# The Times They Are A-Changin'



## Úlairi (Mar 13, 2009)

> *"The Times They Are A-Changin'" by Bob Dylan*
> 
> Come gather 'round people
> Wherever you roam
> ...


 
Do any of you out there feel as though with the world in the state that it is now that times are indeed changin'?

Are we about to experience a massive cultural shift or a dramatic turn in world history?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts (and perhaps even fears)... although I'm a little worried this thread may contravene the religious and political censorship on the forum... 

This thread need not be just about the world; but about changes around you that you're happy to discuss. Even changes in TTF. Anything that's on your mind...

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Starflower (Mar 13, 2009)

You're onto something here my boy


The times are a-changing, here on TTF too...
Will have to get back on this later, work calls!


----------



## Alcarinque (Mar 13, 2009)

"_Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction._" Erich Fromm
Greed has caused today's crisis. The "big ones" turn out to be crooks, weak and cowards. The "small ones" scare them with the power of their rage. Times are a-changin' and it was about time!


----------



## Alcarinque (Mar 13, 2009)

"_The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the future is that men may become robots. True enough, robots do not rebel. But given man's nature, robots cannot live and remain sane, they become Golems, they will destroy their world and themselves because they cannot stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life._" Erich Fromm
How prophetic! People worked like robots to gain a better life. Now thousands lose their jobs every day. I've heard of a group of workers who took their boss hostage in order to receive their compensation for being fired. The robots have awoken! And it's not a pretty sight!


----------



## Confusticated (Mar 13, 2009)

Now is a time where we can drastically change the structures that maintain our societies, or else they will destroy themselves, leaving some of us behind to rebuild. 

If we can reach a point of overcoming corruption and bureaucracy - a point where technologies are applied for the good of our health and of our environment, and where the most innovative minds and ingenious proposals are accepted on their merits, then we might be able to gradually rebuild our infrastructure. But there are different cultures and opinions that will never be in agreement.

I am afraid that we will fall into war and chaos, stuck without a working society until what comes out on the other side has given rise to new culture and human psyches. But even a new and better era will not save humans ultimately, because we are flawed in ways that we will forget the lessons of history. Greed, power-hunger and fear will get the best of us time and time again, perhaps for infinity. The only question really is: How high will each society rise before it's fall? Though I hope it is not so, I believe our particular one has reached its peak. 

The next empire of humanity to rise will truly be a global one, and perhaps a single government one. There might be an excellent quality of life and fair distribution of goods in this place, but the fear would be eventual enslavement and control on a scale so massive that there may not be a possibility for revolution. Or something more horrifying - may be no _desire_ for it.


----------



## Alcarinque (Mar 13, 2009)

Doesn't it seem that we go round in endless circles? Like the Hindus' belief that the world is destroyed and rebuilt over and over again. I think they 're right. "This is the end; my only friend, the end..." DOORS


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 14, 2009)

Nóm said:


> Now is a time where we can drastically change the structures that maintain our societies, or else they will destroy themselves, leaving some of us behind to rebuild.


 
Not if those societal structures wield ridiculously arbitrary and discretionary power. They will drag the rest of us down into the desolation they have wrought in their wake... unless we do something about it.



Nóm said:


> If we can reach a point of overcoming corruption and bureaucracy - a point where technologies are applied for the good of our health and of our environment, and where the most innovative minds and ingenious proposals are accepted on their merits, then we might be able to gradually rebuild our infrastructure. But there are different cultures and opinions that will never be in agreement.


 
And unfortunately "if" is quite a tall order Nóm... sadly.



Nóm said:


> I am afraid that we will fall into war and chaos, stuck without a working society until what comes out on the other side has given rise to new culture and human psyches.


 
I went and saw a movie called _The Watchmen _which I felt was a blatant depiction of the dawning of a New Age - I'm finding this concept of "_collective community_" more and more through TV commercials. I'm switching my television off frequently now... it's... disconcerting.



