Globalno Zatopljenje

http://danas.net.hr/znanost/page/2010/01/29/0391006.html

Nekako mi pase tu tema. Ako se ne slazete, premjestite ju slobodno. Ugl opcenita tema o zatopljenju

Vjerujete li u to? Ako ne zasto? Brine li vas zapostavljanje toga problema? itd. itd.

Ja sam pokusao smislit (iako na kratko, jednom cu vise) ZASTO bi nam netko lagao o globalnom zatopljenju, i ne padama mi nista napamet.

Imam feeling da je istina (iako sam cuo da se neki znanstvenici ne slazu, ali rijetki). A i da nije, dali da je greska ili laz, zelim da se nastavi to vjerovanje.

Zasto? Zato jer bi globalno zatopljenje moglo biti jedno od razloga koje bi moglo voditi do ukinuca monetarnog sustava (ali JAKO tesko) ili zapostaviti sustav profita za koncentrirat se na poboljsanje tehnologije, ekonomije i okoline (resource economics). O tome se i bavi drugi dio Zeitgeista, koji ce PUUUUNO bolje pokazati u kakvom boljem stanju mozemo biti.

Vasa misljenja, gospodo i gospode?

Odlična tema- palac gore!

Ma da lagao- pa to su činjenice. Dosta sam o toj temi gledala na Discoveriju i National Geographicu.

Nadam se da će Joe ovdje postati svoje osvrte, on je 'opsjednut' tom temom.

Ako se topi arktički led, onda mislim da nemamo što raspravljati je li globalno zatopljenje stvarnost ili ne. Pitanje je samo koliko je blizu ono najgore, to zatopljenje planeta za dva stupnja, koje bi značilo kraj naše civilizacije.

Poplave, snježne mećave na mjestima gdje su temperature uvijek proljetne, poput Floride i sl. svjedoče same za sebe.

Bojim se, ali ne mogu to zaustaviti. Moraju se, na razini svih zemalja, donijeti strogi zakoni, primjerice onaj koji bi regilurao emisiju štetnih plinova u atmosferu- mada, kad sam kod toga, znate li da kravlji metan radi više štete od freona iz raznoraznih sprejeva?

Bojim se da idemo u lepi Honduras i da nam nema spasa. Upitno je samo točno vrijeme kad će se to dogoditi, a to ne možemo sa sigurnošću znati.

Domina (citat):

Ma da lagao- pa to su činjenice. Dosta sam o toj temi gledala na Discoveriju i National Geographicu.

Ako se topi arktički led, onda mislim da nemamo što raspravljati je li globalno zatopljenje stvarnost ili ne. Pitanje je samo koliko je blizu ono najgore, to zatopljenje planeta za dva stupnja, koje bi značilo kraj naše civilizacije.

Ma ja imam naviku gledat s vise perspektiva, pa samo tako špekuliram.

I ja isto mislim da je cinjenica. Ali gledao sam na NG da nije 2 stupnja katastrofa. Na 2 stupnja ce se poplaviti gradovi na obali (osim ako kupe jedan jako skupi zid koji se uzdize 7-9 metara iznad mora, na vise tocka, svaki dode milijardu i nesto; London vec to ima i spasio se od dosta oluja). Na 6 ce biti katastrofa. Na 6 nece puno ljudi prezivjet

A tih 2 ce doci vjerovatno u roku desetljeca, a 6 u do 2050. Osim ako nesto promjenimo...

Ja sam toliko izbedirana čovječanstvom da mi globalno zatopljenje apsolutno nije neki veći trn u oku ni bojazan. Čovjek ni ne zaslužuje bolje nego da ga sprži sunce i zatim okuje vječni led. Ispričavam se zbog pesimizma, ne mogu si pomoći. Svijet mi se veoma gadi. Za svaki problem postoji rješenje ako su ljudi koji bi trebali raditi na rješenju razumni. Nisu i ako ne dođe do neke evolucije mentalnog sklopa čovječanstva, čovjek ka vrsta će biti uništen. I neka, tada se možda otvori životni prostor za neka kvalitetnija živa bića. Nažalost, to će sa sobom povući neka nevina bića kao što su životinje i biljke, ali jbg, nadajmo se da će sljedeći ciklus života nadmašiti izgubljeno.

Sad sam se sjetila, jeste li primjetili kako su na Indexovom portalu i Internet monitoru oko ove teme novinari jako educirani? U nekoliko sam navrata tako naletjela na tekstove gdje se otvoreno izruguju teoriji globalnog zatopljenja, za vrijeme oštrih zima, neuobičajenih snježnih mećava i snijega i leda ondje gdje ga inače nema. Kao, kakvo zatopljenje, da je išta bilo bi zahlađenje!

