Jump to content
LittleMe Jewell

Inworld Store Closure - Similar to RL Blue Laws

Recommended Posts

How in the world did we get onto this branch of the tracks?

But, since we are...Maddy, another interesting study reaches the conclusion that humans (specifically, European colonization of the Americas and the resulting decline in the indigenous people) contributed to global cooling...the period known as the "Little Ice Age".

https://www.thedailybeast.com/before-global-warming-colonization-caused-a-little-ice-age

It appears that we just can't win!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

95 % of global warming gasses is water vapour which is all from natural causes. That leaves 5% contribution from other gasses. Assuming CO2 is even a green house gas, 95% of all CO2 comes from natural sources,

So scientists are claiming 5% of 5% of of global warming gases is the entire driving force of global warming?

if man disappeared tomorrow nothing would change, natural sources would mostly replace man made sources.

Man made global warming is not driven by science, its driven by ideology, an attempt at income redustribution a global scale, and swindlers like Al Gore are making billions off of this scam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Your numbers are wrong, and understanding their importance would require having at least some knowledge of the physical mechanisms involved. I don't have the time to work up analogies to show what you're missing, nor do I believe they'd help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

one of the greatest scientists of modern times was disgraced and had all his honors taken away from him not too long ago

James Watson the father of genetics  make a simple observation that he refused to retract.

He said there is no reason to believe that populations of people breeding in isolation should develop inteligence at the same rate or to the same degree, and at the end of the day it will be shown that the cause is genetic.

For refusing to repudiate his simple statement  and grovel at the feet of our masters this old man has been publicly pillaried as  "scientists" of all stripes line up to denounce him.

"Eppur si mouve"

Even if his observations could be proven as true, wouldn't it be a moot point because all races have interbred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

How in the world did we get onto this branch of the tracks?

We got here because I suggested that humans are likely to become extinct due to their selfish nature of going after MOARRRRR, and that a Sabbath where one focuses on what we already have, or what can give to the world vs what we can take from the world, is a good thing.

Meditation causes us to focus on the now, to love and accept our present reality -- in opposition to this grasping, 'getting more' nature, or progressing to some sort of imagined materialistic perfection state, that the industrial world is obsessed with.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

How in the world did we get onto this branch of the tracks?

But, since we are...Maddy, another interesting study reaches the conclusion that humans (specifically, European colonization of the Americas and the resulting decline in the indigenous people) contributed to global cooling...the period known as the "Little Ice Age".

https://www.thedailybeast.com/before-global-warming-colonization-caused-a-little-ice-age

It appears that we just can't win!

Yep. Yet more evidence that we can and do affect climate.

I don't know if I heard about that particular study, but I have heard discussions of long ago climate shifts and their causes, and that such data is incorporated into modern climate models. So, while people will trot out examples of anthropocentric cooling as refutation for anthropocentric warming, the models comprehend them both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

apparently nasa data shows no change in global temperatures at all

It does

I think both sides exaggerate their side of the stories. But even if the climate change end up not being all that bad in the end, all the measures we take to prevent it are all good for the environment and general health so its a win anyway. But if we do nothing and they were right, we are in a *****load of trouble (well the next generations).

And the biggest deniers being industry driven does not convince me as person to much. But I am no scientist, and I have to base my intell on the internet and news sources like most having discussions on the internet. Don't think we will get a right or wrong out of this.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Science is not perfect and is subject to corruption, for sure.

But what would be the advantage for Scientists who say man-made climate change is real? What benefit are they receiving? What money are they getting from this?

Doesn't it make more sense to think that those who oppose man-made climate change are getting paid by the fossil fuel industry? When I research Scientists who oppose often I find this is the case.

I got my check from Exxon today, i'm gonna go buy an SUV

Well you've kind of hit the nail on the head here with your joke. It's not YOU who gets wealthy when money is redistributed -- it's the wealthiest in our society that sees the benefits.

You imagine something is or will be being taken away from you by a Socialist agenda, when in reality a redistribution is happening right now -- and it's going to the rich. There are charts where you can see what's happening if you care to look it up. Society has never been more unequal in terms of rich vs poor, and as this increases it will have devastating consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

And the biggest deniers being industry

Kind of a clue who is right or wrong about climate change isn't it!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well you've kind of hit the nail on the head here with your joke. It's not YOU who gets wealthy when money is redistributed -- it's the wealthiest in our society that sees the benefits.

