I have some reading on geological history. My major was Mathematics,
Computer Science with a little bit of Electrical Engineering. So I am not
by any means an expert on geology or Biology. I sometimes I take a first
thought route to problem solving and can make mistakes. If my reasoning is
flawed I will change it. By reading Doug's postings, He seems to be on the
Authoritative side where I am on the Anti-Authoritative side. I do not
trust those that speak in terms of absolutes. It is in my nature to be the
skeptic. Doug's last ranting is far from a thoughtful person.
Still this is usenet where all opinions can be expressed, even from my
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
Food for Climate Skeptics
"The frigid winter now ending may be, unhappily, no fluke. The warming
trend that had dominated world climate during most of the years since
1880 appears to have come to an end. Murray Mitehell, Jr., of the U.S.
Weather Bureau reported that mean annual temperatures have dropped in
both Northern and Southern hemispheres by 0.2 degree Fahrenheit since
the early 1940s. In many areas climatic conditions have already returned
to those that prevailed in the 1920s. The downturn has allayed fears
about the 'greenhouse effect,' in which a rising concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, due to increased use of fossil fuels, was
supposed to be trapping more and more solar energy. But the reasons for
the cooling are unknown."
Daytime temperatures had fallen during the 1940s and 1950s as aerosol
haze created by industrial pollution reflected sunlight.
Scientific American, March, 1961
(reprinted in the March, 2011 edition)
The Soviet Union was never a Socialist, much less a Communist country
any more than the colonialists who threw tea into Boston Harbor were
Indians. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship under Uncle Joe, and an
oligarchy afterwards. Any social benefits were incidental.
To what end is this power of which you speak? My view is that it is the
power to keep corporate sponsors to fund election campaigns, which is
contingent on legislation which increases corporate revenues. 87% of
corporate stock is owned by 1% of the population. By and large, it is
the extractors of fossil fuels (which are responsible for the release of
CO2 into the atmosphere) which are the most vocal deniers of Global
Aren't you supposed to mark the topic OT when you talk about gardening?
How far are you from North Carolina where the Cook is in full gardening
mode? Seems very strange.
My tomatoes have stuck their little dicots out. The second round of peas
are starting to show themselves and the Romanesco broccoli is stretching
for the grow lights.
If you like weekends, thank a union.
approach? What has it to do with the Soviet Union?
> is real quite
This is a socialist approach that failed in the USSR?
Please, tell me more.
In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global
temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers
considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined
towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.
The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on
climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a
consequent warming trend. The actual increase in this period was 29%.
analogical representations of reality. It simply means that any
mathematical representation would have to account for certain, measured
I'm sure that "socialism" holds some sort of implied meaning for you
besides the stated dictionary definition:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates
that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned
OR regulated by the community as a whole.
Our entry into our latest wars wasn't regulated, it was staged.
Our biggest oil spill avoided environmental regulations.
The economic mugging of America, was caused by de-regulation.
So your a neo-liberal then? Nothing should interfere with profits? Not
neighbors, or greed?
And while individual free-market environmentalists plant bushes and
trees, install solar cells and wind generator, and compost, free-market
power producers produce low cost energy from fossil fuel. Low cost if
you don't count the social cost of remediation of the atmosphere, and
water, not to mention eco-nuclear and containing radioactive releases.
It's called privatizing the profits and socializing the costs, here in
the best of all possible neo-liberal worlds.
Reducing CO2 emissions, painting roofs white, and burying charcoal,
aren't political acts but attempts at survival.
Can you back-up, and approach "Global Warming" without the political
If you like weekends (40 hr/5 day weeks), thank a union.
In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.
Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition :)
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.
The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.
Correct! in my book of philosophy. I believe in evolution of man even
though all the facts are not there. Someday the facts may be there. If a
system has contradictions I will dismiss the theory as false. I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief. I know for others,
contradictions in a belief system does not matter.