Ovo sam trebala staviti pod rubriku humor, znam, mada je tema ozbiljna i sve što sam ovdje navela je lako provjerljiva činjenica.

Dakle, mene najviše od svega brine to svebalkansko zaglupljenje. Ono je vrlo je predvidiva i nepopravljiva konstanta.

1. globalno zatopljenje nije nuzno covjekovo djelo, ali u nasem slucaju je
2. u kopenhagenu su imali priliku napraviti nesto...nisu...bit ce zanimljivo gledati posljedice iz prvog reda
3. dokle god ce ljudi gledati samo novac i profit, bilo kakav pokusaj ocuvanja prirode ne dolazi u obzir
4. zemlja je tu vec 3-4 miljiarde godina i bit ce tu jos toliko (malo vise)...mi smo tu 20tak tisuca godina, tako da necemo napraviti neke velike stete, na kraju krajeva cemo unistiti samo sebe i u najgorem slucaju ostatak zivota na nasem planetu

http://danas.net.hr/znanost/page/2010/02/01/0422006.html

Super... sve što nam je falilo... da se dokaže da je netko krivo procjenio nešto... sada ćemo još više odugovlačiti s rješenjima...

God help us all.

Cak i ateisti zazivlju Boga kad ih stisne

Hello, I'm the lucky 13 i nece me biti cesto jer nemam puno vremena, a uzasno sam spora i treba mi 100 g da slozim misli i nesto napisem. Anyway osoba koja je napisala taj clanak sluzi na sramotu novinarskoj struci. Ne jer je lose, nego jer se nije potrudila ni o cemu informirati.

Vjerovali ili ne, novinari na indexu i nisu toliko blesavi koliko mislite, samo sto su se mediji potrudili maksimalno zataskati sto se dogodilo. Ukratko mailovi i dokumentacija koji su iscurili iz University of East Anglia (i to je popularno zvano Climategate Scandal) su potresli citavu znanstvenu zajednicu jer su pokazali da su klimatolozi sustavno manipulirali podacima- ubacivali nepostojece, brisali one koji se nisu uklapali u njihovu teoriju, usutkivali protivnike, sve kako bi sacuvali svoju teoriju kao istinu. Izmedju ostalog ignorirali su i period toplije klime u srednjem vijeku (u grafovima jednostavno prkazano kao ravna crta) i prikrivali padanje temperature koje se dogadja hm ne sjecam se vise, zadnje desetljece i vise?

Dat cu vam neke linkove na kraju, pa sami procijenite. Covjekov doprinos u kolicini co2 u atmosferi je mislim nekih ~0,07%.

Meni je najzabavnija stvar u cijeloj prici da se je, bas u vrijeme najzescih dogovora, priroda sa svojim neocekivanim zahladjenjem slatko nasmijala svima u lice.

Necu reci da je to sto radimo dobro, sami sebi stetimo sa kojekakvim otrovima (dapace daleko ih je previse, ste gledali mozda "Muskarci u opasnosti"?), stetimo i prirodi, ali priroda je toliko savrsen samoodrzavajuci sustav da nema toga sto mozemo napraviti od cega se ona nece oporaviti. Pitanje je samo koliko ce joj trebati i hoce li ljudi uopce opstati.

A sto se klimatskih promjena tice, pa cijeli je svemir dinamican sustav koji se odvija u ciklusima, smijesno je pomisliti da ce nam klima biti ista uvijek. Uvijek smo imali izmjenjivanja ledenih doba i interglacijala, magnetski su se polovi mjenjali, razina mora/oceana rasla i padala, nova kopna nastajala, sto je tu cudno da se u nase doba nesto mijenja? Mama mi kaze da je cula neki dan na dokumentarcu da je neka topla morska struja oslabila, i da je zato nastupio ovaj period zahladjenja, a da ako tako nastavi iducih 30-40 g. imati cemo novo ledeno doba. Ja sam prosle godine slusala na festivalu znanosti da je sunce trenutno u nekoj neobicnoj fazi ekstremne neaktivnosti, sto bi moglo sasvim lijepo objasniti zasto je ovako hladno.

Inace istrazivanja pokazuju da zemljino magnetsko polje slabi, a polovi se pomalo pomicu. Slabljenje magnetskog polja znaci vise zracenja iz svemira, sto moze promjeniti kemijski sastav atmosfere.

