(I'm resubmitting this post. I had edits that I had wanted to
include, and I've had trouble posting today because of difficulties
with my newsgroup service. I'll apologize now for any inconvenience.)

I had a young engineer approach me a few years ago while I was taking
Pro/Engineer training and asked me what I thought of global warming. I
was training on the swing shift, and the second shift guys spent a lot
of time discussing current events. I told the young man that I was
all for it (global warming that is). It wasn't quite the answer he
was expecting. The young engineer practically went apoplectic. "Well,
what about the children?" he remonstrated, his voice becoming shrill.
I told him that I thought the children would enjoy the change as well.
Another engineer nearby laughed upon overhearing the conversation and
the young man harumphed and marched off.

There are a few things about the entire conversation on global warming
that have puzzled me for some time. It's my opinion, and I believe it
be based on good information, that the people that most invest in the
"fact" of global warming likewise have purchased the "fact" of
evolution. And in my various discussions with these particular folks,
evolution, as a doctrine, a theory, and a "fact," is nothing more than
change. It explains and defines the vagaries of nature that have
resulted in life as it is now. There is no purpose, and there is no
empyrean force directing it. It is simply change, and people should
learn to accept that. Likewise, these same folks generally have
adopted the idea that there is no hope of an afterlife. Death is an
inevitability that simply must be accepted, and to try to find some
way to escape it, through the construct of superstition or otherwise,
is unadulterated foolishness. People should just accept that there is
a finality to life and nothing follows.

To me, it's an odd thing that these same persons that share these
views would sound such a vociferous alarm about the global warming,
that global issue of concern that is based on a possible fiction. If
global warming or "climate change" is a fact, then I have no problem
with accepting that fact. But the verdict is still out. There are
many qualified experts that haven't subscribed to global warming as
being a factual dynamic, or at least as a threat of any substantial
magnitude. Even still, if evolution stands as an accurate model, why
resist change? It's simply change and a reasonable person should
simply accept change. And if the human race should come to
extinction, what is the harm? In fact, isn't that a palatable and
just solution to the whole affair? If man is such a threat to nature
and the physical world by virtue of his own folly, wouldn't nature be
better off with his extinction? And if life offers no real hope for
better things, since any notion of better things suggest that man
experentially has an appreciation that life has better things to
offer, why would anyone resist a simple change in the physical world,
even if that change could potentially eradicate the human race, as
pitiable as it is. Nature and the world will simply renew! It has in
the past. (In referring to a "notion of better things," in terms of
having a hope in a utopian ideal, society, or life-after-death, a
difficulty arises in determining why anyone would ponder such things.
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

On Aug 24, 5:03*pm, wrote:
(I'm resubmitting this post. *I had edits that I had wanted to
include, and I've had trouble posting today because of difficulties
with my newsgroup service. *I'll apologize now for any inconvenience.)

I had a young engineer approach me a few years ago while I was taking
Pro/Engineer training and asked me what I thought of global warming. I
was training on the swing shift, and the second shift guys spent a lot
of time discussing current events. *I told the young man that I was
all for it (global warming that is). *It wasn't quite the answer he
was expecting. *The young engineer practically went apoplectic. "Well,
what about the children?" he remonstrated, his voice becoming shrill.
I told him that I thought the children would enjoy the change as well.
Another engineer nearby laughed upon overhearing the conversation and
the young man harumphed and marched off. *

There are a few things about the entire conversation on global warming
that have puzzled me for some time. It's my opinion, and I believe it
be based on good information, that the people that most invest in the
"fact" of global warming likewise have purchased the "fact" of
evolution. *And in my various discussions with these particular folks,
evolution, as a doctrine, a theory, and a "fact," is nothing more than
change. It explains and defines the vagaries of nature that have
resulted in life as it is now. *There is no purpose, and there is no
empyrean force directing it. *It is simply change, and people should
learn to accept that. *Likewise, these same folks generally have
adopted the idea that there is no hope of an afterlife. *Death is an
inevitability that simply must be accepted, and to try to find some
way to escape it, through the construct of superstition or otherwise,
is unadulterated foolishness. *People should just accept that there is
a finality to life and nothing follows. *

To me, it's an odd thing that these same persons that share these
views would sound such a vociferous alarm about the global warming,
that global issue of concern that is based on a possible fiction. *If
global warming or "climate change" is a fact, then I have no problem
with accepting that fact. *But the verdict is still out. *There are
many qualified experts that haven't subscribed to global warming as
being a factual dynamic, or at least as a threat of any substantial
magnitude. *Even still, if evolution stands as an accurate model, why
resist change? *It's simply change and a reasonable person should
simply accept change. *And if the human race should come to
extinction, what is the harm? * In fact, isn't that a palatable and
just solution to the whole affair? *If man is such a threat to nature
and the physical world by virtue of his own folly, wouldn't nature be
better off with his extinction? *And if life offers no real hope for
better things, since any notion of better things suggest that man
experentially has an appreciation that life has better things to
offer, why would anyone resist a simple change in the physical world,
even if that change could potentially eradicate the human race, as
pitiable as it is. *Nature and the world will simply renew! *It has in
the past. *(In referring to a "notion of better things," in terms of
having a hope in a utopian ideal, society, or life-after-death, a
difficulty arises in determining why anyone would ponder such things.
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.


Go read up on the term "strawman", and get back to us. The only
conundrum is how you could think that what you wrote makes any sense.

-tg



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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

"Errol" wrote in message
...
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 all this GW theory is true then its taken about 60 years to cause the
problem, so hopefully a similar or shorter time period we can put it right.
And if it took 5000 years to put it down one notch that would imply to me
that if that effort hadn't been made it might well have gone up a lot, like
1000 notches.

On Aug 25, 4:03*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?

Geez, that sounds a lot like the way adults approach the world.
Children, on the other hand, want mommy and daddy to be there planning
everything out and taking care of them and seeing to it that they
don't have to experience any scary thoughts.

So I guess there's a consistency after all; the children among us want
magical answers, and the adults deal with the hard facts that science
teaches.

-tg

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.