Jump to content
The Corroboree


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

About ref1ect1ons

  • Rank
    ref1ect1ons has left the building

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Climate or location
    warm humid

Recent Profile Visitors

1,372 profile views
  1. ref1ect1ons

    Would, why & will USA invade Australia

    Anyone heard of Pine Gap, an American Miltary Installation in Oz, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_pinegap07.htm. I have also heard that the rockefellers own some land around the National Parks in Canberra, though you can't search the net for this stuff.
  2. ref1ect1ons

    Iboga pod germination

    lol, I know your being a hard-ass, but I laughed when I noticed the winky, I will take winkies into account from now on. I am not joking when I say I thought your entire post was about this last line, I really don't care for tit for tat games, we are of equal intelligence; I know your ego won't allow you to see this. Still clinging to AGW?, imagine what will happen to your ego when that falls... lol I knew you meant capitalised, I was just being as hard-ass as you are. Tit for tat. "I wasn't playing tit for tat", I was merely bla blah blah, if this fails then evade...
  3. ref1ect1ons

    Youtube vids

  4. Woah, this is heartbreaking. I think the title is why it was moved. This is how the UN treats ppl?, I did not know this... I should be ashamed, I am so.
  5. ref1ect1ons

    Scientific American

    Apparently there is a quote limit. So here are is the end of my post. Another quote: , as I suggested, there is a confounding factor, like a mass extinction event, that may be the cause. Also many factors in the environment lead to the rise of mammals and the decline of dinosaurs, including the falling oxygen rates, which I highlighted earlier.They admit that previous studies have shown a greater richness of life with higher co2: Here their agenda rears it's ugly head again: I would argue that the 'icehouse' periods had a greater effect on extinction then did the warm periods. A plausible assumption at the very least
  6. ref1ect1ons

    Scientific American

    Ok so you found one paper by the AGW camp. In the abstract they actually highlight the reason for their research as being especially important to AGW theory. First sentence: They have an agenda and are full of shit, and yes they are 'scientist'. Allow me to demonstrate. I did a quick search on the triassic, jurassic and cretaceous periods (during some of this time antarctica was quite temperate and life was able to thrive there., this is generally (ie. I am only using wikipedia as I cant be fuked establishing known facts with research papers and cannot currently access the database) accepted as a very diverse period for life (I have a huge interest in dinosaurs etc). Also the land mass was shaped differently, antartica was closer to the equator, which is a confounding factor in it's climate of the time. Now to support such large life forms there had to be more oxygen in the air (fact look it up) and more plant life and generally more life to support these huge predators. The seas were full of large creatures, and although mammals hadnt gained a big foot-hold yet, life was Big and thriving. What was the temperature like?. Well I have already pointed-out that antartica was temperate during the earlier times of jurassic and triassic, but here is a quote for the cretaceous: During the cretacious period, many plants started to evolve into flowering kinds that we have today. This was during a period of increased carbon dioxide, as I quoted above. So yeah, one research paper against a wealth of knowledge. They fail to convince me. A quote from the paper, about a sample that did not fit their hypothesis. Although co2 may have (seemingly) fluctuated with extinction rate, they dont provide a reason for the extinction (there is a quote in my next post where they admit that correlation studies cannot determine causation). Are we suppose to believe that non-toxic carbon (which lead to an increase in plant life) lead to the OPPOSITE in marine life?, clearly there is a confounding factor here which caused the extinction. (this is admitted later, when they say that they HAVE NOT determined causation). Yes temperature is included in MASS extinction events, but not in general temperature variablility. This is because after a cataclysmic event the climate changed SIGNIFICANTLY and SUDDENLY, ie. one theory is the 'meteor' event which lead to mass extinction as the world went into the Ice-age as the sun was blocked out for days. Even If the meteor theory is incorrect, scientist have evidence of a CATACLYSMIC event, which would have changed temperatures suddenly and drastically. This is NOT the same as natural variablity in temperature and does not represent the relationship between life and temp in general. Because as I have highlighted, Ice-age had little 'biodiversity, whereas the time before the ice-age was warmer and more biodiverse. These scientist have incensed me. They know what they are doing, and obviously have no interest in dinosaurs or the periods in which they lived. I have a learning disability which leads me to be excluded alot at university, and to see professors dirty something I love with lies...
  7. ref1ect1ons

    Iboga pod germination

    This is why I thought this was the point of your post, because you finished with this. Also you didn't bold it anywhere. It is possible your post has multiple messages, though I didnt realise this at the time. I think it's pretty much pointless to continue with this, but whatever you want to do.
  8. ref1ect1ons

    Youtube vids

    http://badmephisto.com/begsoln/ I am at like 10 minutes, started today!
  9. ref1ect1ons

