Tell Me Something.

[Union Jack]

This may seem like a strange thread, but I think it would be interesting to read the results.

Everyone post something, a fact, an idea, discovery, or opinion, that you feel that others must hear in order for them to improve their lives.

What have you learned from life that you would like to share with others?

I guess I would say...



The classic example (used in Camus’s famous essay) is that of the Greek hero Sisyphus. Sisyphus was a Greek hero who defied the gods. As such he was damned to eternally rolling a huge rock up a hill. The rock would never stay at the top, as soon as the peak had been reached, the boulder would roll back down to its original place. The physical strain of rolling this rock up the hill was not the punishment itself, the Gods purposed to trap him in an existence that was futile and meaningless, causing him to fall into despair.

Yet, Sisyphus decides to roll the rock anyway, even though it is futile. It is important to recognize that there was a choice, he could push the stone, or merely sit down and wallow in despair in face of his futile existence. Nevertheless, he chooses to act upon his situation, and through acting upon it, he redefines his situation, rather than allowing the fates to simply act upon him and thereby define his existence.

In refusing to fall into despair, Sisyphus defeats the Gods at their own game, and produces a meaningful (to him) eternal struggle against the will of the Gods.

Even if the situation is hopeless, always fight to the end, you must, if not, you do not have a meaningful existence. Make the choice to act upon your situation rather than having it act upon you.



I think everyone should keep that thought in mind.

[RobinHood3000]

Ooh, very cool idea for a thread, methinks.

Population increases, crop yields increase in response, thus resulting in more population...what can we do?

[ktd222]

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/Portage1914.jpg

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/PortageReshoot.jpg

Do we need any further evidence?

[RobinHood3000]

Ahh--let's see people deny that.

[Regit]

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/Portage1914.jpg

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/PortageReshoot.jpg

Do we need any further evidence?

For what?

No, we don't: We need no further evidence to prove that global warming is a real phenomenon...that exists. This is indeed good evidence.

Yes, we do: We need completely different types of evidence, however, to prove that this phenomenon is in fact caused by human activities.

[ktd222]

Yes, we do: We need completely different types of evidence, however, to prove that this phenomenon is in fact caused by human activities.

And I'm pretty sure that if you ask any Environmental Biologist(among on discipline), he can prove that without a doubt to you. And come on, your not that sheltered to believe that we humans haven't contributed to the accelaration of green house gas emissions into the atmosphere thats caused havoc on Earth's biosphere.

[Regit]

Ay, I will study the matter after my exams and hopefully ask an Environmental Biologist questions. Thank you. I know that it is a long-overdue knowledge that I need to obtain.

I don't know about sheltered or not; but I don't think I stated that I believed anything. I did, however, give an answer to your question.

Let us review, you asked "Do we need further evidence?" having given two pictures showing a landscape at different points in time - and I, to one of my interpretations of your question, answered "Yes, we do: We need completely different types of evidence, however, to prove that this phenomenon is in fact caused by human activities." And I think that by saying "I'm pretty sure that if you ask any Environmental Biologist(among on discipline), he can prove that without a doubt to you," you have agreed that my answer is correct, that we, in fact, do need further evidence. And that is that.

Let us not make assumptions about each other.

[ktd222]

No I do not agree with you. I think the pictures are sufficient to show that the changes in ice-pack is not a natural phenomenon. This should jump out at anyone contrasting the two pictures-but I guess not you.

Its simple science to explain how we've taken part in increasing the rate of global warming.

The Sun's heat is projected through the Earth's atmosphere and heats up the surface. Now, all the pollution from car tale-pipes, factories, chemicals released into the atmosphere creates a kind of barrier of sorts that prevents heat from leaving Earth's atmosphere. Increasing the Earth's temperature to a higher level than would normally be without these man-made byproducts; therefore, producing these dramatic differences in ice pack between the two pictures I've posted.

