| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
(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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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? |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the CoolerSummer
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. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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? |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the CoolerSummer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the CoolerSummer
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:45:57 -0500, jpjccd wrote:
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_scien tific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Ph ysical_Science_Basis And this was posted to refute my claim that there were no scientists out there that subscribed Anthropogenic Climate Change... Oh no, it's just your list was so small, I thought those scientists might get lonely. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:51:49 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:45:57 -0500, jpjccd wrote: 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_scie ntific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_P hysical_Science_Basis And this was posted to refute my claim that there were no scientists out there that subscribed Anthropogenic Climate Change... Oh no, it's just your list was so small, I thought those scientists might get lonely. Size is relative, and it's not my list, relatively speaking. It was posted to refute a claim that was stated as fact, a clear implication that such a list did not exist. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
"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. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
"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??? |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
"tg" wrote in message ... 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. +Thats not true by a really long long way! |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
On Aug 25, 11:19*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
wrote: "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??? If you rely on superficial reports and 'what some guy said' you will never get it right. Scientists aren't relying on the graphs that you mention. There has been lots of research in the last few years that was designed to answer valid questions like the saturation argument you cite. What's happened, contrary to what BAR said, is that scientists who started out skeptical about ACC have been convinced otherwise. But they have read the actual studies and have the background to interpret them. Science always is subject to change, and if there is new evidence, perhaps the consensus will change. But the current consensus is the best we have. It doesn't say the world will end, it just says that there will be disruptions of human life in various ways. And as you say, why not change that if we can? -tg |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
|
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
In article , "Giga"
says... "tg" wrote in message ... 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. What a laugh.... "No scientists"?? If I show you one, will you shut up and admit you are full of ****? +Thats not true by a really long long way! -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
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_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis There is no consensus. The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review. Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda and not involved in science. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
JustWait wrote:
In article , "Giga" says... "tg" wrote in message ... 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. What a laugh.... "No scientists"?? If I show you one, will you shut up and admit you are full of ****? When I pee in the pool the water in the pool becomes warmer and my body becomes colder. +Thats not true by a really long long way! |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
On Aug 25, 2:46*pm, JustWait wrote:
In article , "Giga" says... 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. What a laugh.... "No scientists"?? If I show you one, will you shut up and admit you are full of ****? You might try Freeman Dyson: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...1&pagewanted=1 There is of course another issue which is the source of the fraud underlying ACC - far, far worse than AGW. With AGW, they could at least look at temperature graphs and make comparisons. Of course they are now scurrying away from AGW as fast as their little legs can carry them because these temperature comparisons just haven't been cooperating in recent years to support their case. But "climate change", wow, what a potential free for all. You can use any parameter you want and find something - ANYTHING - that looks a little off the norm, and boom it's enough to generate hysteria. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:59:18 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
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. 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. If you hadn't left your assets 'out in the street', you'd still have them. It's *your* job to watch *your* assets. -- John H "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!" --Anonymous |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:03:40 -0700 (PDT), tg
wrote: On Aug 25, 11:19*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end) wrote: "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??? If you rely on superficial reports and 'what some guy said' you will never get it right. Scientists aren't relying on the graphs that you mention. There has been lots of research in the last few years that was designed to answer valid questions like the saturation argument you cite. What's happened, contrary to what BAR said, is that scientists who started out skeptical about ACC have been convinced otherwise. But they have read the actual studies and have the background to interpret them. Science always is subject to change, and if there is new evidence, perhaps the consensus will change. But the current consensus is the best we have. It doesn't say the world will end, it just says that there will be disruptions of human life in various ways. And as you say, why not change that if we can? -tg You mean to say Al Gore's movie was a piece of money-grubbing ****? I know the British figured that out, but I didn't think any liberals in the USofA had done so. Good to hear some folks are waking up. -- John H "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!" --Anonymous |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
"JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , "Giga" says... "tg" wrote in message ... 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. What a laugh.... "No scientists"?? If I show you one, will you shut up and admit you are full of ****? (the bit below was me) +Thats not true by a really long long way! -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
"BAR" wrote in message
... 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_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis There is no consensus. The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review. Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda and not involved in science. I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
"BAR" wrote in message
... When I pee in the pool the water in the pool becomes warmer and my body becomes colder. Don't pee in my pool. I don't swim in your toilet. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "BAR" wrote in message m... 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_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis There is no consensus. The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review. Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda and not involved in science. I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk. Define 'it'. -- John H "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!" --Anonymous |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... 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_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis There is no consensus. The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review. Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda and not involved in science. I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk. Define 'it'. -- John H "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!" --Anonymous It has been nearly 200 years and the debate on evolution is still going on. Cancer has been a topic of investigation for over 60 years, and still there is no cure for cancer. How can the debate on the climate and global warming, a significantly more complex system, be understood after about 20 years. The climate cycles are over 100000 years in length and they claim to understand them with about 200 years of data, of which the last 50 years are accurate. Sounds like poor science to me. If those that promote global warming truly believe that global warming was a problem that had to be addressed they would be 100% behind nuclear power which has NO greenhouse gasses. Since the supporters of global warming are against nuclear energy, the only conclusion is it is strictly politics. |
Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
"Mille GT Owner" wrote in message
... On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message om... 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_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis There is no consensus. The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review. Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda and not involved in science. I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk. Define 'it'. -- John H "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!" --Anonymous It = http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&n...=&aqi=g 9g-s1 Seriously... "it" is global climate change, as you indicated in the copied link, specifically warming. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:32 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com