Extreme is the New Normal

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:04 pm

It is a

Image

and a

Image

and a

Image

thread
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18991
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:04 pm

andre9999 wrote:Alex, that didn't even vaguely answer the question, and mostly was completely ad hominem. What is the point of arguing about this? What do you, or anyone else for that matter, aim to do?



I hope that some people will read this thread and make educated rather than emotional decisions.

I also hope that there will be no new taxes.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:06 pm

Tilt, if you think that what I posted is wrong, please post logical arguments to refute what I've posted on this thread. Simply saying or implying that "you are wrong" is not convincing and is not a way to discuss an issue.
Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:07 pm

Alex123 wrote:
andre9999 wrote:Alex, that didn't even vaguely answer the question, and mostly was completely ad hominem. What is the point of arguing about this? What do you, or anyone else for that matter, aim to do?



I hope that some people will read this thread and make educated rather than emotional decisions.

I also hope that there will be no new taxes.
And we have seen where no new taxes has gotten the USA.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18991
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:07 pm

Ay further purpose for this thread?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18991
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:10 pm

Tilt or anyone.

I am 100% willing to change my viewpoint if you convincingly and logically refute such skeptical arguments as:



1). Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant than say, oxygen or nitrogen. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle . Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive. Through photosynthesis plants transform CO2 into plant food. Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this ”Cycle”. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... cycle2.php

Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.On average, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been since life formed on earth.

2). Even at present levels, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. Current CO2 levels are only a small fraction of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere today.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in terms of CO2 parts per million (ppm) by volume. At present the globally averaged concentration of CO2 is stated as 387 PPM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide For every million parts (1,000,000,000 parts) in the atmosphere 387 of those parts are CO2. CO2 levels have increased over the past 50 years from 320 PPM to today’s 387 PPM, an increase of 67 PPM.

The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of 8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... 07_1.shtml

During the ice ages CO2 levels fell to between 200PPM and 280 PPM. During interglacial periods the CO2 Level has been measured at between 280 – 310 PPM. One does not need a calculator to see that current CO2 levels are much nearer to those recorded during the Ice Age and the interglacial periods than that time when Earth’s great green forests were first formed. CO2 is essential for plant life and growth.

In a longer historical context – Earth’s current CO2 Levels are quite low. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2 ... ioxide.htm

In fact, in Earth’s entire history there have only been two prior periods where CO2 levels were this low, . http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2 ... ioxide.htm , ”Today, at 370 PPM our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished” http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous climate.html . “So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

“Without the warming caused by natural levels of CO2 and water vapor in our atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be well below freezing.” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726


3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:
Over 95% of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees and grasses, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere.

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide , http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/VapgasAt.htm

Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.

4). Temperature Impacts CO2 Level - CO2 levels do not drive Temperature Change
First, CO2 levels rise and fall with the seasons or time of day. CO2 levels rise in the Autumn and Winter as green plants go dormant or die. The plants cease to “process” CO2 as part of their food chain. In the spring and summer CO2 levels fall as these same plants come back to life and consume CO2 in photosyntesis. Likewise CO2 levels fluctuate in the night and day. http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/v ... co2_levels

Read: Professor Richard Lindsen, PhD., Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/l ... -feedback/

CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Tem ... ages-f.pdf .

“ There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or procede changes in CO2.” “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2″ http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/g ... 0yrfig.htm

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth ,

First, the total increaase in Global Temperatures over the last 100 years is ………. 7/10s of one degree. That is right, total Global warming over the Century is less than 1 degree. During that same century the Sun’s measurable intensity or heat has increased.

“Actual climate history shows no such correlation (that CO2 caused an increase in temperature) and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... orrelation

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php , http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... l-cooling/ , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... n_Activity , http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.
Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860. This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... tml#Hockey

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance - a period of time long before the ”Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... tml#Hockey , http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 63628.html ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the “warmest ever” nor are the Temperatures producing extreme conditions “never seen before”. The findings of these 240 studies stand in stark contrast to the claims of the alarmists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age began in about 1300, with the world cooling dramatically. Just before the turn of the century, in 1900, the world began to warm up, but as of today, has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages. The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 63628.html

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the “Little Ice Age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 63628.html , http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts , http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514


If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326 , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing - the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of ”warming” that occurred in the 1990′s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001″. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... l_warming/



CO2 levels were from 7,000 ppm to 1,000ppm for ~500 million years.
Current levels are 389.69 ppm.

Global average temperature was more than 40 times higher for millions of years vs today.
Global average CO2 levels were 3x-17x higher for millions of years vs today.
Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:11 pm

Alex123 wrote:I hope that some people will read this thread and make educated rather than emotional decisions.