Nóm said:


> But even a new and better era will not save humans ultimately, because we are flawed in ways that we will forget the lessons of history. Greed, power-hunger and fear will get the best of us time and time again, perhaps for infinity. The only question really is: How high will each society rise before it's fall? Though I hope it is not so, I believe our particular one has reached its peak.


 
Likewise. Human nature is to destroy the humanity from our nature.



Nóm said:


> The next empire of humanity to rise will truly be a global one, and perhaps a single government one.


 
Careful where you go with this one... it may infringe upon the political censorship of TTF.  Plus, others are watching... 



Nóm said:


> There might be an excellent quality of life and fair distribution of goods in this place, but the fear would be eventual enslavement and control on a scale so massive that there may not be a possibility for revolution. Or something more horrifying - may be no _desire_ for it.


 
Apathy, thy name is Man. A Nazi Atlantis? Yes, I'm afraid of that too...



Alcarinque said:


> How prophetic! People worked like robots to gain a better life. Now thousands lose their jobs every day. I've heard of a group of workers who took their boss hostage in order to receive their compensation for being fired. The robots have awoken! And it's not a pretty sight!


 
One of a myriad of reasons why _The Matrix _is my favourite movie of all-time...



Starflower said:


> The times are a-changing, here on TTF too...


 
Indeed they are... indeed they are... 

I must say, there's just something about the current Zeitgeist that is frightening...

As someone here once quoted:

*"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."* - Benjamin Franklin.

__________________________________

*"Come writers and critics*
*Who prophesize with your pen*
*And keep your eyes wide*
*The chance won't come again*
*And don't speak too soon*
*For the wheel's still in spin*
*And there's no tellin' who*
*That it's namin'.*
*For the loser now*
*Will be later to win*
*For the times they are a-changin'."*
__________________________________

I'm certainly interested to hear more from you all, including *what you personally wish to see changed in this world of ours*... Man, I love Bob Dylan! 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Alcarinque (Mar 14, 2009)

*"Come writers and critics*
*Who prophesize with your pen*
*And keep your eyes wide*
*The chance won't come again*
*And don't speak too soon*
*For the wheel's still in spin*
*And there's no tellin' who*
*That it's namin'.*
*For the loser now*
*Will be later to win*
*For the times they are a-changin'."*
__________________________________

I'm certainly interested to hear more from you all, including *what you personally wish to see changed in this world of ours*... Man, I love Bob Dylan! 

Likewise! What else than the usual? People respecting nature and each other. Why is that so difficult? Is it because we are too many and everybody is trying to find their place in the world?


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 14, 2009)

I noticed this has been moved to _The Floating Log_... 

Reminds me of what I do with my "floating logs"... I flush them... 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Mike (Mar 15, 2009)

Times are always a-changing. Somewhere, at any one time, something catastrophically world-shaking has happened, whether it be for one person or for millions.

This is the great feud between Historians and Sociologists: Sociologists say that there are basic rules behind humanity that do not change; Historians study how the world was (and is) constantly in a state of flux. In other words, the Liberal belief that came from the Enlightenment was that all men (yes, all right, _ people _) are rational beings...while from history we've comes to see that humans are irrational...or, at least, I have, and that the future is thus unchartable despite what Isaac Asimov might've said.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Mar 15, 2009)

Is anybody aware of the UNs Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Basically they are targets for 2015 to reduce poverty, counter AIDS etc and I'm interested to see if they will be met.

As for me, times are going to change significantly as this year I finish school and go on to University. How scary. And that means that within the next four years or so I will also be moving out (most likely). Beginning to start paying for my own life i.e. buying a car and running it, rent/property. Basically it means I'm growing up, more than I have. Should be interesting.

One change I desperately want to see is the turnaround of how we are slaughtering our environment. No matter what other issues exist or are going to arise, if the world isn't here for us to live on we can't solve those. So priority for the world is: STOP/REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING! I know people are sick of hearing about it but until action is seen, we need to keep pushing the issue.


