The core of the problem of everything

[Erud]

XDM45 is officially our court jester

Yep.

[Heffay]

Yep. A mere 15,000 years ago most of the upper midwest was under about a mile deep ice glacier. Who's to say in another 15,000 years it won't again be?

Shouldn't we try to predict it? You would think it would be handy to find out if sea levels are going to rise 20 feet. Some people may be affected by that.

[MXGreg]

Yep. A mere 15,000 years ago most of the upper midwest was under about a mile deep ice glacier. Who's to say in another 15,000 years it won't again be?

Shouldn't we try to predict it? You would think it would be handy to find out if sea levels are going to rise 20 feet. Some people may be affected by that.

Who's going to be around to see if we're correct? We, or the earth herself, will kill us off before then anyways. When the whole "global warming" thing started they used weather data going all the way back to 1940......19 f'n 40. You know way? Because before that temps were warmer and they screwed up those scary charts that they kept waving in our faces. The droughts and the dust bowl of the 1930's were left out because it didn't fit in with their message.

If you want to try to predict something that will affect us or our children, try to figure out when Yellowstone is going to blow it's top. That'll cool our temps down quite a bit.

[xd ED]

Yep. A mere 15,000 years ago most of the upper midwest was under about a mile deep ice glacier. Who's to say in another 15,000 years it won't again be?

Shouldn't we try to predict it? You would think it would be handy to find out if sea levels are going to rise 20 feet. Some people may be affected by that.

Who's going to be around to see if we're correct? We, or the earth herself, will kill us off before then anyways. When the whole "global warming" thing started they used weather data going all the way back to 1940......19 f'n 40. You know way? Because before that temps were warmer and they screwed up those scary charts that they kept waving in our faces. The droughts and the dust bowl of the 1930's were left out because it didn't fit in with their message.

If you want to try to predict something that will affect us or our children, try to figure out when Yellowstone is going to blow it's top. That'll cool our temps down quite a bit.

I read on the internets that volcanos cause global warming, and global warming causes volcanos. WHEN the Yellowstone Super volcano comes to life, it'll make today's ammo shortages, and gun control legislation the good ol' days by comparison.

WHEN the glaciers return to central North America, and presumably the rest of the world's mid latitudes, that will sequester an enormous deposit of moisture that is presently somewhere else. Wherever that 'somewhere else' is- will have less water during the course of the next ice age, than it does now. Then when the next ice age warms out of existence and disappears, the glaciers will melt. Some water will be be retained as ground water, and surface water lakes. Most will flow to the oceans through newly created rivers, back to where it currently exists.

[Heffay]

Yep. A mere 15,000 years ago most of the upper midwest was under about a mile deep ice glacier. Who's to say in another 15,000 years it won't again be?

Shouldn't we try to predict it? You would think it would be handy to find out if sea levels are going to rise 20 feet. Some people may be affected by that.

Who's going to be around to see if we're correct? We, or the earth herself, will kill us off before then anyways. When the whole "global warming" thing started they used weather data going all the way back to 1940......19 f'n 40. You know way? Because before that temps were warmer and they screwed up those scary charts that they kept waving in our faces. The droughts and the dust bowl of the 1930's were left out because it didn't fit in with their message.

If you want to try to predict something that will affect us or our children, try to figure out when Yellowstone is going to blow it's top. That'll cool our temps down quite a bit.

Well, if the predictions are that sea levels will rise 20' within the next 50 years, I'd say a good number of us will be around to see what happens.

Are you suggesting that we *not* study the effects of climate change?

[Erud]

20' in 50 years? Where did those numbers come from, Al Gore's highly-scientific cinematic masterpiece?

[Heffay]

20' in 50 years? Where did those numbers come from, Al Gore's highly-scientific cinematic masterpiece?

I made them up as an example. What is the general scientific consensus on sea levels in the next 50 years?

Or are you saying it's impossible to tell, so we shouldn't even try?

[MNHandK]

20' in 50 years? Where did those numbers come from, Al Gore's highly-scientific cinematic masterpiece?

I made them up as an example. What is the general scientific consensus on sea levels in the next 50 years?

Or are you saying it's impossible to tell, so we shouldn't even try?

If we go off the models the global warming alarmists created in the 80s and 90s we'd be knee deep in it now. I'd be happy to monitor it all, if they would admit they have no idea what they're talking about.

