Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. 132
  2. 53
  3. 52
  4. 42
  5. 34
  6. 27
  7. 25
  8. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s. We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!" He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant. For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants. As to the costs its even easier to estimate At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove. 1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion. So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 5-10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying? By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide. Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
    20
  9. 15
  10. 11
  11. 10
  12. 9
  13. 8
  14. 7
  15. 7
  16. I'm Australian and a British Journalist looked into the methods that America used. The documentary he made was done more than 10 years ago when there were issues over the lethal injections. It was also at a time when there were a number of ugly murders around the world and people were asking if capital punishment should be brought back. So this was a timely documentary in a number of ways, but most of all - what method. In the end when all the methods were looked at the cleanest and quickest was carbon dioxide. I remember the Lake Nyos disaster in 1986 when 1,700 people died from carbon dioxide asphyxiation remember how quick it was. Most of the bodies only took a few staggered steps before falling over. I'm an engineer and one of the things people are warned about across many industries are what we call "confined spaces." These are places where other gases can pool and the oxygen level is too low to support human consciousness. It can be incredibly dangerous. One of the major risks in confined spaces is carbon dioxide especially in open pits because CO2 is heavier than air and it can pool in the pit. Its well documented how quickly people succumb and pass out in such conditions. So its well known that if you flood a room with carbon dioxide almost any human or animal will past out within seconds and die shortly after with little or no trauma. In fact its well documented that if anything people have a moment of euphoria before passing out from carbon dioxide. WHAT HORRIFIED ME about that documentary wasn't the fact they found a quick way to simply turn off a human life but the RESPONSE of the chief medical officer they presented their findings to. He simply dismissed the idea of using Carbon Dioxide and how its far less likely to be traumatic. He said "Its a punishment its NOT meant to be pleasant."
    7
  17. 7
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s. We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!" He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant. For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants. As to the costs its even easier to estimate At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove. 1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion. So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 5-10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying? By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide. Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
    5
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27.  @drewking250  If you really want to freak out then work out how many nuclear detonations it takes to heat the planet up just 1 degree. FYI - I did aerospace engineering and we once had a NASA guy do a special lecture on planetary sciences. He'd done a research project where they tried to work out what it would take to make Mars habitable. Their conclusion was "its effectively impossible" planets simply don't take being forcibly changed. That was 30 years ago so I did an upgrade a while back regarding what we have now effectively managed to do. The surface area of the Earth is just over 510,000,000 km^2 and if you take just the first 1km of the earths atmosphere you pretty much have 1/2 a billion cubic kilometers of air. Its pretty straight forward to calculate how much energy it takes to heat that from say 20 to 21 deg. C and yeah its a big number with lots of zeros. Its just as easy to divide that number by the published energy release from something like the Hiroshima bomb. So its pretty easy to estimate how many Hiroshimas you need to let off to heat the planet up by a degree. Its a very scary number and makes no sense until you realise that up in the sky is a mega huge nuclear fusion reactor beaming energy at us and all you need to do is trap a bit extra for a century to start making some very serious changes. This is why Venus although only being just a little bit closer (in astronomical terms) is also massively hotter. Heads up if you do that calculation don't go trying to explain the number to average people. They can't comprehend the answer let alone understand what it means. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 3
  31. If you want to complain the complain about how other nations with similar systematic issues have not been banned. Drug cheating at the Olympics has been going on for decades. If Russia feels bad about getting caught then don't - you got caught wear it. BUT Russia has every right to scream about other nations cheating particularly China and America. I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s on a sports scholarship for swimming. At the 92 Barcelona Olympics a girl from my club in California was cheated out of a gold by the Chinese and it was obvious they were cheating. FINA (the swimming governing body) were only checking swimmers they new had been tested before they went to Barcelona. That included a lot of people from various countries who were at college in America making it look like the testing was random. The British worked it out because one of their swimmers was at the University of Iowa which was a college I raced against. At the 2000 Sydney Olympics the husband of Marion Jones (who was later caught as part of the BALCO scandal) CJ Hunter was caught multiple times and yet still turned up in Sydney expecting to compete. It was later found out that the US Track & Field team had amassed around 150 failed tests prior to arriving in Sydney. Australia had a runner who finished 4th in 2 successive Olympics. Both times the 3 Americans in front of him were caught at competitions after the Olympics. The infamous Seoul Olympics 100m final where Ben Johnson was caught was a disgrace as every other Athlete in that final was either suspected or actually caught at later events. That included Carl Lewis. America has a terrible record of cheating in track and field. If Russia should be angry its should be because they are the only country punished like this.