From what I can see your position is equally emotional. Both sides seem to be heavily invested in being right about this, and at this point would defend their argument because it is theirs. I base this on that I haven't seen either side acknowledge any point of the other side.

That said, I think that your purpose is a good one, despite that I don't agree with your position. May you find success in that. :)
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:14 pm

andre9999 wrote:
Alex123 wrote:I hope that some people will read this thread and make educated rather than emotional decisions.


From what I can see your position is equally emotional. Both sides seem to be heavily invested in being right about this, and at this point would defend their argument because it is theirs. I base this on that I haven't seen either side acknowledge any point of the other side.



I've used logical arguments and graphs. NONE OF THEM were refuted.



I am all for clean environment, and I do like animals. I am just against scaring people. In 70s we had global cooling scare. Today we have global warming scare. If humans develop better sources of fuel than gasoline, it would be great.
Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby cooran » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:14 pm

Heheheh not to pour petrol on the fire, but ....

The UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has confirmed 2010 was the warmest year on record, verifying a "significant" long-term trend of global warming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 117825.htm

cheers,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7321
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:16 pm

cooran wrote:Heheheh not to pour petrol on the fire, but ....

The UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has confirmed 2010 was the warmest year on record, verifying a "significant" long-term trend of global warming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 117825.htm

cheers,
Chris



Warmest year out of HOW MANY YEARS? This earth existed for ~4.5 billion of years and experienced drastic warmings and cooling, I presume without the use of cars. Today's temperatures are TINY compared to what was millions of years ago, and even In middle ages the temperature was higher. Did the knights drive SUV's ?


Please check the graph
global-temp-chart-2500bc-2040ad.gif
global-temp-chart-2500bc-2040ad.gif (118.44 KiB) Viewed 400 times
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby cooran » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:27 pm

Hello all,

If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).

Here are some real data from Nasa and other sources concerning the climate change. You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.
Click link to see real data.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... Ft%3D92074

with tired metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7321
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby nathan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:31 pm

Alex123 wrote:
nathan wrote:Extreme points of view is the new normal.
:woohoo:


In the 1970s there were scares of global cooling. Today we are being scared (and new taxes are proposed) with global warming...


Proposed? No. Implemented. Here in BC we are now paying, let's see, about 50 cents a gallon carbon tax on gasoline. Gasoline I put into my cheesy four cylinder import car once a month when I drive to town for groceries. 15 years ago we purchased about six acres of clear cut land on a mountain side here and since then I have restored it to a biologically diverse forest with about a 40 foot canopy. So what is the government doing with this tax, something similar perhaps? No. Our government is using this windfall to subsidize the otherwise unsustainable logging, natural gas and oil development and new mining operations. Thanks for all the support folks. I'm not so naive as to think that even if my carbon footprint is -30 metric tons/year that this makes any difference whatsoever in terms of the climate but neither am I so naive as to think that 15 trillion dollars worth of new taxes would do anything but further increase the overall rate of hydrocarbon output. So do I side with either of these positions? No, I can see that noting I actually can do makes any difference even though I am doing it. When everyone else is doing everything they can do I'll start to actually consider their implications that I must do something more than what I have already been doing. Until then, I suspect 'shutting up' about this and dropping the shallow and hollow rhetoric is probably the best most people can do in terms of lowering their own carbon output.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:31 pm

Alex,
You haven't answered the question I put to you a while ago:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex, your posts in the few hours I have been away from my computer demonstrate conclusively that you reject all of the last twenty or thirty years of climate science.
Are you aware that you are doing so? If not, please read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm and as many of the pages linked to it as you have time for.
If you are aware that you are rejecting the overwhelming consensus of thousands of very hard-working professional climate scientists, perhaps you could tell us why? If you can do so, we have some possibility of establishing a dialogue. If you can't, or won't, you seem very likely to keep on repeating pseudo-science and ignoring the truth. That's not healthy, and it's not dialogue.
Over to you :smile:
:namaste:
Kim

You have, in fact, been doing what I predicted: "repeating pseudo-science and ignoring the truth" which a lot of folk have been presenting to you.
I am not going to respond to any of your posts until you do answer that question - and I suggest that everyone else follows suit - because we cannot make any progress until you do.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:36 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex,
You haven't answered the question I put to you a while ago:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex, your posts in the few hours I have been away from my computer demonstrate conclusively that you reject all of the last twenty or thirty years of climate science.
Are you aware that you are doing so? If not, please read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm and as many of the pages linked to it as you have time for.
If you are aware that you are rejecting the overwhelming consensus of thousands of very hard-working professional climate scientists, perhaps you could tell us why? If you can do so, we have some possibility of establishing a dialogue. If you can't, or won't, you seem very likely to keep on repeating pseudo-science and ignoring the truth. That's not healthy, and it's not dialogue.
Over to you :smile:
:namaste:
Kim

