|
Post by ntsheep on Jan 24, 2016 19:52:45 GMT -5
Ack, just saw some pics of it. It looks hot. and I'm guessing there wouldn't be a pool Other than that, it would have been a really good event for those who love Mad Max Depending on where your from in Australia, the heat of southern California should be nothing to you.
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Jan 24, 2016 19:58:30 GMT -5
Didn't someone go to that Wasteland festival this year? CdrPlatypus did. I hope to go myself this year. I thought so. Never heard if it was awesome or not, or even saw the pics!
|
|
|
Post by ntsheep on Jan 24, 2016 20:01:47 GMT -5
He said he didn't want to put any photos on since this was a family forum Many members have heard about your scolding of me and that one photo I posted one night after a few too many For those interested, wastelandweekend.com/
|
|
|
Post by En1gma on Jan 24, 2016 20:02:58 GMT -5
I never understood why cutting greenhouse gas emissions and making sure our air/water/soil was taken care of for future generations was somehow a terrible thing. Or how a 97% consensus on the subject would somehow be debatable. This may end up straying too far to that political area, if so, we can agree to disagree and move along
|
|
|
Post by ntsheep on Jan 24, 2016 20:07:36 GMT -5
As long as things don't get heated, I still think any topic is fair game. The environmental issues the worlds faces have multiple sides to them. There is greed, there is dirty politics involved, there's been great progress and great setbacks.
|
|
|
Post by wascalwywabbit on Jan 24, 2016 20:22:49 GMT -5
It all comes down to varied precipitation and maybe higher coastal waters and tides. There will be massive migrations. It's the world's biggest mixer party in recorded history. Proper crop changes, drought and flood controls, including water catchments, food storage etc are all gonna be added more to the essentials list world wide. The migrations alone for the cultural edification of peoples is a welcome change. I'm actually all for global warming being a potential positive - most of the land mass of north america and Eurasia are not fully opened up yet for best crop yields for example. It's sad it won't all be good due to current state of preoccupation, ignorance by even the scientific community of best change of cultural practices and "I've got mine, Jack." attitudes. I'm for clean energy for carcinogenic and other pollution control not because of green house gases per se myself. Whatever will be, no change to climate or great change, let's make the best of it.
|
|
|
Post by En1gma on Jan 24, 2016 20:28:51 GMT -5
I'm excited to see what the next chapter of our country's energy looks like. We can only progress so far with fossil fuels, but in terms of alternate/clean energy we can take things to an all new level.
|
|
|
Post by resistor on Jan 24, 2016 20:33:36 GMT -5
I never understood why cutting greenhouse gas emissions and making sure our air/water/soil was taken care of for future generations was somehow a terrible thing. Or how a 97% consensus on the subject would somehow be debatable. This may end up straying too far to that political area, if so, we can agree to disagree and move along The 97% statistic is actually a myth. You can read about it here.
|
|
|
Post by En1gma on Jan 24, 2016 20:37:55 GMT -5
I'm not subscribed to the wsj...
From what I've seen for years says otherwise, but I'm willing to read something that says to the contrary. If there is another article you could link I would be happy to read it, but I have no interest in subscribing to anything to do so.
|
|
|
Post by En1gma on Jan 24, 2016 20:40:01 GMT -5
I would also be interested to know who funded the studies that found results to the contrary. I'm insanely skeptical of any studies funded by those who serve to lose profits.
|
|
|
Post by CdrPlatypus on Jan 24, 2016 20:43:35 GMT -5
fallen Wasteland was awesome. I went with some friends who are 5 year veterans. Was my first time though. I plan to go back if I can get the time off work.
|
|
|
Post by ntsheep on Jan 24, 2016 20:47:13 GMT -5
I would also be interested to know who funded the studies that found results to the contrary. I'm insanely skeptical of any studies funded by those who serve to lose profits. And this right there is the sad point to even good science. You can always find a way to refute someone's findings, but that's part of science. You want your theory proved right not by your own data, but by others trying to prove it wrong. If they can't, then your theory is correct.
|
|
|
Post by ntsheep on Jan 24, 2016 20:48:28 GMT -5
fallen Wasteland was awesome. I went with some friends who are 5 year veterans. Was my first time though. I plan to go back if I can get the time off work. With luck this year, hoards of sheep will invade Wasteland. The only problem is we've got just one physical body to go in
|
|
|
Post by resistor on Jan 24, 2016 20:49:23 GMT -5
I'm not subscribed to the wsj... From what I've seen for years says otherwise, but I'm willing to read something that says to the contrary. If there is another article you could link I would be happy to read it, but I have no interest in subscribing to anything to do so. You weren't able to see it because you weren't subscribed? That's strange, as I'm not subscribed to them either and I can see it just fine. A quick google search can bring up several such articles. Here is one by Forbes: www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1d74c2b67187
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Jan 24, 2016 21:06:41 GMT -5
fallen Wasteland was awesome. I went with some friends who are 5 year veterans. Was my first time though. I plan to go back if I can get the time off work. With luck this year, hoards of sheep will invade Wasteland. The only problem is we've got just one physical body to go in When the sheep-ocalypse comes, ... at least us forumites will know what to expect
|
|