man, who caused the other cycles when man was not industrial?
Between World War II and early 1970’s the climate was changing. At this time use of carbon was on the increase at an alarming rate. However, the change was downwards, with the world getting colder to such a degree scientists warned of a “new ice age”.
If carbon causes global warming, why was the world getting colder between 1940 and 1975?
Have heard the warm and cold cycles have directly coincided with the amount of “hot spots” on the sun and amount of cloud cover. Could this be an alternative reason for global warming?
I do not get any newspaper, don’t want to be influenced by them and prefer unbiased TV news. But with this subject TV news is too one sided. Myself and people like me are willing to be persuaded by the man-made argument. However, if just told we must believe this (without a discussion) we will turn against it.
Can someone who does believe in man-made global warming, answer my questions and convince me?
Value Is EverythingWhilst I feel that it is about time that we stopped thinking that the planet can soak up whatever we throw at it without it having some sort of effect, I’m getting pretty sick of constantly hearing/reading about it…I’m tired of politicians using it to score brownie points with the electorate and, worryingly in a David Icke/Big Brother sort of way I wonder if ‘they’ are using it to control us by scaring us or making us feel guilty [boiling too many kettles in one day and had a bath instead of a shower; it’s all your fault]. I’ve reached ‘global warming saturation point’, I think.
Gordon Brown is reported today to have said that anyone who refuses to believe in man made global warming is the equivalent of a flat earther.
This of course is great news for those of us who accept that it’s getting warmer, but doubt that man is making much difference either way. With Gordon Brown clearly a fervent believer in warming, it must be long odds on, based on his past record, that we are now heading for a great ice age!
Apparently it’s getting warmer on Mars as well – so there’s an obvious destination for those who feel that Earth is doomed. Don’t have to worry about flash floods or rising sea levels on Mars …….
AP
I believe in global warming, but am in two minds whether it is caused or influenced by man. Though am willing to be convinced by argument.
Floods, droughts and other natural disasters have always happened and to suggest every time one occurs is down to global warming is stupid. Though of course some might well be, again not proven.
If this warm cycle is caused by man, who caused the other cycles when man was not industrial?
Between World War II and early 1970’s the climate was changing. At this time use of carbon was on the increase at an alarming rate. However, the change was downwards, with the world getting colder to such a degree scientists warned of a “new ice age”.
If carbon causes global warming, why was the world getting colder between 1940 and 1975?
Indeed Ginger
The English grape harvests of the middle-ages – the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ circa 800-1300
Most of our great medieval cathedrals and abbeys had vineyards associated with them. There’s an excellent one still extant at Lincoln Cathedral, though of course the grapes don’t ripen with any regularity now, though may do again soon.
The Frost Fairs on the frozen River Thames – the succeeding ‘Little Ice Age’ circa 1300-1800
Much northern-European art, particularly that of the Flemish painters such as Brueghel depict the brutal winters of this period
Both these 500-year nano-periods in time are examples of the natural short-lived fluctuations in climate within the larger and more easily-defined glacials and interglacials. A process of linear warming…cooling…warming…it ain’t
We are told the Industrial Revolution (which rather conveniently just happened to coincide with the end of the last mini-cold period) precipitated global warming and ‘it’s all our fault’
Mr Gloom ‘n’ Doom: the planet was ‘due’ a little warming about then after a rather parky half-millennium, so while it may be partly our doing, it’s essentially nature’s ‘fault’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.