Climategate; ManBearPig dead?

[SVT_MAN]

SVT, remember Trim delights in pulling your chain.

 

He likes to remind us that he's smarter than, what was it, 98% of humanity? He's reasonably facile, but intellectually lazy, making statements with no proof, and making broad statements that are obviously not fitting individual cases.

 

"I, on the other hand have managed to deal with my personal problems myself, so I am not carrying around a lot of baggage, like false beliefs, and having other people advising and counselling me."

 

He likes us to believe that, but when you look at the range of his posts, his fixations and lack of intellectual rigor, this is obviously not the case, but, as we know, those that need help have a propensity to trumpet of how they have no need.

 

But PLEASE don't start up with stuff like this:

 

"Prophecies in the Bible are coming true. I am not one of the prophecy watchers out there predicting a date Jesus Christ will come back. (There is a verse, by the way, which SPECIFICALLY says that trying to guess the exact date is WRONG by the way ...) Yet, I do follow prophecy, and there isn't a single one in the Bible that has been wrong. "

 

I want dates and specific examples of how this is so, otherwise it's just a brain fart, just like Trim's lame branes. Capice?

 

That did not come out quite right ... but I will provide you with specific examples. I just can't do it tonight .. gotta get to bed so I can do my job tomorrow. And, yes, it sucks being a PHP coder when you're tired and can't think! @ self

Edited December 14, 2009 by SVT_MAN

[Trimdingman]

Why is it that so many people have the need to believe in things that are unknowable or unprovable. Why can't they just face reality? If there is a god, it obviously wants to remain anonymous.

 

Our civilization is like a crop which is nearly ready for harvest. It should be obvious that we are nearly at the end of our rope. When the potatoes are ready for harvest, the plants die. Who is going to harvest us? Maybe the reptillian inhabitants of Nibiru when it comes calling soon. Humans would make good eating for reptiles. The earth was prepared as a refuge for them when their planet comes in close to the sun and becomes uninhabitable for a time. This fits what the Old Testament says. Noah and a few others were saved as seeds for this crop, just as some of us will be selected for seeding the planet for the next crop which will be harvested in another 3600 years or so. These gods are no worse than we are. We grow chickens and hogs to eat them. It would be a shame if we just died off and wasted all that meat. I don't believe any of this, but it makes at least as much sense as any religion.

 

What I can see is that if we don't find an alternative to oil by yesterday, we are headed for a Dark Ages. Gerald Celente talks about the Greatest Depression. I say the Darkest Ages, and no amount of praying is going to change it.

[Trimdingman]

He likes us to believe that, but when you look at the range of his posts, his fixations and lack of intellectual rigor, this is obviously not the case, but, as we know, those that need help have a propensity to trumpet of how they have no need.

 

But PLEASE don't start up with stuff like this:

 

"Prophecies in the Bible are coming true. I am not one of the prophecy watchers out there predicting a date Jesus Christ will come back. (There is a verse, by the way, which SPECIFICALLY says that trying to guess the exact date is WRONG by the way ...) Yet, I do follow prophecy, and there isn't a single one in the Bible that has been wrong. "

 

I want dates and specific examples of how this is so, otherwise it's just a brain fart, just like Trim's lame branes. Capice?

 

I find that "intellectual rigor" is where someone uses a lot of fancy words and phrases to spin bullshit. The truth can be told in few words.

 

"But PLEASE don't start up with..........." Who in the hell do you think you are, telling people what to write? All ideas deserve to have a hearing. Just because YOU don't agree, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to express them. In your "perfect" socialist world, freedom of speech would be limited to the authorities in the government.

[Versa-Tech]

He likes us to believe that, but when you look at the range of his posts, his fixations and lack of intellectual rigor, this is obviously not the case, but, as we know, those that need help have a propensity to trumpet of how they have no need.

 

But PLEASE don't start up with stuff like this:

 

"Prophecies in the Bible are coming true. I am not one of the prophecy watchers out there predicting a date Jesus Christ will come back. (There is a verse, by the way, which SPECIFICALLY says that trying to guess the exact date is WRONG by the way ...) Yet, I do follow prophecy, and there isn't a single one in the Bible that has been wrong. "

 

I want dates and specific examples of how this is so, otherwise it's just a brain fart, just like Trim's lame branes. Capice?

 

 

I find that "intellectual rigor" is where someone uses a lot of fancy words and phrases to spin bullshit. The truth can be told in few words.

