Do you believe in Athropogenic Climate Change
Yes, yes I do
76.2% (99)
76.2% (99)
Climate Change has little or nothing to do with humans
4.6% (6)
4.6% (6)
Maybe but I'm not sure
4.6% (6)
4.6% (6)
Pies and Gravy
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
I don't think humans have as much to do with climate change as people say
11.5% (15)
11.5% (15)
I don't really care enough to have an opinion
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Do you believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Lil devils x:

See your problem is you fail to understand that "tiny insect like creatures" is a description, not a " definition".

Then the problem is that you aren't communicating clearly. "Insect" has a specific meaning in English. If you describe something as a "tiny insect like creature" then, whether you mean to or not, you are describing something small with multiple legs and an exoskeleton. What you intend to mean is irrevelent--that is how your statement is going to be understood by a native English speaker. If you don't want to be misunderstood you need to adjust your language.

And under a description like that even an amoeba would fall under such. There are not direct words that translate from Hopi to English, so descriptions as close to what we can associate are used.

Based on things you've said here and elsewhere, I'm confident your English is good enough that you could find words that more accurately convey your meaning.

I think they have done quite well considering this is an oral history passed down from ancient times, and that description, along with others such as " clay and water come together to form the crystals of life" and " dark spiderwoman sitting at the center of galaxies drawing in all that come near her and spinning out the planets and the stars forever spinning and spinning". Those descriptions from ancient times are amazingly accurate for what we find true in science today.

And if this was a discussion about how Hopi oral histories are spoken/translated, then those phrases would be useful. But since we're trying to discuss history (not the Hopi record of history, but the actual events of history) having descriptions that are accurate for their time (and for being translations) is not useful. It's interesting, but not helpful here.

You should realize the translation is that of a visual description, not of a definition

The responsibility of making sure your posts are understandable rests with you, not your audience. If you're writing things with the assumption that we'll understand how your tribe's history works then that's another of your errors.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

See your problem is you fail to understand that "tiny insect like creatures" is a description, not a " definition".

Then the problem is that you aren't communicating clearly. "Insect" has a specific meaning in English. If you describe something as a "tiny insect like creature" then, whether you mean to or not, you are describing something small with multiple legs and an exoskeleton. What you intend to mean is irrevelent--that is how your statement is going to be understood by a native English speaker. If you don't want to be misunderstood you need to adjust your language.

And under a description like that even an amoeba would fall under such. There are not direct words that translate from Hopi to English, so descriptions as close to what we can associate are used.

Based on things you've said here and elsewhere, I'm confident your English is good enough that you could find words that more accurately convey your meaning.

I think they have done quite well considering this is an oral history passed down from ancient times, and that description, along with others such as " clay and water come together to form the crystals of life" and " dark spiderwoman sitting at the center of galaxies drawing in all that come near her and spinning out the planets and the stars forever spinning and spinning". Those descriptions from ancient times are amazingly accurate for what we find true in science today.

And if this was a discussion about how Hopi oral histories are spoken/translated, then those phrases would be useful. But since we're trying to discuss history (not the Hopi record of history, but the actual events of history) having descriptions that are accurate for their time (and for being translations) is not useful. It's interesting, but not helpful here.

You should realize the translation is that of a visual description, not of a definition

The responsibility of making sure your posts are understandable rests with you, not your audience. If you're writing things with the assumption that we'll understand how your tribe's history works then that's another of your errors.

They are not my words to change, I think that is what you fail to understand. I am not permitted to change the words, only a tribe historian is. I think that is the cultural differnce here. I can elaborate further on them, but I am not permitted to change the words, since I am not a historian. However, the english language is adjusted frequently, so it would be easier to adjust your understanding than to be to change the words of an oral history.

You are addressing what I stated was a very shortened summary, I was not going in to detail, however, you did not ask me to elaborate, instead you want to attack rather than ask questions. I did not see you ask, or show in any way that you wished to learn more, so why would I elaborate when you did not ask me to?

I disagree that any history is more useful than the other, it is the combination of all that we get a whole picture and gain better understanding.

I disagree on whose " responsibility " it is to understand. If you do not ask questions you are not seeking to understand, instead you are seeking to dismiss without understanding. You did not ask, you just attack, there is a difference between wishing to gain better understaning and jumping to dismiss without ever understanding.
On another note, are you and Dinwatr the same person.. or sitting next to each other or something? The way you two post together is.. odd?

Lil devils x:

They are not my words to change

Then you have a problem. You can either find a way around it (say, by NOT bothering with quoting your tribe's history, and instead just discussing the concepts), or you can continue to be misunderstood. Nobody else is responsible for figuring out what your incorrect English is supposed to convey.

You are addressing what I stated was a very shortened summary, I was not going in to detail, however, you did not ask me to elaborate, instead you want to attack rather than ask questions. I did not see you ask, or show in any way that you wished to learn more, so why would I elaborate when you did not ask me to?

