-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
climate change
- Thread starter sickhaze
- Start date
Genghis Kush
Active member
Principante 8
Member
It's really interesting that people believe in science. The bible has been edited to the max and so many stories left out. Even though I believe it to be mythological, it has great power and was edited not to emphasize truth, but someone's agenda. The powers that be understand psychology quite a bit better than most of us, so their powers of manipulation are tremendous. With Pisces coming to a close, they had to find a new way of manipulating the masses, because Aquarius is mental all the way, and people eventually won't fall for the spiritual mumbo jumbo anymore. Think about Egypt and middle east.. Climate changed quite a bit since the days of the pyramids, and now it's a frickin dirt pile. It always changes and always will.
The more the climate 'changes' the more people will feel guilt, and then will eventually begin to follow certain rules, out of love for himself and fellow man. I mean, who would want to be responsible for the destruction of the earth and human life? Not too many people I've met, that's for certain. Who would be OK with others doing the same? In the coming years the modern industrialized nations will have no choice but to wage war on the up and coming nations, that employ poor quality, pollution causing technologies. After years of propaganda, they will have no problem calling on the righteous citizens of the state to do battle for them and kill who they may. Just like those damn godless savage Indians had to die so their land can be taken and used by a more powerful group. "They are cannibals and sacrifice fellow humans. Go get them for God,and don't forget to plant some crops while you're there"... Fucking assholes..
My theory is that nobody really knows how the earth will end up geographically after the incident. Maybe it will be ice age, or maybe pole shift, but shits going to change and the powerful need to make sure they are everywhere before this happens. The best way to do this is to get your army into whatever country you can, and set up a base of operations. Then when shit goes down there will be many options instead of being frozen or flooded out. I live in California and there are ocean fossils high in the hills . Did the global warming scientists forget this before spewing their garbage? I don't think so. Things are always changing.
If we let the rest of the world become technologically advanced it will be hard to push them aside. They'll have the same communications and firepower, and of course they want the land to insure their own survival. Earth is about survival and to stay alive humans kill. Its just a fact of life. 99.9%of things eaten by us we have killed. We grow things to kill them eventually. Human nature is a funny thing for me to try and understand, but I know it's about survival first, other shit second. Why anyone would would follow a man made belief system is interesting to say the least. Yes my opinion is that theoretical science is a belief system 100% just like the religions of the world. How many people that follow the bible or Quran have seen and communicated with Jesus or God, or Muhammed or whoever ? Not many. Nobody knows the truth, but still they follow because of the way it makes them feel. Same goes for science. The intellectual types love reading complicated bullshit so they can say.."look at all these details, it must be true". But in reality they are just Believing it to be true, based on how it makes them feel emotionally or psychologically." Look at all these charts and graphs !! Of course I'm right!! It's been written and documented" Whose numbers are you studying and whose numbers were your idols studying? Nobody is at the root.. They just follow what they have been taught. At one point homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder. We were taught that. We're talking like 50years ago. Now we're being taught something else.. 10,000 years of civilization, how the hell would someone's opinion change so fast on something like this. Homosexuals have always been around. Let me give you a hint, it's not science but social engineering. Just like the previous poster mentioned the great cannabis lie. Yes they know it's safe but still equate it to heroin, which robs your soul of its light and kills many people every day. By 'They' I mean almost every government in the world. Hmmm.. WE know it's safe. But they want to conspire against us.. If they conspire for such a cause , they will conspire for something greater. This is no theory but a fact. That's why global warming is an outdated term and climate change is the new one. The climate is always changing and always will, and most people know this on a subconscious level, so it is easier to lie or exaggerate about how and why it may be happening, and have folks believe it. They are in it for the long term,so 20,50,100 years later it doesn't matter, but eventually it will happen and they'll take the land using the new religion of science.
The more the climate 'changes' the more people will feel guilt, and then will eventually begin to follow certain rules, out of love for himself and fellow man. I mean, who would want to be responsible for the destruction of the earth and human life? Not too many people I've met, that's for certain. Who would be OK with others doing the same? In the coming years the modern industrialized nations will have no choice but to wage war on the up and coming nations, that employ poor quality, pollution causing technologies. After years of propaganda, they will have no problem calling on the righteous citizens of the state to do battle for them and kill who they may. Just like those damn godless savage Indians had to die so their land can be taken and used by a more powerful group. "They are cannibals and sacrifice fellow humans. Go get them for God,and don't forget to plant some crops while you're there"... Fucking assholes..
My theory is that nobody really knows how the earth will end up geographically after the incident. Maybe it will be ice age, or maybe pole shift, but shits going to change and the powerful need to make sure they are everywhere before this happens. The best way to do this is to get your army into whatever country you can, and set up a base of operations. Then when shit goes down there will be many options instead of being frozen or flooded out. I live in California and there are ocean fossils high in the hills . Did the global warming scientists forget this before spewing their garbage? I don't think so. Things are always changing.