 

"But PLEASE don't start up with..........." Who in the hell do you think you are, telling people what to write? All ideas deserve to have a hearing. Just because YOU don't agree, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to express them. In your "perfect" socialist world, freedom of speech would be limited to the authorities in the government.

When the first Bible qoute hits, the topic is (in my mind) officially dead.

[goinbroke2]

Exactly, I'm Baptist and proud of it but I won't engage online.

 

Back to the global warming hysteria or close the thread.

[goinbroke2]

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...d363619&p=2

 

One of those previously fingered as a deranged conspiracist is Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of

Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU) and a renowned hurricane forecaster. Dr. Gray suggests that the Climategate revelations "are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well-organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the emails of the publicly funded climate research groups of the United States and of foreign governments were ever made public."

 

 

Of course now we'll hear the national post must be right wing (because it even ran this story) so it doesn't count.

For the sake of the western countries I hope this global warming crap is just another laughable point in time like global cooling, holes in ozone, etc,etc.

[Edstock]

And, yes, it sucks being a PHP coder when you're tired and can't think! @ self

Yes indeed. The best I can do is javascript pop-ups.

 

Who in the hell do you think you are, telling people what to write? All ideas deserve to have a hearing. Just because YOU don't agree, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to express them. In your "perfect" socialist world, freedom of speech would be limited to the authorities in the government.

Aw, Trim, it seems your brain short-circuited.

 

I did not tell anybody what to write. I pointed out that I expect facts to back up opinion, because an opinion with no facts to back it up is just a brain fart.

 

To you intellectual rigor is "where someone uses a lot of fancy words and phrases to spin bullshit. "; to me, intellectual rigor is an opinion with facts to back it up.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Tony Blair will be cashing in on Global Warming with his LOW CARBON CAPITAL FUND as he lectures everybody on Climate Change in Copenhagen this week.

 

Money Money Money Tone is making loads of money its a rich mans world.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Trimdingman]

If you compare the amount of carbon dioxide produced by man to the total that exists in the atmosphere, it is a droplet in the bucket. Therefore, there is no man-made "greenhouse effect". The whole thing is a hoax. However, peak oil is something that we should be looking at. Maybe climate change is really about peak oil, only they don't want to say peak oil because it would cause a world-wide panic. Another possibility is a NWO or World Government. Our problems stem from too much government. The solution is less government, not creating another level.

[xr7g428]

Trim, you need to prove to us that if you were given new data, you would change your opinion. Otherwise, you are just spouting off from a belief system that rejects any thing that conflicts with your chosen view.

 

Consider this:

 

The background

 

In 1968, Ehrlich was the author of a popular book, The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon, a libertarian, was highly skeptical of such claims.

[edit] The wager

 

Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose 5 metals: copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would go down. Ehrlich bet they would go up.

 

The face-off occurred in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" — a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with — Simon countered with "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run." You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted — copper, tin, whatever — and select any date in the future, "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager... Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price rises: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference; if the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon... Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped through the floor. Chrome, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.[1]

 

As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.

[edit] Analysis of why Ehrlich lost

 

According to Paul Ehrlich's website:

 

In 1980, Julian Simon repeatedly challenged environmental scientists to bet against him on trends in prices of commodities, asserting that humanity would never run out of anything... Paul and the other scientists knew that the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical indicators and said so at the time... They emphasized that the depletion of so-called renewable resources — environmental resources such as soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater — is much more indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support systems... Nonetheless, after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley physicists John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge in late 1980...[2]

 

It's not clear if Ehrlich consulted with economists. If he had, the flaw in using commodity prices as the best way to understand biophysical limits might have become obvious. Many economists understand the principle of substitution and the dynamic influence of technology with respect to commodity prices. For example, in the absence of any new technologies, copper prices would indeed be expected to increase as growing economies demanded more copper to meet the needs of expanding communications networks and plumbing infrastructure. Technological changes mitigated much of this expected demand as fiber optics replaced copper wire networks and various plastics replaced the once ubiquitous copper pipes throughout the construction industry.

 

Julian Simon won because the price of three of the five metals went down in absolute terms and all five of the metals fell in price in inflation-adjusted terms,[2][3] with both tin and tungsten falling by more than half. So, per the terms of the wager, Ehrlich paid Simon the difference in price between the same quantity of metals in 1980 and 1990 (which was $576.07). The prices of all five metals increased between 1950 and 1975, but Ehrlich believes three of the five went down during the 1980s because of the price of oil doubling in 1979, and because of a worldwide recession in the early 1980s.