Gdje je sad tu covjek?

Jos cu samo napomenuti da je jedan od najpoznatijih klimatologa (a da me ubijete nemogu se sad sjetiti kako se zove) do negdje kraja 70-ih propagirao ideju da nam se blizi novo ledeno doba, i napisao je i izdao knjigu o tome (opet ne mogu vam reci naslov, davno sam to vidjela). Mama mi je rekla da se sjeca kako su znanstvenici naveliko pricali o tome. Onda je naglo okrenuo pricu "preko noci" i poceo propagirati antropolosko globalno zatopljenje, a kada su ga pitali zasto je to napravio, izbjegao je odgovor.

Negdje sam procitala da su one snimke koje tako bombasticno vole pokazivati u dokumentarcima na national geographicu zapravo snimke iz ljetnog razdoblja kada je normalno da se led otapa. Ako pazljivije gledate, snimke koje nat geo koristi su redovito reciklirane, bar one koje sam ja vidjela. Isto tako vidjela sam snimke/slike koje pokazuju da se je led ne smanjio, nego je u zimskim razdobljima veci. Da li su prave ili nisu, ne znam. Kada pricaju o povecanom broju ledenjaka koji pucaju i odvajaju se, ne znam koliko je to zaista povecano, ali pucanje ledenjaka je potpuno normalna pojava uzrokovana tzv supercooled vodom koja usljed trenja zagrijava ledenjak kada prolazi kroz njegove pukotine.

Zasto bi netko lagao o svemu tome, i tko bi tu profitirao i kako, ne znam. Nisam jos imala priliku istraziti sto kazu teorije zavjera. Ali ako vec vjerujete u globalno zatopljenje urokovano covjekovim djelovanjem, ostavite nesto prostora za dozu sumnjicavosti u izjave znanstvenika, bar kada su tesko isprepletene sa politikom i ekonomijom.

I linkovi kao sto sam i obecala

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/5642-climategate-emails-provide-unwanted-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists

Video prilozi iz vijesti:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHHsithnEf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RykErh8G4jk

A pogledajte cnn-ov prilog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObQgJhoXcs

Tyra ( e sad dečki zamišljaju onu Banks, ha? ), nadam se ipak da ćeš nam češće dolaziti i biti uvijek ovako zanimljiva. Dobro ti nama došla!

na nju je mene isto prvo asociralo

Welcome, Tyra

Kad uhvatiš vremena, predstavi nam se na topicu za predstavljanje

Tyra (citat):priroda je toliko savrsen samoodrzavajuci sustav da nema toga sto mozemo napraviti od cega se ona nece oporaviti. Pitanje je samo koliko ce joj trebati i hoce li ljudi uopce opstati.

Zasto bi netko lagao o svemu tome, i tko bi tu profitirao i kako, ne znam. Nisam jos imala priliku istraziti sto kazu teorije zavjera. Ali ako vec vjerujete u globalno zatopljenje urokovano covjekovim djelovanjem, ostavite nesto prostora za dozu sumnjicavosti u izjave znanstvenika, bar kada su tesko isprepletene sa politikom i ekonomijom.

Za ovo prvo, hvala ti lijepa, to i ja cijelo vrijeme govorim. Čovjek je toliko nebitno bićence u cijeloj priči. Kao što su dinosauri jednom nestali, tako komotno može i čovjek, i za milijarde godina kad neka druga bića budu nastanjivala isto mjesto, čovjek će biti samo zanimljiv fosilni ostatak i nikome neće ni suza kapnuti što nas više nema. S pravom, budu li imali informacije kako smo se ponašali prema Zemlji i jedni prema drugima. Ali ljudi se iz nekog zanimljivog razloga vole postavljati u centar sveg postojanja, a i kad shvate da nisu, opet si utvarati da možda ipak u nekoj varijanti jesu. Ne, svijet neće propasti skupa s ljudima. Da, života će biti i kad čovjeka nestane, nadam se naprednijeg, boljeg i kvalitetnijeg. Čovječanstvu je ovu istinu vrlo teško probaviti. Meni se npr. smak svijeta čini kao ful dobra ideja Majke Prirode / Kozmosa

Što se tiče teorija zavjere, meni se čini da pod definiciju "uspješne aktualne zavjere" spada da nitko, ama baš nitko, od običnoga puka kao što smo mi ne zna za nju. Sve ovo za što smo doznali, čini mi se da ne može biti zavjera, u svakom slučaju ne uspješna i aktualna.