You have, in fact, been doing what I predicted: "repeating pseudo-science and ignoring the truth" which a lot of folk have been presenting to you.
I am not going to respond to any of your posts until you do answer that question - and I suggest that everyone else follows suit - because we cannot make any progress until you do.
:namaste:
Kim
Shame on you. Do not confuse Alex with facts. If you do, however, you will get an instant replay of the same old stuff that has been shown to be wanting along with a denial that he is doing that.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18991
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby octathlon » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:39 pm

Alex123 wrote:I've used logical arguments and graphs. NONE OF THEM were refuted.

I gave you the link that refutes your "graph". I am not participating in the debate, but you asked to have the graph "rebuted" so I posted the link for you. However you ignored it :D
User avatar
octathlon
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby nathan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:51 pm

Ah, I see, you all have graphs! Of course, now I see, if only we all had more graphs we would be saved. Hang on, I will go out and cut down all my trees so that people can print up more graphs.
:rolleye:
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby seanpdx » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:19 pm

nathan wrote:
andre9999 wrote:You're all certainly aware that nobody here is going to be convinced to change their mind.

What is the point of this thread? I'm honestly asking.


Extreme points of view is the new normal.
:woohoo:


There are extreme points of view here? Where? All I see are "right-wing" folks who display arrogance and anthropocentrism and "left-wing" folks who display arrogance and anthropocentrism. They may do it differently, but it boils down to the same thing.

To the RightWingers(tm): Quit whining about having to make "sacrifices" in order to help out the environment. Stop being so selfish.
To the LeftWingers(tm): Just admit that your only real concern is humanity's existence. Stop being so selfish.

Besides, if we really wanted to try to "save the planet", we'd just let nature take its course and let humanity die off. If we know what the disease is, let's eradicate it... ;)
seanpdx
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:35 pm

It is unfortunate that some people cannot think, and use emotional arguments instead. Global warming is a great excuse to create new taxes. Too bad.



Alex this really shows your arrogance. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are thick or are not thinking


Ever thought that they just reach different conclusions to you
Open your mind and see, open your mind and rise. Shine the light of wisdom and see, don't wait till the end of time.
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3284
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:36 am

seanpdx wrote:There are extreme points of view here? Where? All I see are "right-wing" folks who display arrogance and anthropocentrism and "left-wing" folks who display arrogance and anthropocentrism. They may do it differently, but it boils down to the same thing.

To the RightWingers(tm): Quit whining about having to make "sacrifices" in order to help out the environment. Stop being so selfish.
To the LeftWingers(tm): Just admit that your only real concern is humanity's existence. Stop being so selfish.

Besides, if we really wanted to try to "save the planet", we'd just let nature take its course and let humanity die off. If we know what the disease is, let's eradicate it... ;)

There's some truth in what you say, seanpdx :tongue:
On the other hand, you're misrepresenting me (I assume you've thrown me into the leftwingers' camp). I am not at all concerned with 'humanity's existence' in any abstract longterm sense. If we all peacefully turned into butterflies (or cockroaches!) tomorrow, it wouldn't bother me - but that isn't on the list of possible futures.
My concern is, for sure, more with humanity than with 'the world' in some abstract longterm sense, but I am primarily motivated by the sheer human suffering that AGW is going to inflict - on real people, in our own lifetimes - if we don't do enough to avert it. Pakistan, last year: 20 million people displaced by flooding (and most of them lost all their possessions and will suffer ongoing poverty, malnutrition and disease) and several thousand killed. Brazil, very recently: 800 deaths last time I heard. And those are just a tiny beginning. Food prices will soar as crop production is further affected by droughts and floods, and people will go hungry. Sea level rise has already driven islanders from their homes, and could affect as many as 100 million people if the ice-caps melt - not all at once, but in an ongoing humanitarian and refugee crisis which may make Pakistan look like just the beginning of the 'new normal' that the OP discusses.
Knowing all this, what is the compassionate response?
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 am

Wouldnt a more strict population control help with some of this? Humans cant reproduce indefinitely without consequences such as starvation, until we can colonise other planets anyway
Open your mind and see, open your mind and rise. Shine the light of wisdom and see, don't wait till the end of time.
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3284
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DreBay, Google [Bot] and 4 guests