Forum Thread

winter, warming, warning signs

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just knowing how much snow we're buried in and how cold the outside is a power of suggestion such that even with the inside temp. over 70 I feel cold. Psychological factor related to S. A. D. Come summer, I'm sure there will be interims when we'll wish for relief from the heat. But heat waves are brief. In the last couple years I think there were no more than three day in a row when I was really hot and used a/c.
    Just read that the claim that 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history was inaccurate. On the one hand, not all scientists agreed with the data collection, thus supposedly an actual majority dismissed the figure. On the other hand, there's question as to what "population" of scientists the percentile was of -- perhaps they represent a creationist-biased premise as presumption.
    You'll see that the latest Nat'l Geographic cover states THE WAR ON SCIENCE . . . and the categories of concern truly represent a threat that the mentality of humanity is either in melt-down or freeze-up.
    Yes, the extent to which human activity accounts for climatological changes (incl sea level rise not questioned, though projections are) can legitimately be argued as inconclusive. Theoretical, not proven. That can apply to overall evolution as well, though mutation and variation are proven phenomena.
    That evangelical retrogression could swing society back to the dark ages and persecutions of perspicacity is not impossible. More likely, though, the continued madness of Manifest Destiny's geneology which now includes man's "license" to exploit and extinct not just aboriginal people, but the natural resources and other species of the land.
    "Woe be unto man when he becometh his own god" . . . . from somewhere officially writ that engraved my mind (I saw it not in the Bible anywhere). When man's avariciousness combined with his manipulative genius becomes his self-aggrandizing religion (consumerism, "development"), how obvious the self-destruct given the essence of time as the variable. Just look at all the ruins of even massive megopoli, the remnants of once fertile fields now but seepings called oases as the deserts which enveloped all are now even further spreading.
    But man become his own God pictures a man-image making hocus-pocus magic of a universe in 6 days.
    And the reflection of that image back to man is his specialness above all else.
    Such dichotomy -- that the mind (awareness dimension) of man is the actual "image" (analog) of universaity -- yet the brain of man can be so drastically deviant and detrimental. potentially to the very earth and all that dwell therein.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    alongcameaschneider Wrote: Just knowing how much snow we're buried in and how cold the outside is a power of suggestion such that even with the inside temp. over 70 I feel cold. Psychological factor related to S. A. D. Come summer, I'm sure there will be interims when we'll wish for relief from the heat. But heat waves are brief. In the last couple years I think there were no more than three day in a row when I was really hot and used a/c.
    Just read that the claim that 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history was inaccurate. On the one hand, not all scientists agreed with the data collection, thus supposedly an actual majority dismissed the figure. On the other hand, there's question as to what "population" of scientists the percentile was of -- perhaps they represent a creationist-biased premise as presumption.
    You'll see that the latest Nat'l Geographic cover states THE WAR ON SCIENCE . . . and the categories of concern truly represent a threat that the mentality of humanity is either in melt-down or freeze-up.
    Yes, the extent to which human activity accounts for climatological changes (incl sea level rise not questioned, though projections are) can legitimately be argued as inconclusive. Theoretical, not proven. That can apply to overall evolution as well, though mutation and variation are proven phenomena.
    That evangelical retrogression could swing society back to the dark ages and persecutions of perspicacity is not impossible. More likely, though, the continued madness of Manifest Destiny's geneology which now includes man's "license" to exploit and extinct not just aboriginal people, but the natural resources and other species of the land.
    "Woe be unto man when he becometh his own god" . . . . from somewhere officially writ that engraved my mind (I saw it not in the Bible anywhere). When man's avariciousness combined with his manipulative genius becomes his self-aggrandizing religion (consumerism, "development"), how obvious the self-destruct given the essence of time as the variable. Just look at all the ruins of even massive megopoli, the remnants of once fertile fields now but seepings called oases as the deserts which enveloped all are now even further spreading.
    But man become his own God pictures a man-image making hocus-pocus magic of a universe in 6 days.
    And the reflection of that image back to man is his specialness above all else.
    Such dichotomy -- that the mind (awareness dimension) of man is the actual "image" (analog) of universaity -- yet the brain of man can be so drastically deviant and detrimental. potentially to the very earth and all that dwell therein.
    Schneider, nice piece. But don't worry the "evangelicals" will save the world and climate by "praying" each day to the walls of their not caved in house ( snow loads)
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    just posted on Demo.
    I'll get flak on my statement that Evolution is theoretical and not proven.
    This gets ideation into the realm of linguistics. "Evolution", like the overwhelming majority of terms/words is a "construct". A composite. We use words as if their referents are monolithic, indivisible. But each of the millions (inclusive of other languages billions?) of sonic entities represents a composite of componentials which are the actuality. A "man" is a name for the subjective representation of an organic complex within an environmental matrix within an integrated system and dynamic of solar-centricity within a galactic gathering and even universal expansion.
    A "rock" is a composite of particulates.
    Even an atom is a systemic agglutination and accrual of substantives and non- (such as forces and waves and spin).
    Thusfar the consideration of "things" which are defined by their terms and names as if indivisibilities. But their designations are of vast complexes and composites. Things are composites of sub-things.

    Evolution is a dimension of consideration even more problematic linguistically. Evolution is not a thing.
    "Evolution" is the term for a collection of postulates, and assumptions and observations (yes) and conclusions.
    "Evolution" is not proven. For one thing, that it exists in any specific systematology is predicated upon the origin of the universe in the very "creationistic" phenomenon of THE BIG BANG -- which is recognized as theoretical. And "evolution" is based upon a "mechanism" by which componentials (from subatomics on up to organisms) complexify and combine and diverge and vary -- and in reciprocity with surrounding influences and their inherent operants (amino acids, genes, etc) manifest the "overview that we term Evolution".
    But what we term "evolution" is predicated on unknowns -- such as the actual origin loci of life-forms as transitions from complex inorganic molecules (in the primordial brine? In riparian clay deposits?) "Evolution" in the present "neoDarwinian Synthesis" assumes absolute micro-mutation as the means and ways -- the actual mechanism of variation that will be assimilated/selected or rejected de facto nonadaptative.
    "Evolution" mainstream allows for no "macromutations". Only micro-mutations on the genetic level (the results of which are selected from the variation of phenotype manifestations) are accepted as evolutionary process. (Gould's "punctuated equilibria" attempts to get beyond this uniformitarian problem).
    And "Evolution", as I've noted often elsewhere and even here . . . asserting "random" as process, is almost committing statistical doctrine as its "faith in Creator" format. "Random" is the god of evolution's theory.

    And at this point, my premise should be obvious, if not proved. "Random" cannot be proven. Random and uniformitarian combined appear counter-systemic to the origin of species of such astounding diversity -- but in in view of such observable phenomena as metamorphosis (caterpillar to butterfly, larva to moth, etc.) which evidence, if not genetic macromutation, a supervening phenotypic macromutation manifestation.

    It's all so simple. Evolution is a theory inclusive of an unproveable origin even though ongoing phenomena such as mutation and variation, adaptation and extinction, are documented.
    It's all so simple-minded -- that anyone would dogmatically insist that evolution is not theoretical.
    But it's idiotic that anyone with any education would believe that a guy in the sky said "let there be" and that's how it all came to be. That's a substitute for a universal systemic? That's an image of a failed magician: God.