Thinking?

[van]

Kia ora

I am, therefore I think. Unlike so many nowadays who tend to to be "Surface Feeders", I like to dig a little deeper. Little, if anything by way of "Reality Shows" either tickles my fancy or passes for entertainment. Documentaries is what holds my attn. Having said all that, I want to adress "Global Warming". A quick search brought to light a topic in "Weather", however, given the implications associated with a dramatic shift in the way we may have to adapt, and perhaps the unlikely chance of people searching this topic under "Weather", has made me decide to post here.

The program/doco which relates to this is called "Planet Science", from 'Auntie'? (for the unknowing 'the Beeb' BBC)

T'is interesting the way, as rational information enters our tiny little minds, we change our perception as to what makes sense as opposed to 'popular Paranoia'! I'll confess to having held the perception that our pollution and industrial expansion must be held responsible for the "Global Warming" which currently besets us and which, as a consequence has us trapped into paying 'EST' (Emission Trading Tax). Our ignorance is what I am drawing attn to.

Geological and paleantological research paint a different picture to the popularly perceived paranoia concerning 'Popular Media' opinion. The Planet has periodically undergone changes, duly documented, both in warming and cooling, and the current phenomena ( I like that word! Reminds me of, I think, a Muppet Show, "Phenomena,phenomena- ta ta tanana etc)

Over the yrs, I have examined the weather patterns between the Nthn Hemisphere and that in the South. Invariably, what has affected the Nth, has led to like in the Sth. This yr however, it is diametrically opposed. A mild winter with the odd cold period lasting little more than a week at most.(the whitebait season looks promising and maybe early!)
I'll leave it at that for now. The tape I have been watching, has been put aside for a review, and more later. Suffice to say, climatic fluctuations have been documented in the past geological record to the extent of 6C above 'normal'. Methinks that the unwashed masses are yet once again being 'milked', 'fleeced', 'serviced' (or whatever word takes your fancy) to pay for the excesses of the minority who screws us every which way, 7 days a week!
Food for thought? I hope so.

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

[Yogi]

I'm finding it difficult to locate a clear and concise statement to define the topic for discussion here. But perhaps it's just my muddled mind gone awry as a result of the ague from which I'm suffering at the moment. Be that as it may, I can wholeheartedly agree that the cycles of global warming and global cooling have left their geological footprints for all modern man to see. Those cycles are thought to be a byproduct of sun spots and I do not believe that even the most right leaning of the wing nuts in the political forums do not disagree with the permanent records. The question this century is whether there is indeed a climate change in progress and whether mankind is responsible or contributing to it. The popular train of thought outside North America is that human activity is indeed the major contributor. Our American conservative leaning politicians feel that it is unpatriotic to go along with concepts that were not invented here. The argument is a bit more complicated than that, but I state the gist of it all.

As far as paying for the sins of the major polluters go, not one of us can stand back and say we had nothing to do with it. Every human on earth has benefited in one way or another from those industries which are commonly though to be the biggest contributor to our polluted world. By patronizing the industries and using their products you are in effect agreeing with and encouraging them to do what it is they are doing. Thus you must assume responsibility as a consumer to the same degree as do the manufacturers. We can't have one without the other, and as you say it's been a dirty game up to this point in history. It's time to pay the piper my friend.

[van]

Kia ora Dennis

But perhaps it's just my muddled mind gone awry as a result of the ague from which I'm suffering at the moment

Rather than your "muddled" mind having gone awry, I accept full responsibility for the confusing post I made. Aches and pains, alleviated with the aid of the "Good Shepherd"'s wee dram, have a tendency to make me ramble somewhat.
While I confess to my electronic addiction to communicate (having graduated from CB to the Internet) the rest of Societie's "New is Better", tends to leave me cold and reluctant to spend my money on it. In fact, been looking at purchasing a 50's-60's set of wheels, built like a brick shit house, with the performance equivalent of a fart generated via 2 bowls of peasoup and half a dozen pickled oinions! However I digress!

