We are the direct cause of a mass extinction that's already in progress with our Greenhouse Gasses, and push for to make more Global Warming. Listening to them, you'd think that we're the only possible cause.
Are we truly so horrid, or is Earth 2100 AD yet more hyperbole?
-Sarena
If they could observe and predict temperature trends, they wouldn't have predicted 40 years ago that we'd be in the middle of an ice age by now.
Mars is supposedly undergoing global warming. I guess it's all the cows and SUVs, eh?
This last decade has seen some of the coldest years on record. I can't remember where I saw it, but I seem to recall there was a Global Warming summit fairly recently that was cancel on account of unseasonal snow.
As for global warming: I don't know what to believe. I do know that it's unreasonably cold down here in the Netherlands and it's messing with traffic (no more salt to put on the roads, trains breaking down and being cancelled, etc)
We are the direct cause of a mass extinction that's already in progress with our Greenhouse Gasses, and push for to make more Global Warming. Listening to them, you'd think that we're the only possible cause.
Well, all evidence points to yes. While I haven't seen the particular program you're referring to, the greenhouse issue is not new. Greenhouse gas levels naturally cycle throughout the eons, but never, ever has greenhouse gasses spiked in a way that did not follow its natural trends, let alone spike so high in so small period of time, all starting at a time that coincides with the industrial revolution.
Though global warming is not the only way humans are contributing to mass extinction. Not by a long shot. Humans are basically resource hogs. Land, water, food, harmful wastes. Humans have been edging out other species for a long time. While nature is resilient, its hard to compete with a population of nearly 7 billion and growing steadily encroaching on what natural areas are left. But I'll cut myself off here, lest I begin to rant (more).
Are we truly so horrid, or is Earth 2100 AD yet more hyperbole?
-Sarena
Well, I've only watched a short clip of it online, but from what I gather, its a presentation of current trends and probable worse case scenarios that can be projected from those trends. Not hyperbole so much as a very condensed warning of what's likely around the corner for humanity (I say condensed, because a two-hour long show is not long enough to truly cover the science in depth). But change starts with knowledge, so yeah.
I wouldn't go so far as to say humans (as a whole) are horrid, but rather we are flawed and ignorant, especially concerning issues outside our immediate, personal concerns.
I do like the whole 'cows are causing global warming' schtick, though. I can't wait to see what PETA wants to do about that. Us meat eaters are saving the world, Ingrid. What has your insane little cult done to help?
As to the question in the title, yes, humans are ebil. Our only true goal is control. Total control. That makes us ebil, IMO, because we care nothing for what we eventually control - only that we're the boss. We've also decided that we're above the rest of the creatures on this rock and, in our aforementioned arrogance, act accordingly. We want to save the world without being a part of it. Too bad that won't work.
I sumbit the theory that a number of them are hiding amongst normal humans trying to kill all the gods followers in order to kill the god/s.
Everything until it's undeniable will probably be a wasted effort.
I also think people have to stop thinking of the Earth as being in some sort of balance. I tend to think of it at some sort of equilibrium. If something happens, something else happens. Enough things happen and you get a certain ecosystem. Its not like someone said "this is the perfect ecosystem" and balanced every factor to make it fit together... at least in my opinion.
We're also pretty ignorant when it comes to knowing what the atmospheric conditions were really like before we created the equipment to monitor them. We have no ****ing clue what the trends were before now. None. We do like to guess, though, and I think that's some nice evidence of humanity's arrogance.
We do have trends that stretch back into the past but what we don't have is is accurate trends. Accurate as in the accuracy is only accurate to a temp range or flux that happened over a several thousand year period. A few thousand year period or window is about the best that can be obtained but the general temp change can be observed through much of earth's history. IIRC the general trend should suggest that the current climate/temp is below the average earth temp. Also, evidence, both from historical records and from data collected from the field, suggests that about a couple thousand years ago (think during the time of the (early) roman empire) the earth was a much warmer place than it is now. Britain had vineyards and for many seasons for instance. Something that a cold spell can cause the vines to die thus destroying the crop for several years cuz it takes those things a while to grow before they start to produce. This suggests that Britain had much warmer climate then they do now.
