Thread: OK Boomers, we've been called out.

Yes, not to mention that the chances of getting another job if you lose your job after about fifty are pretty slim.

I was walking through Fremantle yesterday and an older lady walked past wearing a T-shirt which read “OK Soyboy”. I cracked up laughing.

[QUOTE=bob10;2951356]

Originally Posted by johntins

No, wrong thinking. The water on this planet does not change. It is absolutely finite. What changes is the way it is used. The planet is in no trouble whatsoever. It has managed for 4.5,000.000.000 years, and it will continue to do so until the sun dies, which it will. Water may become vapour, or it may become ice, depending on the sun. Every weather pattern you have ever seen is no more than a fly speck on a graph. What will change is that man will cease. Wow! Dinosaurs ruled for 165, 000,000 years, and we'll manage less than 100,000, most in the last 10.00? Are you serious? ( BTW, the climate changed FAR more in that time than it ever will in ours ). Man will cease. Deal with it. It won't be tomorrow, it may not be for millennia, but so what? It will happen. The planet won't care.

Men have gone to war over weather before, and they will again. In the scheme of things it won't make any difference. "The planet" can sustain, but it will choose which population will survive. And it won't be us, and it's an amazing arrogance to suggest it will. We are a drop in a bucket, and it's wise to remember that. You will get to see your grandkids though, this stuff ain't fast.

This planet does not care about us. Why would it? It didn't care about the dinosaurs, it didn't care about the primordial soup, and it certainly didn't care about Uluru ( sorry, Bob and Ian ).

We have absolutely no influence on any of this at all. If you disagree with this you are probably mad, or you have a money making agenda... Or, of course, I'm wrong....

Persuade me....[/QUOT


. First up, I don't intend to persuade any one who is obviously just trolling for effect. Let me start by saying 96% of the Earths water is in the Oceans. I'll let you find out the distribution of the rest. I'll post a link detailing 8 areas of the World where water is/has been fought over, or will be in the future. These are the chapters in the link. Mesopotamian war , Turkey Vs ISIS, Yangtze and the Mekong, Congo and the Nile, Afghanistan dries up, India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine. The rest I refuse to respond to, it is based on ignorance. And ignorance is what got us into this mess in the first place. You'll have to excuse my abruptness, but I'm not in the mood to pussyfoot around.


The World Will Soon be at War Over Water

You accuse me of trolling? Ignorance? Got a mirror handy? You'll need to do better than Newsweek, Bob.

My first point read "No, wrong thinking. The water on this planet does not change. It is absolutely finite. What changes is the way it is used. " I repeat it here as you obviously didn't bother to read it before choosing to attack me. Nothing in your post or the Newsweek link you so rely on challenges what I said.

Mesopotamian war? ISIS is fighting for control of EVERYTHING. Water is merely a part of it. Syria has been mostly desert since history began being recorded. Do you know what a desert is, Bob? The issue there is the increase in population, NOT the decrease in water.

Turkey IS holding back water from ISIS. So What? It's a tactic, and does not indicate that water itself is in shortfall. Turkey has a long history of dam building. You can take up the rights and wrongs of that with the Turkish Gov't. Good luck with that.

I have always opposed the Yangtze dams, for all the good it did. China will ride roughshod over anyone or anything they choose to. Do you seriously believe there will be civil war in China? Tiananmen Square ring any bells? Hong Kong right now?

Congo and the Nile? Once again, it is one country's policy of damming that hurts another country.

Afghanistan? Even the rather weak article you link to points to the mismanagement of the water as the issue.

I clearly stated that men have gone to war and probably will again, but you chose to ignore that and post a link that basically reinforces my point.

You state that 96% of the water is in the oceans. Even that is incorrect, albeit not by much, it is 96.5%, but that goes no way to addressing my point about it being fixed and finite. It's a closed system.

How about next time, before you throw around the ad hominem attacks, you actually read what people write, and then try and refute their points? Failing to do so is one of the many definitions of ignorance.

Have a great day.

[QUOTE=johntins;2953684]

Originally Posted by bob10

You accuse me of trolling? Ignorance? Got a mirror handy? You'll need to do better than Newsweek, Bob.