[blondeatheart]

basically we need cars that run on alternative fuels but some dont want that to happen - those that r making profit from selling petrol etc after all cars that ran on water wer already possible in the 50s wel newy those ppl should take the environment into consideration!

i have something to say!
while i'm not religious and i don't believe in god or heaven or any of that i have a bit of a theory that when its over we relive our lives in another dimension over and over - hence, deja vu
newy just thought i'd include that good idea for a thread btw great opportunity to just say whatever!

[Union Jack]

basically we need cars that run on alternative fuels but some dont want that to happen - those that r making profit from selling petrol etc after all cars that ran on water wer already possible in the 50s wel newy those ppl should take the environment into consideration!

i have something to say!
while i'm not religious and i don't believe in god or heaven or any of that i have a bit of a theory that when its over we relive our lives in another dimension over and over - hence, deja vu
newy just thought i'd include that good idea for a thread btw great opportunity to just say whatever!

DON'T use the word theory while Regit is prowling this thread, haha. You should see what he/she? did to me when I used that word.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16961&page=2

Just kidding, but yes, interesting thought.

[Zippy]

What have you learned from life that you would like to share with others?

Two things:

First, never give up on anything. 98% of things in life can be achieved if you just don't give up.

Second, 'This too shall pass'. Nothing ever lasts for ever - if you're experiencing bad times, things will eventually change if you have patience. The downside however is that the good times, when they come around, will also change.

Zippy.

[Regit]

Its simple science to explain how we've taken part in increasing the rate of global warming.

The Sun's heat is projected through the Earth's atmosphere and heats up the surface. Now, all the pollution from car tale-pipes, factories, chemicals released into the atmosphere creates a kind of barrier of sorts that prevents heat from leaving Earth's atmosphere. Increasing the Earth's temperature to a higher level than would normally be without these man-made byproducts; therefore, producing these dramatic differences in ice pack between the two pictures I've posted.

And all of this is within those pictures you posted? Yes, it is simple "science" (if I turn a blind eye to the insufficiencies of your scientific explanation), but how do you expect someone to extract this science solely from your pictures? When you ask "do we need further evidence?", you just assume that everyone knows the argument and the "science" behind your "evidence"? If I gave you two pictures of a victim in two different points in time, one when he was alive and one when he's dead; and, without saying anything further, I deem those pictures enough "evidence" to point out who did it, would you agree with me? You tried to make a point but forgot to cover your tracks, let it go; and please don't insult science: Those pictures of yours are not scientific evidence for the point that you are making.

And the paragraph that you have just posted - that's called further evidence.

[rachel]

darling regit,
you sound very lawyerly in your post, have you actually taken legal reasoning? you are well on your way to impressing His Honor!

[AimusSage]

I can't wait for another Ice age! Let the interglacial period come to an end!

It would be a great promo for Warner Bros new movie: Ice Age 3: The Next Ice Age. Scrat would somehow be back, with a little twist of fate, and it would dominated the box office for years.

Anyway, global warming due to humans and the 'evidence' often associated with it is merely one aspect of climate instability. If you look at the history of the earth, you would see periods where global warming was far more severe then it is now. One volcanic eruption emits as much CO2 as the emissions of all cars do in about 10 years time. Imagine a super volcanoes eruption, with a magnitude that is 100's of times more severe then a standard volcano, that'll be the day, probably black out the sun and cause a nuclear winter.

See, nature is much more dangerous to our survival then we ourselves can ever be. Yay!

[Regit]

darling regit,
you sound very lawyerly in your post, have you actually taken legal reasoning? you are well on your way to impressing His Honor!
Ay:D. Darling Rachel, are you trying to get me busted? ;)

[Bandini]

My old dad said never run for a bus or a woman. There'll always be another one along soon. He spent most of his life p**s wet through at bus stops, gagging for...female company.

Seriously though, best and simple advice - don't despair - you never know what is around the corner. And be positive.

Love many, trust few - and always paddle your own canoe.

And obviously loads from literature and philosophy!

[ElizabethSewall]

Wow, Bandini, you're a rather surprising guy, in a good way. :D

[Bandini]

Thank you - I like to think I defy categorisation. Label free me!

[Union Jack]

Love many, trust few - and always paddle your own canoe.


That's a great one, cheers for that Bandini.