    Scientific American

    Well to a certain point, if the atmosphere turns to plasma all things will die, as with an ice-age. But in general warmer temps means greater diversity of life, for example if Greenland was as it was in the middle ages (medieval times had a warm period were Greenland was green, who woulda thought), life would have an opportunity to thrive there, as it is now; nothing really thrives there. This is a logical assertion made by me, ie. just an opinion, but I have seen it backed by many scientist and so if you push me, ill find a quote from a good source. So I say Colder =death, warmer =life. It is toxic pollution (nuclear waste/chemicals that feminize alligator for example), rampant deforestation, poverty (which leads to unsustainable pop rates), hunting/or over use of resources, and fossil fuels (mining and carbon monoxide) which leads to most of the destruction of life and the environment. I posted a vid on thorium nuclear reactors the other day. I also believe in funding free-energy and cold-fusion projects (yes the gov says it is lunatic fringe, I wonder why, believe what you want). This is where AGW money should be spent, instead of jetsetting morons who really dont believe in their carbon footprint. Ie. James Cameron (i posted a vid on him in youtube section) and Al gore who tell everyone else to cut their carbon but own mansions that consume more 'carbon' then anyone else. It is funny how they talk about 'overpopulation', if they really believe this, they should shoot themselves in the head first, before they tell anyone else to. And as an example to other AGW supporters. PS. Although it has been a while and I am a bit rusty, I am prepared to argue someone on things such as positive feedback theory and hotspots (cornerstones of AGW once initial models were questioned), as well as changes in the sun and satellite data. I Also have a problem with some reports not having statistically significant results where many people who dont understand stats said it was 'close enough'. So I hope someone can find that report again if they wish to challenge me. I dont understand everything but I certainly understand more than many here, and as many have highlighted we (all humanity) have a limited understanding of climate (it involves more factors than any computer model could integrate) and this is why the AGW scam was able to confuse many 'scientist'. Almost forgot, I can also find topnotch info on ocean levels, coral bleaching and other doomsday non-events that AGW supporters believe in, or as being related to climate change. Judith Curry is one such dissenter, she was all AGW until recently, hence why The Scientific American conducted the poll. Bet you didnt read that ay Yeti. Up for it YETI?, since you gave me the ad hominen face palm move. Lets see what you really know yeti, i am sure I will make a fool out of you.
  10. ref1ect1ons

    Scientific American

    It's ok, your beliefs are not scientific, and yet you look down on me, as if 'i dont get it'. Well it has failed to convince the world because it is wrong. It is not long now before you will have to swallow your pride and admit defeat. Do you really want the Norfolk island measures here?, do you really believe they will save the world? We need to focus on what can really be done, like reducing pollution such as the flouride that killed those kangaroos. We need to stop GM crops from contaminating the environment, instead of focusing on your stupid unprovable nonsense. AGW is dead. I pointed out some problems with the poll, but if anyone points any holes in AGW, you religious zealots act like I said 'Jesus isnt real'. You get what you deserve for not researching properly the science behind what you support. This was literally one of my special interest for months, I beleive in AGW when I first started, but I assure you, I have read more on this subject then you're even aware of. You will have to admit that it's dead soon, with republicans in power, it's finished. If we had a poll in a scientific magazine that supported AGW, you'd be wetting your pants while pointing it out to every 'denier' you come across.
  11. ref1ect1ons

    Norfolk Island Big Gov Carbon Economy

    progress, huh. Are you prepared to tell me what statistics courses you have done yet QT. I have asked you several times after you asserted that I had not done any, when in-fact i have done three out of 4 offered in my course. So how many stats courses have you done QT?
  12. ref1ect1ons

    Scientific American

    I'm not saying anything other than most of them were not climate scientist or astrophysicist, many of them were not scientist and probably just the readership. That said, i give you a poll. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25 http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/scientific-american-poll-81-think-ipcc.html <<<there is some extra info here, but I copied most of it below. Scientific American Poll: 81% think the IPCC is Corrupt, with Group-think & Political Agenda 'Scientific' American may regret taking their recent opinion poll on the state of climate science given the eye-opening results cast by their "scientifically literate" readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda" and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity. 65% think we should do nothing about climate change since "we are powerless to stop it," and the same percentage think science should stay out of politics. When asked, "How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?," 76.7% said "nothing." Poll results http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d Climate of Change? 1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums? No, that would play into the hands of the fossil-fuel lobby. 3.0% 157 Yes, it would help engage the citizenry. 90.1% 4,673 Maybe—but only via serious venues like PBS's the NewsHour and The New York Times. 6.9% 358 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2 2. Judith Curry is: a peacemaker. 69.1% 3,585 a dupe. 7.6% 392 both. 4.3% 224 I've never heard of her. 19.0% 987 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2 3. What is causing climate change? <<<there seems to be an error on this question. greenhouse gases from human activity 30.9% 1,602 solar variation 33.1% 1,718 natural processes 75.8% 3,934 There is no climate change. 6.2% 320 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2 4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is: an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 18.0% 932 a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 81.3% 4,220 something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7% 36 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2 5. What should we do about climate change? Nothing, we are powerless to stop it. 65.4% 3,394 Use more technology (geoengineering, carbon capture and storage). 16.7% 865 Use less technology (cars, intensive agriculture). 5.8% 303 Switch to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already underway. 29.5% 1,528 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2 6. What is "climate sensitivity"? the degree to which global temperature responds to concentrations of greenhouse gases 32.6% 1,692 an unknown variable that climate scientists still do not understand 52.2% 2,708 the phrase on which the fate of human civilization hangs 0.6% 30 all of the above 14.6% 758 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2 7. Which policy options do you support? a carbon tax 15.1% 781 cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits) 8.5% 441 increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development 38.8% 2,015 cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers 6.6% 343 keeping science out of the political process 65.1% 3,375 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2 8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change? a 50 percent increase in electricity bills 3.8% 195 a doubling of gasoline prices 5.5% 286 nothing 76.7% 3,981 whatever it takes 14.0% 726 answered question 5,188 skipped question 2
  13. ref1ect1ons