 

Yet, it is significant that, according to an article in Wired:

 

All of [Ehrlich's] grim predictions had been decisively overturned by events. Ehrlich was wrong about higher natural resource prices, about "famines of unbelievable proportions" occurring by 1975, about "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s and '80s, about the world "entering a genuine age of scarcity." In 1990, for his having promoted "greater public understanding of environmental problems," Ehrlich received a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award." [simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.[4]

[Versa-Tech]

Trim, you need to prove to us that if you were given new data, you would change your opinion. Otherwise, you are just spouting off from a belief system that rejects any thing that conflicts with your chosen view.

 

Consider this:

 

The background

 

In 1968, Ehrlich was the author of a popular book, The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon, a libertarian, was highly skeptical of such claims.

[edit] The wager

 

Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose 5 metals: copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would go down. Ehrlich bet they would go up.

 

The face-off occurred in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" — a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with — Simon countered with "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run." You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted — copper, tin, whatever — and select any date in the future, "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager... Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price rises: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference; if the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon... Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped through the floor. Chrome, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.[1]

 

As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.

[edit] Analysis of why Ehrlich lost

 

According to Paul Ehrlich's website:

 

In 1980, Julian Simon repeatedly challenged environmental scientists to bet against him on trends in prices of commodities, asserting that humanity would never run out of anything... Paul and the other scientists knew that the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical indicators and said so at the time... They emphasized that the depletion of so-called renewable resources — environmental resources such as soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater — is much more indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support systems... Nonetheless, after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley physicists John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge in late 1980...[2]

 

It's not clear if Ehrlich consulted with economists. If he had, the flaw in using commodity prices as the best way to understand biophysical limits might have become obvious. Many economists understand the principle of substitution and the dynamic influence of technology with respect to commodity prices. For example, in the absence of any new technologies, copper prices would indeed be expected to increase as growing economies demanded more copper to meet the needs of expanding communications networks and plumbing infrastructure. Technological changes mitigated much of this expected demand as fiber optics replaced copper wire networks and various plastics replaced the once ubiquitous copper pipes throughout the construction industry.

 

Julian Simon won because the price of three of the five metals went down in absolute terms and all five of the metals fell in price in inflation-adjusted terms,[2][3] with both tin and tungsten falling by more than half. So, per the terms of the wager, Ehrlich paid Simon the difference in price between the same quantity of metals in 1980 and 1990 (which was $576.07). The prices of all five metals increased between 1950 and 1975, but Ehrlich believes three of the five went down during the 1980s because of the price of oil doubling in 1979, and because of a worldwide recession in the early 1980s.

 

Yet, it is significant that, according to an article in Wired:

 

All of [Ehrlich's] grim predictions had been decisively overturned by events. Ehrlich was wrong about higher natural resource prices, about "famines of unbelievable proportions" occurring by 1975, about "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s and '80s, about the world "entering a genuine age of scarcity." In 1990, for his having promoted "greater public understanding of environmental problems," Ehrlich received a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award." [simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.[4]

Interesting... but I'm not sure how that's relevant to.... ANYTHING!

 

Interesting nonetheless...

[xr7g428]

In short, Trim believes that we are about to run out of oil. He describes what is know as a Malthusian Catastrophe. Malthus is long dead, but his modern equivalent is Ehrlich. Ehrlich like Malthus predicted that the population would explode to the degree that humans consumed all of the available resources.

 

Both Malthus and Ehrlich failed to take into account a couple of the basics of Economics: Substitution, and the changes in technology. In the first case, Trim thinks of oil as a substance for which there is no substitute. In this case he is incorrect because he fails to see that one form of energy can be substituted for another. We will use oil as long as it is cheaper than the other substitutes. In the second case, Trim is incorrect because he fails to understand that new technologies never become fully developed until they are economically viable.

 

Gravity appears to be impossible to conquer until technology makes flying practical. If you looked at the problem of flying, from a steam era technology stand point, it would appear to be impossible. When you look at flying from our technological perspective, it seems unremarkable.

[Versa-Tech]

In short, Trim believes that we are about to run out of oil. He describes what is know as a Malthusian Catastrophe. Malthus is long dead, but his modern equivalent is Ehrlich. Ehrlich like Malthus predicted that the population would explode to the degree that humans consumed all of the available resources.