Sky Walker (citat):
Meni se npr. smak svijeta čini kao ful dobra ideja Majke Prirode / Kozmosa

Hehe, blago tebi.

Pronašla sam jako zanimljiv intervju... http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/akademik-vladimir-paar-ljudi-se-moraju-spremiti-za-ledeno-doba-to-je-nemoguce-izbjeci/474647.aspx

Onaj moj "God help us all" je iz Watchmena. Lik koji ga kaže je svjestan kakav je svijet, tako da je to zapravo "We will fuck ourselves to misery and nothing can stop us"

Sada kužim zaš su nam lagali, znači ode i zadnji protuargument climategateu...

I'm tired of bullshit... oh, and welcome, ice age!!

I'm not sure what's going on in reality. But I can track $ with the best of them. Too much wealth transfer in too short a time with too little evidence signals to me that, even if global warming is a man-made calamity, those who fight most fiercely for reform do so more for their own pocketbooks than any greater good.

Truth is,
We know very little about the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of their knowledge and degree of their certainty.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age."
Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
Nobody knos how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. there is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else's. (We can't "assess" the future, nor can we "predict" it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)
I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.
Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.
I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don't know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hard y perennial in human calculation.
There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.
I suspect the people of the 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to worry about them.
The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.
I conclude that most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, "We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution."
The "precautionary principle," properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.
I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematyic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don't.
In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, and catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970's.
We haven't the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term "wilderness" and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational, and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip minders. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.
We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.
We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily—usually by preventing something—with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.
Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fishermen, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics.
We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research—whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization—always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass.
I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.
I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those I spend in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied they will be preserved in sufficient quantities, or with sufficient skill. I conclude that the "exploiters of the environment" include environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
Everybody has an agenda. Except me.

Well, you went deeper in analyzing the true problems of the climate. The true problem of climate being that we don't know the true problem of the climate. In fact, there is no problem at all. The climate has been changing for millions of years with no problems. The problem is us. We try to preserve our survival by somehow preserving the climate. We think we are helping ourselves, but we are really but paws in a useless game of chess against ourselves. Playing chess against yourself could be perceived as madness or totally normal (as I've seen that too). Both are true. We are mad and/or we are perfectly normal. There is no "what we should" there is only "what we are" or "what we could be". What we are is that we are normal and/or mad. What we could be is creatures that could live a lot more happier and synchronized with all around us. What is true that nobody but us cares about our happiness (or better yet peace) and nobody but us stands in our way.

You wrote the possible problems and solutions. You are probably on to something about both of them, but if we apply what you just wrote with the structure of society as it is, it will fail sooner or later. The problem is the monetary system. The problem is that the world is a business. The monetary system is becoming more and more the true emperor/president/god of humanity. Everything revolves around it. Everything is nothing more than currency and numbers. We are all slaves to the monetary system because it's synonym is debt. All but a group of bankers are slaves. We don't work towards improving the collective, we work towards individual survival. Most of us live like pseudo-zombies because that's the kind of position we allowed ourselves to being put in. And who put us there? That's right. We did. We have the resources and the technology to provide everyone with housing, food, warmth etc. We could could provide everyone with the necessary comfort. And there comes luxury, there comes leisure. Could we provide everyone with that? Well, no. There isn't enough matter and forces in the universe to satisfy our eternal hunger.

So let's go deeper, let's move closer to the root of all our anguish. What is the monetary system but a mere manifestation of our continuing "gimme gimme gimme" attitude? Why the neediness? Why the cravings? Why all the unnecessary necessity? The answer is our ego. Our ego is the self-preserving program in our mind that identifies us with forms, a program that is made of all of our thoughts and most of our emotions(including all the negative ones). It searches it's identity, it creates a false one and protects it as best as it can. It identifies itself with form.
It will identify you with the word "you"(instead of using it as a sign pointing towards the real you); it will give you an identity like (for example) the one of an intellectual or a sufferer; it will see yourself in that ring on your hand that you care for so much. The ego will fail at finding peace because those things are not who you really are. It will fail over and over and over again, because it searches happiness in the finding of our identity. It will fail because true identity is not in the places the ego searches. We will fail at finding peace.

The consciousness of who we really are will bring peace. Ego is not consciousness. Consciousness is the awareness of the existence of the ego. If we are aware of that, we can work (or better yet, let ourselves go) towards being at peace. The ego just brings unnecessary necessities. It will always be a part of us, but it will make life much easier if we don't make it the absolute emperor, the boss of everything.

