Life, Death, Time, Religion, Global Warming, War and other controversial subjects

[alla]

We have research that supports it because thats where the funding is. No-one is interested in funding 'anti-global warming' research (I've heard that directly from my lecturers, many of whom are world renown researchers in geology).

Whether we are over due for an ice age or not is a matter of contention. There is no set amount of time that an interglacial period must last for - and how are we meant to tell what is going to happen in the future of our planet anyway? We don't know exactly what caused the previous ice ages, so unless we can time travel back then and find out, we do not know what we have to look for in order to determine when the next period of glaciation is going to occur. As the temperature increase stands, we are in an interglacial period.

Another thing worth mentioning here is the Little Ice Age and the associated Medieval Warm Period. If this is taken as the most recent "ice age", for all of its much shorter time span, than the usual glaciation, then we are most definitely coming out of an ice age at the moment.

Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data

Its not a fair test unless they use all of the data. Selecting which data are used can make it a biased test.

How can we know the future? How can we say that this is not how Earth is meant to be evolving?

One of the things that people I know point out when we get into this sort of discussion at uni, which happens fairly often, and will happen more often with the coming election and people getting frustrated about all the 'climate change' ads on TV, is that the human race is going into another 'Dark Age' of knowledge. People are lapping up what they're told, and not questioning. People - scientists, researchers etc. - are just doing research where the money is, and where is seen to be a popular topic at the time.

I remain a skeptic on an anthropogenic cause for climate change. Earth has had a pattern of climate change - and most likely glaciation (although we do not have the rock record for these due to erosion) - for its entire life. Its not going to change simply because we are here, or because we are trying to change it. This is what evolution is all about - adapting to your environment, which is something that the human race seems to struggle with. We adapt our environment to ourselves, rather than the other way around.

[EricG1793]

OK, well, in different ways, both Garrett and Alla are correct:

Alla, the fact that those samples were taken near a volcano gives inaccurate measurements. The readings end up showing that there's more C02 in the air when they're taken up there, rather than air that the majority of the Earth is living in. So, in a sense, those numbers are far higher than what's actually in the air that we're breathing in, and other species are as well.

Garrett, you're also right in saying it's the trends that matter. Indeed the readings have shown more C02 in the air over the years. The only problem with that, however, is that there's no guarantee that the volcano will be emitting the same amount of C02 for the almost fifty years they've been analyzing the air up there. Maybe it's emitting more, so the readings make it seem as though there's more C02 in the whole earth and it's our fault. Or maybe it's emitting less C02 and we're making so much more of it that it increases the numbers anyway....

[Garrett Fitzgerald]

Selecting which data are used can make it a biased test.

So why are you selecting only the data that makes it look like global warming is not caused by humans?

Oh, by the way, going back to an earlier point:

The hottest days and years in the past hundred years did not occur within the last 10. Most of them occurred around the 1930s-40s.

Eh? The data I'm looking at says differently.

See the NOAA site for the raw numbers.

Alla, I'm going to take my mod hat off for a minute, and make a request as a community member. Please do not make any more statements about scientific facts unless you can actually reference the data. It's very annoying to have to chase down the citations for the data you use only to find out that it says the opposite of what you say. *mod hat back on*

Alla, the fact that those samples were taken near a volcano gives inaccurate measurements.

Absolutely incorrect. They are measuring the trend, not the amount.

I remain a skeptic on an anthropogenic cause for climate change. Earth has had a pattern of climate change...for its entire life.

That's what I used to think. However, once I saw how closely temperature and carbon dioxide levels were correlated, and how the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere had reached higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, I realized that we were all in very deep trouble.

[Gryphon]

What's more important than debating global warming is admitting that we do contribute to the state of the world, not necessarily the temperature, but pollution and ecosystems and reckless usage of energy and resources.

I would not say that the earth is *meant* to be anything. If it's good for the planet to have a high genetic diversity, then that's a goal we're failing. If it's good to eliminate all but the ones that can survive rapidly warming climates or heavily toxic and relatively inhospitable environments, well... As people, we can endure a lot and adapt to live with what we otherwise could not. Now, is the same true for the rest of the world? There was a virus or fungus (I forget) which was killing off the bees which pollinated crops. If bees alone were affected, it would be of no consequence to us, but it works like a chain reaction.

[EricG1793]

Originally posted by Garrett Fitzgerald:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Alla, the fact that those samples were taken near a volcano gives inaccurate measurements.

Absolutely incorrect. They are measuring the trend, not the amount. </div>[quote]

As I said in my last post:

...The only problem with that, however, is that there's no guarantee that the volcano will be emitting the same amount of C02 for the almost fifty years they've been analyzing the air up there. Maybe it's emitting more, so the readings make it seem as though there's more C02 in the whole earth and it's our fault. Or maybe it's emitting less C02 and we're making so much more of it that it increases the numbers anyway....

-Me, in my last post

Gryphon:

I agree with that, too! It's not just air temperature and CO2 amounts that's the problem, littering, over foresting, disturbing oceans with boats, trash, etc., disturbing woods habitats, are big problems, too.

[Dragon Writer]

true...as you said, Gryph, we can adapt to many things. The death of the rest of the world, i fear, is not one of them. Personally, at the moment, i just want to get out of New York before it's firmly under water! somebody send a sumerine, quick! *considers tacking on I don't wanna diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie!" but decides that this is just as good*

and (i'm not saying that people are only selecting data saying that global warming is our fault, but still) if people ARE just selecting that data, maybe it's because if people DON"T THINK it's their fault that it's happening, they won't change antyhing? i mean, even if it SIN"T what we're doing that's CURRENTLy causing a problem, the things we are doing will eventaully lead to one...of ocurse, chances are it's quite simply our fault, simple as that. *shrugs* we don't always treat the world so good.

[DairineRules!]

Alla: yes the fact that the measuring were taken from the top of an active volcano is misleading but was Mauna Loa, Hawaii the only place where they have ever measured co2 leaves?NO!! if you look at this page you can see that there are readings from over 50 locations! (so why is everyone going on about Hawaii?)

Garrett Fitzgerald:
Alla, I'm going to take my mod hat off for a minute, and make a request as a community member. Please do not make any more statements about scientific facts unless you can actually reference the data. It's very annoying to have to chase down the citations for the data you use only to find out that it says the opposite of what you say. *mod hat back on*

Thank you I think we needed someone to say that about now

Sad but true we are probably going to end up like Venus

Another thing when this universe dies will Timeheart die to?

[Garrett Fitzgerald]

Another thing when this universe dies will Timeheart die too?

Excellent question. :-) I don't think it will: as it lies at the heart of things, it is apart from the universe(s?), rather than incorporated into it. I don't think Timeheart is going away before the One does.

[Dragon Writer]

well, i certainly hope that life after death doesn't cease along with life. it would be rather inconveniant, all considering. :P Of course, i also hope that life doesn't ceace PERIOD, but still...
ANd anyways, even when the universe is run down it'll probably collapse upon itself, and start another big bang basically restarting itself, and life. it'll take a few hundred billion years, but still...when you're dead, i don't think time has quite the same meaning. :P

[DairineRules!]

Originally posted by young reader:
Well, I certainly hope that life after death doesn't cease along with life. it would be rather inconvenient

[EricG1793]

There is no evidence that says there IS or is NOT life after death. Maybe what happens after our bodies die is whatever we believed in when they were living.... When you think about it, maybe when we die, we're born in another body. But we develop different personalities, and we don't even remember our past lives.... Some people say, I believe, that Deja Vu is flashbacks from a past life. I believe in Deja Vu, but not as most people think it. For example, the last time I clearly remember myself having Deja Vu was a while ago when my mom and I were driving... somewhere, I don't remember where... and I was looking at a road sign straight ahead, and I was experiencing Deja Vu. How likely is it that that road sign was there in my past life? Who is to say that my past life was in the town I live in now? The way I believe Deja Vu to be is merely seeing, hearing, or speaking something that you have seen, heard, or spoke exactly as the way you experienced it some other time in the past, again. I've been down that road quite a few times, and it may have just so happened that both times I went by the sign that I was looking at from the same car, at the same time of day, etc., and I was paying attention to the sign being there the first time.

Now another time I remember having Deja Vu was when I was vacuuming my grandfather's porch. I was vacuuming behind a chair, in the far corner of it, and I experienced Deja Vu. I've vacuumed so many times there, around that chair and table, and the chairs and table are always in the same place every year.... (His screen porch has carpet, odd, I know, but it requires a regular vacuum to be cleaned).

So I don't believe in Deja Vu as in seeing flashbacks from a past life. I see it as reliving something you've already done in the same exact conditions, in this life you're in now.

Oh, by the way, this topic and "Philosophical Topics/Speeches" being active at the same time is really starting to confuse me.... "Philosophical topics/speeches" came first, so could the threads be consolidated to avoid confusion (and save storage space)?

[Dragon Writer]

the reason you don't age is probably the same you don't go blind: you're already dead. This is your spirit...spirts live on, forever, they don't age at all. Chances are you just form yourself into whatever you feel most comfortable, and stay that way. And how do you blind a spirit, anyways?
Though if it is out of time, or if it isn't, i suddenly started to wonder what would happen if you stepped out of time in the same place more than once...would you run into yourwself, and every other person, who ever stepped out of time in the arae? even appearing in the space occupied by someone else and killing them? And would there be multiple copies of everyone? What would happen...*wonders at this*

ANd i think if the afterlife changed, it would just be to get a whole lot bigger. So you better hope there's reincarnation, cause things are going to get fairly crouded before the next life forms start springing up, and there's something to inhabit-not to mention enough to fit all the people currently in existance, or that will be in existance later. :P

[Maelstrom]

To the war thing - In my opinion war is an extremely bad thing, but sometimes necessary. For instance, if you were being ruled over by an iron-fisted dictator in control of the military and in control of your life, possibly who had even abolished democracy, simply for power, (Musherraf! Musherraf!), would you simply sit there and take it, and let your children grow up in such a place, or would you rebel?

This reminds me, does anyone know why the US of A has such radically different policies between, say, Cuba and Pakistan? The former, at least, the people seem to be surviving, but the US administration is doing its best to stop this, (think trade wars), while in Pakistan everyone, (or at least the lawyers) detest the current regime, while the US is actually funding a dictator who abolished democracy in his country! That's pretty much completely against the constitution! It's disgusting,in my opinion.

(Don't get me started about Guantanamo Bay...)

[Dragon Writer]

If they're a horrid dictator, there is no getting rid of democracy. It's already gone. or if it's there, it's just the ILLUSION of democracy, such as you vote for your dictator but there's only one name on the ballot.
too bad no entire nation can just simultaniously decide they don't like a guy, army and all. Try being a dictator when even your bodyguards and your army just ignore whatever you say. :P

[Tuttle]

Controversial Subjects...like say, the internet?

I wrote this paper for class (I don't like parts especially the fact it was too long, but either way) and have been curious how people who spend large amounts of time online would think. And yes I am one of the people who spend rediculous amounts of time online and did so as a normal person. I'm not sure if this is my actual view but its really interesting to think about either way.

Anyways: The internet should not be availiable to the general public.

My paper:

Why AOL publizing the internet was a bad thing.