If we let the rest of the world become technologically advanced it will be hard to push them aside. They'll have the same communications and firepower, and of course they want the land to insure their own survival. Earth is about survival and to stay alive humans kill. Its just a fact of life. 99.9%of things eaten by us we have killed. We grow things to kill them eventually. Human nature is a funny thing for me to try and understand, but I know it's about survival first, other shit second. Why anyone would would follow a man made belief system is interesting to say the least. Yes my opinion is that theoretical science is a belief system 100% just like the religions of the world. How many people that follow the bible or Quran have seen and communicated with Jesus or God, or Muhammed or whoever ? Not many. Nobody knows the truth, but still they follow because of the way it makes them feel. Same goes for science. The intellectual types love reading complicated bullshit so they can say.."look at all these details, it must be true". But in reality they are just Believing it to be true, based on how it makes them feel emotionally or psychologically." Look at all these charts and graphs !! Of course I'm right!! It's been written and documented" Whose numbers are you studying and whose numbers were your idols studying? Nobody is at the root.. They just follow what they have been taught. At one point homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder. We were taught that. We're talking like 50years ago. Now we're being taught something else.. 10,000 years of civilization, how the hell would someone's opinion change so fast on something like this. Homosexuals have always been around. Let me give you a hint, it's not science but social engineering. Just like the previous poster mentioned the great cannabis lie. Yes they know it's safe but still equate it to heroin, which robs your soul of its light and kills many people every day. By 'They' I mean almost every government in the world. Hmmm.. WE know it's safe. But they want to conspire against us.. If they conspire for such a cause , they will conspire for something greater. This is no theory but a fact. That's why global warming is an outdated term and climate change is the new one. The climate is always changing and always will, and most people know this on a subconscious level, so it is easier to lie or exaggerate about how and why it may be happening, and have folks believe it. They are in it for the long term,so 20,50,100 years later it doesn't matter, but eventually it will happen and they'll take the land using the new religion of science.
Genghis Kush
Active member
No, Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Of course because scientific exploration is a human endeavor it comes with all the flaws of humanity: ego, short-sightedness, corruption and greed. But unlike a "belief system" such as religion untethered to an objective truth, science is over time self-policing; competing scientists have a strong incentive to corroborate and build on the findings of others; but equally, to prove other scientists wrong by means that can be duplicated by others. Nobody is doing experiments to demonstrate how Noah could live to 600 years old, because those who believe that story are not confined to reproducible evidence to support their belief.
Here is the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the two: science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist. The two worldviews could not be more incompatible.
Here is the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the two: science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist. The two worldviews could not be more incompatible.
Principante 8
Member
You used the terms both seek and search.. This means what is unknown is unknown. Scientists aren't smarter but more intellectually inclined. Their egos trick them into thinking they are smarter because of this so they must be correct, when in reality most of it is a shit show. Eventually like a million years from scientists will have things figures out for a sec before things change again... If someone wants to use science for real life tangible purposes that's great, but tell me what you think is going on in space and no way I'm Believing it. Have you or anyone you know been to space? People are taking someone's word for it what goes on up there, simply because they represent themselves as being more intelligent. At one point the priests had all the knowledge, now it's the scientists, but the little man, the overwhelming majority of humanity has to BELIEVE what these so called elitists are teaching them. I understand science and religion oppose each other, but they both are an authority over humans to some extent which makes them similar. They teach, and the uneducated follow in hopes of becoming educated. But in order to do this they have to Believe what they are being taught is true. How does one know another's truth before they are taught?
Genghis Kush
Active member
no, the priests had "belief", and forbid research.
Scientists have knowledge.
Four factors are essential to the classification of an item of information as scientific knowledge: (1) independent and rigorous testing, (2) peer review and publication, (3) measurement of actual or potential rate of error, and (4) degree of acceptance within the scientific community.
"the overwhelming majority of humanity has to BELIEVE what these so called elitists are teaching them"
That is your insecurity, no body can do anything about that but you.
Scientists have knowledge.
Four factors are essential to the classification of an item of information as scientific knowledge: (1) independent and rigorous testing, (2) peer review and publication, (3) measurement of actual or potential rate of error, and (4) degree of acceptance within the scientific community.
"the overwhelming majority of humanity has to BELIEVE what these so called elitists are teaching them"
That is your insecurity, no body can do anything about that but you.
Principante 8
Member
I'm not a scientist or religious.. It's not my insecurity but seems to be the insecurity of many others. I prefer to not trust scientists because they tend to have an agenda., but at the end of the day it's no concern of mine. Also, it's ironic that most don't understand their tests and experiments are just to satisfy their ego. When people are in school they are tought a set of equations and formulas to figure things out. 99.9 percent of the people learning them, do not have the mental capacity to create or formulate them, so they must be taken at face value to be true. Believe what you want its no matter to me. I may play role of devils advocate, but in reality I'm just a human. I believe in love and happiness. That's my belief system. Reality has everything good and bad, but if I want to put faith in something it will be love. By the looks of you're post im guessing you side with science over religion. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has a different way of going about things. Newton was a kabbalist and an alchemist so he saw both sides of the coin. Me, I don't deal in coins.. Per se..Of course science will tell us alchemy is bullshit. The different ends of the spectrum is what makes life complete. Otherwise we wouldn't know freedom of choice and would essentially just be programmed robots covered in flesh.
