Start

Done.

Done, started over once.

DING. That, indeed, was Easy style. But several tricky line crosshatches and a few loners made it slow. And one unique rectangle, not so easy to exploit. 26.

"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." Festinger, 1950

Unike, no I am not suggesting that. I am one of those people who are the exception to the rule. I have changed my beliefs based on contradictory facts.

sorry I meant contradictory evidence.

“Facts are simple and facts are straight.
Facts are lazy and facts are late.
Facts all come with points of view.
Facts don't do what I want them to.
Facts just twist the truth around.
Facts are living turned inside out.” Crosseyed and Painless - Talking Heads.

MrOoijer - great quote, thanks!

Penguin: Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. Chapter 1 is a chronological account of creation. There are explicit time markers: "And the evening and the morning were the first day" and so on. Chapter 2 is a summary, or a "grocery list" of the things God created. There is no implication of chronological order in chapter 2.

Unike: You made my original point ... there is more than one valid way to interpret such documents. That you deny my interpretation is your problem. I'm certainly glad that I don't live under your theocracy.

drwho - there really was an ark, too, that had every species. And dinosaurs walked with humans. Not. Of course there are two creation stories. No biblical scholar disagrees.

I see, the Biblical scholars who do disagree aren't really scholars.

I am confused is anyone saying the the biblical account of Creation is something more than early Man's feeble attempt to answer the question of where did we come from?

tuco, it's biblical accountS. Take away "feeble" and I'd agree with you. Both stories are poetic and wonderful.

I would agree with you Dianne if it wasn't that they are taught as "fact" to young people. That is not poetic and wonderful, that is mind control.

Sorry, drwho, I should have qualified biblical scholars with "qualified".

drwho: These read as two different stories. Genesis 1:27 describes males and females created simultaneously, both "in God's image". Genesis 2:7 describes creation of a male (with breath being the moment of the spirit entering the body) and Genesis 2:21-23 describes the creation of a female, later with some bone magic. You are welcome to see these as the same story. As parables it works. As evidence of consistency it's weak sauce. That you deny that other interpretations than yours can be valid is your problem. Thank God I'm not living under your theocracy.

Plus there are more than 2 creation stories. The world is full of them. Native American, South Sea Islanders, Norse mythology, You could go on and on. Each "culture" has their own.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:3-7

Or to paraphrase. Do not question what I write for if you do there will be fire and brimstone.

Ok, so Biblical scholars who disagree with Diane are obviously not qualified Biblical scholars. This is in keeping with the first principles of many of you here. In other words, the Bible is not Gods word, nor is there any revelation from God. You are therefore free to believe what ever pleases you. You make yourself the final authority, not God.

So tow the line you filthy scum and hand over your hard earned wages to us and you will get a stairway to heaven.

tuco, I was fortunate. I had 17 years (including kindergarten) of Catholic education, and an undergrad degree in theology from a Jesuit institution. Bible stories were never taught as "fact" - always parables that had some application to our lives today. We were never taught to check our brains at the school or church door.

done

You were fortunate Dianne. However there is now a large movement away from fact based education. There are even Presidential candidates who state they are not interested in facts.

To get back to a favorite topic here. Why do you think the CDC is not allowed to keep statistics on gun related deaths and injuries?

And for how many millennia did the Catholic Church deny Science and torture and kill anyone who presented evidence contradicting their "parables"

These parables are being used today to deny climate change. I have heard over and over "You people don't know how arrogant you are. To believe Man can change what God has created."

Climate change? The weather models of Edward Lorenz even call into question the concept of climate.

This is my main point. You can use the Bible for whatever you like. You can use it as a source for Good. You can use it to excuse Greed. You can use it to rationalize murder. You can use it to any way you like.

chaos theory is interesting but the Father of the "Butterfly Effect" is really not the person to be putting forth to deny the effects of deforestation and CO2 additions to the atmosphere.

You are only proving that Jeremiah 17:9 is correct:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

hahaha

That referred to the ability to justify murder using the Bible.

Religion, the last refuge of a scoundrel Lisa Simpson 1:1

What human activity was responsible for global warming on Mars which was concurrent with the recent episode of warming here.

Interesting that you no longer speak of just global warming. Now the putative disaster is climate change. Perhaps you remember the global cooling scare in the 70s? Always some disaster just waiting to justify more government control over our lives.

Its warming! Its cooling! Its changing! Like I said, Edward Lorenz's models showed that the whole concept of climate is suspect. Change is the norm.

drwho, have you read Laudato si’? I recommend it. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/enc\nyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_en\nciclica-laudato-si.html

I believe global warming or cooling has little to do with human activity and everything to do with solar activity.

Diane, you claim the Jesuits taught you not to check your brain at the door. Did that include questioning Papal encyclicals?

I don't understand how it could be solar, as we all know the sun revolves around the earth.

Solar activity = solar output.

