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

On Aug 25, 8:04*am, BAR wrote:
tg wrote:
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?

Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own.

OK. I'd just like to point out that there is absolute proof of
Anthropogenic Climate Change. All of it is in the public domain. You
shouldn't have trouble finding it on your own. And there are no
scientists who disagree with it.

-tg




Or
if you are just looking at the issue from one side then you will never
see the info and it will not matter what data I provide to support my
position.

The most interesting thing is that "Climate Change" legislation in the
US has suddenly taken a back seat to "Health Insurance Reform", its
current name of the day. Why nobody would support climate change
legislation when they found out that it was just a means to transfer
income.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Errol
wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:03*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To continue with your stove metaphor; what if it takes 5 000 years to
reduce the heat by 1 notch? 5 000 years of doing everything right.

It's too much effort for most people and they are content to be
bamboozled by the people who conduct tests (sponsored by fuel creation
or fuel intensive industries) that show that mankind is innocent as a
lamb and have had no effect on global warming

This is an unpopular viewpoint however. I expect to be flamed for it.

If we can't be sure that we can decrease global warming measurably on
a millennial scale, how can we be so sure we will dramatically
increase the global temperature in a much shorter period of time?

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

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:34:01 -0700 (PDT), tg
wrote:

On Aug 25, 8:04*am, BAR wrote:
tg wrote:
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?

Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own.

OK. I'd just like to point out that there is absolute proof of
Anthropogenic Climate Change. All of it is in the public domain. You
shouldn't have trouble finding it on your own. And there are no
scientists who disagree with it.

-tg

While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

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

On Aug 25, 8:43*am, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:34:01 -0700 (PDT), tg
wrote:



On Aug 25, 8:04*am, BAR wrote:
tg wrote:
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?

Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own.

OK. I'd just like to point out that there is absolute proof of
Anthropogenic Climate Change. All of it is in the public domain. You
shouldn't have trouble finding it on your own. And there are no
scientists who disagree with it.

-tg

While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_the_mainstre...

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


After you study up on "strawman", dip into "irony" and "sarcasm".

-tg

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.

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 Aug 25, 8:04*am, BAR wrote:
tg wrote:
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?

Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own. Or
if you are just looking at the issue from one side then you will never
see the info and it will not matter what data I provide to support my
position.

The most interesting thing is that "Climate Change" legislation in the
US has suddenly taken a back seat to "Health Insurance Reform", its
current name of the day. Why nobody would support climate change
legislation when they found out that it was just a means to transfer
income.-

the only process to 'transfer income' is to vote for the GOP. they've
engineered the biggest income transfer in history...from the middle
class to the wealthy...

THEN they got much of the middle class to believe this is the way god
means it to be.

jesus, i wish i had their marketing system.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:37:19 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scient ific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phy sical_Science_Basis

And this was posted to refute my claim that there were no scientists
out there that subscribed Anthropogenic Climate Change...

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