I'm not actually telling that consciousness is who we really are, because there is no such thing to prove what we are. If you're unconscious of the ego, that's who you are. If you are unhappy, that's who you are. The universe doesn't care if you are at peace or at war. The only ones who care are us and we should be better at taking care.

We should realize, that in the end (summing all the parts of the equation) we only care for ourselves. We can't get rid of the ego, so that selfishness will always be a part of us. If we love our parent or child, and they are unhappy, we are unhappy. If they die, we are unhappy. If we were happy about that, we wouldn't care much if they died. We will maybe convince others (and perhaps ourselves) of our sorrow. My point is that by realizing the need to make ourselves at peace, we must also realize that that goal would be much more accessible if the community was at peace.

I believe worldwide awareness of the ego and a life not guided completely by it will make everyone (that is aware) at peace, therefore happy or, at least, satisfied. If wanting more will always be part of us, why not direct ourselves toward wanting peace and searching for knowledge? The path towards finding knowledge is more wonderful that the finding itself and the search would probably be eternal for us.

Well, f*** me, I could write a book(figure of speech; as I've read this in a book ). Madness...

When I wake up from the ensuing and near sleep, I will not be able to enjoy the two books I've been enjoying lately. I will not be able to watch a good movie, series, comic or wrestling match. I'll have to study so I can have a chance of passing my university exams , so later I could have a chance a getting a decent job, so that I could get a roof over my head and food in my stomach.
I will try not to get frustrated by the lack of leisure time and will probably(or better yet, hopefully) succeed.

The sad part is that everyone could be at peace, but not many are. If I can, why can't anyone else? If I want to remain at peace, I have to sit by and just let people suffer in anguish, heading towards demise. We will most probably extinguish ourselves before being collectively aware and at peace. I will try and (hopefully)succeed, knowing that if I succeed or fail is meaningless to the universe

majko mila koliko teksta... ovo spada u najduze komentare...
a da cemo najebat ako se nista ne poduzme, to nije nista novo...
Normalo da sve vece korporacije to zele zataskat, jer im je to u koristi.
Sve dok to "onim" ljudima ne udje u glavu to ce se tesko promijenit, nadam se samo ne prekasno...

btw, ajd bar se u buducnosti Slovenci nece zalit radi mora

i've been thiniking a lot about this topic lately and i realized that i'm not really sure what is going on. is it global warmin or the new ice age or some mixture of those two...but it seems that the two groups (pro and con) don't know either, simply because they can't. the weather can be predicted within 4-5 days after that, as averagejoe said, are just guesses. but the climate can't be predicted, we can say only waht the climate was in the past 10, 50, 100 years and hope that it will stay the same in the years to come. the scientists know that. so why are they trying to predict something that they know thay can't predict?
my guess is that the scientst pro global worming are probably trying to get more funds for their researches ("you're doomed if you don't give us money!" ). the ones who are trying to deny the existance of it and the impact of humanity on the environment are sponsored by the industry that is trying to maintain their income.
so it's back to money, greed, ego and so on...
in the end we will all have to sit and wait to se the show. can we do something about it? can we stop it? accelerate it? we don't know and we can't know. the environment is a complex system involving all kinds of interactions. some of them are known, most of them are not. maybe the increase of CO2 will trigger a proces which will return the system to its previous state or it will just push is over the edge of no return.

i'm genuinely impressed with your insights on the importance of finding inner peace and the universe's disinterest with the details of our lives.
it is my opinion that most "believers" overstate the level of God's involvement in their lives.
our natural tendency is to regard ourselves as being very important in the scheme of things.
a slice of humble pie would do a lot of people a lot of good.
bravo.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/8/24/183923/Chris%20Gaines%20It%20Dont%20Matter%20To%20The%20Sun.mp3

a country singer's take on the fact that the universe doesn't give a flip what we measly humans do :-)

averagejoe (citat):i'm genuinely impressed with your insights on the importance of finding inner peace and the universe's disinterest with the details of our lives.
it is my opinion that most "believers" overstate the level of God's involvement in their lives.
our natural tendency is to regard ourselves as being very important in the scheme of things.
a slice of humble pie would do a lot of people a lot of good.
bravo.

I'm glad to find out that there are more people out there who share that view (of inner peace and our place in the universe)

Well, of course. If the existence of God was a fact, it would be awfully ignorant and silly to believe that he watches our every little second of our very little life. There is a humongous number of matter (and quantity of forces) in this galaxy alone, we are nothing but a single bacteria to this universe.

I wanted to ask you something. I'll do it in the "Man of Faith vs Man of Science" thread, to be on topic