 

Both Malthus and Ehrlich failed to take into account a couple of the basics of Economics: Substitution, and the changes in technology. In the first case, Trim thinks of oil as a substance for which there is no substitute. In this case he is incorrect because he fails to see that one form of energy can be substituted for another. We will use oil as long as it is cheaper than the other substitutes. In the second case, Trim is incorrect because he fails to understand that new technologies never become fully developed until they are economically viable.

 

Gravity appears to be impossible to conquer until technology makes flying practical. If you looked at the problem of flying, from a steam era technology stand point, it would appear to be impossible. When you look at flying from our technological perspective, it seems unremarkable.

Not to put words in anyone's mouth... but you're essentially saying that Trim thinks he knows more than companies like Exxon Mobil who have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in fossil fuels...

[Edstock]

In short, Trim believes that we are about to run out of oil. He describes what is know as a Malthusian Catastrophe. Malthus is long dead, but his modern equivalent is Ehrlich. Ehrlich like Malthus predicted that the population would explode to the degree that humans consumed all of the available resources.

 

Both Malthus and Ehrlich failed to take into account a couple of the basics of Economics: Substitution, and the changes in technology. In the first case, Trim thinks of oil as a substance for which there is no substitute. In this case he is incorrect because he fails to see that one form of energy can be substituted for another. We will use oil as long as it is cheaper than the other substitutes. In the second case, Trim is incorrect because he fails to understand that new technologies never become fully developed until they are economically viable.

 

Gravity appears to be impossible to conquer until technology makes flying practical. If you looked at the problem of flying, from a steam era technology stand point, it would appear to be impossible. When you look at flying from our technological perspective, it seems unremarkable.

Thank-you.

[napfirst]

who'd thunk it?

 

 

Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

Read more

[xr7g428]

Perhaps the most compelling argument for MMGW as scam is that none of the warmers are interested in any solution that does not involve great human sacrifice and misery.

 

Why are they having a huge climate conference to study ways to force the population of the world into compliance instead of a conference to study the ways in which we can solve the problem?

 

Why does Polywell fusion, that could very well solve the entire problem, get less funding than the study of the effects of global warming on polar bears?

 

Why does a solution like synthetic fuel from CO2 and waste water powered by the wind get no funding at all?

 

I suspect that the scientists must realize that a problem solved requires no research.

Edited December 15, 2009 by xr7g428

[SVT_MAN]

I'll post the prophecies that I was talking about this weekend if I have time. Right now, I have more important things to take care of than arguing about religion with fellow BON members. Like taking care of some outstanding insurance claims. I want to be careful about how I discuss or present these biblical matters because it's important to me as a Christian how I am perceived by others. I seek to inform but not judge. I'll leave that to God.

 

I probably wouldn't bother fighting these stupid insurance claims, but the past year has been difficult for me financially because I take high doses of Nexium and my company doesn't offer health insurance. This means that I am shelling out $365 / month for Nexium. I recently changed pharmacists and the pharmacist fought me for even picking up the prescription. And, no, the other generics out there don't work. I've tried them, so thanks for the suggestion, but they simply don't cut it for me. $365 / month is a bummer ... that buys a nice car. Or, better yet, a nice partial house payment ... heh. Maybe next year.

 

In the meantime, I wait for the day my employer offers group health insurance where my pre-existing conditions won't matter. Supposedly that is happening in January, but I was told it would happen after I signed on last January. Oh well - the joys of working for a small business ...

Edited December 16, 2009 by SVT_MAN

[goinbroke2]

When you do respond can you do it on a new thread please? That way I won't click on it and I won't have to read the religeous bashing of others. Thanks for taking the time to rebutt the atheists, I certainly couldn't be bothered as you will never change anyones mind on the internet.

 

This thread is about the global warming scam, I'd like it to remain that way.

Thanks

[Ford Jellymoulds]

When you do respond can you do it on a new thread please? That way I won't click on it and I won't have to read the religeous bashing of others. Thanks for taking the time to rebutt the atheists, I certainly couldn't be bothered as you will never change anyones mind on the internet.

 

This thread is about the global warming scam, I'd like it to remain that way.

Thanks

 

It was those big SUV's that were to blame for floods back in Noah's day though.

