Jump to content
The Corroboree

ref1ect1ons

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    602

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by ref1ect1ons

  2. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    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...

  4. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    Apparently there is a quote limit. So here are is the end of my post.

    Another quote:

    Finally, although we have shown an association between temperature and both biodiversity and taxonomic rates, this association may not be causative.
    , 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:

    Previous work at the scale of the Phanerozoic has suggested associations between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and taxonomic richness and rates

    Here their agenda rears it's ugly head again:

    Despite the above provisos, our results demand that we speculate on causative links between temperature and both biodiversity and taxonomic rates
    In conclusion, we have discovered a second-order long-term association between global temperature and both biodiversity and taxonomic rates, and show that whether Earth climate was in an icehouse or greenhouse phase explains considerable variation in the Phanerozoic fossil record.

    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

  5. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    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:

    The past relationship between global temperature and levels of biological diversity is of increasing concern due to anthropogenic climate warming.

    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.

    On land, large archosaurian reptiles remained dominant. The Jurassic was a golden age for the large herbivorous dinosaurs known as the sauropods—Camarasaurus, Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus, and many others—that roamed the land late in the period; their mainstays were either the prairies of ferns, palm-like cycads and bennettitales, or the higher coniferous growth, according to their adaptations. They were preyed upon by large theropods as for example Ceratosaurus, Megalosaurus, Torvosaurus and Allosaurus. All these belong to the 'lizard hipped' or saurischian branch of the dinosaurs.[16] During the Late Jurassic, the first birds, like Archaeopteryx, evolved from small coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Ornithischian dinosaurs were less predominant than saurischian dinosaurs, although some like stegosaurs and small ornithopods played important roles as small and medium-to-large (but not sauropod-sized) herbivores. In the air, pterosaurs were common; they ruled the skies, filling many ecological roles now taken by birds.[17] Within the undergrowth were various types of early mammals, as well as tritylodont mammal-like reptiles, lizard-like sphenodonts, and early lissamphibians.

    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:

    A very gentle temperature gradient from the equator to the poles meant weaker global winds, contributing to less upwelling and more stagnant oceans than today. This is evidenced by widespread black shale deposition and frequent anoxic events.[11] Sediment cores show that tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present, and that they averaged around 37 °C (99 °F). Meanwhile deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's.[12][13]
    After the end of the Berriasian, however, temperatures increased again, and these conditions were almost constant until the end of the period.[7] This trend was due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide.

    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.

    For example, in the Mid–Late Jurassic (ca 180–150 Ma), both temperature and diversity residuals rise, giving rise to a positive association
    CO2 was significant for both marine genus origination and extinction rate

    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).

    Variation in global temperature has previously been implicated in several major features of the fossil record, most notably mass extinction events

    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...

  6. Posted

    To all those people who can't get our pods to germinate and claim they are unviable, maybe just leave them in the bag for 5 months next time ;)

    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. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    Mass extinctions have been tied in with temperature, the hotter it is the less diverse the species on earth is.

    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.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    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.

  10. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    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?

  11. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    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

  12. Posted

     



    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!

  13. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    I'd love to be able to believe in something purely on 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.

    On the other side, only a fool would say religion is always used responsibly and benevolently

    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.

    something intelligent I may as well name "God"

    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.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    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.

  16. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_why_you_may_soon_need_a_warmists_permission_to_eat

    From the Herald Sun

    Column - Why you may soon need a warmist’s permission to eat

    Andrew Bolt

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 at 06:37am

    SO you think I exaggerate when I say global warming is just the latest cause of the closet totalitarian?

    Then pay close attention to an experiment the warmists are about to inflict on the people of Norfolk Island.

    Be warned. What’s being trialled there with $390,000 of Gillard Government money may, if it works, be spread to the mainland, say the researchers.

    Which means it’s coming for you.

    The plan - and, no, I’m not joking - is to put Norfolk Islanders on rations to fight both global warming and obesity.

    Funded by the Australian Research Council, and approved by the Socialist Left Science Minister Kim Carr, researchers from the Southern Cross University will give each volunteer on the island a “carbon card”.

    Every time they buy petrol, electricity or an air flight, they will have “carbon units” deducted from the fixed allowance on their card.

    More units will be lost each time they buy fatty foods, or produce flown in from a long way away.

    If, at the end of each year or so, they have carbon units left over, they can sell them. If they’ve blown their allocation, they must buy more.