Okay, let's assume for a moment you're right - climate change is caused by the sun. Does that mean that we humans should just sit back and do nothing?

What do you propose we do about it?

My opinion: do everything we can to cool the earth's atmosphere. But you've not answered my question: do we sit back and do nothing?

Okay, but you haven't answered mine. What do we do to cool the sun?

As for cooling the earth's atmosphere, that has been happening for the last 20 years.

If it's solely the sun, I would still say we need to do whatever we can to cool the earth, such as drastic reduction in fossil fuels.

Diane: The leader of your religion (assuming you are still Catholic) is not as static in his beliefs as most. After 350 years Galileo was forgiven for being correct about the science. Pope Francis wants faster acceptance of reality. But much of his (your) religion is quite static while science accepts evidence and changes to match reality. That's the big difference between religion and science ... faith versus evidence.

Penguin, I don't identify as Catholic any longer, but can still defend most of it today. You're right, the church is at fault for many ills, from the crusades to Galileo. No question. But today, from a science standpoint, it's a shining star. It does not accept the bible as literally true, it accepts evolution, and (thankfully) no longer denies science.

drwho: I don't know where you are getting information that the climate is cooling. The evidence shows that it is warming, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/glob\nal But I suppose evidence from NOAA is not admitted in your theocracy.

Diane, the problem is that reducing use of fossil fuels has minimal impact compared to the impact of solar fluctuations.

Besides, warmer climates seem to have been beneficial in the past.

So, you're in the do-nothing party, eh?

You bet.

Then you & Trump will get along just fine, drwho!

I wish I knew that.

Penguin, you may be right. However, it took a reevaluation of the data to reach that conclusion:
https://insideclimatenews.org/new\ns/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-d\nebunked-NOAA-study

In any case, you graph looks very alarming. The truth is that the "warming" has been a warming of winter weather much more than warming in summer. The results of that could be quite beneficial.

drwho: Reevaluation of data is central to science. Assuming beneficial is contrary to what is known from the history of this sort of change. It may be beneficial to some species but probably not humans. But your religion will no doubt take care of the problem of mass extinctions.

And lest my post be seen as just off the top of my head hyperbole, see http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/\nclimate-change-will-accelerate-earths-sixth-m\nass-extinction-180955138/

Difficulty score 19.

It is easy to see in prophecy, The fossil fuel lobby is run by the antichrist and is bringing forth the end times. Nostradamus predicted it. Obama is in league with them and the Illuminati is running the media hiding the antichrist behind the Koch brothers. The Liberals are in league with all of them they are the real problem.

sheesh

I agree with angie. Lets start reading entrails.

We cleaned up the rivers by stopping certain human activity. We stop acid rain by stopping certain human activity. We can stop Climate change by stopping certain human activity.

We are the masters of our own fate.

queue inspiring music

hehe People have the Power. Patti Smith.

Wagner

Yes! Die Meistersingers Prelude to Act 1 !!!! Ausgezeichnet!!!

It is highly likely that the 98% of scientists who have studied it are right when they say that it is human activity that is doing the most to make climate change a reality. I find it highly improbable that the 2% are right.

Check into who is funding the 2%'s research.

Check into who is funding the 98%'s research.

Make up your own mind.

just me Dr Who, you don't want warmer summers in Australia! Certainly not most of it. Warmer winters in Canada and Europe is a great idea until you realise that its melting the polar icecaps which is fine if you want to go drilling for oil but has the side effect of making many pacific islanders lode their entire countries underwater and in not too long most of many wonderful coastal communities will also disappear.

Of course Donald Trump will save them by building another wall!

not only that Phil but the polar ice caps are also trapping carbon. When they are gone warming will accelerate.

Only f you believe in the 98% of scientists!

Will also change the ocean currents that affect our seasons.

I don't believe scientists. That is why I can teleport my body faster than the speed of light and defeat gravitational forces. Allowing me to span the universe in an evening and be back in bed for breakfast.

We are an amazing race though and we will solve the problems. The ones that suffer will be the poor in undeveloped countries, Africa, parts of Asia etc. But hey, that will make them even more grateful when the big multinational oil and mining companies come and rape their wealth and leave na environmental disaster behind them.

Listening to Prelude to Act 1 now. Wonderful!

Herbert Von Karajan. Awesome.

Gee Phil, you think that might be part of the reason why "they" hate us and not because "they" are jealous of our "freedom"

This has nothing to do with religion or race. It is the haves against the have nots. IRA bombings. Anyone remember them?

"We can stop Climate change by stopping certain human activity." This is where the human species examples the only species which repetitively shows a lack of cognitive brain processes, such as acknowledging reality, in this instance the fact that it would be nearly impossible (100% certain IMPOSSIBLE) to STOP the use of hydrocarbons in the current make up of both society (all) and economies (all). UNTIL there are legimitate substitutes those proposing "stopping" in this case "certain human activity" (aka fossil fuels) it is another idealistic fantasy which has ZERO probability of occurring.