 

[stephenhawkings]

QUOTE (xr7g428 @ Dec 14 2009, 04:21 PM) *

Trim, you need to prove to us that if you were given new data, you would change your opinion. Otherwise, you are just spouting off from a belief system that rejects any thing that conflicts with your chosen view.

 

maybe this will sink in, doubtful, I believe, and TRIM's babblings will help me to know!

[Trimdingman]

QUOTE (xr7g428 @ Dec 14 2009, 04:21 PM) *

Trim, you need to prove to us that if you were given new data, you would change your opinion. Otherwise, you are just spouting off from a belief system that rejects any thing that conflicts with your chosen view.

 

maybe this will sink in, doubtful, I believe, and TRIM's babblings will help me to know!

 

I do not appreciate being told that I have a "belief system". I don't believe in belief. I would love to have someone show me how we are going to ward off the coming catastrophe when we are not able to produce enough oil fast enough. Vague talk about alternative energy does not do it. Oil is our life blood. Many products contain oil or oil derivatives. We are almost as dependent on oil as we are on air and water. Nuclear fusion is the only real possibility that I have heard. We are just in the early theoretical stages right now. If anything ever comes of it, we are a century away from anything practical. The most optimistic oil experts predict that peak oil will come by 2020, just ten years away. Realists say that we have peaked already. Even if the optimists are right, we are screwed. There is nothing going on in the world right now that will get us off oil in ten years. I see a lot of war going on. Population reduction would push back peak oil.

[RangerM]

I do not appreciate being told that I have a "belief system". I don't believe in belief.

 

Sure you do. You believe what the doomsayers are saying and you believe you're correct in believing what they say. Care to refute that?

 

What's the meaning of life, Trim?

Edited December 17, 2009 by RangerM

[mustang_sallad]

what do the doomsayers have to gain?

 

What do the deniers have to gain?

 

That's all you need to ask.

[Trimdingman]

Sure you do. You believe what the doomsayers are saying and you believe you're correct in believing what they say. Care to refute that?

 

What's the meaning of life, Trim?

 

I would like to see someone else refute peak oil with something substantial. I don't have access to scientific research. I have the internet, newspapers, TV, and my own brain. All of these put together are not enough to get me to BELIEVE something. Belief means sticking to something despite all logic to the contrary, such a religion, man-made global warming, and socialism. If peak oil is real, I want to know about it. I don't want to be kept in the dark, and have the government take covert actions on my behalf for the "collective good". What is good for the "collective" is probably not good for my individual situation.

 

Questions like "what is the meaning of life" are for believers and dreamers. I don't know the meaning of life, and neither does anybody else. I don't believe that, and would readily accept a convincing argument to the contrary. Once you start believing too much in things, you lose your mind because you have probably been brainwashed to believe something false. The farther you go with it, the more absurd it becomes. Global warming has been shown to be a farce, but Copenhagen is still going on. and most believers are oblivious to all of the evidence. Religion is belief. People wear ridiculous costumes and perform meaningless rituals, believing that if they don't, they will not go to some mythical place when they die. It could be true, but it is a stretch. I'm not drinking any of that stuff.

[RangerM]

I would like to see someone else refute peak oil with something substantial. I don't have access to scientific research. I have the internet, newspapers, TV, and my own brain. All of these put together are not enough to get me to BELIEVE something. Belief means sticking to something despite all logic to the contrary, such a religion, man-made global warming, and socialism. If peak oil is real, I want to know about it. I don't want to be kept in the dark, and have the government take covert actions on my behalf for the "collective good". What is good for the "collective" is probably not good for my individual situation.

You listen to what others say. You accept what they say as true, and without first-person confirmation (did you perform the measurements yourself?), you BELIEVE them. That's pretty cut and dry.

Questions like "what is the meaning of life" are for believers and dreamers. I don't know the meaning of life, and neither does anybody else. I don't believe that, and would readily accept a convincing argument to the contrary. Once you start believing too much in things, you lose your mind because you have probably been brainwashed to believe something false. The farther you go with it, the more absurd it becomes. Global warming has been shown to be a farce, but Copenhagen is still going on. and most believers are oblivious to all of the evidence. Religion is belief. People wear ridiculous costumes and perform meaningless rituals, believing that if they don't, they will not go to some mythical place when they die. It could be true, but it is a stretch. I'm not drinking any of that stuff.

Like I said.... a blank stare.

 

When you can answer "what is the meaning of life", you are describing the meaning of your life as it applies to yourself and others. It's a question that we (all) should ask ourselves every now and then.