    But each year, the number of carbon units in this market will be cut, causing their price to soar - and thus the price of extra food, power and petrol to rise - because the idea is to cut greenhouse gases and make Norfolk Islanders trim, taut and terrifically moral.

    Conservatives well aware of human fallibility will immediately spot the obvious flaw in this latest scheme of the Left to remake humanity.

    It’s this: what happens when people run out of their carbon rations, and can’t afford the extra units they need to buy more fuel, power or even food?

    This is precisely what I put this week to Garry Egger, head of this experiment and professor of Lifestyle Medicine and Applied Health Promotion at SCU.

    His response was astonishing and revealing, because this basic question - which so exposes the teeth of the totalitarian - would have been one you’d think he’d long wrestled with.

    After all, his personal carbon trading idea is not new, so much does it appeal to the fingerwaggers and bullies infesting the global warming faith.

    As far back as 2006, Britain’s then environmental minister, David Miliband, proposed a similar scheme, since endorsed by the Environment Agency and House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, which even insisted the Government defy howls of protest from mere voters.

    “Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent,” the MPs said, before being driven off to dinner.

    (Or as our own Professor Clive Hamilton, author and former Greens candidate, puts it, global warming is so “horrible” that leaders must look to “canvassing of emergency responses such as the suspension of democratic processes”.)

    Nor is Egger’s idea new in Australia, The farcical “ideas summit” of prime minister Kevin Rudd’s 1000 “best and brightest” Australians also recommended it - which is a very good reason to be alert and alarmed.

    “We have the technology now to create a ‘carbon account’ for individuals,” says the summit’s report, in between appeals for chairbound workers to be given 30 minutes a day of exercise and stairs to climb at work.

    Yet although carbon rationing plans have been kicked around for years by the Left, that key question of the conservative has still not been answered. As in: what if people don’t want to live your dream? What if they rebel, or merely fail you?

    Let’s go to the transcript of my interview with Egger on MTR 1377 this week, to see how he answered.

    Me: What happens to those people who overdraw their carbon emissions ...

    Egger: In the first year you are just warned ... (Later) if you overspend, you’ve got to buy the units that are cashed in ...

    Me: If you put this in on the mainland and you were really strict about it - you really thought the world was warming very, very dangerously and someone exceeded their rations of these carbon units - one would presume that you would make food, for example, too expensive for them to buy.

    Egger: That’s right ... so if you’ve got, for example, a very fatty unhealthy food that is imported from overseas which takes a lot of carbon to develop it, then the price would go up ...

    Me: What happens to a very fat family, a very irresponsibly fat family, and they’ve blown their carbon budget to the scheissenhausen and you’ve made their food terribly expensive? What about the kids? They go to breakfast and they’ve got one baked bean?

    Egger: In general you’ll find that in a very fat family they are low-income earners ... so those people would actually benefit from a scheme like this because the food that they buy, the energy that they use, they don’t use as much energy as the rich anyway ...

    Me: But what happens? Their ration of carbon credits runs out and you’ve made food too expensive for them to buy. What happens to them?

    Egger: Again, they get money back from doing the right thing.

    Me: No, but they’ve done the wrong thing. That’s why they are fat and poor. They’ve done the wrong thing, they’ve run out of their carbon credits. What are you going to do to them then, when the food’s too expensive to buy?

    Egger: There are going to be personal cases like this that need to be worked out and they need to be worked out in the tax system as well as in the carbon credits system.

    Egger, founder of GutBusters, undoubtedly means to do good. He has no wish to see children starve.

    YET I think we have here an insight into a key failing of so many grand schemes of the Left to improve resistant humans or build for them someone else’s idea of the perfect society.

    These schemes so often are too perfect for the flawed humans they supposedly serve. But it’s the humans who must then adapt to the system, and not the other way around. Which is where some force is required; some democracy sacrificed.

    What a buzz for the closet totalitarian then, to bully other people “for their

    own good” - in this case, to “save the planet”.

    When the cause is so just, which planet-saver could let some contemptible fatty stand in their way, begging for the carbon credits to feed their chubby children?

    On the other hand, which planet-saver would deny themselves any aid or comfort in this great struggle?

    Need an illustration of what I’m talking about? Egger himself plans to jet off to Mexico next month to boast to a United Nations global warming conference how he persuaded Norfolk Islanders to ration just such joy flights for themselves.

    This is your future coming right at you, folks. Best you realise it’s no longer a joke.

    (Thanks to reader Burchell for the picture, taken at a San Diego restaurant.)