    3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: and that's a damn good answer Below is the same answer I gave elsewhere. The difference is your only looking at dealing with what goes into the atmosphere each year, when there's already a massive amount in the atmosphere that needs removing. I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s. We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!" He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant. For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants. As to the costs its even easier to estimate At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove. 1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion. So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying? By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide. Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
    3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. You are right about flying to hubs but only 1/2 right about Concorde. Yes its was fuel hungry but then going fast in anything is a fuel consumption issue. If you use basic high school science class then you'd know from kinetic energy that going twice as fast requires 4 times the energy because its a squared law. Drag is also a velocity squared function so going twice as fast means 4 times the drag. It does get more complicated at supersonic speed but going those speeds is very fuel hungry. On the other hand Concorde ran very profitably and for many years was British Airways most profitable division. There's a great documentary made after they retired Concorde that was made with a lot of BA Concorde pilots. Its actually a great case study in effective market analysis. After BA realised Concorde was losing money they told the pilots they were going to shut it down. The pilots said it shouldn't be losing money because the planes were basically full for every flight. The BA board challenged the pilots and said if they could get it to make money they could keep flying. So the pilots checked the ticket records and found that the most frequent users were a bunch of bankers in New York, London and Paris. They found out that these guys were doing work where people still had to meet and sign contract papers. So for them being able to zip across the Atlantic sign some papers and zip back was brilliant. When the pilots asked the bankers what they thought the tickets were worth they got a monster shock - none of the bankers knew because their travel was always done by their secretaries. So they asked these bankers what a ticket was worth to them in terms of their time and got an even bigger shock because it was $1000s more than the actual ticket price. So the pilots upped the ticket price to what the bankers believed they were worth. People kept flying Concorde and they made heaps of money. The pilots kept the board to their word and the pilots ran the Concorde division for years and kept it very profitable. What hurt Concorde in the end was Osama Bin Laden because something like 100 of Concorde's most frequent flyers died in the 9/11 attack because they worked in the World Trade Center.
    2
  50. I absolutely agree with your sentiment, what she did met the "depraved indifference" clause of US Law. My problem is with how Donald Trump has behaved with these 3 recent executions. I don't have a problem with any nation or state executions for crimes they mandate for crimes beyond what society will tolerate. I do have a problem when any state steps outside that mandate. Because once that happens, justice takes a backseat to politics and executing people for political gai is one of the most disgusting things ANY NATION does and it is done way to often. In my home state of Victoria Australia the last man executed WAS DONE for political purposes. It was well understood that Ronald Ryan did not shoot and kill George Hodson. The ballistics proved it and the main witness lied, and both those points were understood at the time. Henry Bolte the State Premier at the time faced an election and told people that the hanging would help get him re-elected and it did. You can look up Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois & Lisa Montgomery and all their crimes were depraved. I don't have a problem with their trials, their sentences or the outcomes. In Montgomery's case a few have pointed out she went with clamps and others tools that showed she at some level knew what she was doing. Was she mentally ill? Absolutely - no sane person does what she did. My problem is Donald Trump who lost his mandate to make these decisions. For 130 years American Presidents had delayed all federal executions after the election. Once the election is held the American people have spoken and handed the mandate onto the next President. Americans are very quick to speak about "the will of the people" and on November 4 2020 the American people spoke and Donald Trump lost his mandate. Lets not forget one other thing. As Donald Trump sent these 3 to the chamber, he pardoned the Blackwater 4 who killed 14 people and injured 17 others in the Nisour Square Massacre. That included a 9 year old boy. That crime also met the requirements (at least in part) for depraved indifference. But the Blackwater 4 had Erik Prince as their boss. Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy De Vos, Donald Trump's Education Secretary. Donald Trump executed 3 and let go 4 others all for political gain and that stinks.
    2
  51. I absolutely agree with your sentiment, what she did met the "depraved indifference" clause of US Law. My problem is with how Donald Trump has behaved with these 3 recent executions. I don't have a problem with any nation or state executions for crimes they mandate for crimes beyond what society will tolerate. I do have a problem when any state steps outside that mandate. Because once that happens, justice takes a backseat to politics and executing people for political gai is one of the most disgusting things ANY NATION does and it is done way to often. In my home state of Victoria Australia the last man executed WAS DONE for political purposes. It was well understood that Ronald Ryan did not shoot and kill George Hodson. The ballistics proved it and the main witness lied, and both those points were understood at the time. Henry Bolte the State Premier at the time faced an election and told people that the hanging would help get him re-elected and it did. You can look up Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois & Lisa Montgomery and all their crimes were depraved. I don't have a problem with their trials, their sentences or the outcomes. In Montgomery's case a few have pointed out she went with clamps and others tools that showed she at some level knew what she was doing. Was she mentally ill? Absolutely - no sane person does what she did. My problem is Donald Trump who lost his mandate to make these decisions. For 130 years American Presidents had delayed all federal executions after the election. Once the election is held the American people have spoken and handed the mandate onto the next President. Americans are very quick to speak about "the will of the people" and on November 4 2020 the American people spoke and Donald Trump lost his mandate. Lets not forget one other thing. As Donald Trump sent these 3 to the chamber, he pardoned the Blackwater 4 who killed 14 people and injured 17 others in the Nisour Square Massacre. That included a 9 year old boy. That crime also met the requirements (at least in part) for depraved indifference. But the Blackwater 4 had Erik Prince as their boss. Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy De Vos, Donald Trump's Education Secretary. Donald Trump executed 3 and let go 4 others all for political gain and that stinks.