[kilted exile]

Ok sorry for dragging things further off topic but....


And I'm pretty sure that if you ask any Environmental Biologist(among on discipline), he can prove that without a doubt to you. And come on, your not that sheltered to believe that we humans haven't contributed to the accelaration of green house gas emissions into the atmosphere thats caused havoc on Earth's biosphere.

I have a feeling that I am possibly the closest thing to an Environmental Biologist on this forum (mentioned elsewhere Environmental Engineering Technologist). What those pictures show definitively is that what used to be a glacier in 1914 is now a lake 90 years later. This is all that they show.

What they suggest is that some change has occured in relation to the environmental surroundings which has caused the glacier to retreat/melt. It is also reasonable to hypothesise that the change in environmental conditions is temperature. What the picture can not, does not, and should not solely be used in an attempt to prove is that the change in temperature is due to the influence of mankind. That is weak science and should be left to the groups such as Greenpeace.

The effect of human interaction is in fact hard to see even when looking at the data regarding temperature. The data shows an increase in temperature, but through historical analysis we can see that the temperature has been increasing for years before humans had any real effect on the world through production of greenhouse gases (CO2, SOx, NOx, H2O, Ozone in lower atmosphere). What is required for definitive proof is complete statistical analysis of the temperature records to determine whether there is a variation of the rate of temperature increase (no matter what groups like Greenpeace want to tell you there is at this point no full analysis completed), and the time period when the greatest change occurred. Until then we leave the door open for people who do not subscribe to the theory (and it is still a theory) to argue from a statistically correct viewpoint that we are not causing the increase in temperature - "lies, damn lies and statistics" (if you want to read about the statistics check "The skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomborg for the statistical argument)

Having said all that when we look at the evidence as a whole it becomes clear to most that we are having a huge effect on the conditions of the planet. We just need to be careful what we choose to use as definitive evidence of something occuring, and to bring this thing back on topic my advice is: never believe things solely because the Media/ High profile organisations throw out some quick, undetailed info about a subject - a little background research is never a bad thing.

I'll end by posting something one of my buddies (Studying Env Science in BC currently) wrote recently it sums things up better than I can:


So yesterday was Earth Day. I took a break from the world of school and spent the entire afternoon in one of the areas regional parks. This place was amazing. While I was sitting, enjoying the view this gal sat beside me and began to lecture the importance of earth day. The importance of well the environment. Maybe she was stonned out of her mind, I have no clue. But I let her talk, I needed a good laugh because some of the things were just pure BS. I'll all for free speech, but you should know what you're talking about first. And make damn sure you don't start lecturing to someone who actually studies the topic...

One of the topics she brought up was the Global Warming Conference that was in Montreal back in December. And how it got relatively little attention...

Probably because of the cold weather.

It's odd for another reason. Ten thousand people went to Montreal, ten thousand. For a conference on reducing energy consumption. Now, ten thousand is a large number, elephantine, in fact. I don't suppose many delegates walked. As conferences go, this one is a real Leviathan.

Just think of the Montreal summit's ecological footprint. Is there really a need to fly ten thousand people from 189 countries to a cold city to exchange ideas? Is there no e-mail? Are the phone lines down? Does no one own a Blackberry?

Well, I suppose in this matter, ecology is not really different from politics. High on sermons, low on example. Maybe it's low-key because the celebrity attendance is sparse.

There are not many rock stars there. What's an environmental summit without rock stars? Or just celberties. Are they all worn out after making poverty history?

But still, where's Bono? Was he crushed, or in some sulk from his disappointment with Paul Martin? I'm not sure anymore that Canada is allowed to take on international commitments unless it's alright with Bono. Canada used to be an independent country. Now we're just part of an entourage.

There was a Canadian Press report from Montreal whose lead sentence could have come straight out of Alice in Wonderland. It read "Tens of thousands of people ignored frigid temperatures Saturday to lead a worldwide day of protest against global warming." Wearing earmuffs while chanting, "It's getting hot in here" might be homage to Nellie, but it's not effective salesmanship.

