rhino

I guess you are being too vague or clever for me Rocky ... I think I was quite clear. What does what make me? Atheist ... believes there is no god Agnostic ... one who thinks one can't know if there is a god ... Could you be more specific why you think this relates to global warming on Jupiter ... or on Earth? Or maybe doojable will just answer or me ... nobody told me there would be a test ...

Interesting ... vp managed to win them over to the point he could take over ... it takes a real snake to do that, as I see it. ...no qualms about acting pure, while probably planning his moves the whole time. My best twi times were very early ('75) Maybe just because it was new, or because the twig guru was so guru like and pure at heart I think ... but much of the rest was struggling for the lord as a WOW ... or enduring for God as corps ... :blink: in response to Linda below, if vp was capable of real healing, I didn't see it ... but most people have two sides ... the one that wins out most of the time, or when under pressure, is the real man. Aren't abusers especially nice on their "off time"? A "counterfeit" has a genuine look. Any man that willingly wrought the devastation on lives like VP did, has moved pretty far over on the scale toward the "dark side".

Actually p-mosh ... in Ron's Jupiter thread you claimed that your belief was "mainstream" ... so that made me wonder if it was mainstream here. I don't believe this bill is a Republican idea ... Bush promised a veto .. but McCain and Obama both are in favor, so this should not be a real big politics issue. I'm not sure why you say the poll makes no sense ... this is the solution Washington is coming up with ... how do you stop CO2 production if the government is not involved? I should have included ... "No tax, man made CO2 is a problem, but the government should not try to stop it" or some such. It seemed clear to me that if you believed man made CO2 is destroying the planet, you would want our government to in some way tax it to prevent it, so I didn't think of that. Though it does seem many companies have voluntarily acted to reduce their "carbon footprint", partly for PR reasons. But they are also largely moved by fear that if they do not act, some draconian laws will be passed, like what is proposed now.

I'm not sure which religion you mean ... I am a believer in being clean and maintaining "nature" and I have about 40 acres of native woodlands to prove it. About 6AM I walked out and saw deer and turkeys, and I twice missed a cute little bunny rabbit eating my lettuce. I need my own way corps out here to clean up invasive species ... I have a lot of nice 100 year oaks ... and they have children coming up around them. I even got the cattle out of the creek. But the so called green political machine and the AGW church of Al Gore ... no ... Al is a false prophet ... he is what vpw was to Christianity ... Gore and big government would love to extract $6 trillion from the economy to distribute to their friends. Of course McCain and Obama both voted in favor of the insanity.

I think everyone gives a hoot, and doesn't want to pollute ... But ... CO2 does no harm, at least not that I have seen proven. They increase it in greenhouse to help plants grow. You can swallow it ... breathe it ... no problem. But because it has gone from 300 to 380 parts per million somehow the world is going to end unless we take $6 trillion from these CO2 emitters and give it to eco friendly ... what? companies, organizations ... who is getting all that money the government now would get to control? And for what? Another thing ... we have the cleanest air among major producers, as I understand. Certainly better than China. So our costs to produce go way up, then we buy more from China who can produce power cheap because their coal plants belch out all kinds of pollution. So we kill off our clean industry, and send it to China where there will now be even more real pollution. This is not about peeing ... this is about breathing ... and it is choking US.

Just buy one of those yellow E-85 gas caps ... or maybe just stick an electric plug on the truck somewhere. though that sounds like a tricky way to get you to buy an alternative fuel vehicle. I think women like those old trucks ... especially if your other vehicle is a big Mercedes. Maybe we need another poll .... the song says "I think your tractor's SEXY" ... which one woman told me ... but then she said she was just kidding ... :( (she asked me what my other vehicle was ... I said "what other vehicle?") Man ... Cubbies lookin good for nine in a row