I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos. I know the sun has
a cycle every eleven years for sun spots. Not sure about long term
temperatures. The earths magnetic field can flip flop changing the
environment, but no sure about its effect on temperature.
I imagine when the Sun turns into a red giant in a billion years the Earth
will warm up a whole lot.
Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
Genetic engineering and DNA sequencing are facts. The current model for
human evolution is a best guess based on current evidence and that will
certainly change as new evidence is uncovered. What will not change is
the chemical basis for evolution - inheritance and breeding both of
which are statistical in nature. There will be change in a lot of the
details in our understanding of genetics (RNA activity, protein folding,
all sorts of stuff) but not how basic DNA->RNA->protein works and not
how DNA encodes the next generation and not statistical population
Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it. Check. You are going to believe that all religions are alike
and that's that. Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in
There have been a lot of cycles of ice ages and warm ages in
geologically recent past. Those are too evenly repeated to have
volcanic causes. The "little ice age" could easily have had a volcanic
Today they had a type of bromeliad I had not seen before. Flattened red
leaves that looked like a hand sticking up out of the main green leaves.
Comparison with the known leads to an understanding (correct or not).
Then why do my tax dollars (not optional) go to printing, "In God We
Trust" on our currency? Or do you contend that we aren't a civilized
Bush's 3rd term: OBAMA
If you like weekends, thank a labor union.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in
Awareness of hypocricy is acknowledging the errors of a specific
religion. Look carefully and any faith will have some problems. To
assume that all suffer from the same problems is to be poisoned. They
There's a further issue not just with Buddhism not addressing deity.
All or almost all religions tell stories. Do not confuse the fact that
a couple of very popular religions make the mistake of claiming their
stories are literally true with the fact that stories get told. Those
are two separate topics. To most faiths the stories are fiction that
teaches. To a couple of faiths the stories are supposed to be literally
true that also teach.
Is there actually a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? No. It's a
tale about chasing get rich quick schemes, complete with the gold
disappearing after a day. The real gold in the rainbow is the warm
glow in our hearts when we watch a rainbow. Two levels of mythical
meaning in the same tale, both of which are true and neither of which
appear in the tale itself. That's how the tales of other faiths work.
It is in fact a tale from one of the other faiths.
Did Odin really turn into a one eyed snake, drill into a mountain,
secude a maiden, retrieve the mead of inspiration, return it home, and
dribble some onto humanity as he returned? No. It's an adventure tale
for the children, a barrage of sexual innuendo for young couples, a
view of the cycles of life for the elderly.
Did Sampson really lose his strength because his hair was cut? If there
even was a human named Sampson. No. Becoming a kept man might have
had a bit more to do with it. The hair is a symbol for changed social
status not a literal source of strength.
Civilization is a floating point not a binary number. Putting "In God
We Trust" on the coinage about the time of the US Civil War and on the
paper currency about the time of WWI was a departure from the principles
of freedom of religion. Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance
about the time of the Korean War was also a departure from the
principles of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion must include
freedom from religion.
Both in both cases they can be viewed as a description of the majority
of the population not as harassing atheists. And in both cases it's
more generic than the majority might have liked. The US Constitution
forbids establishing a state religion but it does not forbid noticing
that the majority of the population is religious. I don't like either
situation but I understand how and where the line gets drawn. That I
would draw the line in a different place is less important than that the
line does get drawn - The government can't fund any specific religion
and can't drive out any specific religion, but the government can
acknowledge that religion is popular with the majority.
No civilization is perfect in any of its stances. These two examples of
how freedom of religion and separation of church and state can be bent
without being broken. The bending is the bad part, the departure from
the 1.00 value. The not breaking part is the good part, adding another
dimension. The US in specific and the west in general lead the world in
separation of church and state and religious freeodm. The US screws it
up on certain points. The logo on the money and the words in the Pledge
are among the screw ups.