The programs I have been watching have been an eyeopener. "Planet Science"( the name thereof) while still manipulated to some extent by current thought, nevertheless allow a discerning viewer (MOI? ) to grasp the fact that life as we know it, is and always has been, precariously balanced on a knife's edge. Were todays World a better place, based on my perceived biased view, it might be of some concern to me. As it stands, I frankly don't give a rat's arse what the future holds, for either self, family or the rest of the world. Yes I ramble again, tsk tsk! , perhaps a reflection on my part that things are going downhill.

Back to the subject
The Earth, has undergone many changes, most of them of a catastrophic nature. Rather than the clockwork regularity espoused by Newton, later scientists such as Milankovitch have shed a lot of light on the history of the Planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Our lives continuance are also much dependent upon the Magnetosphere which surrounds the Earth and gives protection against radiations harmful effects. Coincidentally current climate change would appear to mesh with past upheavals, in that the magnetosphere is showing destabilisation at the same time as that Global warming is relieving, via icemelt on the continents, pressure on the crust. The current upsurge in vulcanic activity plus geological disturbance as in earthquakes makes me think that there are interesting times ahead.
I hope I have made some sense, rather than cutting and pasting, I have presented in my own words my perception that despite the eloquent bullshit which the 'Talking heads" present us with, there is ample information out there which any of us can peruse and draw our own conclussions.

Will I be there to witness this? Hard to say. In geological times things tend to progress slowly according to the way we measure time, yet many catastrophies take place at an alarming rate. I am not a doomsayer, merely a realist who examines past history as presented via current scientific knowledge. Am I a 'Thinker' or "Stinker"? I suppose it depends on one's view of "Reality".

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

[Yogi]

The laws of thermodynamics apply today as much as the did in Newton's time. Frankly I'd rely more on Newton who was a scientist in every sense of the word as opposed to Milankovitch or the Planet Earth television series. Milankovitch was an engineer who worked with theories popular about 100 years ago; good at math but hardly a well respected member of the scientific community even back in his day. While the Planet Earth television shows are more current, you do not believe they are without sponsors who have an agenda. Or do you?

Again, I think the consensus is that patterns of global climate change are a reality with roots in the evolution of the earth's biosphere. Solar radiation and magnetic storms likely have an effect too, but a direct cause and effect relationship has yet to be demonstrated.

I'm still not sure where you are going with this topic, but I do know the current debate on climate change is much ado about politics more so than proof of any science. While I'm not all that knowledgeable about thermodynamics, I do know that pumping all the crap we do into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing.

[Ice.Maiden]

If I may just step in on here, I think you've both made some good points. The earth's undergone natural changes for thousands if not millions of years, but of course, man isn't helping it by "pumping all the crap into the atmosphere" either.
Perhaps this is why noticeable changes (such as the melting of the ice caps) are happening with greater rapdity than was expected? In just 30 years, huge swathes of ice've melted, and this's bound to have an effect on everything else, from rising sea levels to habitat.
I'm not a scientist or notable scholar, but I AM interested in what goes on in the world around us. I don't believe that our pulluted atmosphere's helped by sending rockets into space - or even with the amount of air traffic we have these days, and closer to ground, I think nuclear testing cant've done much good either. The tectonic plates ony have to be shifted slightly, and we see all sorts of things occuring, from tsunamis to earthquakes and possibly volcanic eruptions. The lithosphere's affected by the damming of rivers, pollution and weather conditions, and I see it as some sort of cycle which won't be easily broken.

[van]

Kia ora

The program is akin to a National Geographic view of nature and the Universe, presenting scientific data which has been proven to be factual. In the case of Milankovitch, the 3 cycles mentioned, in and on their own would appear to have little impact but apparently the combination of the 3 can be linked with dramatic changes which have occurred in the past. Certainly the impact we have had on the Planet via aerial and landbased pollution cannot be discounted.

In many respects, while the program has attempted to explain how previous climate change was wrought, in this case Global warming, it has failed to bring to our attn an explanation of impending Ice Ages and how they are thought to be initiated. Variations in orbit, instigated via gravitational pull of the gas giants and the wobble of the Earth on its axis, I think are responsible for this. But, then again, global warming and extremes of climate may, in my opinion, perhaps also have a bearing. More evaporation, more cloud cover tends to lower the temperature as is readily observed in the difference on a sunny and cloudy winters day.