    Youtube vids

    While I do believe in cold-fusion and free energy concepts, here is a solution for the more conventional among us. A small marble of thorium could provide enough energy to last an individual a life-time. And guess why thorium isn't already in use..., it is useless for making nuclear weapons, this is why governments went with uranium reactors. Check out the vid!
  14. ref1ect1ons

    The Faithless Rambling About Faith

    This is what I find 'condescending'. I probably am using the wrong word or have defined this word different for myself. But I feel that my perspective that God exist is not based on faith, but experience. When people say 'faith based', it makes me think that I have no logical or sound reason for my belief. That it is based is some un-scientific sentiment. I wrote quite passionately and quite strongly, I wished to convey my sense of awareness and my sense of God so that you would see that this perspective is possible for intelligent and logical individuals. It is not faith for me, it is the only logical conclusion. I am not going to apologise, but I may have been too strong with my opinion on 'faith', which is a distasteful word for me. It implies belief without reason. It is stupid to believe in something blindly, it is totally against who I am. It is almost similar to the idea that "religious/spiritual people need to believe in God because they fear death". I do not fear death, and I don't expect god to save my ego from death, and so I dislike these kinds of assumptions. It is very rare that religion serves the good these days, people are attached to idols rather than having a connection to the source itself. I would say most religions lead people away from the source, and so I never argued that religion was 'good'. Infact I believe that every good has a shadow, and so good carries the seeds of evil. This is why Buddha taught the Middle way. This is exactly what I feel Fancypants. I feel that this place is so amazing so intelligent that there must be some intelligence somewhere. And it must be more intelligenty than me, because it is stageeringly beautiful and well beyond my comprehension. I do not see this insight as 'faith'. No offense to 13th, I think now that I am understood I feel alot less passionate.
  15. ref1ect1ons

    The Faithless Rambling About Faith

    The truth is you and I cannot say whether there is or is not a God, ever, you will never prove anything either way. And yet you talk and talk and say quite condescendingly "oh, I can see how the little morons can believe in God". Ok I believe in God and am not religious. I believe in God or a great creative spirit that lies behind all things because I recognise the staggering intelligence that goes into something as simple as a single atom. Atoms do not evolve BTW. But you may choose a different reality, all the power to you. But don't come to me and try to tell me what my experience is, because you will never know. I look out to space and I have the same feeling, the same knowing. I feel it, and you can't take that from me. No amount of empiricism and arguments will get you there. And then my consciousness itself, my very awareness, such a perfect silence. So many trillions of factors, so much information, truly an infinite amount of information within a miniscule, infinetly small space. EVEN if there is no God behind this staggering creation, no intelligence behind it, it is beautiful, no, it is quite staggering is it not? far beyond what your mind can comprehend, yes. It is an infintie amount of information, and your mind is limited to processing a finite amount, this may lead to some error in perception, an error that can not be made-up with the finest scientific instruments. But this ambiguity is not evidence of God. Nor can it prove the counter. Are you expecting science to one day prove or disprove God?, science deals with what is here, most Buddhist believe God is the unmanifested, that his presence cannot be measured in this world. You BELIEVE otherwise, but you have NO objective proof, and you will NEVER be truly objective. Other perceptions and realities are possible within different minds and mind-sets. Yet you want to deny this possibility. You want to say that the way you see things is the only way. Our minds cannot deal with infinite quantities, it prefers quantities it can grasp (once again not evidence of God), it needs to reduce everything to this world, to the mundane. You're wrong, because I see it totally different and am just as intelligent as you are, so stop condescending my view and others who hold-it, worry about your own truth and let others be as they want to be! Go on being an atheist and live that truth, but dont trespass on my imagination, freedom, perception, right to be and believe.