At the same demonstration on that brutally cold day, one of the Greenpeace high priests offered a brilliant synopsis of how comprehensively the concept of global warming applies.

He said, and I quote, "Global warming can mean colder; it can mean dryer; it can mean wetter." Well, if warm can mean cold, if warm can mean wet, and if warm can mean dry, is it fair to ask if warm still means warm? Oh Greenpeace, nice way of shooting yourslef in the foot. Because this is the beauty of global warming. It's a theory that covers every possibility. More of a tent than a thesis.

The bigger disconnect at this monster seminar goes further than rhetoric, however. It's that Canada's the host of this sequel to Kyoto, and that Canada's performance since Kyoto – and remember, we signed on – is at this date, 24 per cent higher than our 1990 levels. According to our commitment, we're aiming for six per cent lower. So as of 2005, there's a 30 per cent spread from what we've promised and what we've done so far.

The U.S., which didn't sign on, is only thirteen per cent higher than its 1990 levels. Still, around the world, the U.S. is the villain for not signing on, while countries like ours, who talk a virtuous environmental line and host King-Kong-scale conferences to celebrate our commitment, pose as the planet's dearest lovers. Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy.

I've probably pissed that girl off... cause she took off pretty quick after I told her my thoughts. Hey I've probably pissed off some of you too.

[subterranean]

My old dad said never run for a bus or a woman. There'll always be another one along soon..


The most optimistic one indeed.


I once hear this saying: sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you get what you need, and sometimes you get what you get.

[Regit]

Thank you kilted exile; it's good for the ears to sometimes hear a scientist explain science.

In the spirit of moving back on topic, I'd like to let a quote say my one thing:
"He who knows how to flatter, knows also how to slander." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Sincerity is not to be tested by the sweetness of words.
Peace :)

[ktd222]

And all of this is within those pictures you posted? Yes, it is simple "science" (if I turn a blind eye to the insufficiencies of your scientific explanation), but how do you expect someone to extract this science solely from your pictures? When you ask "do we need further evidence?", you just assume that everyone knows the argument and the "science" behind your "evidence"? If I gave you two pictures of a victim in two different points in time, one when he was alive and one when he's dead; and, without saying anything further, I deem those pictures enough "evidence" to point out who did it, would you agree with me? You tried to make a point but forgot to cover your tracks, let it go; and please don't insult science: Those pictures of yours are not scientific evidence for the point that you are making.

And the paragraph that you have just posted - that's called further evidence.

Its common knowledge. You grow up seeing it on television and in school. This means you are sheltered. You are taking things out of context when you talk about 'victims' pics. I don't know where your going with this. Please you should learn some science, I mean, common knowledge.

And that paragraph I pasted was to enlighten you. The fact still remains that the two pictures do not show a natural tendency occuring.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your comments.

[ktd222]

What they suggest is that some change has occured in relation to the environmental surroundings which has caused the glacier to retreat/melt. It is also reasonable to hypothesise that the change in environmental conditions is temperature. What the picture can not, does not, and should not solely be used in an attempt to prove is that the change in temperature is due to the influence of mankind. That is weak science and should be left to the groups such as Greenpeace.
This statement is driven by denial. Not being able to connect the obvious is verry disturbing.


The effect of human interaction is in fact hard to see even when looking at the data regarding temperature. The data shows an increase in temperature, but through historical analysis we can see that the temperature has been increasing for years before humans had any real effect on the world through production of greenhouse gases (CO2, SOx, NOx, H2O, Ozone in lower atmosphere). What is required for definitive proof is complete statistical analysis of the temperature records to determine whether there is a variation of the rate of temperature increase (no matter what groups like Greenpeace want to tell you there is at this point no full analysis completed), and the time period when the greatest change occurred. Until then we leave the door open for people who do not subscribe to the theory (and it is still a theory) to argue from a statistically correct viewpoint that we are not causing the increase in temperature - "lies, damn lies and statistics" (if you want to read about the statistics check "The skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomborg for the statistical argument)
If you do believe this, your among the minority of people who believe the extreme lanscape changes over short periods of time are non-natural tendencies.