    The elite eugenicist have a plan, to ration our water, to ration everything we need for life, while they take in-excess (see James Cameron and Al Gore). Humans are pests that hurt nature and the Earth, we are no longer seen as a part of nature.

  17. Posted

    I was pretty angry about this, I thought Californian's must have voted 'no' due to outdated government propaganda. Thanks for your post, I now understand that this is just a small step to getting what we want. Weed freedom the way we want it. Thanks for keeping us informed, as I was watching this hardcore.

    Maybe you could give me your insight on what was wrong with the wording of the law..., I understand Swarzenegger took steps to weaken it's appeal also.

  18. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    FINALLY vindicated LUL :wink::huh:

    I didnt need to be vindicated, I am generally not respected at all and dont really give a shit how any one sees me.

    But it was not new info, I had put it up along time ago, and the info has been on other forums for along time. It was not a new discovery and t's suggestion for newbs was already made by me.

    I am a newb, so it was info i found for myself and mr.green at the time.

  19. Posted

    A quote from when I first joined the forums. You gave me alotta shit for suggesting that the germ tech needed to be updated.

    LASTLY although it is too late for us, I really should have put something up earlier soz, the best way to go seems to be to leave them in the fruit for eight weeks in the package shaman sends you. After 8 weeks open it up and the fruit should have rotted with little sprouts inside. This way you dont have to worry about all the other shiz.

    From this topic "iboga propagation lessons from a disaster" from december 2009.

  20. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    So I am very sensitive to plants and know that alot of people here love and adore brugmansia and datura. I can't work-out why and am pretty scared of visual halucinogens (have yet to try aya with the light in brazil). I have posted some excerpts below of some of the most insane moments in a brug trip. So what aspects of this plant do you adore?

    and I also want advice on dealing and building a relationship with plants in general, because as I said I am very scared of some plants due to my hypersensitivity. (one time after blue lotus and catnip the walls would move for example, felt very nice body load). Small doses of harmala makes my gnome very sympathetic to plants and large doses apparently makes unusual vertical lines, he/she can also see what he calls 'the ether' (energetic spakly patterns) and unusually lit/glowing spaces, and so I am not sure how to appraoach this. I am mainly scared of being out-of-it, and getting injured or seeing something which 'breaks' my mind.

    Upon my arrival at my house I walked in without a shirt on and my roommate asked me where it was. I argued with him for almost a half hour that I DID have a shirt on and I was scraping the skin on my chest and pulling it out thinking it was my shirt. Not until I looked down did I realize he was right. This was around 11 p.m.

    Eyesight: this stuff seriously fucks with my eyes. First of all, my depth perception was *gone*. Over the course of the night, there were a ton of times where I would try to reach out and grab something that was about 6 feet in front of my face. I would reach out 2 feet, and wonder why I wasn't touching it yet. As my hand moved closer and closer, it looked to me like I was almost moving through the object. Especially when that object did not exist. I kept trying to pick things up from the ground, but when I touched them, I couldn't get a grip on them, because they weren't real. So I would spend a while scraping and feeling the floor in an attempt to pick these things up.

    Pros - Mainly, just a story to tell. There wasn't much in there that was very pleasurable, and it all just felt like a dream anyways.

    I'm one of those odd people who likes the taste of shrooms and so the taste of Brugmansia leaves didn't mean much to me. Anyways, from here it goes downhill, FAST. After consumption of the two leaves I was playing around on the computer, about half an hour, and strangely could hear the plant calling to me, through the walls of my room. She wanted me to eat more, a flower this time. My very last memories of this experience involve wandering around to the living room, and nibbling at least one flower from my plant. Evidence of the next morning would suggest that I'd eaten several. I remember dancing, spinning in circles around the room, and nibbling at the flowers.

    Around 6 a.m. my roommate told me to fix breakfast thinking the trip had worn off. I took a silver cake mix bowl and filled it full of milk, then stuffed an Alcopolco (a Mexican type of blanket) into the bowl and started to eat it with a fork and a knife. My roommate caught that real quick and laid me back down on the couch.

    http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=50223

    http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=30951

    http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=68424

  22. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    I had a flood, and had to search again, this time I found some really nice set-ups.

    The two pictured allow you to adjust the watering times and hence amounts for a number of plants. Reservoirs should last more than a week.