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 15, 2009)

Mike said:


> Times are always a-changing. Somewhere, at any one time, something catastrophically world-shaking has happened, whether it be for one person or for millions.


 
And thanks for the conservative analysis... 



Mike said:


> This is the great feud between Historians and Sociologists: Sociologists say that there are basic rules behind humanity that do not change; Historians study how the world was (and is) constantly in a state of flux. In other words, the Liberal belief that came from the Enlightenment was that all men (yes, all right, _people _) are rational beings...while from history we've comes to see that humans are irrational...or, at least, I have, and that the future is thus unchartable despite what Isaac Asimov might've said.


 
They're both right. There are fundamental mathematical principles underlying both Chaos and Order - this could potentially be applied to humanity. I've always thought human beings were rationally irrational creatures - as opposed to irrationally rational. 

History teaches us that we're animals; Science teaches us we came from Apes. You do the math.



Noldor_returned said:


> Is anybody aware of the UNs Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Basically they are targets for 2015 to reduce poverty, counter AIDS etc and I'm interested to see if they will be met.


 
Every time I hear of the "UN" and "Policy" mentioned in the same sentence I always think of this scene with Hans Blix and Kim Jong-il:



> _Team America: World Police_
> 
> *Kim Jong Il*: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
> *Hans Blix*: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
> ...


 


Noldor_returned said:


> As for me, times are going to change significantly as this year I finish school and go on to University. How scary. And that means that within the next four years or so I will also be moving out (most likely). Beginning to start paying for my own life i.e. buying a car and running it, rent/property. Basically it means I'm growing up, more than I have. Should be interesting.


 
Ooooh, and you'll have to start shaving too... 

Well, hopefully K. Rudd's little first home buyers initiative will help you out there. I should jump on that opportunity myself.

Good luck with Uni. You're in Sydney, right? Which Uni? I was having a look at transferring up there myself. What do you plan to study?



Noldor_returned said:


> One change I desperately want to see is the turnaround of how we are slaughtering our environment. No matter what other issues exist or are going to arise, if the world isn't here for us to live on we can't solve those. So priority for the world is: STOP/REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING! I know people are sick of hearing about it but until action is seen, we need to keep pushing the issue.


 
**POLITICS ALERT!**

Well, K. Rudd's targets for 2020 (or 2015 or whatever) is naught but a 5% reduction I think...

Think I'll be safer learning how to swim... 

We should write a very nasty letter to tell him how angry we are with him... 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Prince of Cats (Mar 15, 2009)

Noldor_returned said:


> One change I desperately want to see is the turnaround of how we are slaughtering our environment. No matter what other issues exist or are going to arise, if the world isn't here for us to live on we can't solve those. So priority for the world is: STOP/REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING! I know people are sick of hearing about it but until action is seen, we need to keep pushing the issue.



Wish and hope do not equal change. And turning off your computer makes you feel a lot better than it makes any other organism feel. Global climate change is not the top issue we need to try to be pressing when you can be helping right now immediately doing immediate things to help real ecosystems. 

Local 'slaughtering' of our environment is the large issue that you can really combat _and_ see immediate results from. Buy organic food because it means less eutophied and hypoxic aquatic ecosystems and less endocrine disruptors that are modifying our sexual development entering drinking water. Volunteer at the local forest preserve in habitat restoration projects. Reduce reduce reduce forget recycling stop buying things that will go in the recycling in the first place, most of it goes in the garbage anyway and what doesn't creates a ton of pollution. Remove all foreign and invasive plants (trees, grasses, shrubbery) from your property and only plant local native species for the health of your plant and animal community. Use pervious pavements and rain gardens to eliminate or at least greatly reduce your contribution to stormwater runoff. Stop eating beef, it takes ~1000 pounds of grain to make a pound of beef (talk about irresponsible use of natural resources). Don't have children or if you do at least educate them to not only not be a burden on the environment but to lift some of the weight. If you happen to have the money you can purchase or rent property to prevent habitat destruction and, if not, help lobby or educate to prevent habitat destruction. Who cares if it's too hot for the forests to be happy if there are none left? 

