The Doctor Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 We're basically running our cars on T-Rexes, which is pretty cool when you think about it. Not really, more ancient sharks - oil is ex sea creatures
Carl the Llama Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 Not really, more ancient sharks - oil is ex sea creatures So Megalodon and Liopleurodon? Even cooler.
LJS Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 There won't be a referendum. The whole thing is predicated on Cameron 'renegotiating' our settllement with the EU. That just isn't going to happen. Regardless of individual views on the EU (personally I'm very pro-EU) it is a union and unions don't renegotiate their terms to suit one member. Cameron, as has been said upthread, has done this to hold off the perceived UKIP threat. He knows full well that he will never actually have to hold the vote. The UKIP challenge is hugely overplayed, by the way. Certainly they could take a small proportion of Tory votes and thus cost them a few seats. But there isn't a chance that they will win a single seat themselves. Even with a high level of the popular vote their base is too thinly spread. They have no homeland. They won't get a large popular vote though. The Lib Dems are gone as a party of protest so UKIP are benefiting from typical midterm anti-establishment sentiment. The Tory obsession with Europe is bizarre, really. Polls show consistently that Europe is nowhere near the top of voters' priorities. I think even if a vote is held people will vote to stay in. They may appear against at the moment but that is off the back of decades of anti-EU sentiment in the media. Big business and all the main political leaders will campaign in favour of staying in and it's going to be difficult to demonstrate real benefits from leaving. People tend to go for the status quo in such situations. They will be more encouraged to do so once they realise that being outside of the EU does not mean that you aren't bound by its regulations. It just means you can't veto them. People often cite Norway and Switzerland as good examples of how non-membership can work but the truth is both countries follow the vast majority of EU rules.
Carl the Llama Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 There's a very good article on why Britain has nothing like the influence on Europe (or indeed the world at large) that we like to think we do here, along with very interesting conclusions on the options open to David vis-a-vis Europe. Very recommended reading for anyone interested in this topic, regardless of your side of the fence.
Webbo Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 There's a very good article on why Britain has nothing like the influence on Europe (or indeed the world at large) that we like to think we do here, along with very interesting conclusions on the options open to David vis-a-vis Europe. Very recommended reading for anyone interested in this topic, regardless of your side of the fence. That's a pro EU publication and it doesn't say we don't have much influence on Europe. But if we don't have any influence on Europe why are we paying so much money in? Why are we ,voluntarily ,in a club so that we can be ordered about by foreigners?
BoneDog Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 It really isn't - Crude oil is the remains of dead creatures, with great pressure exerted on them over millions of years. Oil is biotic & a finite resource. I'm 93% certain you're wrong.
Carl the Llama Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 That's a pro EU publication and it doesn't say we don't have much influence on Europe. But if we don't have any influence on Europe why are we paying so much money in? Why are we ,voluntarily ,in a club so that we can be ordered about by foreigners? Being ordered about and not always getting your own way are different things. I never said we don't have much influence, just that we don't have the importance to/control of the Union that a lot of Brits seem to think we have/should have. Am I to take it you saw the title of the publication (EuroComment) and the EU flag and decided it was pro-EU and therefore not worth reading? It's actually a very unbiased bit of literature which deals more in the author telling us how it has been previously, and therefore why it will be as he postulates. It's not a short read but very worthwhile, especially for the casual eurosceptic.
Webbo Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 Being ordered about and not always getting your own way are different things. I never said we don't have much influence, just that we don't have the importance to/control of the Union that a lot of Brits seem to think we have/should have. Am I to take it you saw the title of the publication (EuroComment) and the EU flag and decided it was pro-EU and therefore not worth reading? It's actually a very unbiased bit of literature which deals more in the author telling us how it has been previously, and therefore why it will be as he postulates. It's not a short read but very worthwhile, especially for the casual eurosceptic. It's not that long and I did read it.
Carl the Llama Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 It's not that long and I did read it. And what do you think of it then? I was personally unaware of the unwittingly positive impact Thatcher had on Europe, and rather surprised that the UK only ranks 10th (and possibly falling) in the EU GDP charts. In any case, the way Ludlow outlines exactly how and why the Brits ended up with delusions of grandeur (prevalence of English, London as a financial centre, pre-crisis economic performance...) is what makes it such a good read. imo.