The tax is the current issue ... and questions on that tell me something about how people feel ... But it is true ... I didn't give an option to say man made CO2 is the cause and it is a problem, but the government should not get involved. That is an unusual case I would think, but it is still not a push poll, because I am not designing it to push anything. This seemed like a straight forward way to read how people really feel. I still think it is. But anyone that feels wronged or tricked ... they can boycott ... I'm thinking Hap is a little paranoid. Yes it is to find out what people think about global warming. Will they pay more taxes (or higher prices) to do something to stop the man made part ... or does that seem unreasonable? Now Hap is a mind reader ... well, no he is not .. because he is wrong. It is a pretty simple poll, I have no idea what I might achieve by leaving out a couple options, except make the poll simpler.

well, there is the "it is not a real problem" option

Are you in the business ... ? Yes, I know what a push poll is .. you could have stated what you thought, or what other choices there were. Instead of just warning people they are being tricked ... You either think we should tax or not. Either a lot or a little .. or some because it would help. then a bunch of possible reasons not to tax. What am I pushing,n your opnon?

I did see a site that estimated how long you should live, based on when you emitted your full share of CO2. (or various carbon emissions) If they could enforce that, it would probably solve the social security crisis.

Choose as many choices as you think fit ... there is a bill currently up that would "tax" industry that produces more CO2. I wonder what the general opinion is here about global warming. Passing this bill would raise some prices ... some call it a six trillion dollar tax that would do nothing ... some say it would help push ahead new innovations and slow or stop warming ... Here is the yahoo link ... but I'm mostly curious how the average greasespotter feels about man and global warming. Sorry if I left out some good thoughts ...

Superman ... not sure about the nightlife ... though he did take Lois out for a flight ...

How about this deal Bump...

This was in The Nation about a year ago. In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves. The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed. Some more from that here As the post-glacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, like fizz from soda. “The greenhouse global warming theory has it foot backwards,” Hertzberg concludes. “It is the warming of the Earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse.” In vivid confirmation of that conclusion, several new papers show that for the last 750,000 years, CO2 changes have always lagged behind global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years. I don't know if this guy knows everything, but it was in The Nation, which I think is more of a lefty rag.

but ... did her head do a 360 and did she spit out pea soup? Did she say "your mother knits socks in hell"? Cartoons have gotten pretty weird ... of course my cartoons were fine ... bugs, daffy, mickey, pink panther ... but then they were all talking animals as well ... (though the panther rarely if ever spoke, and didn't even have a name). Then they started coming out with space ghost and weird stuff and it was all downhill from there. The old comics were mostly super human .... maybe that is what lead us not to be possessed, but to want to have super human powers ... like "Believer Man" or "Eloheim's Elite". We all had Green Lantern like powers, lighting The Way for the USA.

The term was global warming, changed because we have not been warming for ten years or so. The climate has gone through much greater swings before man was polluting. And the point that apparently has escaped pmosh is that Jupiter is going through the same changes. So the question should arise, how does man made pollution cause warming on Jupiter? Politician Gore said the science is settled. The science is certainly not settled. His movie is full of errors, yet the average dunce walks away full of spunk, and ready to talk down anyone that has actually studied the subject. You may have noticed the far left trend to produce propaganda movies lately. Pmosh's statements on the science are as reasonable as his other outlandish statements about Ron and me. Oh, and the "pollution" that supposedly causes warming has not been shown to be a cause at all. There are no known ill effects of more CO2, greenhouses often increase CO2 to help things grow better. Garth, I don't know who the "they" is that you refer to. But it seems clear that Gore is a Democrat leader, and he was politically motivated to make his movie and push this agenda. Cataclysm makes for good TV ... so this end of the world theme is good for their bottom line. Now reducing our carbon footprint has become hip, and you are like so square if you contend the science is not settled. There has been a one degree rise over the last 100 years ... and basically nothing in the last ten. Yet people will swear they can tell the difference ... it is amazing how many times I hear people bring up global warming as the cause for this or that ... fortunately this latest bill will probably fail for now. As currently written, Lieberman-Warner might fall short of a 50-vote majority in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes required to close debate, insiders say. Presidential candidates (and Senators) Clinton, McCain and Obama all support climate-change legislation. So even though a Democrat senate is against it, all presidential candidates have to be for it. It is politically incorrect to even hint that "the science is not settled". Also you see the cut throat nature of business. If coal companies have to raise their rates, do you think the nuclear plants will not raise theirs? Plus they'll be able to produce more I'd guess. "In the long run, you want people who burn carbon to pay more," says John Rowe, the CEO of Exelon, the nation's biggest generator of nuclear power. Still, even Rowe worries that the economy could be shocked if the cost of emitting carbon dioxide rises too quickly He really means his company wants his competition to pay more. I don't want the coal burners to pay more for pumping out CO2. It helps my soybeans grow better, and doesn't hurt a thing.

