I'd prefer to use one of theseAurora wrote:Bandidoz wrote:Phwoar!Get yourself one of these
http://www.ukrabbitvibrators.co.uk/Romping_Rabbit.html
Nigel Lawson loses no sleep over global warming
Moderator: Peak Moderation
http://www.ukrabbitvibrators.co.uk/Romping_Rabbit.html
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
-
anmitrad
Yeah it looks great... i love the curves on it !!
Very well designed i think.... but i'd have to agree i'd have more fun with the Rabbit Vibrator any day!!
not sure i'm a walking stick kind of girl if you know what i mean
x
Very well designed i think.... but i'd have to agree i'd have more fun with the Rabbit Vibrator any day!!
not sure i'm a walking stick kind of girl if you know what i mean
x
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
Excellent first post, anmitrad. Welcome to PS!anmitrad wrote:Yeah it looks great... i love the curves on it !!
Very well designed i think.... but i'd have to agree i'd have more fun with the Rabbit Vibrator any day!!
not sure i'm a walking stick kind of girl if you know what i mean
x
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
-
Eternal Sunshine
- Posts: 776
- Joined: 08 Aug 2007, 13:52
- Location: Preston, Lancashire
- Contact:
An Appeal to Reason
Lawson's book, "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming" is ace. The best thing about it is the title. When I think of 'reason' I think of the great philosophers. But Lawson's book is anything but an appeal to reason. The first 4 words of the book are patently false. Magnificent. What a splendid joke.
The arguments are so erroneous that these errors are what makes it an interesting read. If you ever asked yourself 'how come apparently intelligent people don't think climate change is a serious issue' then this is the book for you. In fact my conclusion is that apparently intelligent people often lack basic reasoning skills.
In the intro he uses the 'Limits to Growth' study from the 70s as an example of something that never came true. Firstly he changes what the study said: these limits would be felt within our lifetimes. In fact they say by around the middle of this century. Second he fails to recognise that even his lifetime is not yet over. Third he ignores the fact the oil supply hasn't grown for the past 3 years (the book was written last year) and limits to growth are being felt now.
A question I was really interested in was what he'd make of the implications of the retreating glaciers and the consequences for the 2 billion people that currently get their fresh water from these. His first argument was that although some glaciers were retreating others were growing. And that was it. Don't worry all you people on the Indian sub continent. There's a some glaciers in Antarctica that are getting bigger.
Further into the book he claims that people could simply build desalination plants. There was not even a cursory look at the costs, practicalities or viability of such projects. This leads me to think he not so much a sceptic but more of a denier.
The one bit of honest writing was about his general philosophy of governments. He didn't think it was the role of governments to be making decisions for future generations. He didn't explain why (at least as far as I read). This pretty much sums up all governments of today. None of them have any vision of the future at all. They simply act as managers of the present and the present system.
The arguments are so erroneous that these errors are what makes it an interesting read. If you ever asked yourself 'how come apparently intelligent people don't think climate change is a serious issue' then this is the book for you. In fact my conclusion is that apparently intelligent people often lack basic reasoning skills.
In the intro he uses the 'Limits to Growth' study from the 70s as an example of something that never came true. Firstly he changes what the study said: these limits would be felt within our lifetimes. In fact they say by around the middle of this century. Second he fails to recognise that even his lifetime is not yet over. Third he ignores the fact the oil supply hasn't grown for the past 3 years (the book was written last year) and limits to growth are being felt now.
A question I was really interested in was what he'd make of the implications of the retreating glaciers and the consequences for the 2 billion people that currently get their fresh water from these. His first argument was that although some glaciers were retreating others were growing. And that was it. Don't worry all you people on the Indian sub continent. There's a some glaciers in Antarctica that are getting bigger.
Further into the book he claims that people could simply build desalination plants. There was not even a cursory look at the costs, practicalities or viability of such projects. This leads me to think he not so much a sceptic but more of a denier.
The one bit of honest writing was about his general philosophy of governments. He didn't think it was the role of governments to be making decisions for future generations. He didn't explain why (at least as far as I read). This pretty much sums up all governments of today. None of them have any vision of the future at all. They simply act as managers of the present and the present system.
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
-
RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