Also another thing is that with humans compared to nature, nature produces way more greenhouse gasses than we do. Mainly because volcanic activity activity puts out way more than humans could hope to. Those things are polluting machines and are believed to have caused global warming a few times in the past. And this is just one source. Nature has several sources in which we get green houses gas in the atmosphere naturally.
One such thing is with photosynthesis. Plants use energy from the sun to turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. The thing is that the reverse reaction of oxygen to carbon dioxide in that reaction is the spontaneous process. So a plant can, and do, produce green house gasses and their making of carbon dioxide does produce energy that they can then use.
The question is more of how much are humans contributing to the whole thing and whether or not that is causing things to heat up and by how much or how quickly. So are we the straw that breaks the camel's back? Quite frankly I don't think we are.
On the other hand, it's not politic to say so in public. The money's all in science that proves Global Warming is all our fault. In case no one's paying attention, proper scientific technique is to find a hypothesis, and test it until it fails. Not to use any scrap of information you can find to justify your current position(or worse yet, the people paying you).
People are incessantly testing Darwin and Einstein. Why not Religion and Global Warming?
-Sarena
People are incessantly testing Darwin and Einstein. Why not Religion and Global Warming?
-Sarena
Actually - they are testing the latter two, as well.
Out of curiousity, what does one test it for and how do you go about it?
It is believed it got to a run away green house effect going and now it's like 95% carbon dioxide with a surface pressure of about 90 atm and heat enough to melt rock. Infra red scanning shows that there might be long trenches of molten lava miles long for it might take weeks or months for it to solidify. Also the density of the atmosphere at the surface is so great that lightning doesn't ever hit the surface of venus. It is all horizontal and stuff.
Now lets compare that to earth. we have about 0.04% carbon dioxide in our atmosphere with 1 atm of pressure and an average temp of... well I think you guys might be familiar with our temps. ;)
So yeah it was thought up as an interesting idea of how venus might have gotten to where it is now and it was picked up as OMG, the world is going to end!
Testing religion?
Out of curiousity, what does one test it for and how do you go about it?
Testing properties and comparisons to findings. Being done on both sides, actually - the historical (re theology, archaeology, antrhopology) and the theoretical (quantum physics, brain imaging, genetic mapping)
Testing properties and comparisons to findings. Being done on both sides, actually - the historical (re theology, archaeology, antrhopology) and the theoretical (quantum physics, brain imaging, genetic mapping)
I guess I can see historically seeing if a religion is correct in its history or belief of events. If you want to see if there was some great flood fine, but is that really testing the religion?
But for the most part, religions seem to be a belief system of ethics and supernatural/spiritual events. How would you test if a system of ethics is "right" or if something supernatural is "real"? That seems pretty pointless for scientists to examine.
Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?
I guess I can see historically seeing if a religion is correct in its history or belief of events. If you want to see if there was some great flood fine, but is that really testing the religion?
But for the most part, religions seem to be a belief system of ethics and supernatural/spiritual events. How would you test if a system of ethics is "right" or if something supernatural is "real"? That seems pretty pointless for scientists to examine.
Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?
A few things in this. Religion has grown to encompass much more than it is. However, just as with the flood (which has quite a bit of evidence, btw) there are quite a number of beliefs that are not based upon ethics. As for supernatural... well, supernatural and magic becomes natural and science once we understand the underlying process. For example, the old magic that shamans used to use when they gave white birch bark to those in pain. Of course, nowadays, we extract aspirin from that bark.
And religions are often time littered with precursors such as "cannot be understood" or whatever. Its like people who try to prove (either via science or philosophy) that a divine being exists. Believe it or don't believe it, but trying to prove or disprove it is pretty useless.