    2
  52. I absolutely agree with your sentiment, what she did met the "depraved indifference" clause of US Law. My problem is with how Donald Trump has behaved with these 3 recent executions. I don't have a problem with any nation or state executions for crimes they mandate for crimes beyond what society will tolerate. I do have a problem when any state steps outside that mandate. Because once that happens, justice takes a backseat to politics and executing people for political gai is one of the most disgusting things ANY NATION does and it is done way to often. In my home state of Victoria Australia the last man executed WAS DONE for political purposes. It was well understood that Ronald Ryan did not shoot and kill George Hodson. The ballistics proved it and the main witness lied, and both those points were understood at the time. Henry Bolte the State Premier at the time faced an election and told people that the hanging would help get him re-elected and it did. You can look up Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois & Lisa Montgomery and all their crimes were depraved. I don't have a problem with their trials, their sentences or the outcomes. In Montgomery's case a few have pointed out she went with clamps and others tools that showed she at some level knew what she was doing. Was she mentally ill? Absolutely - no sane person does what she did. My problem is Donald Trump who lost his mandate to make these decisions. For 130 years American Presidents had delayed all federal executions after the election. Once the election is held the American people have spoken and handed the mandate onto the next President. Americans are very quick to speak about "the will of the people" and on November 4 2020 the American people spoke and Donald Trump lost his mandate. Lets not forget one other thing. As Donald Trump sent these 3 to the chamber, he pardoned the Blackwater 4 who killed 14 people and injured 17 others in the Nisour Square Massacre. That included a 9 year old boy. That crime also met the requirements (at least in part) for depraved indifference. But the Blackwater 4 had Erik Prince as their boss. Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy De Vos, Donald Trump's Education Secretary. Donald Trump executed 3 and let go 4 others all for political gain and that stinks.
    2
  53. 2
  54.  @7yep4336dfgvvh  Get your facts right sunshine. The Viet Cong were never funded by the US. They were communists fighting against the South Vietnamese regime that was supported by America. I think you go you groups muddled up on that one. As for the Taliban. Certainly the US funded the mujahedeen and supported them against the Russians back in the 1980s. Osama Bin Laden joined the mujahedeen which was where he gained popularity. His greatest aid to that was an almost direct line to the White House courtesy of his brother's business relationship with George W Bush whose father George H Bush was POTUS at the time. That was how the mujahedeen got their hands on US made Stinger AA missiles to shoot down all those Russian helicopters Osama and others then linked up with Al Qaeda after the Russians left and he had issues develop back in Saudi with the Saudi king. Al Qaeda's origins go back long before Osama joined them. They were active in places like Morocco and Egypt years before. The Taliban came later and formed with money and support from Pakistan. I can guarantee you the Americans knew about that Pakistani support for the Taliban. A few years ago I worked with a young Pakistani engineer. We were discussing this one day and he told me I didn't know shite. His father was in the Pakistani government and he showed me photos on his phone of him, his family and US diplomats having dinner at his house. He then told me how his father had him sit in on several meetings as part of getting experience. And that's as much as I can tell anyone. So I can pretty much guarantee the Americans knew about the Pakistani support for the Taliban. But as for America directly or indirectly funding the Taliban I doubt anyone actually knows.
    2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. I'm Australian and we just won the 2032 games. NO ONE ELSE BID and nobody is asking why? We have plenty of idiots celebrating and making it out to be a good thing. Some of those idiots a have even started the lies. The worst is the claim that 80% of the venues are already built. That's just idiotic garbage. I am currently in Brisbane. I have lived here previously and there is NO WAY they even 25% of the venues and those they do have will need major upgrades before 2032. If Japan is a massive financial failure it only joins the financial failures of others. As a kid I watched the 1976 Montreal games. To the best of my knowledge they have never recovered the costs. 1980 in Moscow was a success because they had cheap labor which also gave Seoul in 1988 an advantage. LA & Atlanta were held in cities with massive sports facilities and massive universities with huge dorms they could use for the athletes village. Barcelona already had a couple of major stadiums. London already had all those football stadiums and the rest of the facilities. Beijing like Seoul and Moscow just had all that cheap labor to build what ever they wanted. Brisbane has 2 main stadiums the Gabba (oval shaped) at 42,000 and Suncorp (rectangular) at 52,500. Neither of those are up to Olympic standard which needs to be around the 80,000 mark. Brisbane held the 1982 Commonwealth games and did a great job. Every since they felt that justified they could host the Olympics. Brisbanites TOTALLY ignore all the extra sports the Olympics have and all the extra athletes and support staff and the extra media. They are planning to spend $1Billion upgrading the Gabba from 42,000 to 50,000 and don't get that's a joke by Olympic Standards. PLUS there's the lesson of Sydney they have already forgotten. It still hasn't been paid for and will most likely NEVER recoup the money spent. Why did one else bid for 2032? Because they were awake.