The Doctor Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 I'm 93% certain you're wrong. Well unfortunately that means only 7% of you accepts knowledge ahead of desires for conspiracies. While a government may be untrustworthy, knowledge is knowledge any way you swing it. Crude Oil (the stuff used as a source of energy), is indeed biotic, it is formed by exposing the flesh of animals to many a million of years of extreme temperature and pressure. More to the point, it's content confirms it's status as biotic - it's predominately hydrocarbons (some impurities like sulphur exist) - if you think that something consisting of the basic compounds that form every single bit of life on this planet is abiotic, I dare say you're incredibly foolish.
keithweller Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 Well unfortunately that means only 7% of you accepts knowledge ahead of desires for conspiracies. While a government may be untrustworthy, knowledge is knowledge any way you swing it. Crude Oil (the stuff used as a source of energy), is indeed biotic, it is formed by exposing the flesh of animals to many a million of years of extreme temperature and pressure. More to the point, it's content confirms it's status as biotic - it's predominately hydrocarbons (some impurities like sulphur exist) - if you think that something consisting of the basic compounds that form every single bit of life on this planet is abiotic, I dare say you're incredibly foolish. ahem.... 'The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[13] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that alternative theories like abiogenic petroleum can't be dismissed for now' - James G. Speight (2006), The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, Fourth Edition
Daggers Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 ahem.... 'The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[13] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that alternative theories like abiogenic petroleum can't be dismissed for now' - James G. Speight (2006), The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, Fourth Edition That was 2006, this is now!
The Doctor Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 ahem.... 'The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[13] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that alternative theories like abiogenic petroleum can't be dismissed for now' - James G. Speight (2006), The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, Fourth Edition ahem... The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theory was portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak. Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.. - Glasby, G. P. Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview,Resource Geology, 2006, 56, 85–98 Or put more simply.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 Hmm, the old Speight vs Glasby debate, eh? Apparently Speight wanted the Kop swapped with the Family End so that makes him an utter cvnt and everything he thinks is wrong.
The Doctor Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 Well, if we're going to discuss sources - Speight is a bog-standard chemist, Glasby a geochemist - meaning Glasby is a far more authoritative source on the matter.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 Well, if we're going to discuss sources - Speight is a bog-standard chemist, Glasby a geochemist - meaning Glasby is a far more authoritative source on the matter. A shame the pair of them didn't study a proper science.
The Doctor Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 A shame the pair of them didn't study a proper science. If you're a biologist, get out. Us chemists are superior to that bunch of softies.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2013 Posted 26 January 2013 If you're a biologist, get out. Us chemists are superior to that bunch of softies. Biologists are people who like the idea of pets and prefer them to people. Geologists don't like pets or people and don't have friends. Chemists stick things up the arse of a pet to make it explode for the amusement of their friends. And then there are proper scientists who study proper science.
The Doctor Posted 27 January 2013 Posted 27 January 2013 Biologists are people who like the idea of pets and prefer them to people. Geologists don't like pets or people and don't have friends. Chemists stick things up the arse of a pet to make it explode for the amusement of their friends. And then there are proper scientists who study proper science. Are you telling me I'm doing a degree in sodomising animals?
BoneDog Posted 27 January 2013 Posted 27 January 2013 Well unfortunately that means only 7% of you accepts knowledge ahead of desires for conspiracies. It means nothing of the sort laddo! Blah blah - Glasby, G. P. Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview,Resource Geology, 2006, 56, 85–98 I'm 93% certain that that load of cobblers will be old news in a couple of years.
Carl the Llama Posted 27 January 2013 Posted 27 January 2013 Damn, I could've sworn I made a post including a cracking gif of a woman tearing her top off to reveal her shapely mammaries as a perfectly reasonable example of the female reaction to meeting a physicist (aka real scientist). After all the crap on this forum, that's where the line's drawn is it modaroonies?
Rincewind Posted 27 January 2013 Posted 27 January 2013 if only women had that reaction upon meeting a sexagenarian..
davieG Posted 17 October 2014 Posted 17 October 2014 New Conservative EU referendum bill clears first hurdle  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29656489
I am Rod Hull Posted 17 October 2014 Posted 17 October 2014 New Conservative EU referendum bill clears first hurdle  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29656489   Using my crystal ball I will predict...  Everyone from EU and Commonwealth nations that reside here will get the vote - Just like the Scottish referendum..  The media will be full of bullshite stories about everyone losing their jobs because we wont be able to trade with our neighbours  - just like the Scottish referendum..  Purpleronnie to do "The Twist" at 5am in the morning after watching the result  Angela Merkel will smile at the result - just like the Scottish referendum.  To leave the EU result - 44% yes 99% no.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.