Where am I going with all this? I hope that what I have posted makes people think and put in their 2c worth. Or are we expected to sit back, accept the final word from exspurts?

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

[Ice.Maiden]

No - I think both you and yogi've made valid points which should make those reading your thoughts perhaps think a little deeper themselves.

[Yogi]

Where am I going with all this? I hope that what I have posted makes people think and put in their 2c worth. Or are we expected to sit back, accept the final word from exspurts?

All I can add at this point is that in this case it could be a fatal flaw to not accept the word of experts. The following article is from a popular and easy to understand blog from Discovery Magazine - a relative of Planet Science, I'm sure. It puts Global Warming in perspective, but what really is interesting are the comments which follow the blog. A wide range of opinions are intelligently presented. After due consideration, I can't justify ignoring the experts.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... tronomy%29

[van]

Kia ora Dennis

Expert advice is always welcome, I have no problem with that, but our willingness to blindly follow is what sticks in my craw.
Given our inadequate understanding of not only our own history, let alone that of eaons (sp?) past, our ready acceptance allows undue pressure to be put upon us. Why have we made progress over the centuries? Is it not due to those individuals who challenged the 'Status Quo'? Is it not true that accepted dogma has been o'erturned via their concerted efforts? Why should we refuse to question against perhaps overwhelwing odds? Was it not you who made a most important Post regarding "Intuition"? One I might add, I took to heart!

While I am not doing the research by going over what I came across today?, it appears that someone has concluded that Black Holes may contain a Universe! I must admit that the prospect and the rhetoric are appealing! Is this what makes us tick? That which appeals, we pursue? If so I and others are at the whim of the most plausible bit of bullshit which is published! Correct? On the otherhand those of us who question surely at best ought to be either convinced with logic/reason as to our mis-apprehension/ignorance? Failure of an expert, to convey in layman's terms a complex theory, will only lead to (hopefully) to dissatisfaction with current thought.

I have spent 56 yrs being conditioned by "Experts". The 10yrs since then, having received some enlightenment via the Net, I have been like a child, asking "Why"! From our existence, thru Law, Justice, Equality, Science etc a whole New World has opened. Is there something wrong with me? an individual with limited education seeking rational comprehensive answers?
While I realise I might be a pain in the arse raising certain topics or in commenting the way I do, should I shut up, wither and die? F@@@# no! I never been that way, nor am likely to vegetate to the extent that parasites extinguish my hold on life (for what it is worth! )

Now I am getting personal
We have known each other via cyberspace for a number of yrs. What if anything have you noticed in the intervening timeframe? Have my posts improved in intellectual content or deteriorated with an ever increasing amount of nectar? Should the answer be "Nay" (Neigh), I shall forthwith withdraw myself from this forum in the first instance, partake in more 'roughage' in the latter. Coherence is not considered here, as irrespective of 'hay' or 'nectar' I have had problems in that regard. I tend to 'shoot from the lip' rather than the 'hip'.

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

[Yogi]

Giving a critical review of an individual's thoughts and intelligence is a treacherous venture that I care not to pursue. This particular forum is not designed for such a critique in the first place, not to mention the topic drift it implies. I'm still uncertain as to what the specific topic for discussion is, but I certainly am not going to attack any messengers.

There is nothing wrong with questioning traditional ideas, nor scientific theories for that matter. But, as I have stated elsewhere, the kind of questions asked reveal much more about a person's understanding than do the answers they provide. The discussion of Global Warming has it's proponents and it's skeptics. That's a healthy blend for a lively discussion. But, there are also disbelievers in that discussion group. The disbelievers will argue against a proposal simply out of instinct. The instinct to distrust large corporations, intellectuals, governments, and anyone else who threatens a person's internal feelings of security is a strong instinct. While there is a place for such feelings, they simply don't hold up to the body of evidence supporting the reality of climate change and global warming, for instance.