Well, some things are probably not helpful ... maybe it is not worth trying to find the positives. Or maybe the sheep had diseases ... we slaughter herds if they have mad cow. Cutting off the heads of the prophets would help convert the masses. What do you have when you have 400 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start. See, the lessons might apply today. I suppose we are more civilized today ... mostly. But we can learn from history ... I don't know if the OT is the best source ... I'd rather learn western civ' history first.

It seems to ME. :) I was thinking old testament .. not Mohammed and his murderous ways. There may be plenty of blather to sort through ... so maybe it is not worth it. What do you recommend? Shakespeare? Milton? Plato? I'd like to read all that ... but there may be some values hidden in Proverbs ... or at least they may inspire us to consider "greater" things. Or maybe there really were sages that learned in certain structures that managed to survive long enough to develop a system .... I don't know. Our system of laws has evolved ... maybe the old religions were the same ... if we can strip out some of the malarky ... or maybe they knew some spiritual things that we don't get ...

Well vp was the front man ... so he had the power ... what is the magic wild card? I don't think he did any real magic ... like miracles or yoda like believing.

Well Sir Guess, to me it seems your "beyond rational" is mostly a recognition of the limits of our rational thought and our inability to comprehend too much. To the pure that may result in some woodstock like unity of human acceptance and good will ... but in real world structures I'm not sure of the significance. It seems like basic humility. Not forcing our beliefs or worldviews is one thing, but not stopping others from doing so is another. So we have lawyers and our American system to protect us, but we need that eternal vigilance ... and we may have already lost it. The power hungry are not restrained by feelings of limited rational capabilities, they are more predatory. My brief venture into wikipedia mentioned worldviews as being more than an individual thing, more a community thing. So religions or socialism or capitalism are worldviews. I see the humility that may bring us into believing in one of those systems, not being sustained in the actual implementation. The nature of man to protect or provide for his own greatly overwhelms all but the most valiant of efforts to maintain purity. For the most part, the bad guys win. But still the different stages of development in different arenas is interesting. In real world implementation though, it may be naive and devastating to not recognize that most of the world and its structures is predatory. hey bump ... no unCULTured oyster fer me .. I probably won't actually be eating any Illinois oysters (nor the Rocky Mountain variety) ... I can get them canned, but they don't appeal much to me. I could maybe get someone to ship em up from New Orleans, not sure how much CULTure they get down there, they really can't hear the French Quarter music from the bottom of Lake Pontchartrain. ... but I was never that big on the snotty little thangs anyway. Despite the problems of religion at its more fundamental level, it does seem there may be great learning and insight somewhere there, that has been passed down through the ages. Where else were all those sages of old writing their thoughts?

No, I didn't do my homework on the links ... I just read the last few posts ... It seems it should be easy enough to explain how you move beyond rational thought. What is the guiding force? Do I have to take the class follow all those links? But the understanding comes when seeing it living. Which involves more then world views. So worldviews are not the great mystery? There is more understanding when it is living. Where is it living? If you rule out the unseen then the seen remains the same. This again seems cryptic. I mean really ... I'm not linked to the Bible or TWI ... but this greater enlightenment seems mysterious. World views beyond rational thought ... and there is more than that ... sound like "to infinity ... and beyond" I can try some links I guess .. at least they are free. I may need to wait for oysters and beer though ...