Having said all that when we look at the evidence as a whole it becomes clear to most that we are having a huge effect on the conditions of the planet. We just need to be careful what we choose to use as definitive evidence of something occuring, and to bring this thing back on topic my advice is: never believe things solely because the Media/ High profile organisations throw out some quick, undetailed info about a subject - a little background research is never a bad thing.
I'll end by posting something one of my buddies (Studying Env Science in BC currently) wrote recently it sums things up better than I can:
Is this a scientic paper or a paper due in class?

He said, and I quote, "Global warming can mean colder; it can mean dryer; it can mean wetter." Well, if warm can mean cold, if warm can mean wet, and if warm can mean dry, is it fair to ask if warm still means warm? Oh Greenpeace, nice way of shooting yourslef in the foot. Because this is the beauty of global warming. It's a theory that covers every possibility. More of a tent than a thesis.
He is right. Global warming increases the severity of each of these weather conditions. Higher temperatures means more of the water in the oceans is absorbed into the air, and in turn, you know what results: heavier storms. And during the summer, a high atmospheric temperature means more severe droughts.

[RobinHood3000]

Hey hey, ease up, fellas!! This is supposed to be a fun thread--you're starting to stray into politics, and if you want to discuss the science of it, start a thread or go into PMs.

[kilted exile]

ktd, I have to be leaving for work now. But if you really want to continue discussing this I have no objection to that, before we do however I ask that you do a few things:

1) Go back and re-read my post correctly. You will see that I clearly state my belief that Human interaction has an effect on global warming, I am explaining the other side of the scientific argument I have studied it and know quite clearly what I am talking about

2) Think about what a picture by itself can prove.

3) Consider whether you have seen any conclusive data, or merely been told that the data exists.

[ktd222]

ktd, I have to be leaving for work now. But if you really want to continue discussing this I have no objection to that, before we do however I ask that you do a few things:

1) Go back and re-read my post correctly. You will see that I clearly state my belief that Human interaction has an effect on global warming, I am explaining the other side of the scientific argument I have studied it and know quite clearly what I am talking about.
And so do I. Is this one of those 'I'm God' statements so I should yield.


2) Think about what a picture by itself can prove.
And you should think about the saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words'.



3) Consider whether you have seen any conclusive data, or merely been told that the data exists.
The evidence is all around you. Obseveration. The way your going at it you'd rather be concerned with defining than being active.

[Scheherazade]

Here is my two cents:

Off-topic posts and posts which target other members personally, rather than contributing to the on-going discussion are likely to be deleted.

[woeful painter]

I can't wait for another Ice age! Let the interglacial period come to an end!

It would be a great promo for Warner Bros new movie: Ice Age 3: The Next Ice Age. Scrat would somehow be back, with a little twist of fate, and it would dominated the box office for years.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Anyway, global warming due to humans and the 'evidence' often associated with it is merely one aspect of climate instability. If you look at the history of the earth, you would see periods where global warming was far more severe then it is now. One volcanic eruption emits as much CO2 as the emissions of all cars do in about 10 years time. Imagine a super volcanoes eruption, with a magnitude that is 100's of times more severe then a standard volcano, that'll be the day, probably black out the sun and cause a nuclear winter.

See, nature is much more dangerous to our survival then we ourselves can ever be. Yay!

True, scientists digging up for ice in the arctic regions have found that even in earlier times, ice age or farther back, the earth can plummet into extreme conditions such as this new Ice age in a frame of two years or a more expanded time lapse. There are no humans back then, and the causes for global warming may be nature itself like volcanoes as Aimus said or the asteroid invasions ;). Perhaps we are but accomplicists to the upcoming new weather conditions, and not exactly the main culprits.

But seeing scrat, manfred and diego would be nice LOL!

[AimusSage]

Oh no, I just noticed something that might have huge implications! :eek:

Ice age is by 20th century Fox not Warner. what a horrible mistake by me.