In two months from today I'll have a BA in environmental science and am going for my PhD. Global climate change will probably have terrible effects, transforming habitats through mass drought and all other issues. There are things you can do, right now, today, though that can benefit your local ecology more than global climate change can harm it. 

We need to start thinking a lot more locally because the global issues help us forget the beauty beneath our feet and that we're stepping on it.

 

That said, I like the environmentally-minded spirit NR


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 16, 2009)

The times are _always_ changin'. It's the only thing — change — that stays the same. Politics, religion and the culture wars sure are changing, it's a shame they can't be discussed. I think I can get away with saying that I read (in the New York Times recently) that religion in America is becoming much less of a force, especially born-again Christianity (as well as extreme right-wing politics). Actually we're approaching the European model: the more developed the society/culture, the less emphasis on religion and the more on science.

The doomsayers are starting to stoke up their fires: the world now has an official expiration date (according to the astrologers, the Greek Oracles, Nostradamus, the Aztec calendar and the Hopi Indians as well as other soures): December 21st, 2012. 
There is going to be some sort of planetary alignment (and a possible pole shift) that only happens every 25,000 years (Interesting to note that neither Buddhism nor Hindusim have joined in the party, since their cosmologies are so radically different from the Judaeo/Christian/Native American one.) It is interesting to note that no psychic ever predicted any of the big stuff that actually did happen — Hiroshima or 9/11 for instance. Anyway, I'm not going discuss it further; you can google up far more on it than you ever wanted to know.

And Prince of Cats: thanks for your thoughtful and timely post above. You (and others concerned about global warming) might be interested in this site if you don't know about it already: http://www.climatechangenews.org/. It is global warming that is THE issue of the day. There is a very good chance that because of our political dilly-dallying and slow reaction time, it's already too late for the human race: too many environmental/ecological tipping points have already slid the earth into an irreversible pattern of climate change that is eventually going to kill us all. But before we go, we are going to be in for some really nasty times. There are situations in which death is preferable to life, and those situations are right in our faces if we don't start fixing our polluting ways YESTERDAY.

Barley


----------



## Noldor_returned (Mar 16, 2009)

Úlairi said:


> Every time I hear of the "UN" and "Policy" mentioned in the same sentence I always think of this scene with Hans Blix and Kim Jong-il:
> 
> Ooooh, and you'll have to start shaving too...
> 
> ...




Yeah, I'm a little sceptical too. the UN holds as much power as the League of Nations. Someone already mentioned a global government. I wouldn't mind seeing it trial, and then removing it when we don't like it. Might actually achieve something
I've been shaving for about 4 years lol...and having a job means I'm still shaving almost daily lol.
Uni? UNSW or UTS are my preferences, but I'll be happy with almost any in NSW. And to study there...Secondary school English/History teaching. I know, I want to inflict as much pain on kids as I was put through...just kidding by the way, in case somebody wasn't sure. Wouldn't want that to come back and haunt me 
Kruddy Rudd. Alotta talk, less action. Sure, he started strong. But where are the laptops for all school students  And unfortunately, he doesn't hold the political power internationally as others do. So because he's playing the international game, he's always trying to get a leg up. He reminded me of Gough Whitlam actually. A lot of talk and it became too much. Just couldn't deliver. And wowee, next election I'm voting! How's that for change?
The next best change I want to see is Australia retain the Ashes, and win 5-0...something that no Ashes series has had for years.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 16, 2009)

To avoid crossing the forbidden line into politics and such, why not continue this (and other) discussion in a Blog or one of the Social Groups (Thinking Heads?). 

