Jump to content
LittleMe Jewell

Inworld Store Closure - Similar to RL Blue Laws

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

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.

What I understand the USA has one of the most extremes in wealth distribution of all western countries. The middle class is shrinking and deviding even more into lower income and higher income making the gap even bigger. Income is still higher than most Western countries if you compare the tiers (low/middle/high) But if the middle class dries out that will be a shallow comparison. (no expert here, all internet wisdom)

And eventually, what good will your money be if the world around you has gone to ***** because we kept choosing money over our environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

(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".)

People miss that when it’s colder than normal “somewhere”, it’s hotter than normal “somewhere else”. US has record cold, but Australia has record heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

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".)

What I understand from this article is that there's always a global warming after ice ages, but the amount of increase we had in the last century, equals the amount it normally takes 5000 years after an ice age.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What I understand from this article is that there's always a global warming after ice ages, but the amount of increase we had in the last century, equals the amount it normally takes 5000 years after an ice age.

Here's the problem: we haven't been tracking the weather for 5,000 years, so that's a theory.  My own personal stance on the subject is pretty simple: Is there climate change? Yes. Is climate change influence by humans: Somewhat. Is there some emergency action required about it? No. Nature is not that simple and neither that weak. 

Official records of weather only go back to 1900s, Other sources go only as far back are 1650's. Considering humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years and the planet for 4.5 billion more... it sure seems a small drop in the bucket of time-samples to be basing such wild, sweeping theories on. That's like asking 100 smartphone users which brand they prefer then make your authentic-sounding proclamation about the industry as a whole.

For every scientific theory on paper that proclaims climate change is the evil of evils, there are other theories on paper proclaiming the opposite, but those don't make headlines or money. And let's face it: it's all about the money.

I take it in stride. Just as I take things like (back on-topic) "please don't buy my stuff on X days because my religion..." (or other reason) makes me shake my head. If I want to buy your stuff I will when I want to. If you don't want me to, then make it unavailable.

So here we all are, debating the merit of things like climate change and whether we'd honor someone's plea to obey his religion. The common fact is you will not change my mind and I won't change yours, it's all a moot exercise, so there we go.

These are what make these forums so fascinating. :D

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Official records of weather only go back to 1900's, Other sources go only as far back are 1650's. Considering humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years and the planet for 4.5 billion more... it sure seems a small drop in the bucket to be basing such wid, sweeping theories on.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

26 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

For every scientific theory on paper that proclaims climate change is the evil of evils, there are other theories on paper proclaiming the opposite, but those don't make headlines or money. And let's face it: it's all about the money.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

26 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

The common fact is you will not change my mind and I won't change yours

If you're right, I hope you're only half right, and I'll do my best to ensure that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

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

When NASA was trying to bring Apollo 13 back they carefully calculated the burns to put the ship on the right trajectory - if the trajectory was too steep it would burn up in the atmosphere, and if it was too shallow the ship would bounce off the atmosphere and still be floating around today with three skeletons in it.

The funny thing was the trajectory would keep getting shallower and shallower for some reason - they'd correct it and it would get shallower again. They had to scramble to make a last correction before re-entry.

It turns out that the shallowing was caused by the cooling system of the lunar module constantly venting a small amount of vapor, as it was designed to. Since an Apollo spacecraft had never traveled anywhere near that far with an operating lunar module attached it wasn't factored into the calculations. The venting was probably much less than the stream of steam coming out of a teakettle, but it was enough to blow a 38-ton spacecraft off course.

Compared to that, 5% of 5% isn't as miniscule as it might seem.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I don't see it as important enough to be so concerned with any of it. Most of the shrill arguments were proclaiming "in the next 100 years" a few years ago, that has somehow turned into "next generation" now.

My belief is this: you and I and our kids will be dead and gone by the time most of these dire predictions come true (if they come true) and over the time between now and then we will have adapted like we always do. So the only way I'll be "half-right" about changing minds is when you come to my side of it and consider it all ho-hum hysterics and just go with the flow. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

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.

Lets all sit under a tree and gaze at our navals in serene bliss

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Here's the problem: we haven't been tracking the weather for 5,000 years, so that's a theory.  My own personal stance on the subject is pretty simple: Is there climate change? Yes. Is climate change influence by humans: Somewhat. Is there some emergency action required about it? No. Nature is not that simple and neither that weak. 

Official records of weather only go back to 1900s, Other sources go only as far back are 1650's. Considering humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years and the planet for 4.5 billion more... it sure seems a small drop in the bucket of time-samples to be basing such wild, sweeping theories on. That's like asking 100 smartphone users which brand they prefer then make your authentic-sounding proclamation about the industry as a whole.