[woeful painter]

Oh no, I just noticed something that might have huge implications! :eek:

Ice age is by 20th century Fox not Warner. what a horrible mistake by me.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Regit]

Oh no, I just noticed something that might have huge implications! :eek:

Ice age is by 20th century Fox not Warner. what a horrible mistake by me.
Hey sportfan. What a last day at Highbury. 'Twas better than any movie I have ever seen. I guess 80,000 Tottenham fans wasted their money on Barca shirts :lol: Yeah!!!!

[water lily]

Ok, so this post unfortunatley does not continue the above discussion about ice ages and the magic of Century 21, but I will offer this transition sentence: this post is about an activity that is very necessary in all weather conditions from snow to sleet to sun.

So, recently I was enlightened, and I feel that it s information I ought to share. It involves the brushing of one's teeth. So anyways, ever since I was first made aware of their existence, I've had something against electric toothbrushes--with their fat oversized bottoms stuffed with batteries, and their noisy buzzing that totally disrupts the zen of the bathroom atmosphere! And to be perfectly honest, my biggest objection to them was that, in my opinion, they fostered laziness--I mean who is so very lazy that they can't muster up the energy to make the little circular motions with the toothbrush that the dentists are so crazy about?!

However, despite this natural aversion to them, I have come to change my mind. They aren't just for lazy people! They actually do a significantly better job at cleaning your teeth than you could alone--these words right from the mouth of my dentist. Yes, as with the invention of the calculator, we must again admit that our own inventions surpass our natural abilities. I am now the (semi)proud owner of an electric toothbrush, and I confess that my teeth have never felt so smooth.

And to add on, let me say that if you want a completely healthy mouth experience, you should use just the regular cavity-fighting toothpaste (none of this fancy luminencsce colgate stuf), you should floss daily, and, if you have weak enamel, use flouride rinse. Now, remember that after you're dead, scientists can tell the most about you by your teeth, so treat them well, don't loose them and you'll be sure to be remembered after you're dead.

[Union Jack]

Ok, so this post unfortunatley does not continue the above discussion about ice ages and the magic of Century 21, but I will offer this transition sentence: this post is about an activity that is very necessary in all weather conditions from snow to sleet to sun.

So, recently I was enlightened, and I feel that it s information I ought to share. It involves the brushing of one's teeth. So anyways, ever since I was first made aware of their existence, I've had something against electric toothbrushes--with their fat oversized bottoms stuffed with batteries, and their noisy buzzing that totally disrupts the zen of the bathroom atmosphere! And to be perfectly honest, my biggest objection to them was that, in my opinion, they fostered laziness--I mean who is so very lazy that they can't muster up the energy to make the little circular motions with the toothbrush that the dentists are so crazy about?!

However, despite this natural aversion to them, I have come to change my mind. They aren't just for lazy people! They actually do a significantly better job at cleaning your teeth than you could alone--these words right from the mouth of my dentist. Yes, as with the invention of the calculator, we must again admit that our own inventions surpass our natural abilities. I am now the (semi)proud owner of an electric toothbrush, and I confess that my teeth have never felt so smooth.

And to add on, let me say that if you want a completely healthy mouth experience, you should use just the regular cavity-fighting toothpaste (none of this fancy luminencsce colgate stuf), you should floss daily, and, if you have weak enamel, use flouride rinse. Now, remember that after you're dead, scientists can tell the most about you by your teeth, so treat them well, don't loose them and you'll be sure to be remembered after you're dead.
Lol nice post, very poignant.

[RobinHood3000]

If you want something electric to object to, complain about the electric nail file. What, you can't move the sandpaper stick back and forth?

[apple jiang]

yes, I may get lost at somewhere ,but I try to find something else to promote me to continue , I think that's important. :D

[byquist]

First, KTD222 thanks for those pictures.

The only idea I'd want to state at this moment, considering your prompt, is that most of achievement is "craft" and not art. In other words, nobody has any special corner on talent, wisdom, genius, artistry, charisma, etc. Basically everything is learnable, given enough interest and effort. This is hope for average, everyday people, which we all are, even the so-called famous; that anything is possible. Occasionally, we see star talent, but in every case a lot of discipline and hard work preceded it. Thus, baring economic limitations that present perhaps the largest stumblingblock, everyone can craft their way to a better life.