    2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. AUSTRALIAN HERE with an observation. Britain has 1st past the post and Australia has a preferential voting system. In our system all those votes from down the list would have been switched to their secondary preferences. This is how this might have gone with our system. I suspect all the Reform UK who are all 100% Brexiteers would have put Liz Truss as their second preference. So on that her vote would go to 21,175. I have no doubt the Greens would vote Labor (as they do here) taking their vote to 13,685 The real question is what the Independents & Lib Dems would do. In Australia the sorts of people who vote for minor parties at #1 tend to be swing voters with their preferences. They typically give preferences to the existing government if its doing well and against if its not. With this clearly being a protest vote AWAY from the previous election where Liz Truss got 26,195 votes I'd expect those people would have also voted Labor on their preferences making Labor's vote 22,585. So under a preferential system I'd expect the same result but with a bigger margin. Another question that could be asked is what happens if you have something like Australia's compulsory voting system. You only had 59% turnout in this seat meaning about 30,000 didn't vote at all. In Australia those people tend to do some interesting things. If they are unmotivated they do what's called donkey voting and either they just put 1,2,3,4,.... down the list or do something so that no vote is counted at all. My brother used to add his football team to the list and vote for them and of course such votes don't count. But one of the massive benefits of compulsory voting is that when our governments screw up (and they do) these people tend to do massive protest votes. So in this case I'd expect MOST of those people to vote Labor as a way of flipping the finger at Liz Truss and this would have been a massacre not a narrow loss. FYI - There was an American political analyst in Australia during one of our elections and she said that if America switched from first past the post to preferential AND made voting compulsory then it would re-shape America for the best. Preferential but NOT compulsory has been tried in a couple of states with significant changes. Her main reason for wanting both is that it prevents parties from having a "culture war" mentality because they have to engage with the general population not just those motivated to vote. And if you put that into the context of where America has gone in the last couple of years I think she had a valid point.
    2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85.  Yee Tian  Well being from Canada should make you appreciate having choices and a government that can be held accountable. I'm Australian and there is growing anger over Chinese influence peddling here and across the Southern Pacific. We went to bolster our laws with foreign money in our politics after we'd finally had enough of the Americans, British, Israeli, Saudi and Chinese money in our politics. BUT only China complained and only China threatened us with sanctions. Anytime we speak China waves a finger at us and tells us to mind our own business and then they come down here and try and bribe our leaders. Trust me many many Australians are getting tired of China's hypocrisy. To be fair we've had enough of the hypocrisy of others as well and that includes our own leaders. If you really are in Canada you should be furious over the Fentanyl crisis that has devastated parts of Canada. I was there in 2017 when it was raging so I know it all comes from China and can only be exported out of China with the CCP letting it happen. There are many things abut Trump that were so bad and so flawed that its hard to start listing them. But one of his catastrophic failures was HOW he dealt with China. What he should have done was slap them with a CARBON TAX and used it to hammer them. Europe, Australia and others would have followed suit and then we might have a chance to save the planet. The CCP, GOP, British Tories and others better learn real fast that we all live on this planet and if it dies we die.
    1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91.  Seiki  I can tell very simply why Australia is about to break a lot of contracts with China. We've caught them repeatedly interfering in our country. They are not the only ones to have done so. We had Britain doing it for many years. But then they joined the EU and told us to get lost. It almost bankrupted our economy. We have had the Americans since and the Japanese to a lesser extent. When we finally had enough of foreign money in our politics and went to tighten our Laws ONLY 1 COUNTRY PROTESTED - CHINA. The Chinese view of foreign affairs is we do what we like we do what we want and fuck the rest of the planet. Its not that far from the American or British or Russian policies of the past, but the fact is we don't live in the past we live in the here and now. When I was there I rode the maglev in from Shanghai Airport and rode the Fast Train back. China is NOT a developing nation it is a DEVELOPED NATION and can start acting responsibly as a developed nation. And the first step in that is they STOP interfering in other countries. The 2nd step is they stop the staggering environmental damage they are doing in that they burn half the worlds coal supply. The then STOP selling coal technology ad other damaging technologies to developing nations. The world cannot afford China or the way China does business. The Uighurs are just indicative of the Chinese Communist Party's view of itself and the world wont tolerate that much longer just as it wont tolerate American bullshit or any other bullshit either. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99.  @sonicblue7real357  Your on the right line, but its solar energy that the planet turns into thermal energy not potential energy. The fascinating part is the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles which is the long term cycles of ice ages where CO2 and Water vapour play major parts. The CO2 lets solar energy in but then keeps in the Earths thermal energy and warms the plant. Water vapour does 2 things. Like CO2 it helps hold in thermal energy but when there's enough in the atmosphere it forms a think cloud that reflects solar energy and stops the planet getting any warmer. But also at the point it slows the Earth cooling Its that property of water that throws the Earth into ice ages. As it builds up it helps warm the Earth after an ice age but at certain point it ends that and stops the Earth warming further. Eventually it cools enough and all that water falls as snow and rain in a massive way because there's not enough to keep the Earth warm the Earth dumps even more thermal energy off into space and we get an ice age. Right now we are at the top of the Milankovitch cycle and instead of the Earth having a warm humid patch before cooling into the next ice age we are overdriving the cycle. That's why the modelling gives 2 scenarios. We COULD either go into thermal runaway and end up like Venus or a massive thermal dump and end up like Mars. My bet is we'll end up with something in between, but its going to be wild with lots of wild weather. More thermal energy in the atmosphere means everything is running harder. Look at Texas last year and I have been there. Most of its a hot arid environment and yet it snowed so badly children froze to death in the beds. Australia was always picked as one of the most vulnerable nations. For the last few years its been stinking hot with some of the worst droughts ever and some of the worst bushfire seasons ever. This year its floods, floods and more floods. Our Snow season looks to be the best in decades. What worries me is this much water will cause huge amounts of growth in our forests so that when the next dry comes there will be huge amounts of fuel to burn. At some point in the next few years we will burn from one end to the other and just like they are doing now the deniers will claim its all natural.