    203362948d.jpg <$40US

    http://www.skymall.com/shopping/detail.htm?pid=203362948&pnr=24R&cm_mmc=Shopping-_-ShoppingCom-_-24R-_-product

    455644373066554649306e79736a696a476641-149x149-0-0.jpg?p=FkrOpoDJ7I&a=1&c=1&l=3057561&t=11%2F01%2F10%2009%3A32%3A46%20AM&r=5&d=99.95&rt=mr <$100US

    http://www4.shopping.com/automatic-plant-watering/products <<<much more at this site, from wicks ($15US), and water bulbs to more exotic devices.

    I only listed prices to give an idea, I will not be buying from or advertising the site as I'm going to source locally.

    Some Capillary Setups.

    watertray.jpg

    You need a tray of water and something to hold the cloth up, with the edges in the reservoir. The plant sits on the cloth.

    Here are two good diagrams which will allow you to make your own, from http://www.gardeners.com/APS-Parts/APS_Cat

    apse.jpg

    Ebb and flow is a capillary material, should be at bunnings etc.

    productthumbphp.jpg

    TIP: Use a plastic pot for the plant, they have more holes, and because the plastic is thin, the soil will make contact with the capillary mat, this is important for this system to work.

    Wick will be the easiest for most.

    Use a water friendly material with good pull. Wet to start wicking, put one end half way in soil and the other end has to reach the bottom of a reservoir, which sits lower than the plant.

    pavioing.jpg

    TIP: If using this system, it may be necessary to use clear tubing, put the cord inside the tubing, this will improve it's pull, and allow it to sit in the reservoir better.

    Another popular way to do this is to have the smaller pot in a larger pot, the larger pot acting as a reservoir with the wick going from the bottom pot, through the drainage hole and into the soil a fair way.

    Wick21-300x263.jpg

    You can make a soda bottle drip irrigation system that can be used indoors or outdoors, it can last up-to a week.

    push-soil-around-bottle-to-secure-it.jpg

    There is a step-by-step here: http://www.veggiegardener.com/watering-tomatoes-using-2-liter-sod-bottle/

    Finally here is a link for a hanging baskets setup which incorporates wicks and tubing, very nice just to see how he has managed to do it.

    http://www.instructables.com/id/Upside-Down-Hanging-Self-Watering-Earth-Filled-Box/

  24. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

    UAE rejects US claims on Flight 201

    Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:11AM

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148857.html

    Passengers disembark from Emirates Airlines Flight 201 after the plane was escorted by US fighter jets to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Friday afternoon.

    The United Arab Emirates' Civil Aviation Authority has rejected claims that a US-bound Emirates' flight from Dubai contained "suspicious" parcels from Yemen.

    Fighter jets were scrambled on Friday to accompany an Emirates plane into New York's JFK airport after a security alert, US media reported.

    Emirati authorities, however, said flight 201 carried no 'suspicious' cargo from Yemen as claimed by US-Canadian military agency NORAD.

    UAE officials rejected the claim and said the plane was not a source of threat.

    "The Emirates plane that arrived today in the United States from Dubai did not contain any packages from Yemen," the official Emirati WAM news agency quoted an unnamed source with the country's civil aviation body as saying.

    North American military agency caused a media hype after it reported the suspicious flight.

    "Out of an abundance of caution, the North American Aerospace Defense Command diverted two Canadian CF-18s to track a civilian aircraft that was determined to be an aircraft of interest as it flew into and over Canadian airspace," AFP quoted a NORAD statement as saying on Friday.

    "The civilian aircraft was passed to two US F-15s as it transited into US airspace and its ultimate destination at JFK airport," the statement added.

    According to a White House statement late Friday, Saudi Arabia had tipped it off before "packages from Yemen containing explosive materials" were found on US-bound planes.

    US President Barack Obama was informed later on Thursday about a "potential terrorist threat" from suspicious packages from Yemen on two cargo planes, one in Britain and the other in Dubai, the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

    Meanwhile, the US president hinted at boosting the US military role in Yemen following reports about the "suspicious packages."

    GHN/HRF/MGH

    oh also, someone can research and flame me, but the plane doesn't seem to have come from Yemen, it says UAE and Dubai. So how did the packages get on the plane.

  25. Posted · Edited by ref1ect1ons

     


    I would normally post in youtube vid section, but yeah, found it after watching synch's vid.

    Oh and here's a link to the pdf. I couldnt get the abstract on it's own.
    http://americanmarijuana.org/Guzman-Cancer.pdf

    The pdf doesnt look right, it's not a scientific report and three mice is obviously not a sample, so I tried to find the sample size but found that it mostly crapped on about the properties of cannabinoids, and was a review.
×