No, I don't know of these concepts, which is why I'm asking about what strikes me as peculiar. These seem new terms, but perhaps they are just reorganizing old concepts. Socialism is not really about domination ... is it a worldview? My examples were about what I perceived to be "worldviews" that didn't work out so well. Everyone getting rich off the stock market turned into the depression. Germany was living it up, but they needed to conquer to spread their worldview. It seems a little Orwellian on some levels. I'm still not seeing the "move on to other ideas" thing. What other ideas or thinking are you talking about? I hear pluralism, universal health care, free information .... How does that get implemented in a society? Thank God worldview .. bumpy is here with rational thought and oysters ... it's Sunday morning here Bump .. would you open with a word of prayer rational thought :) of course now my irreverence for other religions or worldviews will get me in trouble ... oh well .... my word of the day is "nonchalance" ... it should be required for these chats ...

Millet? If they don't have wheat berries, I ain't goin' ... Maybe you can be on staff Ham ... you can make a great schedule, and don't forget the mog needs his afternoon delight, and nap ... Do they sing "father Abraham" at meals, to loosen them up? Were Father Abraham's sons retarded? And why did we sing about them? :unsure: No truck stops waysider ... and when allowed out in the pasture, volunteers will wear the invisible fence collars, for their own good. At least till they are well trained. :o

I don't see where I am accusing him of any such thing as recruiting. He seems well on is way of thinking through many other people's works. The questions I'm asking are to interact and better grasp his thinking. Isn't that what discussion entails? In doing that I will point out my thoughts and sir guess can respond with his thoughts. It may seem more polite to not address what I disagree with or question, and only nod in approval, but I don't see that really accomplishes anything. Mainly ... what supersedes rational thought?

Thanks sir guess ... well you may be ready to start a cult .. or whatever you might want to call it. Perhaps becoming a sage is the next stage? (just kidding, I have been joking about starting my own cult, but I really don't have the energy) It is good to study, it just seems your "findings" are incredibly involved. I wonder if all these stages are really so exact, and if the "higher" stages are necessarily better than the "lower" ones. It seems to be a sort of caste system, except you can move from one to the next in the same lifetime. Off the bat, it seems there would be different ways to evolve at higher reasoning without going through specific stages. you said and you said it is best to keep rational thought there too. This sounds like "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ... or maybe more like one world socialist government utopia. Maybe I'm injecting my own opinion, but the trick seems to be finding a system that works with people that believe differently, without imposing on them too much. This intellectual caste system reminds me a lot of the university socialist elite deciding how life should be for their fundamentalist Christian lessers out there doing the grunt work. Anyway ... some beliefs do seem tribal only, but that occurs in academia and politics as well. And the nature of man has been that power corrupts ... so these worldviews evolve wonderfully, and you end up with a master race vision or some such. In economics we had the roaring 20's (and now Greenspan hangover) and Germany was happening till Adolf. Certainly there are stages of development, but man only lives so long, and he seldom has the drive to achieve, while keeping that drive in check to only do good for all, though he will surely label it as a great society, or big brother ... or whatever sounds innocuous or friendly even. But somewhere in the works are the henchmen to make sure the little people march in step. What stage does this thinking put me at? :) But really, when you say "that ain't never gonna happen to this kid again", it reminds me how easy it is to fall into the old trap again, just in some other form. Or maybe that is just for us trapped in these lower circular stages. Who said "much learning hath made me mad"? For me, I would like to be more well read, but I'm not so keen on putting together some perfect philosophy. There is probably much to learn here ... but the idea of these certain stages has a religious tone to me. I really don't see how you go beyond rational thought without subscribing to a religious view ... which actually seems more of a return to fundamentalism. Don't Christians or others believe in the unity of their spriit ... care for all in the family, free information ... Even saying you keep rational thought, what is this guiding force that is beyond that?