[Heffay]

20' in 50 years? Where did those numbers come from, Al Gore's highly-scientific cinematic masterpiece?

I made them up as an example. What is the general scientific consensus on sea levels in the next 50 years?

Or are you saying it's impossible to tell, so we shouldn't even try?

If we go off the models the global warming alarmists created in the 80s and 90s we'd be knee deep in it now. I'd be happy to monitor it all, if they would admit they have no idea what they're talking about.

Got it. So they got it wrong once (maybe), therefore we should stop trying as that is irrefutable proof that they will never get it right.

[Erud]

20' in 50 years? Where did those numbers come from, Al Gore's highly-scientific cinematic masterpiece?

I made them up as an example. What is the general scientific consensus on sea levels in the next 50 years?

Or are you saying it's impossible to tell, so we shouldn't even try?

General scientific consensus? That's a good one!

[Jeff Bergquist]

Over-population is a problem, very much so.

Is that a fact?

Is it not?

[Heffay]

20' in 50 years? Where did those numbers come from, Al Gore's highly-scientific cinematic masterpiece?

I made them up as an example. What is the general scientific consensus on sea levels in the next 50 years?

Or are you saying it's impossible to tell, so we shouldn't even try?

General scientific consensus? That's a good one!

That's not an answer.

[XDM45]

So because you disagree with my opinion, I'm a court jester?

Thou doth assumeth too much.

a) That there's a court of which you are king. There may be a narcissistic ego problem there if you believe that, but to each their own.
b) That your opinion is somehow more valid than another's.
c) That one opinion invalidates another's.

meh. whatever. Think me a jester. I think some people on here are a-hats. Not all, not even most, but that's my opinion.

As for pollution, we've done more of that in the past 150 years than ever before I believe; and climate change, to each their own opinion. I'm not going to get into it. I'm all for a civil discussion of opinions, but when one side gets into an Internet p-ing contest because they believe themselves right and the other wrong, when it becomes an ego-driven, name calling playground, yeah, I'm out of here. Granted, most of the Internet is like that forums, but just like guns, forums aren't the problem - people are.

There was recently a user (which I believe was also moderator) which quit here due to some a-hattery by the resident troll after a personal attack and being fed up with the bs on here. Should I quit too? Would that make you feel better so you can have one giant circle jerk with a small group of people who agree with you 100% all of the time?

If certain people want to have a closed-membership elitist place to hang out with select individuals, then I suggest making this place invite-only, closing down open registration, booting everyone you disagree with, and then you can have your happy lil nirvana in this corner of the Internet all to yourselves. If that's not possible here, then how about starting your own forum where you set it up just as that? Don't invite me. I'll stay here and don't want to go there. You'll be free of me and everyone else whom you disagree with. Personally, I think that's a GREAT idea. You'd be rid of me and my opinions, but then that may also rid you of your entertainment. Which I have to say, if someone finds me entertaining, they're pretty easily amused; and likewise, if I irritate them, they are pretty easily annoyed as well.

Ok, now take another hit of my words, inhale deeply, absorb my words which arey our drug of choice, and flame on now that you've got your next fix....or ignore me and my opinion. I think it's rather sad how people get all riled up by my opinions about things and I wonder how those same people would react in-person and not when hiding behind a keyboard.

[xd ED]

So because you disagree with my opinion, I'm a court jester?

Thou doth assumeth too much.

a) That there's a court of which you are king. There may be a narcissistic ego problem there if you believe that, but to each their own.
b) That your opinion is somehow more valid than another's.
c) That one opinion invalidates another's.

meh. whatever. Think me a jester. I think some people on here are a-hats. Not all, not even most, but that's my opinion.

As for pollution, we've done more of that in the past 150 years than ever before I believe; and climate change, to each their own opinion. I'm not going to get into it. I'm all for a civil discussion of opinions, but when one side gets into an Internet p-ing contest because they believe themselves right and the other wrong, when it becomes an ego-driven, name calling playground, yeah, I'm out of here. Granted, most of the Internet is like that forums, but just like guns, forums aren't the problem - people are.

There was recently a user (which I believe was also moderator) which quit here due to some a-hattery by the resident troll after a personal attack and being fed up with the bs on here. Should I quit too? Would that make you feel better so you can have one giant circle jerk with a small group of people who agree with you 100% all of the time?

If certain people want to have a closed-membership elitist place to hang out with select individuals, then I suggest making this place invite-only, closing down open registration, booting everyone you disagree with, and then you can have your happy lil nirvana in this corner of the Internet all to yourselves. If that's not possible here, then how about starting your own forum where you set it up just as that? Don't invite me. I'll stay here and don't want to go there. You'll be free of me and everyone else whom you disagree with. Personally, I think that's a GREAT idea. You'd be rid of me and my opinions, but then that may also rid you of your entertainment. Which I have to say, if someone finds me entertaining, they're pretty easily amused; and likewise, if I irritate them, they are pretty easily annoyed as well.

Ok, now take another hit of my words, inhale deeply, absorb my words which arey our drug of choice, and flame on now that you've got your next fix....or ignore me and my opinion. I think it's rather sad how people get all riled up by my opinions about things and I wonder how those same people would react in-person and not when hiding behind a keyboard.

You're entitled to your own opinions.
Just not your own facts.

[XDM45]

So because you disagree with my opinion, I'm a court jester?

Thou doth assumeth too much.

a) That there's a court of which you are king. There may be a narcissistic ego problem there if you believe that, but to each their own.
b) That your opinion is somehow more valid than another's.
c) That one opinion invalidates another's.

meh. whatever. Think me a jester. I think some people on here are a-hats. Not all, not even most, but that's my opinion.

As for pollution, we've done more of that in the past 150 years than ever before I believe; and climate change, to each their own opinion. I'm not going to get into it. I'm all for a civil discussion of opinions, but when one side gets into an Internet p-ing contest because they believe themselves right and the other wrong, when it becomes an ego-driven, name calling playground, yeah, I'm out of here. Granted, most of the Internet is like that forums, but just like guns, forums aren't the problem - people are.

There was recently a user (which I believe was also moderator) which quit here due to some a-hattery by the resident troll after a personal attack and being fed up with the bs on here. Should I quit too? Would that make you feel better so you can have one giant circle jerk with a small group of people who agree with you 100% all of the time?

If certain people want to have a closed-membership elitist place to hang out with select individuals, then I suggest making this place invite-only, closing down open registration, booting everyone you disagree with, and then you can have your happy lil nirvana in this corner of the Internet all to yourselves. If that's not possible here, then how about starting your own forum where you set it up just as that? Don't invite me. I'll stay here and don't want to go there. You'll be free of me and everyone else whom you disagree with. Personally, I think that's a GREAT idea. You'd be rid of me and my opinions, but then that may also rid you of your entertainment. Which I have to say, if someone finds me entertaining, they're pretty easily amused; and likewise, if I irritate them, they are pretty easily annoyed as well.

Ok, now take another hit of my words, inhale deeply, absorb my words which arey our drug of choice, and flame on now that you've got your next fix....or ignore me and my opinion. I think it's rather sad how people get all riled up by my opinions about things and I wonder how those same people would react in-person and not when hiding behind a keyboard.

You're entitled to your own opinions.
Just not your own facts.

Well, facts are subjective. One need only look at history for that,. We're taught that "X is how Y event happened", but such events are written from the side of the conqueror, not the conquered. If you look at our history books and compare them with the history as known by the native americans, you'll see two different stories. Some things may coincide and jive, but never exactly. So all history is wrong certainly in part, and in some cases, in whole. This isn't a new concept, and I'm certainly not the only one to believe in such things, Howard Zinn wrote about it in People's History of the United States: The Wall Charts by Howard Zinn and George Kirschner (1995) ISBN 1-56584-171-9., but he's not the only one either.

1+1=2 and that's a fact, right?

If I have one apple and add another apple, that's two apples, correct? Well, yes it is and no it's not. Yes, it is because we see two individual objects, but no it's not, because science has shown that everything is in motion, made of energy that's not solid objects and nothing really touches another thing at the subatomic/molecular level, etc. So how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?> If you want to stop and say that you have two apples and 1+1=2, then yes, that's a "fact" and in that assumption and opinion, you're correct. If you want to drill down further and look at everything as energy connected and that nothing is really separate, then that's a "fact". Funny thing is, science will back both "facts" and both are provable, so in short, yes, you CAN choose your own facts, and in fact, you do, and that's a fact; but all of this is also just my opinion and you can have and are entitled to your own opinion, just as I am mine.

Warm cookie now?