And I would think "testing religion" would be more than testing if practices have beneficial (or "as advertised") effects. Like that tree bark example doesn't make me think that shaman knew the secrets of the universe. Just like if prayer somehow was proven to have a positive impact, it doesn't mean that Jesus was the son of the sole divine being. Or if the oracles at Delphi were really gifted, that a divine being named Apollo was guiding them.
But that's a harder sell when the precursor to the magic is "another world" and we have no ways to examine "other worlds".
and yet we have turned some of the magic of alchemy into modern day chemistry. Some astrology to astronomy and meteorology. In the beginning - it was ALL "another world". Slowly, patiently, we put the causes into terms that we could readily explain, then predict, then duplicate (ie. Science)
And religions are often time littered with precursors such as "cannot be understood" or whatever. Its like people who try to prove (either via science or philosophy) that a divine being exists. Believe it or don't believe it, but trying to prove or disprove it is pretty useless.
Not useless - as we've done it time and again. it wasn't too long ago that we studied the Aether (in terms of mankind) - now we better understand fields and forces, and have explained them.
And I would think "testing religion" would be more than testing if practices have beneficial (or "as advertised") effects. Like that tree bark example doesn't make me think that shaman knew the secrets of the universe. Just like if prayer somehow was proven to have a positive impact, it doesn't mean that Jesus was the son of the sole divine being. Or if the oracles at Delphi were really gifted, that a divine being named Apollo was guiding them.
That is the "other stuff" that we have attributed to it. If you want to better understand some of what is being done now along those lines, I'd recommend The Field, by Lynne McTaggart.
Because it's in the book.
Wait... Is that not *THE* argument about allowing items/races/classes that are broken from the word 'go'?
In theory, that means if I can disprove any one part of the book, the rest must therefore fall. Current evidence points towards the gradual Rise of Humanity from lower orders of animal. Does that mean we were not Created from whole cloth?
Intelligent Design uses The Book to say that all the Evidence is entirely wrong.
At this point, the Global Warmingkids get shot down(and thus have no funding) if they disagree with t3h Algore or His Highness MikeyM. The Environmental Scientists in my tiny collection of friends said that, too.
-Sarena
I'm not saying... I'm just saying. It's all about your viewpoint.
Are we truly so horrid, or is Earth 2100 AD yet more hyperbole?
It's an article of faith that anything humans do is bad. Much like the dogma among some denominations of Christianity that humans are inherently sinful. It's not something that can be challenged with logic, it's a matter of faith, a sort of axiom. The dogma is: the Earth has a natural state (without humans) that is right and 'in balance,' and anything humans do to the sacred environment disrupts that balance and must be wrong.
It's an article of faith that anything humans do is bad. Much like the dogma among some denominations of Christianity that humans are inherently sinful. It's not something that can be challenged with logic, it's a matter of faith, a sort of axiom. The dogma is: the Earth has a natural state (without humans) that is right and 'in balance,' and anything humans do to the sacred environment disrupts that balance and must be wrong.
That's a great analogy, as both (in my opinion) have arisen from the same place. People (humans) in a position of power/influence attempting to push their own agendas upon everyone (usually for financial gain) and succeeding.
Near as I can figure about the deal with Global Warming is this:
1: The Planet is in a steady state of decay ever since the Cretaceous and left to it's own devices life above the water line will be impossible in a short few million years.
-This is evidenced by the shift to grasses over trees
-The disappearance of the mega-fauna
-The shift from cold-blooded to warm-blooded
2: Global Warming is good for the Planet.
-More Carbon in the atmosphere means more and bigger plant-life
-More plant-life means more and bigger animals
-Warmer temperatures means more evaporation and hence more rain
-Warmer temperatures means less energy spent trying to stay warm
3: Global Warming is bad for Humanity.
-Humans are warm-blooded plains walkers, not intended use in 40 to 50 Celsius rain forests
-Fast growing trees are bad for foundations, roads and other artificial terrain we build
-Constant turbulent rain storms is bad for cars and aircraft and other artificial vehicles we build
4: Global Warming is is proof of Humanities selflessness.