My first point read "No, wrong thinking. The water on this planet does not change. It is absolutely finite. What changes is the way it is used. " I repeat it here as you obviously didn't bother to read it before choosing to attack me. Nothing in your post or the Newsweek link you so rely on challenges what I said.

Mesopotamian war? ISIS is fighting for control of EVERYTHING. Water is merely a part of it. Syria has been mostly desert since history began being recorded. Do you know what a desert is, Bob? The issue there is the increase in population, NOT the decrease in water.

Turkey IS holding back water from ISIS. So What? It's a tactic, and does not indicate that water itself is in shortfall. Turkey has a long history of dam building. You can take up the rights and wrongs of that with the Turkish Gov't. Good luck with that.

I have always opposed the Yangtze dams, for all the good it did. China will ride roughshod over anyone or anything they choose to. Do you seriously believe there will be civil war in China? Tiananmen Square ring any bells? Hong Kong right now?

Congo and the Nile? Once again, it is one country's policy of damming that hurts another country.

Afghanistan? Even the rather weak article you link to points to the mismanagement of the water as the issue.

I clearly stated that men have gone to war and probably will again, but you chose to ignore that and post a link that basically reinforces my point.

You state that 96% of the water is in the oceans. Even that is incorrect, albeit not by much, it is 96.5%, but that goes no way to addressing my point about it being fixed and finite. It's a closed system.

How about next time, before you throw around the ad hominem attacks, you actually read what people write, and then try and refute their points? Failing to do so is one of the many definitions of ignorance.

Have a great day.

I read it. You are still trying to start a fight.

Originally Posted by bob10

Here's a thought. Boomers are being told they must work longer, to help the economy, but doesn't that take work away from the younger ones ?


Economist slams Frydenberg's ageing population 'scare campaign'

That assumes that there is a constant amount of jobs and that the job market cannot grow - kind of like saying ‘They come over here and take our jobs’

Also assumes that there is someone in the younger generation even capable of doing the same job which a Boomer has decades of experience with.

Just an observation.

Originally Posted by Homestar

That assumes that there is a constant amount of jobs and that the job market cannot grow - kind of like saying ‘They come over here and take our jobs’

Also assumes that there is someone in the younger generation even capable of doing the same job which a Boomer has decades of experience with.

Just an observation.

You have a point, I guess the Boomers can teach the young ones. An attractive option would be to negotiate the time worked. a Boomer with super would probably only need to work a couple of days a week. The gov. would have to change the tax laws, to make it attractive. EDIT. owe you one , cheers

[QUOTE=johntins;2953684]

Originally Posted by bob10

You accuse me of trolling? Ignorance? Got a mirror handy? You'll need to do better than Newsweek, Bob.

My first point read "No, wrong thinking. The water on this planet does not change. It is absolutely finite. What changes is the way it is used. " I repeat it here as you obviously didn't bother to read it before choosing to attack me. Nothing in your post or the Newsweek link you so rely on challenges what I said.

Mesopotamian war? ISIS is fighting for control of EVERYTHING. Water is merely a part of it. Syria has been mostly desert since history began being recorded. Do you know what a desert is, Bob? The issue there is the increase in population, NOT the decrease in water.

Turkey IS holding back water from ISIS. So What? It's a tactic, and does not indicate that water itself is in shortfall. Turkey has a long history of dam building. You can take up the rights and wrongs of that with the Turkish Gov't. Good luck with that.

I have always opposed the Yangtze dams, for all the good it did. China will ride roughshod over anyone or anything they choose to. Do you seriously believe there will be civil war in China? Tiananmen Square ring any bells? Hong Kong right now?

Congo and the Nile? Once again, it is one country's policy of damming that hurts another country.

Afghanistan? Even the rather weak article you link to points to the mismanagement of the water as the issue.

I clearly stated that men have gone to war and probably will again, but you chose to ignore that and post a link that basically reinforces my point.

You state that 96% of the water is in the oceans. Even that is incorrect, albeit not by much, it is 96.5%, but that goes no way to addressing my point about it being fixed and finite. It's a closed system.

How about next time, before you throw around the ad hominem attacks, you actually read what people write, and then try and refute their points? Failing to do so is one of the many definitions of ignorance.

Have a great day.

There's less water on earth than there used to be.

Too right! What would Noah think of the current situation?