I am not aware of any decree banning those topics therein. 

Barley, go nuts.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Mar 16, 2009)

This.

And, um, planet's been here for what? 4-5 billion years? And we've been tracking the weather for what? A century-century and a half? Global Warming? BASED ON WHAT?


----------



## chrysophalax (Mar 16, 2009)

Also, there's this guy, Al Gore? Won a Noble Prize or something? I think he had a thing or two to say about Global warming as well.


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 16, 2009)

Careful guys, lest the Man close us down... 

I don't see any reason for shutting down another thread, Ithrynluin... yet.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Durin's Bane (Mar 16, 2009)

> there's no getting through to a global warming denier


After looking through those sites I can only quote you Barley...






Just as I was getting conviced I read this:


> However, these features of the climate also vary naturally, so determining what fraction of climate changes are due to natural variability versus human activities is challenging.



And this:


> The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. From glacial periods (or "ice ages") where ice covered significant portions of the Earth to interglacial periods where ice retreated to the poles or *melted entirely* - the climate has continuously changed.


----------



## Uminya (Mar 16, 2009)

The climate is certainly changing. We have plenty of data that clearly indicates that the Earth has changed climates many times.

The point of contention is whether or not humans are the sole cause, the large contributor, or merely unfortunate enough to have to deal with a change that will happen regardless of what we do.

As for the evidence, we may have only been studying the weather and recording it on paper for one or two centuries, but we have ice-core samples, mineralogical, and fossil records that store data from the past that we can analyze. The fact that much of the northern hemisphere was covered with a few miles of ice at one point should be indication enough that the climate has changed. Only a silly person would expect it to do anything but happen again.

The Earth has been devastatingly hit by meteorites as well. Only a silly person would not expect it to happen again.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Mar 17, 2009)

I think the most likely cause for climate change is in a very simple graph I once saw. A simple curve proves this.

Over time, as piracy has been decreasing, greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing. The link is obvious: The more pirates there are, the fewer emissions there are. So I encourage you all to support International Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Want further evidence? After the release of Pirates of the Caribbean, people began cutting down on their carbon footprint.

Need I say more...


----------



## Illuin (Mar 17, 2009)

Factual science and partisan politics is like mixing oil and water; you end up with a sloppy mess. If you want the truth, you have to skim all of the extraneous political slag from the smelting pot so you're only left with facts and numbers in their pure form. Last year I posted some "unbiased" science in the forum concerning this subject. You can find it here (*POST #238*):

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=18551&page=16


----------



## Tyelkormo (Mar 17, 2009)

Úlairi said:


> Every time I hear of the "UN" and "Policy" mentioned in the same sentence I always think of this scene with Hans Blix and Kim Jong-il:



Oh please, are you also convinced that the laws of nature don't apply where UN inspectors go? To actually choose North Korea, a country which wouldn't be able to feed its people alone if it tried and is critically dependent on help from even its worst enemies (read Japan) to at least keep the political elite from falling out of their uniforms of starvation, merely is the icing on the cake.

But I guess there are still people who believe Saddam used an invisible train on invisible train tracks to shuttle invisible weapons of mass destruction manufactured in invisible factories into invisible storage areas somewhere abroad....



Illuin said:


> Factual science and partisan politics is like mixing oil and water; you end up with a sloppy mess. If you want the truth, you have to skim all of the extraneous political slag from the smelting pot so you're only left with facts and numbers in their pure form. Last year I posted some "unbiased" science in the forum concerning this subject. You can find it here (*POST #238*):
> 
> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=18551&page=16



If you want factual science, you should read peer-reviewed scientific studies. That's the ONLY place where you get _science_ because anything else isn't science but collected ramblings and misquoted off-the-cuff remarks if it's not outright fraud. Sorry, Illuin, but that post contained a whole lot of stuff that shows that wherever you got it from, there is a lack of a) understanding of the key concepts - up to and including the laws of thermodynamics and basic equilibria and b) knowledge of key research results.


