On Aug 25, 7:07*am, BAR wrote:
Giga Giga wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:

How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.

BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. *It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. *I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.

Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If global
warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it as well. If
global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't want then we may
want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop it or alleviate it,
by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques. So if we can and want to
stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply to everything, for instance
if you are uncomfortable, and you can change that, then why not? If you can
forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is going to burn what you are cooking
then turn down the heat or take it off the cooker?

However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is
used as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the
* fewer the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

That's interesting. Could you please provide the data to support your
claim?

-tg

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Giga Giga wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:

How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.

BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.

Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If
global warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it
as well. If global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't
want then we may want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop
it or alleviate it, by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques.
So if we can and want to stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply
to everything, for instance if you are uncomfortable, and you can change
that, then why not? If you can forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is
going to burn what you are cooking then turn down the heat or take it off
the cooker?

However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is used
as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the fewer
the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

I must admit I was shocked, surprised, even scandalised when I checked that
graph that Al Gore shows with CO2 and Temp following each other over
100,000s of years. look at a slightly higher resolution and you see that
temp goes up roughly 800 years *before* CO2 even starts to rise, and goes
down hundreds of years *before* CO2 falls. I can't beleive he was unaware of
how misleading the way he showed the graph was. It smells like a con-job. If
this graph shows anything is that warming leads to more CO2 eventually, and
when there is enough CO2 cooling will start eventually (this is absurd of
course). What it actually seems to show is that they are not directly
correlated at all.

Also just heard that the famous 'hockey stick' graph was equally flawed.
Apparently you can put any set of data into that model and it will come out
pretty much that shape! Wow, amazing, what a bunch of loons! But do we hear
about this from the mass media?

Another guy I heard said that after 50ppm CO2 has litle extra blanketting
effect on the Earth. Basically its like a dye, once its coloured the cloth
you can add more but the colour doesn't increase, its already fully
covered???

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:03:33 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:


How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.

BOfL

What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.

Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If global
warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it as well. If
global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't want then we may
want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop it or alleviate it,
by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques. So if we can and want to
stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply to everything, for instance
if you are uncomfortable, and you can change that, then why not? If you can
forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is going to burn what you are cooking
then turn down the heat or take it off the cooker?


I don't necessarily disagree with this. It is a point of contention,
though, as to whether or not the pan is being left on the stove with
the heat on. Even still, to elaborate on your analogy, if it is
obvious that the pan is going to be warming by a measurable degree
over the next 1000 years or so, who's to say that it won't be
something that will bring about an adaptive evolutioinary change,
perhaps even a desirable one, as local climate change has done for the
ground finch;

http://books.google.com/books?id=8QR...age&q=&f=false

Science has also determined that the sun will eventually exhaust its
fuel to the point that it will bring about cataclysmic change, a
deadly change for life is it is now. Should humankind also resist an
inevitability which appears to be a part of the natural order of the
universe, a matter of atrophy? I'm not confessing this to be my view.
I'm simply questioning current, popular thought.

I personally think that if climate change could compel man to find a
way to expand out across the universe, as it compels birds to evolve
on a microevolutionary scale, climate change may not be such an
alarming peril afterall.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:03:33 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:


How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.

BOfL

What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.

Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If
global
warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it as well.
If
global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't want then we may
want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop it or alleviate
it,
by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques. So if we can and want
to
stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply to everything, for
instance
if you are uncomfortable, and you can change that, then why not? If you
can
forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is going to burn what you are
cooking
then turn down the heat or take it off the cooker?


I don't necessarily disagree with this. It is a point of contention,
though, as to whether or not the pan is being left on the stove with
the heat on. Even still, to elaborate on your analogy, if it is
obvious that the pan is going to be warming by a measurable degree
over the next 1000 years or so, who's to say that it won't be
something that will bring about an adaptive evolutioinary change,
perhaps even a desirable one, as local climate change has done for the
ground finch;

The desirable adaptive change, IMHO, will be better use of resources, such
as recycling, alternative energy sources and greater protection for the
natural enviroment. This is good whether AGW is real or not.


http://books.google.com/books?id=8QR...age&q=&f=false

Science has also determined that the sun will eventually exhaust its
fuel to the point that it will bring about cataclysmic change, a
deadly change for life is it is now. Should humankind also resist an
inevitability which appears to be a part of the natural order of the
universe, a matter of atrophy?

Of course. I think this not likely to happen for billions of years. If we
are not all over this and quite a few other galaxies, possibly in various
dimensions by then, I would be shocked. Also we will almost certainly have
the means to either relocate the Earth to another star or even repair Sol if
we really want to.

I'm not confessing this to be my view.
I'm simply questioning current, popular thought.

I personally think that if climate change could compel man to find a
way to expand out across the universe, as it compels birds to evolve
on a microevolutionary scale, climate change may not be such an
alarming peril afterall.

Not sure there is a need to compel human beings to explore, its naturally in
us, and I'm sure it will happen.


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Aug 25, 12:04*am, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:







How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? *Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") * Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. *No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.

BOfL

What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. *It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. *I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.


anybody know what a 'stoic, clinical view of evolution and death' is?

Bueller? bueller?

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:03:33 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

It is simply change

Given this insight...

No, it is not 'simply change' since change is perpetual, it is the rate
at which this change occurs that is the issue.

And this issue is being muddled by: is it or is it not a result of human
activity. Which is a form addressing (fighting) the function: should some
humans change what they are now doing at the same rate as the change?

Why this is then cast as a concern of human extinction is really a matter
of the "I" POV in this chatty post.

For this "I" (aka me) the polar ice caps are the reference.

Science as religion fails here. No "Science tell us", Instead an ugly
truth, people in science, their work and data interpretation are
vulnerable to a larger process in which they must operate. Foremost being
the information process.