    1
  100.  @AmericatheBeautiful-p4z  I'd try and explain the reasons why people like you are so ignorant and wrong and stupid but its not worth it. But for anyone else interested here's some basic engineering and a bit of math. There's an oddish subject in aerospace I call planetary mechanics. I was introduced to it by a NASA engineer who visited our university one day. He'd done a project on what it would take to terraform Mars. He explained you just start with something basic like how much air do you need and what would you need to heat it up to a reasonable temperature considering Mars is cold. -60C on Mars is a warm day. Planetary mechanics is just the basic mechanics of what's needed (nuts and bolts). Its not the complex gas & water cycles that change and shift with seasons or the effects of the planets rotation and inclination or any of the other time related things. I call that stuff planetary dynamics as it involves things that move and change and cycle with time. To keep the math practical and get a basic estimate of what the task is, we do an approximation. I use the idea of a 1km think layer of breathable air because it makes the math understandable. I approximate the volume but just covering the planet in 1km cubes of air. Yes there's gaps between the cubes but its just an approximation and its within 1%. I also ignore things like gravity, solar wind, etc, BECAUSE I am just trying to demonstrate the size of the task. The surface of Mars is 144,000,000 km. That equates to 144,000,000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 cubic meters of air and at 1.2kg for a cubic meter of air, that's 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air. To raise that much air from -60 to +20 ℃ engineers use the basic equation: E = Cp x M x ΔT Energy Required (kilojoules) = 1.006 kJ/kg.C x mass of air in kg x temperature difference in ℃ We then get 13,906,944,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy required. So how much energy is that? It's the equivalent of 220,745,143 Hiroshima bombs which had 63 Terajoules of energy. Its also equivalent to about 64,683 Tzar Bombs the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. Lets not forget we still need to find or create that 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air and work out how to keep it attached to Mars because Mars only has 1/3rd of Earths gravity. Then there's the task of making the gas and water cycles work. This is why aerospace engineers don't talk about this stuff much because once you realise the basic scope of terraforming the numbers get so massive so quickly the scope confuses people. Half the problem is the idiocy of Hollywood. Remember the film Aliens? The one with the giant nuclear reactor that would convert the asteroid into a liveable planet in about 20 years. BULLSH1T If they had a few 1000 of those reactors running for a couple of centuries they might start to make a difference. Simple rule if it involves Hollywood and technology its 99.9% scientifically FALSE, WRONG or plain BULLSH1T. Don't get me wrong I still love sci-fi, its just I know what's fiction and what's NOT. If you have time and do want to learn about energy systems then I recommend the Illinois Energyprof channel here on YouTube. I can't say its exciting but it is informative. Disclaimer: I did my degree at U. Illinois, but have never met David Ruzic. I graduated before his time there.
    1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103.  @jonnyhatter35  No problems mate. Here's a slightly longer version of the subject. I did aerospace engineering and back in college we had an alum who worked at NASA visit and do a special lecture one Friday. He'd just done a project where they assessed the viability of terraforming Mars. He introduced us to what I call planetary mechanics - the basics numbers of what you need to do. The making it all work as a functioning atmosphere is what I call planetary dynamics because that's about dynamic systems as things that move rather than just the basic numbers. So in planetary mechanics you look at things like size of the planet and how much air you need if you want a breathable atmosphere. The numbers are massive because planets are massive. If we go to an air conditioning company they'll ask how many cubic meters the house or building has and we'd be talking maybe a few hundred or a few 1000 for an office block. The quick way to estimate that is to look at the floor space of your house and multiply by 2.5 because most rooms are about 2.5 meters heigh. So if your apartment has 200m2 of floorspace you have about 500m3 of volume. For an office block with 5,000m2 its about 12,500m3. But the Earth has 500,000 square kilometers of floor space that's 500,000,000,000 square meters. So just for the first kilometer of air around us its 500,000,000,000,000m3 (500 trillion). At about 1.2kg/m3 that's about 600 billion metric tons of air. That's just the first kilometer above sea level and there's a lot more above that. Its one of the main reasons its so hard for engineers and scientists to communicate what we've actually done to our planet. The numbers are so large most people can't get their heads around it. How do you get average citizens to consider 600billion tons of air when for their basic daily life air weighs nothing? I can do this because I met the right guy back when who introduced this subject.