----------



## Illuin (Mar 17, 2009)

> Originally posted by Tyelkormo
> _Sorry, Illuin, but that post contained a whole lot of stuff that shows that wherever you got it from, there is a lack of a) understanding of the key concepts - up to and including the laws of thermodynamics and basic equilibria and b) knowledge of key research results._


 
Hmm, that's odd. Considering physics is what I do for a living, I'm surprised I overlooked those small, insignificant details . Please! I'm willing to crunch numbers, solve equations, analyze accurate data right here and now, for all to see, based on evidence either of us bring to the table. Let’s actually "prove" the data ourselves right here in the forum; so we can both be sure that we aren’t being fooled by ANYONE. Let's just stick to numbers and data; without commentary.

Actually, you know what? I changed my mind. I can see this thread getting ugly and just stupid (been there a million times). I’ve been debating this global warming thing for years and the subject really bores me to tears actually. It’s the same thing over and over again, year after year, always ending right where it started (with a few friends lost in the process). And I would rather not discuss a boring mythology when the forum is designed to discuss an exciting one . If you want some numbers crunched, I’ll do it; but as far as debates, I just don’t have the time, energy, or interest anymore. Of course I’ll accept a challenge , but I would rather just have fun and keep the peace (and keep my friends ).


----------



## Uminya (Mar 18, 2009)

I always get my info from uninformed sources, like Scientific American, Discover, and Astronomy magazines. What a lowly pleb am I!


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 18, 2009)

I get mine from 'The Sun' newspaper! It's a tabloid in the UK and everything it says is true and I believe everything it says because I know it's true. If it says Global Warming is caused by us, then what's to argue. If it says Saddam had W.of M.D then it's true, because one of their journalists must have seen them. Better still, you can take all your science journals and research papers and smoke em, because our tabloids will only take what they want, sensationalise it and regurgitate it for the general consumption of the sheep who read it who in turn will consider themselves experts having read a half page story with pictures on page 9 and as such can feel suitably smug in themselves that they now know in detail why the globe is burning up, why Saddam had to be attacked, why Iran is next, why Russia is in the process of re-armament, why it's not right for the British and friends to intervene in Zimbabwe, why neutralisation of the Taliban is good, why AIDs is allowed to flourish in Africa, why Banks blew multi-billions on toxic-assets and why tax-payers foot the bill, why China is consuming everything in its path, why Obama will save the world, why Fritzl epitomises it and why the times they are a changin. It's about who leads the simple and makes up the mind of the masses.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Mar 18, 2009)

Illuin said:


> Hmm, that's odd. Considering physics is what I do for a living, I'm surprised I overlooked those small, insignificant details . Please! I'm willing to crunch numbers, solve equations, analyze accurate data right here and now, for all to see, based on evidence either of us bring to the table. Let’s actually "prove" the data ourselves right here in the forum; so we can both be sure that we aren’t being fooled by ANYONE. Let's just stick to numbers and data; without commentary.


 
 Have you checked my profile? I'm not sure who you want to impress with the statement that you are "doing physics for a living". Such an appeal to authority lacks any credibility, especially inasmuch as it tries to suggest you couldn't possibly overlook a single detail even in subfields you are not concerned with. 

For the same reason, no credible scientist would try to "prove" things outside his area of core expertise and claim he could make sure he is not fooled by anyone. Heck, even reviewers get occasionally fooled by people in their own area of expertise.

You have been citing quotes you grabbed off the internet or the mass press. Any scientist interested in his reputation would quote peer-reviewed literature. You don't. Why? Answer: Because there is none or practically none supporting the points you put forth. As for what you have been ignoring, it is, for one thing, the concept of an equilibrium itself and with it the point that for our discussion, who emits what is relevant only in terms of change, not in terms of steady state. So quotes that simply list who emits how much obviously haven't even understood what the word CHANGE means.