For every scientific theory on paper that proclaims climate change is the evil of evils, there are other theories on paper proclaiming the opposite, but those don't make headlines or money. And let's face it: it's all about the money.

I take it in stride. Just as I take things like (back on-topic) "please don't buy my stuff on X days because my religion..." (or other reason) makes me shake my head. If I want to buy your stuff I will when I want to. If you don't want me to, then make it unavailable.

So here we all are, debating the merit of things like climate change and whether we'd honor someone's plea to obey his religion. The common fact is you will not change my mind and I won't change yours, it's all a moot exercise, so there we go.

These are what make these forums so fascinating. :D

Except then the forum mods show up, hand out warnings and suspensions and shut down the thread.

Honestly, threads like this one, the ones careening out of control, are the only ones even really worth bothering with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Most of the shrill arguments were proclaiming "in the next 100 years" a few years ago, that has somehow turned into "next generation" now.

This is an interesting read pertaining to the history of how the notion of global warming/climate change developed:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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?

Actually no, because despite your fondest wishes, most of the world's population has NOT interbred.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:
3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

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.

Lets all sit under a tree and gaze at our navals in serene bliss

Meditation is the total opposite of what you've described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

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.

 

Go read a text book on paleo climates. During the previous interglacials, the climates were warmer and CO2 levels were higher.

Unfortunately climate change scientists got it all backwards, higher CO2 levels don't cause higher temperatures, higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels.

And for crying out loud, CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's part of the cycle of life.

You know what happens when there's more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Plants grow faster.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alyona Su said:

(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".)

Researching the History of these words, I've found that both terms have always been used, however the media has cherry-picked at times, and political parties influence which term is used as well.

The globe is warming (global warming) and this warming causes all kinds of climate change (stronger hurricanes, more severe draught, more intense and frequent wildfires, and more).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question. What would happen to the earth's climate if mankind totally disappeared tomorrow?

Would it reach an ideal equilibrium, or would it continue to fluctuate?

And, any guesses as to what the biggest cause of climate change is?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:
3 hours 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.

Sources please, and context.

What might the "right reasons" be. All we have from your statement is that you believe the reasons are wealth redistribution.

Share this post


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

Except then the forum mods show up, hand out warnings and suspensions and shut down the thread.

Honestly, threads like this one, the ones careening out of control, are the only ones even really worth bothering with.

Ditto. LOL

IT'S ALIVE! Then they try to kill it before it multiplies. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And, any guesses as to what the biggest cause of climate change is?

The rotation, wobble, and orbit of the planet, which all change slowly over time. Not joking or being sarcastic, this is my sincere, genuine answer to said question. Am I a scientist? No, but I know enough science that a basic hypothesis will bring this most likely of answers.

That and the "Butterfly Variable" (a.k.a. "Butterfly Effect" in weather prediction).

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

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.

If we curb carbon emissions and transfer more of our energy needs to renewable energy how would my standard of living decrease?

Share this post


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

And for crying out loud, CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's part of the cycle of life.

You know what happens when there's more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Plants grow faster.

 

Do you know what happens to humans in a confined space with too much CO2?

They die.

Share this post


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

If we curb carbon emissions and transfer more of our energy needs to renewable energy how would my standard of living decrease?

When the cost of living skyrockets and you end up paying $50 for a loaf of bread. Not joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alyona Su said:

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".)

The summers are getting  hotter. 

Why?

Man made climate change

The winters are getting colder

Why?

Man made climate change

There's more and more hurricanes

Why?

Man made climate change

There was zero tornados on my trip to Oklahoma last may

Why?

Man made climate change.

The ice caps are melting

Why? 

Man made climate change.

The ice caps are growing

Why?

 Man made climate change.

We are having more rain than ever

Why?

Man made climate change

We are having a horrible drought

Why?

Man made climate change

It was slightly less cool in the second half of March

Why?

Man made climate change

I think you get the point.

But, its climate, it always changes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alyona Su said:
3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If we curb carbon emissions and transfer more of our energy needs to renewable energy how would my standard of living decrease?

When the cost of living skyrockets and you end up paying $50 for a loaf of bread. Not joking.

Grains won't grow here in the bread-belt where I live if the temperature gets too high. Already the aquifers aren't replenishing and water is in high demand.

But addressing your comment specifically, have you worked out the numbers for how much more expensive our way of life will be if we transition to renewable energies? I mean, have you studied it?

Share this post


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

×