    1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. I'm Australian and we just won the 2032 games. NO ONE ELSE BID and nobody is asking why? We have plenty of idiots celebrating and making it out to be a good thing. Some of those idiots a have even started the lies. The worst is the claim that 80% of the venues are already built. That's just idiotic garbage. I am currently in Brisbane. I have lived here previously and there is NO WAY they even 25% of the venues and those they do have will need major upgrades before 2032. If Japan is a massive financial failure it only joins the financial failures of others. As a kid I watched the 1976 Montreal games. To the best of my knowledge they have never recovered the costs. 1980 in Moscow was a success because they had cheap labor which also gave Seoul in 1988 an advantage. LA & Atlanta were held in cities with massive sports facilities and massive universities with huge dorms they could use for the athletes village. Barcelona already had a couple of major stadiums. London already had all those football stadiums and the rest of the facilities. Beijing like Seoul and Moscow just had all that cheap labor to build what ever they wanted. Brisbane has 2 main stadiums the Gabba (oval shaped) at 42,000 and Suncorp (rectangular) at 52,500. Neither of those are up to Olympic standard which needs to be around the 80,000 mark. Brisbane held the 1982 Commonwealth games and did a great job. Every since they felt that justified they could host the Olympics. Brisbanites TOTALLY ignore all the extra sports the Olympics have and all the extra athletes and support staff and the extra media. They are planning to spend $1Billion upgrading the Gabba from 42,000 to 50,000 and don't get that's a joke by Olympic Standards. PLUS there's the lesson of Sydney they have already forgotten. It still hasn't been paid for and will most likely NEVER recoup the money spent. Why did one else bid for 2032? Because they were awake.
    1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. ​ @seanarmstrong8255  Yeah charters of any type are usually profitable because you simply look at the actual costs and then add a percentage and that works for anything - planes, boats, cars,... On fuel Concorde was always thirsty but then so has every other plane in history when it flew supersonic. Its one of the reasons why the generations of jet fighters after the 1970s got slower on their top end speed. I remember an engineer who worked on the F111 who said that with full tanks off an air refueling with no external load to add any extra drag that it had enough fuel for about 4-1/2 minutes at full speed. One day when I was at my glider club in 87 one of the tow pilots mentioned that one of the Concorde pilots had just logged his 10,000th hour as pilot in command at supersonic speed. At that moment he had more time as PIC at supersonic than the entire USAF had logged in all its known history. The SR-71 time was unknown at that stage because it was still pretty secret but it was still estimated at only a few 1000 hours. People don't realise that even though there's F15, F16, F18,.... pilots with 1,000s of hours they have only an hour at most at supersonic with most of them only minutes. Its simply not something they do a lot of. Its a combination of fuel and much it stresses the airframe and engines. I was checking something recently about the MIG 25 Foxbat which was built to counter the potential of the XB-70 and could go faster than Mach 3. Yes it really could go that fast but it did so much damage to the engines they were tossed at the end of the flight and scrapped. Not rebuilt but scrapped. When you know these things it just makes you realise how special planes like the Concorde and SR71 actually are/were.
    1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. YES - Its proof yet again that no matter what your tribe, culture, nation or political system, there is no greater threat to any society than its own fanatics. I remember a TV mini-series (many years ago - 1981) about the Siege of Masada. In one scene Peter Strauss playing the Zealot Leader Eleazar Ben Yair meets Peter O'Toole playing the Roman general Lucius Flavius Silva and Eleazar tells him that if he wants to destroy the Jews simply leave them alone and very quickly they will start fighting among themselves. Look at America right now. We might not see it that clearly because the effect took 30+ years to surface but by winning the Cold War and with it the collapse of the Soviet Empire they lost that 1 major threat. Yeah sure China has sort of stepped up as a challenger and there was the war on terror but neither were the same threat Russia was. In the years since without that 1 real challenger the Americans have simply started fighting among themselves. Sure they had rivalries but not since the civil war have there been factions in America that actually believe that other Americans are their worst enemy imaginable. On the flip side who did more damage to Russia than the Communists. Other than how they treated their own people their industries never really developed that much. I'm an aerospace engineer and Soyuz might be old and less technically developed but its reliable. Where they truly screwed up was environmentally and the best example there is the Aral Sea disaster.