As for your suggestion "let's just stick to numbers and data" - There is no such thing as "just sticking to numbers and data". Any experimental setup, and any choice of data is already loaded with expectation and interpretation - which is why peer review, while certainly not perfect, is necessary. This is sort of the 101 of theory of sciences and I'm surprised it needs explanation.


----------



## Mike (Mar 18, 2009)

> get mine from 'The Sun' newspaper! It's a tabloid in the UK and everything it says is true and I believe everything it says because I know it's true.



Thank you for that. To those who quote from newspaper/ periodical articles...beware threat most journalists do not actually write down what the person said. You are more than likely reading a paraphrase wrapped in quotes that, often, misinterprets what the speaker actually said. I can't stand most newspapers thanks to certain journalistic conventions that often distort events. And if a journalist is reading this...well, you probably have far more integrity than these "other" people...or at least I hope so.

In academic circles, only peer-reviewed articles and monographs count towards "factual" information in secondary sources. So, I'll go with Tyelkormo on this one. Instead of posting an unsourced, unreviewed article, link me to a database or proper university website / respected scientific journal mainpage and tell me where the article is, for either side of the argument (This applies to you too, Barley!).


----------



## Illuin (Mar 19, 2009)

> _Originally posted by *Tyelkormo*_
> _Have you checked my profile? I'm not sure who you want to impress with the statement that you are "doing physics for a living". Such an appeal to authority lacks any credibility, especially inasmuch as it tries to suggest you couldn't possibly overlook a single detail even in subfields you are not concerned with. _
> 
> _For the same reason, no credible scientist would try to "prove" things outside his area of core expertise and claim he could make sure he is not fooled by anyone. Heck, even reviewers get occasionally fooled by people in their own area of expertise._
> ...


 
I’m not taking the bait Ty unless you offer something tangible. I respect your right to disagree, but you offer no evidence to sustain your objections; you just "don't agree", but you have provided no alternative explanations. I posted a little letter in layman’s terms (as you have read) and provided some numbers and data. Replace my numerical data with your own, and then provide your explanations and analysis as to why. At least that will open up the way to some serious discussion so we can abandon this tiresome rhetoric. As for the list of those "_uniformed sources_" at the conference in Poland, I’m compiling a list of their credentials and achievements and posting them; since you did not offer evidence as to "why" these Nobel Prize winners, NASA specialists, esteemed scientists etc. are not to be trusted. If you are not going to dig into some specific scientific discussion here, then I do not wish to continue; as this GW debate (over the course of my life) has gotten really old. I wasn't kidding when I said this discussion sounded like lunchtime in the faculty room (especially if there are no other mathematicians or physicists around, and I’m stuck with the economists and sociologists blindly cheering for Al Gore). It's boring and unproductive. If Global Warming were endangering the Hobbits in the Shire, I would be far more interested. This is the _"Tolkien"_ forum, is it not?


----------



## chrysophalax (Mar 19, 2009)

Indeed it is and this thread is fast approaching needing to be shipped over to Project Evil...just so you know...


----------



## Illuin (Mar 19, 2009)

> Originally posted by *chrysophalax*
> _Indeed it is and this thread is fast approaching needing to be shipped over to Project Evil...just so you know..._


 

I think it would be very wise to ship it (and its partner thread) on over to PE. This is one of those _"You say potato and I say potahto"_ discussions that never goes anywhere but sour, especially if one side is unwilling to step up to the plate and play ball. I should have just kept my mouth shut from the beginning (I usually do); but there is only so much biased, unscientific ignorance I can turn my back on before there is a systems overload.


----------



## chrysophalax (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, ladies and gents...let's take this little discussion to Project Evil, shall we?

The aim with these threads is to promote thoughtful exchange, not outright mud-slinging, so take it where it'll be appreciated!


----------