I love how this was brought up by a historian at the World Economic Forum awhile back, he kinda nailed it.

Funny part from this also suits nicely with the whole climate thing: "Noting that 1,500 people had travelled to Davos by private jet to hear David Attenborough talk about climate change"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Kind of a clue who is right or wrong about climate change isn't it!

Hear about the expose recently of old Exxon internal documents saying effectively, “omg we gotta do something about this climate change!!1!!” ?

*Bonus, Shell too!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Even if his observations could be proven as true, wouldn't it be a moot point because all races have interbred?

We're not completely interbred, so variations between groups are possible. The largest of those variations are, as I recall, on a par with other effects, like marijuana use, affluence, etc. Within any local population, the individual variances are larger than variations between groups. If one wants to discriminate, there are plenty of variables with which to do it. We simply pick the ones that are easy to see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

We're not completely interbred, so variations between groups are possible. The largest of those variations are, as I recall, on a par with other effects, like marijuana use, affluence, etc. Within any local population, the individual variances are larger than variations between groups. If one wants to discriminate, there are plenty of variables with which to do it. We simply pick the ones that are easy to see.

I will pretend this proves there is no such thing as binary..anything. Because of course, how could I sufficiently grok without making biased, unrelated wild extrapolations? That’s how my small mind works, I look for larger “truths” within smaller ones.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Hear about the expose recently of old Exxon internal documents saying effectively, “omg we gotta do something about this climate change!!1!!” ?

*Bonus, Shell too!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

Good stuff.

I think I'm maxing out my browser windows today, but wondering if I will ever get to my Blender learnings of the day... lol   :(    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

If one wants to discriminate, there are plenty of variables with which to do it. We simply pick the ones that are easy to see.

lol If we're going to trash certain segments of the population let's do it right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thornll, you give me a scorn-laugh every time I mention the benefits of a Sabbath or meditative type practices.

So I can tell you disagree -- but why do you?

It could be an interesting discussion, and I'll try to be nice :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

So the majority of Scientists have banded together to fake the results of their expriments because they have an ideology, socialst in nature, where their primary goal is to redistribute wealth?  They would do this through taxing carbon I assume, or not allowing the wealthier nations to grow their economy?
Do you think your sensitivity to redistribution of wealth might be an ideology that you frame all arguments with, using it to assign motivation to situations? 

At least one climate change advicate has said "even if the science is totally wrong and there is no man made global warming, we are doing it for the right reasons", so yes its all about wealth redistribution, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Your numbers are wrong, and understanding their importance would require having at least some knowledge of the physical mechanisms involved. I don't have the time to work up analogies to show what you're missing, nor do I believe they'd help.

whatever but the point is man "contribution" is miniscule compared to natural sources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well you've kind of hit the nail on the head here with your joke. It's not YOU who gets wealthy when money is redistributed -- it's the wealthiest in our society that sees the benefits.

You imagine something is or will be being taken away from you by a Socialist agenda, when in reality a redistribution is happening right now -- and it's going to the rich. There are charts where you can see what's happening if you care to look it up. Society has never been more unequal in terms of rich vs poor, and as this increases it will have devastating consequences.

Luna by living in America YOU are one of the worlds wealthy, YOU are one of the ones that will see their quality and way of life destroyed by this global income redustribultion you clap your hands and salivate over, YOU are one of the ones that WILL pay the price for this madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Yep. Yet more evidence that we can and do affect climate.

I don't know if I heard about that particular study, but I have heard discussions of long ago climate shifts and their causes, and that such data is incorporated into modern climate models. So, while people will trot out examples of anthropocentric cooling as refutation for anthropocentric warming, the models comprehend them both.

funny how none of the dire warnings and predictions made by the climate change shills have ever come true

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
added a word
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

funny how none of the dire warnings and predictions made by the climate change shills have ever come true

My one an only question to all the "Climate Change" arguments is this: When was there *ever* NOT climate change; when, exactly, did climate change start? Absolutely SERIOUS question here.

I believe it started somewhere around 4.5 billion years ago and hasn't stopped since.

(And I there was a time they called it "Global Warming" then when all the record cold snaps happened they started calling it "climate change".)

Edited by Alyona Su

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

whatever but the point is man "contribution" is miniscule compared to natural sources

What about all the flatulent cows? And concrete / blacktop reflecting reflecting all the heat? By minuscule, do you just mean emissions? It’s ok, make up some numbers. 😹

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×