Information pending: Earthquake in Iran

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by johnojohnson, Feb 22, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. latest death toll that i have heard is around 300 dead with 1000 injured

    though no solace to the victims, it was lucky that it did not happen in a major city, and or a built up place with bigger than one story buildings

    however with current events it could be 300 less people to fight when "dubya" decides to drag us to iran and syria, nasty yes but possibly true

    i also very much agree with your comment about the planet fighting back, it is what it does when it faces problems, lucky for us we dont live on fault lines etc, uk wise
  2. How long b4 the clerics blame dubya! :roll:

  3. from an enviromentl point of view, i think he is as much to "blame" as anybody else, though to blame for "natural" disasters is a bit dubious. His contempt of the enviroment is a big prob, non kyoto etc
  4. Kyoto, based on the discredited "hockey stick" model, one which you feed noise into and get a hockey stick out of... Great, that! Clinton signed it, Congress decided not to ratify it cos it it based on junk science and would cost 4 million jobs. Nothing to do with Bush. Actually do some reading wider than what is posted on U75, please!
  5. he has however not bothered, under considerable pressure, to even try to get near the limits set by kyoto. Maybe that could change after the g8 summit, but i doubt it.
    the thing is it may cost money and possibly jobs but we have to do something to change what is going on. We cant go on consuming natural resources at the rate we are, as they will run out, and as they do beome very expensive as they get less common.
    From the planets point of view, we have to do something as climate change is a massive time bomb that must be worked on if, maybe not for me, but future generation are to have a future on this planet
  6. There is no statistically significant evidence that we have had any impact on the normal global temperature cycle. Most of the "evidence" is based on predictive modelling, which is notoriously almost impossible to do, and generates spectacularly scary headlines like "15 degree temperature rise before next Monday". It is a fundamental rule of empirical modelling that you do not attempt to predict outside your data range (go to Excel, take 5 points, fit a curve to them, then look at what happens to that curve after the last point). In any case, we only contribute 3% of the annual global CO2 emissions, and it's not a very effective greenhouse gas.

    Another scary word is climate "change". The climate is /always/ changing, but the statement leads people to believe that the climate has always been the same until the Industrial Revolution. Heard of the Ice Ages? The Medieval Warm Period? You'll only have heard of the Little Ice Age because it's where environmentalists like to start their graphs in a nice bit of chartmanship :roll: .

    I agree, however, that we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels, since they will run out. The only viable mid-term solution is to use pebble bed Nuclear reactors, but the environmentalists don't like that idea either. Their idea of 'environmentally friendly' is to build a bajillion gigawatts of wind turbines (expensive, and there's another problem - read on) and also a bajillion gigawatts of conventional generation to cope when there's no wind and to run idle the rest of the time.

    Interesting sites to read on this are: