Hi mavrothal !
Galaxies are drifting ...Continents are drifting..... Climate is drifting ......Weather is drifting..........Everything is drifting .
You can`t stop it.......
It`s all too much
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7CzgV7gPlY
Maybe one can .....
Magical Incantations....Shamanic Rituals..... Human Sacrifices ??????
Life/Existence is never-ending Change ... a Dream in a Dream -in a Dream -in a Dream .
Turn off your mind relax and float down stream ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNbHn3i9S4
Life goes on ....within you.... without you :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsffxGyY4ck
The public figure i respect the most: Greta Thunberg
Actually no human activity can increase the temperature of the earth, even if we burn everything!p310don wrote: I'm not a denier, rather a skeptic.
The sun on the other hand, pumps quadrillion watts of energy into earth. About 70% is absorbed but then most of it is irradiated back into space. Trapping in just a bit more of this energy due to green house gasses (CO2 and Methane primarily these days) makes all the difference.
And yes CO2 and Methane is with us for a long time in huge amounts (CO2) and recycle happily within our biosphere with plants and animals.
Is the NEW CO2 and methane that was trapped IN the earth and we now pump out that changes this balance with no time for the planet biosphere to readjust.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==
In my Opinion we have to talk seriously about World`s Overpopulation .So let `s talk about Sex ...
Top Priority .
Without turning this regulator.....the Rest is just a sideshow.
European Countries and (white ?) Americans are hardly to be blamed for being too fertile .
Even China is working on this .
Why our beloved Greta is not making this an Issue ......quite suspicious .
Top Priority .
Without turning this regulator.....the Rest is just a sideshow.
European Countries and (white ?) Americans are hardly to be blamed for being too fertile .
Even China is working on this .
Why our beloved Greta is not making this an Issue ......quite suspicious .
You are misinformed.backi wrote:In my Opinion we have to talk seriously about World`s Overpopulation .So let `s talk about Sex ...
Top Priority .
Without turning this regulator.....the Rest is just a sideshow.
European Countries and (white ?) Americans are hardly to be blamed for being too fertile .
Even China is working on this .
Why our beloved Greta is not making this an Issue ......quite suspicious .
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases ... on-accountThe poorest half of the world’s population - 3.5 billion people - is responsible for just 10 percent of carbon emissions
the world’s richest 10 percent produce around half of all emissions.
History of using children to push for agendas
History of using children to push for agendas .
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/soci ... flag47.htm
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/soci ... flag47.htm
Time has an excellent history of picking people of the year. She is in company with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Krushchev and Ayatollah Khomeini.
The wording of the title is erroneous. It implies they are the best person of the year, but really it is meant to be for the most talked about person in the news.
Greta is all talk.
Good award.
The wording of the title is erroneous. It implies they are the best person of the year, but really it is meant to be for the most talked about person in the news.
Greta is all talk.
Good award.
Fine, you guys are climate skeptics. But why you are not making fun of the world's
greatest polluters instead of a teen-age Swedish girl amazes me.
Granted, CO2 particules you can't see in the air. But this you can:
Why are you not blaming the most polluting companies:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -polluters
or the Municipal Council of the most polluted cities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... centration
You're targeting the wrong target, guys.
While you're at it, why don't you create more smog in your city so your kids can wear
pollution masks in school. Like this:
greatest polluters instead of a teen-age Swedish girl amazes me.
Granted, CO2 particules you can't see in the air. But this you can:
Why are you not blaming the most polluting companies:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -polluters
or the Municipal Council of the most polluted cities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... centration
You're targeting the wrong target, guys.
While you're at it, why don't you create more smog in your city so your kids can wear
pollution masks in school. Like this:
- Attachments
-
- EPA_INDIA_AIR_POLLUTION_FASHION_MARCH.jpg
- (39.22 KiB) Downloaded 150 times
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
-
darry19662018
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2018, 08:01
- Location: Rakaia
- Contact:
Terry H wrote:Time magazine person of the Year 2019
I would have gone for Steve Smith - modern day Bradman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Smi ... icketer%29
Puppy Linux Wiki: [url]http://wikka.puppylinux.com/HomePage[/url]
[url]https://freemedia.neocities.org/[/url]
[url]https://freemedia.neocities.org/[/url]
Yup. Absolutely. Up there with Trump et al. Whatevs...Terry H wrote:Time magazine person of the Year 2019
Seriously, well-deserved in this case. Probably one of the key harbingers to help shift human collective self-perception from traditional "Consumers" to "Custodians".
Treating the planet like the mythological Cornucopia of Bacchus as we have, since the Industrial Age, it's now time for the hang-over effects of all that uncontrolled party time. Sure, we will have to act like grown-ups now and realize we have - with religious fevour - over-inflated our self-importance in the global scheme. But if you are reading this you are very likely a Puppian already - pushing "obsolete" technology well beyond its programmed obsolescence and saving landfill in the process - reducing your silicon/carbon footprint, and seeing - nay enjoying - the opportunity to swim against the grain of mainstream consumerism (love those splinters). How hard can it really be to shift it up a gear and take responsibility for our actions? This is a war that we have made with ourselves, not some misguided attempt to beat Mother Nature.
C'mon and ride the Peace Train....
Search engines for Puppy
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
-
perdido
- Posts: 1528
- Joined: Mon 09 Dec 2013, 16:29
- Location: ¿Altair IV , Just north of Eeyore Junction.?
Randy Quade has 31 seconds of advice for Greta. 
Via youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gJuamBZyWM
.
Via youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gJuamBZyWM
.
90% of the Earth's 7.7 (6.93) billion people live in the northern hemisphere. What is your plan for supplying energy to these people?musher0 wrote:Fine, you guys are climate skeptics. But why you are not making fun of the world's
greatest polluters instead of a teen-age Swedish girl amazes me.
Back in olden times people burned wood, peat, and coal to stay warm in the winter. It was a smoggie mess.
At any given moment 72% of the earth's surface is covered by clouds.
There is only one functional alternative to fossil fuel. One.
Hi jafadmin.
Sorry, I'm not following your reasoning, with your allusion to old times.
No one wants to go back to log houses, heated with other logs (however romantic)
on a winter night at -30 C.
In your last sentence, do you mean nuclear?
If so, you can use it for electricity for maybe 50 years, but after that you have to
bury it and monitor the burying site for over 1,000 years before it becomes sort of safe.
The French-from-France engineers at EDF (Électricité-de-France) are really scratching
their heads right now as to how to come up with a replacement / storage plan for the
many nuclear plants France has.
Which do you prefer: stewed humans a la CO2 or glittering humans a la Tchernobyl?
(Trying to be funny, but failing, I know...)
That said, technologists got us into this mess, and I believe they have the capacity to
pull us out of it. But they better be quick!
In any case, I was talking about why people don't take it out on the polluters instead
of a harmless teenager. I suppose it's a repeat case of "Don't look at the mess you
created, shoot the guy (or girl) telling you you created a mess."
BFN.
Sorry, I'm not following your reasoning, with your allusion to old times.
No one wants to go back to log houses, heated with other logs (however romantic)
on a winter night at -30 C.
In your last sentence, do you mean nuclear?
If so, you can use it for electricity for maybe 50 years, but after that you have to
bury it and monitor the burying site for over 1,000 years before it becomes sort of safe.
The French-from-France engineers at EDF (Électricité-de-France) are really scratching
their heads right now as to how to come up with a replacement / storage plan for the
many nuclear plants France has.
Which do you prefer: stewed humans a la CO2 or glittering humans a la Tchernobyl?
(Trying to be funny, but failing, I know...)
That said, technologists got us into this mess, and I believe they have the capacity to
pull us out of it. But they better be quick!
In any case, I was talking about why people don't take it out on the polluters instead
of a harmless teenager. I suppose it's a repeat case of "Don't look at the mess you
created, shoot the guy (or girl) telling you you created a mess."
BFN.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
For the French-in-Francemusher0 wrote:Hi jafadmin.
Sorry, I'm not following your reasoning, with your allusion to old times.
No one wants to go back to log houses, heated with other logs (however romantic)
on a winter night at -30 C.
In your last sentence, do you mean nuclear?
If so, you can use it for electricity for maybe 50 years, but after that you have to
bury it and monitor the burying site for over 1,000 years before it becomes sort of safe.
The French-from-France engineers at EDF (Électricité-de-France) are really scratching
their heads right now as to how to come up with a replacement / storage plan for the
many nuclear plants France has.
Oh, and tell them not to worry about the CO2. It isn't the control knob for global temperature. The sun is ..
musher0 wrote
We have a generation of scared snowflakes and she is drumming up fear and anxiety in them, which is negative rather than positive.
Nuclear is statistically far safer than most other forms of energy generation. However, I'd like to think we are sitting on an opportunity to create a new form of energy generation, or better put, a better way of harnessing the energy we already have.
Between solar, wind, water & geothermal, the planet provides pretty much all of the energy we need. We just need to divert it to our own uses.
Creating hysteria and panic, especially in her age peers is hardly harmless.a harmless teenager
We have a generation of scared snowflakes and she is drumming up fear and anxiety in them, which is negative rather than positive.
Nuclear is statistically far safer than most other forms of energy generation. However, I'd like to think we are sitting on an opportunity to create a new form of energy generation, or better put, a better way of harnessing the energy we already have.
Between solar, wind, water & geothermal, the planet provides pretty much all of the energy we need. We just need to divert it to our own uses.
-
darry19662018
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2018, 08:01
- Location: Rakaia
- Contact:
Greta Thunberg is a distraction, not because she is correct (or incorrect) but because her statements have become a lightning rod for those who say, "right on!" or "not so!".
The key points (plural) to be argued are the hard facts of physics (including quantum mechanics) and the supposed consequences of those facts.
The idea that our climate is changing is NOT affected by our belief (or non-belief) but by the working (or non-working) of basic physics. I do not suggest the laws of physics 'work' or 'don't work' - only that they must work at the scale to affect our planet to invoke a change in the planet's climate. There are any number of sources of information on this topic - but can YOU explain the mechanism whereby those who say, 'The climate will change' works? IF YOU CAN - YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ARGUE. If you cannot - then please 'go learn' the basic laws of physics involved. Can you enunciate the Stefan-Boltzman law? (It's not hard, just obscure.) Yes? Then I'll hear your argument. If you can't - don't waste my time or present your argument as worthwhile. Please, stick to the facts.
If you can do that - then you should voice that mechanism.
If you cannot do that - then you should understand the mechanism.
One source of information about the mechanism underlying the suggestion of global warming or climate change is found here:
Yale University's "Open Yale". See course GG140, with Prof Roland Smith. https://oyc.yale.edu/courses
Yes, this 'source' is a series of one hour lectures and from the series only 3 lectures deal with changing climate. The rest deal with climate in general, but provide useful back-ground to the 3 of specific interest.
Then there is David Titley before a US Senate hearing. Titley is involved with the US Navy. Titley is associated with Penn State Uni. He gave is evidence on oath to a respected government body. Titley does NOT discuss the fundamental operating principles; he assumes we have a problem and discusses the action necessary.
At any rate, our argument on this topic should focus on the factual basis (or not) of the problem and whether the expected consequences will flow (or not). Beyond that, we must look to errors of logic in our argument.
One probable error is "the part is the whole". Restated this argument is: Since the beginning of time climate has changed. If the climate is changing now it is nothing more than a natural event. Nothing new here folks. Nothing to do with man.