    1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138.  @michaelj6486  Sorry dickhead but don't because you don't know my situation which is actually similar to your wife's. I've had to remain in partial isolation, out of work waiting until I could get medical clarification. I have had multiple instances of Deep Vein Thrombosis including earlier this year. Due to circumstances I got caught out of Victoria where I am from. So it's cost me a lot of my own money to stay semi-isolated. I have only recently been cleared and got my first jab thankfully without any complications and am due for my 2nd. So I totally understand your wife's predicament and I find it totally egregious that she has NOT been treated fairly. On her treatment you and me are in 100% agreement. I am also against mandates and that is based on the EXPERT advice Dr. Michael Osterholm gave earlier this year. He's the Director of The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy located within the University of Minnesota. He's the guy Joe Rogan interviewed early on and almost everything he's said has come true. He has DECADES of experience with pandemic response. He's totally pro-vaccine and totally against mandates, because in his experience (over decades) is that they DON'T WORK. When the U. of Minnesota went to install a mandate for returning students he was the one who argued against it. His simply stated that the actual issue is there are 3 types of people when it comes to vaccines not 2. 1: The person who will get vaccinated for the simple reason they don't want to get sick. 2: The anti-vaxxer who, for some ideological reason, will never willingly take a shot. 3: The hesitant, who for some reason (medical, social or other) is not yet decided on if they will or wont get vaccinated. The first group aren't a problem and you can't do anything with the 2nd. The problem with mandates is that you risk pushing the 3rd group AWAY form getting vaccinated. Which as Dr. Osterholm pointed out has happened time and time again. He gave examples of parts of Africa. Mandates drive people away from getting vaccinated and that's a disaster for getting the vaccine rate high enough that those who cannot legitimately get vaccinated are not a problem. He did clarify that there are certain high risk environments where you do need mandates. Air travel being one because you have people packed in a plane with a very high infection risk and they are moving from one place to another. So I have had publicly available EXPERT advice on the subject of mandates for most of this year. I have no time at all for SELFISH CLOWNS and their utter garbage about conspiracies and the fact their stupidity is why governments feel the need to lockdown and mandate vaccinations. But there are always people who think the rules don't apply to them and they FK things up for everyone.
    1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171.  @Aa-ron01  Do you understand even the basics of climate change, because a lot of people don't. Its pretty simple if you heat up the planet you evaporate more water and sooner or later it will fall out of the sky. Basically it turbocharges the weather. In a nutshell the side of the earth the faces the sun is getting energy pumped into/onto it by a monstrous nuclear furnace. The other side of the planet is dumping excess energy off into space. We are still getting the same amount from the sun on one side but not dumping as much on the other as a result the entire planet has slowly heated up. When its hotter there's more evaporation. If you have more evaporation you have more clouds and eventually you have these events with huge amounts of rain and snow. It was always called climate change by the scientific community it was journalists who called it global warming because that was easier for them to type. Your remark on vegetation is half right. Vegetation doesn't absorb surface water what it does is allow it to be absorbed. The problem with soil (particularly Australian soils) is that when it dries out it switches from water absorbing to water repelling and if you dry it right out its hard to get it back to water absorbing. What vegetation does is help keep moisture in the soil. So it keeps the soil in a water absorbing state so that when it rains the water can soak into the soil. If its dried out then rain can simply run off the land into the creeks and rivers taking topsoil with it. Its one reason why our environmental scientists (not the greenie tree hugging clowns) have been telling us for a while that we have to stop simply clearing land for pasture as we have done. They've now got the evidence that keeping 20% of native trees and vegetation makes our land more productive as it helps maintain the moisture in the soil. Trying to convince people that's true is the next problem.
    1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178.  @kausthubh  There's plenty of open unforested space space. I'm Australian we have several million square kilometers for starters. North Africa has massive amounts of open space and YES I damn well know how hard that will be. But that can also be mitigated with tree selection and planting arrangements. There's some pretty amazing videos here on YouTube on re-wilding and how they are reclaiming lots of open space. One of the really important things that has come out of that is variety. If you try and to it via monoculture it will be a disaster. HERE'S the inescapable fact. We have to get 3.5 Trillion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere and do it fast. There's a clown down the list here (idm3027) who's pulling numbers out of his butt like it will only cost $100 a ton by DAC. IF THATS TRUE and lets not forget that Douglas Chan COO Climeworks is claiming they hope to get it down from $1000/ton to $3-400/ton, then at $100/ton its still going to cost $350 TRILLION. WHERE TF DOES ANYONE THINK THEY ARE GOING TO GET THAT $350 TRILLION? Then there's the actual energy costs. In how many places would we need new power stations to drive that AND WHO'S going to pay for those power stations. Then that's that whole problem of the environmental cost of all the materials required to build all those plants. I started with a degree in aerospace but have spent 30+ years working in industrial control systems and automation. I have spent time in both manufacturing and mining and I KNOW how much energy those industries consume. Do you know there's mor energy used in making a car than it consumes in its lifetime? people forget it take energy to dig all those materials out of the ground and process it into stuff that you can makes bits out of so you can assemble those bits into a car. Its the same for most manufactured goods. In fact a great way to help save the planet is to STOP manufacturing crap products and instead manufacture everything with better quality to last longer. It would massively reduce energy consumption. The other thing is to triple glaze all those glass towers we've build over the last century. mark Blyth the political economist at Brown U. mentioned an engineering report that said if America just triple glazed all its office blocks and skyscrapers the saving in energy would help America get most of the way to meeting the Paris Accords. Architects might be good for designing aesthetically nice buildings but they don't know a damn thing about energy efficiency.