Rosemary at the store yesterday. It didn't have as much aroma as I
Long pepper in my eggs this morning. It's not as hot as round
peppercorns. Not sure how to describe the flavor. Somewhere like
Worchestershire Sauce or cloves. As if those two have enough in common
for such a description to make the slightest sense. So now to try long
pepper flavored spice cookies! Gluten free as usual. I figure the
tee shirt will say "Uncle Dag went on a caravan with the Varangian Guard
and all we got was this recipe for spiced cookies flavored with an
exotic southern spice".
Hypocrisy is saying one thing, and doing another.
I guess what bothers me is your out and out dismissal of Nad's
revelations, not that they are superior or inferior to your's. I'm
inclined to see religions as power structures (and we all know what
power does) that place themselves between the believer and their god.
That the god of love and mercy can be morphed into Jerry Falwell's god
of jealousy and revenge, is beyond my ability to reconcile.
That we are called on to worship this god is offensive to my democratic
principals. Call it hubris, if you will, but I have a much easier time
believing that a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies,
especially if it exhorts its followers to reason.
Many good things have been done in the name of god, the Quakers come to
mind, as well as religiously funded clinics, schools, and water
projects. I can relate to an extent to Nad's situation, in that when I
was a teenager I started to question the church I belonged to, when they
shunned a church member who became pregnant out of wedlock. I briefly
considered converting to Judiasm, but the examination of hypocrisy that
I had started on with Christianity soon overwhelmed any possibility that
I could believe in Judaism. Buddhism (not a religion, but still a
belief) seems the only hypocrisy free belief, until you come to the
philosophical schism between Hinayana, and Mahayana Buddists.
I won't post again on this thread, bbut I will read any response that
you may have.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An
individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my
comprehension, such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble
- Albert Einstein
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein
If you like weekends (8 hr./day & 40 hr./week), thank a labor union.
He asserts that all religions are in conflict with science. I'm a
member of one that is not. I know of plenty of others that are not.
He asserts that science answers the why. It does not. Science measures
but does not assign moral value. Science describes the mechanisms
without addressing the meaning of life. Science can direct goals but it
can not supply goals except regarding the growth of science.
That's the religious organizations. Some have a lot more than others
but all have some. Religions tell about spirits, about what happens
after death, offer answers to the questions about what life means and
what are the goals of life. The religions also have certain features
included because the market demands they must. They must teach some
form of ethics, though the ethics come from the universe not from the
religion. Religions use allegory to teach ideas indirectly.
Philosophy can assign moral value, address the meaning of life, supply
goals. Religion can be viewed as a branch of philosophy or as a
competitor to philosophy. Philosophy can be viewed as a branch of
religion. I tend to see them with a Venn diagram showing their overlap,
neither being a subset of the other. Various religions have various
overlaps with various philosophies. To the extent your values are
important to you it is usual to inspect how the various religions
overlap, consider the ones with good overlaps, reject the ones with bad
Religions teach a spiritual approach to life. How does this tie in to
gardening? Gardening is one aspect of a spiritual approach to life.
Sometimes the spiritual experience is in the background, sometimes in
the foreground. One time I was digging up a part of the lawn to install
stones to add a walkway next to the driveway. Landscaping that's not
As I dug and cut through roots and exposed bugs and worms I saw in
my heart how the world is alive. The story of how Odin and his brothers
slew Ymir and crafted the world from his body went from a story to
tell children to something I was experiencing transmitted through the
blade of the shovel into my hands. The ground is alive. That's science.
That's also religion of the sort that I want to be a member of. If a
religion does not teach that that's not a religion that will hold my
interest. If a religion does teach that I'll look further into how it
transmits meaning and value.
It can fill volumes how it came about that democratic principles can to
be in the various regions of pre-Christian Europe in various forms and
how they interacted with the evolution of Christianity as it overwhelmed
the older religions then proceeded to absorb parts of them.
Telling a bunch of stories is only lies if you claim the stories are not
fiction. Only the JCI family does this.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.