1. The popularized internet
The web began as a resource for phyisicists separated by distance but working on similar ideas. This spread to other scientists and high-tech groups including university students. In 1985 AOL began providing online entertainments to those who bought their services. They advertised huge amounts rather than focusing more on people who had an idea about what they were doing and searching out the internet. There are still AOL CDs many places giving free trials, and I remember these being even harder to avoid. In 1994 AOL branched out to provide their customers access to the internet as we know it, and gave the internet community about one million new users to deal with at one point in time. This caused what was known in usenet as the Eternal September.

The popularized internet allowed anyone to get online without going out of their way to join the technical group which access to the Net had previously been restricted to. This allowed the average person to access the information, as well as edit the information available as they could create a webpage themself. This popularization both allowed criminals easier access as well as targets who would be less knowledgable about what is going on. Along with the crime which could be involved, the ability to put false information online has been there as long as there was a net to have information go on. As the population using the internet changed to the average citizen, the realiance on the computer and the internet to be a source for information grew. However, anyone could put any information they want on the web, and they don't need to support it through a publishing company. Either known false information or information which was just assumed to be the case because its what a single person thought can be provided as fact. While the net makes it easier to get information, it also makes it harder to trust the information you are getting.


1.1 Usenet and the Eternal September
Usenet is one of the online communication centers which was around in the years before internet popularization as well as today. It was a community mostly populated by university students, so every September as new freshmen joined there was a period of time where the new students got used to the netiquette. This lasted about a month and was expected every September because people did not start with the knowledge of how to act online.

When in 1994 AOL allowed their users (about 1 million) to access usenet, they flooded and took over, without knowledge of how people are expected to be acting. They also didn't learn within a month like the university students did, because they were not there to learn. This caused the usenet users who had been there before to start looking at this as the Eternal September;the September of training new users who never learned. This meant that the usefulness in usenet started dropping as the number of people who were respecting the system that had been there dropped. The number of people posting things which were not considered right to be posting made it harder to find what you wanted. In general the addition of the general public to the users caused the culture of the net to be mostly lost.

However, the eternal september did, in most people's minds eventually end. It might have ended the point where AOL no longer gave people easy access to usenet and people would have to search it out in 2005. Others believe it was a few years earlier when it for the first time since AOL's introduction of usenet to its customers the number of people who had been there for more than a year was greater than those there for less than a year. Either way it took many years to reach was was view as October 1, 1993, because of AOL causing the September of that school year to last about 10 years. The culture and standards of usenet and the internet were dropped either way because of the infulences of what became known as the September that never ended.

1.1.1 Usenet and the rest of the Internet
What happened on Usenet is an example of the side effects of allowing the public to use the internet along with the university students, scientists, and other people with a different mind set. The Eternal September was named, but the dejeneration of the quality of the internet in general went along with this specific example.

1.2 Online Crime
The internet has allowed criminals to commit crimes which are harder to track as well as more serious is amounts. While before someone stealing someone's wallet could get about a hundred dollars they were carrying around, while now if the criminal was able to come up with the PINs for the credit cards inside, they could access all the money in their victim's bank account. In general the internet has allowed crime to be more extreme than it used to be, as The Gift of Fire included details of.

1.3 Misinformation and people's reliance on the internet
As the internet has became more popular, the amount people rely on it has increased. The internet has everything on it in the view of most people. Unfortunately, this means that the misinformation included is often assumed to be true, because of people's reliance on the internet for information. Wikipedia is often used as a source for information at these times, though it is known that there is large amounts of false information there. This is a disadvantage of letting anyone edit the information, but the problems on wikipedia are the same with the internet in general. Any random person can create a webpage and pretend that the information shared is true. Using the internet for research, while convenient does not always give people the correct information. Because people have the internet they will be using it for the conviance, especially when not realizing that there is wrong information out there, so the internet is making it easier for people to be misinformed.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> [/paper] </pre>

There's paper. Curious if people reply. Either way I know some people were wanting me to post this.

edit: DeLaTeXifying little bits I forgot.
Also, why can't you underline stuff, its odd.