    1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182.  @nm5310  I don't mind the longness of that comment at all. I've read through it several times and I agree with all of it. I was really surprised by the number of displaced people. Last I heard was a few years back and they put it around 60 million and growing. So I expected it to be higher but 108 million is where the world needs to STOP and start thinking. You've actually described WHY Australia came down so hard on the boat people issue. The vast majority of those arriving were unaccompanied men. It was kept quite but there were several very ugly incidents in Australia with unaccompanied men coming from cultures where women are seen as property. They simply had no idea of how Western liberal societies operate. Your final paragraph goes right to the core of why Australia reacted as it did. These people had access to enough money to pay the people smugglers. We traced some of that funding back to people already in Australia and that infuriated people. There were millions of dollars leaving the country every week and most of it wasn't helping anyone because it was ending up in the hands of a couple of Pakistani mobsters. The other thing that infuriated people was the money spent on legal claims which was funded by Australia. The concept of "NO - your claim does not meet the criteria." means NOTHING to certain people. You might know it better or explain it better but there is a certain psychology where people define themselves by the attention they get from helping people. My mother made a comment about Mother Terresa many years ago. She said (paraphrasing) "Mother Terresa is a hypocrite. She fights against government funded contraception programs because it would mean fewer orphans for her to take care of and get attention." There's a condition called "Munchausen by proxy" where people seek attention for the illness of others. I think this is something similar where certain people like the attention they get from fighting causes. I think Nigel Farage did that with Brexit. I don't think he cared about it at all except that it got him a lot of attention. We have people in Australia who define their existence on fighting certain causes to the death. I met a lawyer at a social event about 20 years ago when there were a lot of boat people arriving out of Southern China. They explained part of the problem was that they destroyed any and all documentation they had. It makes it almost impossible to identify who they are or where they are from and evaluate their claims, but that never deterred the lawyers supporting their claims and filing claim after claim after claim. We now call these people undocumented arrivals and they are still a problem. Those lawyers actually made the situation WORSE not better and it lead to the "Pacific Solution" that we get condemned for. A significant event was the Tampa Affair, and there's a Wikipedia page on it that's fairly accurate. What's not there is that Australia flipped it back on the international community to asses the 400+ claims which were done under UN supervision. Initially the UN only passed about 20 of the 400+ but over time that number increased but it cost heaps to work out who people were. An odd personal story out of that time. A friend of my father is married to a German and her family in Europe called her up and asked what sort of disgusting racist nation was she was living in. Around 2010 her family were in Australia and all they wanted to know was how did Australia mange to shut down the people smuggling. The answer is unfortunately harsh - we had to be as ruthless as the people smugglers. We simply made it a rule that unless there are exceptional circumstances if you arrive in Australia via a people smuggler we will not let you settle in Australia. It has the tragic outcome that people we should take in miss out and a lot of it stems from how the lawyers behaved that got us so frustrated that we reacted the way we did.
    1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194.  @francois-xavieresperance5007  That's fairly blunt across a whole field of issues. The pacific is almost lost as it is to China. Australia, America and others have been very slack and taken for granted all those small island states would always be in our camp. China turned up a decade ago and started funding projects as part of "belt & road." They are no so entrenched its almost impossible to get them out, because so many of those nations now OWE China for the loans (as in the debts). China now has an economic strangle hold on quite a few of them. We found that out very rudely when they all blasted off at Australia over climate change. China was a guest at that conference and it was obvious they were pulling strings to test out their influence. What's truly scary is that the West has totally ignored what China was doing. We all forget that the UN general Assembly is like the US Senate. Every country gets 1 vote irrespective of population size. So 1.4 Billion Chinamen get 1 vote while all those small Pacific nations get over a dozen with barley a million people. What I expect is that China will eventually go for economic sanctions on America and we are going to be stunned on how many nations vote with them. It will only be then will people realise what "belt & road" actually is. I've been trying to tell people for a while how scary this is. They actually learnt this from the Japanese who manipulated the international whaling commission in the same way. Plus to add into that are the immense issues China is going to face over the next 20years. First with its skewed demographics that have resulted form the 1 child policy. Second form its idiotic construction of ghost cities which has sponged up a staggering amount of cash. Third from all the wealthy Chinese who are getting their money out of China as fast as they can. Fourth that massive army they have produces no food or products to sell they are just 1 enormous sponge on resources. If you take a look at the Soviet collapse one of its major factors was the massive military it had in terms of people. Military personnel produce nothing but costs that the rest of society has to provide. Because America's military is more technology bases it doesn't have as many people as some think. Plus because of how America works its military produces a lot of economic turnover which Russia's never did and China's does not do. Plus all those foreign companies that have factories in China can now chase even cheaper labor in India and Africa.
    1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1