Back to the point.. With such a small percentage of the population able to understand advanced scientific principals and theories, they have to put their faith in it that it's true. They don't and won't know truth. They can only know what they believe is true. That means whatever the 'top scientists are saying' will be believed as truth, so they can literally say whatever they want without much question. Who will prove them wrong? Another top scientist employed by the governments or corporations ? Because science is paid for, it must serve the agenda of the purchaser/employer or it will end. People pollute the world and it's gross, but to the point of changing the earth drastically or ending life for humans, I just don't believe it. Science is not authority, but has come to be viewed as authority, so yes people will follow.
Back to the point.. With such a small percentage of the population able to understand advanced scientific principals and theories, they have to put their faith in it that it's true. They don't and won't know truth. They can only know what they believe is true. That means whatever the 'top scientists are saying' will be believed as truth, so they can literally say whatever they want without much question. Who will prove them wrong? Another top scientist employed by the governments or corporations ? Because science is paid for, it must serve the agenda of the purchaser/employer or it will end. People pollute the world and it's gross, but to the point of changing the earth drastically or ending life for humans, I just don't believe it. Science is not authority, but has come to be viewed as authority, so yes people will follow.
Principante 8
Member
I should also point out that the priests had knowledge of God. Not intellectual but spiritual knowledge. People want both types so I'm happy they exist.
and...scientists are the first to admit they are wrong, insecure creatures they are...and through mistakes, you get wisdom itself...
Genghis Kush
Active member
No, priests have belief in a concept God
Genghis Kush
Active member
You don't seem to understand the process of peer review in science.
The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.
In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350–400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.
Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6–7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60–80% RH—on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.
"This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly –100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature—in that case we don’t have an identified problem!"
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html
argue all you want. call people names, insult, and deride.
it is what it is.
no one was buying "global warming", so they changed the name (misdirection) and have made an industry of it.
recent headlines in local paper touted "Tens of Billions Promised to Fight Climate Change."
that is the crux.
tens of billions for whom?
the very same scientists who received grant monies from the UN to 'prove' mans responsibility for the less than 2% influence of CO2 &, that carbon dioxide somehow supersedes water vapors 96%.
In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350–400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.
Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6–7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60–80% RH—on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.
"This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly –100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature—in that case we don’t have an identified problem!"
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html
argue all you want. call people names, insult, and deride.
it is what it is.
no one was buying "global warming", so they changed the name (misdirection) and have made an industry of it.
recent headlines in local paper touted "Tens of Billions Promised to Fight Climate Change."
that is the crux.
tens of billions for whom?
the very same scientists who received grant monies from the UN to 'prove' mans responsibility for the less than 2% influence of CO2 &, that carbon dioxide somehow supersedes water vapors 96%.
no, alchemy is NOT bullshit. scientists today CAN turn various cheaper metals into gold, but it is a money losing proposition. they can also turn carbon into flawless diamonds, but they are only used as cutting/grinding tools because they are artificial (not to mention small) and have no soul, so to speak. kind of like synthetic cannabis- no individuality, no change in flavor/effect.
Genghis Kush
Active member
Last edited:
Principante 8
Member
Peer review by who ? By you? Or someone besides yourself being reviewed by someone besides yourself, and then preaching about it. If you, then you know the truth, if not, then you follow what sounds good to you based on the way your brain works. Really there are three options. One is for it, against, or they don't care.. I don't think of it as a choice because it has more to do with the way our minds are wired Following something that you aren't sure of 100% sounds like faith to me. Why did the reddit kid get taken out ? He was tryjng to prove the climate change scam. The one the so many believe in, even though they don't know the facts, they just read the 'facts'. Computer models predicting weather..c'mon..The ones that are never right.. They predict what the programmers want them to predict. After they're proven wrong, they'll say, "Facts? What facts? This is science.. A work in progress." Isn't it scientists that convinced people that eugenics was the way to go ? They scared the people and the people followed. Scared people will follow every time. Why? I'm no psychologist so I don't know,but it's easy to observe. This time the fear is climate change making the earth less hospitable to humans. Fear god, fear the weather, fear the Chinese, fear the Jews, fear the gays, fear the savage Indians, fear the cannabis its always something And always bullshit. Its funny you talk to people like you're a 3rd grade teacher or something.
Genghis Kush
Active member
Last edited:
Principante 8
Member
I don't know what you're talking about I made it all the way to the sixth grade. Its the people that believe the bullshit that fear it. I think what thrichrider was saying is that scientists make people rich. That it's used by the contolling elite.. Not that scientists are the controlling elite.
Genghis Kush
Active member
we live in a capitalist society.
No matter what people will be getting wealthy off of whatever choices are made
No matter what people will be getting wealthy off of whatever choices are made