I take issue with people who instinctively argue against proposals because invariably those people assume I am not intelligent enough to see the errors in my thinking. When I'm classified as a "sheeple" it is at that point I realize my own intelligence is not being given due respect. Am I not smart enough to analyze the facts and make up my own mind? Am I not allowed to come to a conclusion without being accused of lacking the brilliance to question anything and everything? The disbelievers, not the skeptics, of Global Warming have consistently shown themselves to be nothing more than the manifestation of a political agenda. Their intuitive arguments are very revealing in that regard given that they nearly always deny their political motives.

That's why I stick to expert opinions. For the most part they are apolitical in origin.

[van]

Kia ora Dennis

Giving a critical review of an individual's thoughts and intelligence is a treacherous venture that I care not to pursue. This particular forum is not designed for such a critique in the first place, not to mention the topic drift it implies. I'm still uncertain as to what the specific topic for discussion is, but I certainly am not going to attack any messengers.

I have been thinking. The above comment is commendable, but I have no doubt that there must be times when you wonder about the co-herence and or otherwise of my posts. I suppose that, depending on our viewpoint, our way of life, perhaps some of my comments, make people wonder what planet I am from. Critiscism I am happy to accept without taking offense if it is rational. Alternatively, if I am wounded to the core, rather than make a post here and creating division, I would reply via PM and let the matter rest.

There is nothing wrong with questioning traditional ideas, nor scientific theories for that matter. But, as I have stated elsewhere, the kind of questions asked reveal much more about a person's understanding than do the answers they provide. The discussion of Global Warming has it's proponents and it's skeptics. That's a healthy blend for a lively discussion. But, there are also disbelievers in that discussion group. The disbelievers will argue against a proposal simply out of instinct. The instinct to distrust large corporations, intellectuals, governments, and anyone else who threatens a person's internal feelings of security is a strong instinct. While there is a place for such feelings, they simply don't hold up to the body of evidence supporting the reality of climate change and global warming, for instance.

Is there a perception, from your perspectine, that I instinctively have an aversion to "Experts" rather than a basis of fact after examining pro's and con's of various other "Experts", based on rationalty? Hope I have framed this in a way which is comprehensible? My view of the World is coloured by a lifetime of experience, having seen what works (facts?) and what has failed dismally, despite expert opinion. If you consider me a "Conspiracy Theorist", than so be it, no hard feelings on my part. If my questions reveal an indaquacy on my part to comprehend certain aspects of life, enlighten me.

I take issue with people who instinctively argue against proposals because invariably those people assume I am not intelligent enough to see the errors in my thinking. When I'm classified as a "sheeple" it is at that point I realize my own intelligence is not being given due respect.

When I make reference to "Sheeple" I do so in a general context without targeting any individual. If you perceive that I have targeted you such a way, I can only apologise and assure you that such was not my intent. I have no problems when it comes to calling a "spade a spade", and should I deign to take such a step, those who raise my ire will be only too well aware of the fact! re "Andre"? ( I think you'll be aware of the reference)

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

[Yogi]

This is an interesting thread in many respects. It reminds me of several (as in more than one) comments I've read off site from people who choose not to bless us with their presence anymore. They observed how nice we were to each other and how there was little tolerance for freedom of expression. That last comment I take to mean the there is an objection to our policy of excluding flaming and trolling from our discussions. Well, I have to admit that this is the "nicest" thread I've read here in a long time.

Reference to sheeple is a common tactic used to attack the wisdom or intelligence of those expressing contrary points of view. I understand that it's used in this thread in a general sense and not aimed at any one individual. Even if it were aimed at me personally, the tactic is weak at its best. I don't have to sit in a pile of manure to know what it smells like.

As far as the coherence of posts is concerned, it's all self-evident. Our mission as a web site is to learn about and from one another. Expressions of coherence as well as irrationality are equally acceptable arguments in a discussion. It is up to the readers of our discussions to determine where the truth rests. The debate on Global Warming is largely political in my opinion and I have up to this point sided with the coherent arguments presented by people I recognize as experts and who support the idea. As you would expect, there are equally coherent arguments from the opposing side. The following link should be particularly appealing to you van in that it supports many of the Milankovitch observations without mentioning his name. It's a very long read and possibly one that would cause drowsiness before the end of the article is reached. But, it does have some valid counterpoints to the previous link I offered in support of Global Warming.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/08/global-w ... or-nature/