Another logical error is "shoot the messenger". Here is the logic: "I deny that the climate is changing. Greta Thunberg says the climate is changing." Wrong, wrong, wrong because Greta Thunberg .... (gets out of bed on the wrong side ... is autistic ... is a child ... causes anxiety in children ... has an expressionless face ... etc). Greta Thunberg is relevant/irrelevant only so far as she is right/wrong. Please, (I beg you) deal with the facts, not the messenger. Oh, certainly I admire her courage - but her courage is not the point to be discussed.
Please, please - Get the facts. Argue from logic.
For a list of possible errors of logical thought: See YouTube, Jill Bearup, 31 logical fallacies in 8 minutes. You can find one zillion discussions about logical fallacy. The Greeks were 'into' this topic in a big way.
Please, please: understand and argue the primary points of science - those points that can be tested and subject to observational testing.
All the best from Australia, where we have drought and where Sydney has been enveloped in smoke for the last 3 weeks and where the Rural Fire Service chiefs (all 7 states) say "We have never seen this before". Perhaps not be climate change - but it certainly is different ....
Leslie
The key points (plural) to be argued are the hard facts of physics (including quantum mechanics) and the supposed consequences of those facts.
The idea that our climate is changing is NOT affected by our belief (or non-belief) but by the working (or non-working) of basic physics. I do not suggest the laws of physics 'work' or 'don't work' - only that they must work at the scale to affect our planet to invoke a change in the planet's climate. There are any number of sources of information on this topic - but can YOU explain the mechanism whereby those who say, 'The climate will change' works? IF YOU CAN - YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ARGUE. If you cannot - then please 'go learn' the basic laws of physics involved. Can you enunciate the Stefan-Boltzman law? (It's not hard, just obscure.) Yes? Then I'll hear your argument. If you can't - don't waste my time or present your argument as worthwhile. Please, stick to the facts.
If you can do that - then you should voice that mechanism.
If you cannot do that - then you should understand the mechanism.
One source of information about the mechanism underlying the suggestion of global warming or climate change is found here:
Yale University's "Open Yale". See course GG140, with Prof Roland Smith. https://oyc.yale.edu/courses
Yes, this 'source' is a series of one hour lectures and from the series only 3 lectures deal with changing climate. The rest deal with climate in general, but provide useful back-ground to the 3 of specific interest.
Then there is David Titley before a US Senate hearing. Titley is involved with the US Navy. Titley is associated with Penn State Uni. He gave is evidence on oath to a respected government body. Titley does NOT discuss the fundamental operating principles; he assumes we have a problem and discusses the action necessary.
At any rate, our argument on this topic should focus on the factual basis (or not) of the problem and whether the expected consequences will flow (or not). Beyond that, we must look to errors of logic in our argument.
One probable error is "the part is the whole". Restated this argument is: Since the beginning of time climate has changed. If the climate is changing now it is nothing more than a natural event. Nothing new here folks. Nothing to do with man.
Another logical error is "shoot the messenger". Here is the logic: "I deny that the climate is changing. Greta Thunberg says the climate is changing." Wrong, wrong, wrong because Greta Thunberg .... (gets out of bed on the wrong side ... is autistic ... is a child ... causes anxiety in children ... has an expressionless face ... etc). Greta Thunberg is relevant/irrelevant only so far as she is right/wrong. Please, (I beg you) deal with the facts, not the messenger. Oh, certainly I admire her courage - but her courage is not the point to be discussed.
Please, please - Get the facts. Argue from logic.
For a list of possible errors of logical thought: See YouTube, Jill Bearup, 31 logical fallacies in 8 minutes. You can find one zillion discussions about logical fallacy. The Greeks were 'into' this topic in a big way.
Please, please: understand and argue the primary points of science - those points that can be tested and subject to observational testing.
All the best from Australia, where we have drought and where Sydney has been enveloped in smoke for the last 3 weeks and where the Rural Fire Service chiefs (all 7 states) say "We have never seen this before". Perhaps not be climate change - but it certainly is different ....
Leslie