-Good for life on earth
-Renders earth borderline unlivable to humans
Hence to answer your question, Humanity is very, very good.
I find it amusing that Shaz's thread laughing at Irans ruler, got yanked and Shaz got a ride on the banned wagon because it was violating the CoC by being political.
Yet this thread remains...
Hmmm....
Bias?
Coincidence?
Somebody simply out to get Shaz?
I wonder...
-Sarena
Go figure...
Things that make you go hmmm....
It is odd that that happened. Must mean that someone is out hunting for him. Of which, as I understand it, following a person around the boards for the sole purpose to report them is considered harassment of a fellow poster (possibly even trolling.. in a way) and is a bannable CoC violation.
-Sarena
I doubt 10-20 additional years will make a difference. We have data (even if its gathered through non-direct means) for hundreds of years. The problem is the cause-effect relationship.
I also think people have to stop thinking of the Earth as being in some sort of balance. I tend to think of it at some sort of equilibrium. If something happens, something else happens. Enough things happen and you get a certain ecosystem. Its not like someone said "this is the perfect ecosystem" and balanced every factor to make it fit together... at least in my opinion.
Balance: 5 a : stability produced by even distribution of weight on each side of the vertical axis b : equipoise between contrasting, opposing, or interacting elements c : equality between the totals of the two sides of an account
7 a : physical equilibrium
Equilibrium: 2 : a state of balance between opposing forces or actions that is either static (as in a body acted on by forces whose resultant is zero) or dynamic (as in a reversible chemical reaction when the rates of reaction in both directions are equal)
3 : balance
Synonymous words are synonymous.
Oh, how I missed you TA.
A little off-topic, sorry...
I find it amusing that Shaz's thread laughing at Irans ruler, got yanked and Shaz got a ride on the banned wagon because it was violating the CoC by being political.
Yet this thread remains...
Since I've been told by the Orcs, directly, that any all all threads about international news are de facto considered to be political, and thus should be closed.
That they only hit the first post is odd.
Perhaps, but still, a ride on the wagon for 1 thread?
-Sarena
Which would be why this thread didn't get smacked right off. OTOH, Shaz's Invitation to the World isn't all that much of a surprise. It's not the first time he's posted politically charged threads.
-Sarena
True, but...
Shaz made no political statement, overt or covert. And there has been other threads concerning int'l items that have not been, and were not, deleted or moderated.
Personally, I find it a bit of a stretch for them to call it a "political" thread, and then to only delete Shaz's post and leaving the rest is really kinda insulting and biased.
Also, if it is a banned subject and was so terrible to talk about, why are all the other posts allowed to stay up and the thread to remain open?
I mean, if it was "bad" enough to give someone a ride on the banned wagon, why allow it to still exist?
It really appears more likely that Shaz is being shafted...
Which would be why this thread didn't get smacked right off. OTOH, Shaz's Invitation to the World isn't all that much of a surprise. It's not the first time he's posted politically charged threads.
-Sarena
True, but...
Shaz made no political statement, overt or covert. And there has been other threads concerning int'l items that have not been, and were not, deleted or moderated.
Personally, I find it a bit of a stretch for them to call it a "political" thread, and then to only delete Shaz's post and leaving the rest is really kinda insulting and biased.
Also, if it is a banned subject and was so terrible to talk about, why are all the other posts allowed to stay up and the thread to remain open?
I mean, if it was "bad" enough to give someone a ride on the banned wagon, why allow it to still exist?
It really appears more likely that Shaz is being shafted...
He had it coming for a while now, and it's not as if it's news to him.
A troll whisperer should know that ;)
But yeah, not closing the thread is weird.
It really appears more likely that Shaz is being shafted...
Well, lots of things appear in different ways. Since only the first post was deleted, I'd guess that it was a newby ORC that made a mistake, rather then intentional singling-out.