These arguments 'stop fossil' fuels are in the broad range of straw men solutions which have no relevance as a solution for a problem, EXACTLY like the 'great gun debate'. PLEASE STOP. Either make legit solutions like solar power and storage an answer or don't bring the 'stop' argument to the table. It is not a REALITY BASED SOLUTION. It's an "ideal". It's a FANTASY.

[insert end of rant icon here]

tuco - sidenote: "... or race..." explain this or answer this question..."how many "races" are there" or "is there MORE THAN ONE human race"...if so, give me your definition...say compared to another genetically specific living organism. I am teasing of course because THERE IS ONLY A 'HUMAN' RACE...all differentiations which are subtlely couched categories of discrimination or blatant judgmental characterizations (aka racisim) reflect differences in skin pigmentation...WHICH DO NOT connoted ANOTHER RACE....FWIW.

if you are interested in making a difference...say 'ending racism' then my suggestion would be to start with language and to accurate describe 'people' who are ALL part of the human race and to STOP categorizing people by their skin color as there is no NEW RACE...and yes, correct all the people who you talk with so they can 'get it right'...that'll make a difference. $0.02

Now...I have a puzzle to finish.

No one has said put a 100% stop to the use of hydrocarbons. Race in the term of one race of people being superior to another as an excuse to exploit that race is what I was talking about. I agree with you that we are all one race, the human race.

And speaking of solar power. Did you know that in Italy off-peak grid hours are now in the middle of the day. Yet in this country Arizona through the Fossil Fuel lobby has put an end to net metering? Arizona should be supplying the South West with abundant cheap solar energy. Why aren't they?

Her in Aus too, the peak power is changing. Not long ago in WA we had power requirements that peaked due to the use of aircon units in the afternoon when it was so hot and people came home from work. We even started to recommission old fossil based power stations. Thankfully it has been changed by solar and now our peak loads are nowhere near as high and we are decommissioning the power stations.

With battery technology, we are going to see this accelerate and even base load power not requiring fossil fuels.

This is happening now, soon we will be building apartment blocks with rechargeable batteries in a gel form being built into the structure and the outer glass and other materials generating power through solar.

Natural gas powered vehicle technology was bought by big petroleum companies, not as a resource for when their oil ran out, but to quash opposition and keep everyone using petrol or as you call it gas in their cars.

To hear Trump announcing reopening raping the country and poisoning the water to get shale oil and fracking. Boy is he out of touch. There is some great work being done in the US but guess what, the lobbyists are keeping you behind the 8 ball. You just watch the Chinese, they are way ahead of you on climate change. Yes they have problems but they are developing technologies to overcome them far faster,

And on one race - yup we are all the human race and it is only really one. Started in Africa and spread around the world. Some gene changes happened along the way but if you look deeply into someones dan you'll find very interesting histories and someones colour is only a tiny part of it. We are so much more alike than we are different, colour means virtually nothing.

start

ding

Heres one to debate while I'm asleep, nuclear or not? Whilst we have a smaller population and will probably avoid nuclear power as the solar and wind, batter tech etc may come in fast enough. Isn't it actually greener to use nuclear than burning coal etc to generate power. However, current nuclear tech still leaves problems with storage of highly toxic waste and risk of terrorism, even leaks as in Japan.

Night all

go

done

I have a problem with climate change. What is it? is not only undefined but is also undefinable.

So much evidence is published and debated for and against believing in climate change, but how can anyone apply scientific method to something that has no widely accepted definition? Also, it just seems to be one of those moving targets that even changes its name from time to time. Remember global warming?

How many climates are there? Does the entire earth have a climate? Or does the term climate only apply to a defined region?

Who would deny that climate or climates have been changing for as long as earth has had a stable enough atmosphere for patterns to be observable if there had been anyone to observe them? Climate didn't begin with the invention of the wheel, or the first appearance of humans, or whatever. It goes way, way back in time. And all the time it has existed, it has been changing, over and over again.

Is it possible that the concept of climate change was created by a few people who wanted to distract the rest of us from the truth?

In recent history, the collective activities of the human race have created far more undesirable effects than merely changing Earth's surface temperatures a bit. It's time we started looking beyond the straw man of climate change, or whatever it is called next year, and redirect much of our attention to larger issues that have will have much greater long term consequences.

I don't mean we should ignore environmental issues - far from it. But I believe we do need to spend more time noticing everything that is going on, not just the issues that other people point us to, and think more about what the consequences will be.

For example, considering at the way the human race collectively behaves now, what will be the evolutionary consequences?

That might take a lot of observation and thought, but suppose we were to at least try. What can we expect the human race to evolve into over the next 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?

If we don't like the projected consequences, what are the preferred alternatives, and how do we start evolving in a different direction?

But that is only one of many, many possible examples of ways we could use our powers of observation and reasoning in order to influence the future.

And that's THE future, not necessarily OUR future. (Currently we still appear to be mortal.)