It's not an issue of going into detail, but of you saying things in a way that appears to convey something other than what you intended. It's not my responsibility to make sure that I'm correctly understanding you--if you're not going to use words properly then you need to make the effort to ensure your meaning is understood. If you're not willing to do that then tough.

I disagree that any history is more useful than the other, it is the combination of all that we get a whole picture and gain better understanding.

Stop dropping context. I didn't say one history was more useful than another. I said that this conversation is not about how Hopi history is recorded, so the exact words used by Hopi historians doesn't matter for this conversation.

I disagree on whose " responsibility " it is to understand. If you do not ask questions you are not seeking to understand, instead you are seeking to dismiss without understanding. You did not ask, you just attack, there is a difference between wishing to gain better understaning and jumping to dismiss without ever understanding.

You can disagree all you like. Your words are unclear (and you've been TOLD that you're being unclear, and you've been told what you can do to help alleviate the problem). You can change, or you can be misunderstood.

On another note, are you and Dinwatr the same person.. or sitting next to each other or something? The way you two post together is.. odd?

We're currently about 1,000 miles apart (normally the distance is even greater--he lives on the west coast, and I'm on the east). But we tend to be online at the same times, and to show each other threads/posts we're responding to. Since our interests overlap (we've been friends for several years) we tend to post in the same threads. He doesn't spend as much time on this forum as I do, though, so a lot of times he only posts in a thread after I go "hey, check this out". Which admittedly does make it seem like we're the same person--fortunately for me we aren't (I could NOT survive as a geologist!)

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

They are not my words to change

Then you have a problem. You can either find a way around it (say, by NOT bothering with quoting your tribe's history, and instead just discussing the concepts), or you can continue to be misunderstood. Nobody else is responsible for figuring out what your incorrect English is supposed to convey.

You are addressing what I stated was a very shortened summary, I was not going in to detail, however, you did not ask me to elaborate, instead you want to attack rather than ask questions. I did not see you ask, or show in any way that you wished to learn more, so why would I elaborate when you did not ask me to?

It's not an issue of going into detail, but of you saying things in a way that appears to convey something other than what you intended. It's not my responsibility to make sure that I'm correctly understanding you--if you're not going to use words properly then you need to make the effort to ensure your meaning is understood. If you're not willing to do that then tough.

I disagree that any history is more useful than the other, it is the combination of all that we get a whole picture and gain better understanding.

Stop dropping context. I didn't say one history was more useful than another. I said that this conversation is not about how Hopi history is recorded, so the exact words used by Hopi historians doesn't matter for this conversation.

I disagree on whose " responsibility " it is to understand. If you do not ask questions you are not seeking to understand, instead you are seeking to dismiss without understanding. You did not ask, you just attack, there is a difference between wishing to gain better understaning and jumping to dismiss without ever understanding.

You can disagree all you like. Your words are unclear (and you've been TOLD that you're being unclear, and you've been told what you can do to help alleviate the problem). You can change, or you can be misunderstood.

On another note, are you and Dinwatr the same person.. or sitting next to each other or something? The way you two post together is.. odd?

We're currently about 1,000 miles apart (normally the distance is even greater--he lives on the west coast, and I'm on the east). But we tend to be online at the same times, and to show each other threads/posts we're responding to. Since our interests overlap (we've been friends for several years) we tend to post in the same threads. He doesn't spend as much time on this forum as I do, though, so a lot of times he only posts in a thread after I go "hey, check this out". Which admittedly does make it seem like we're the same person--fortunately for me we aren't (I could NOT survive as a geologist!)

Thank you, That explains much, as I was feeling like I was responding to the same person the way you quoted what was addressed to him. LOL!
And, yes, my purpose is better understanding, it is difficult when you are trying to convey something for which there are not words in English to explain. Luckily though in this day it is much easier to do than in the past. You see, the English and Spanish translation of our history of the four worlds was done back when the Spanish first came in contact with the Hopi in the 1500's, it was translated first to spanish, then to English from Spanish and not a modern translation, and has not been updated, nor is it my position in my tribe to do so. In fact, no technology is permitted in the kivas, and the only way to learn the full history is to actually gain permission to enter the sacred Kiva and learn directly from our historians yourself, as I could not possibly remember everything I was taught. I can only do the best I can with what I remember.

In past times, discussing such things was considered a dangerous thing to do, due to the church reaction of such things and much has been supressed. The Church did not want to hear that we were animals, and considered that Blasphemy and evil and the Hopi were punished for such things. It is difficult even now to be open about these things given the reservation resides in Arizona, and Arizona was settled by missionaries wishing to convert and assimilate the tribes, thus why now you hear of the laws they are still passing against anything that goes against their beliefs. Due to the impact of the church, this is also why the exact wording of the history is to be preserved otherwise it is at risk of being lost forver as Christianity has been forced upon the people. There are issues within the tribes of the History being distorted by the Christians trying to change Hopi beliefs to match their own. It has been a very long and hard struggle, but so far the Hopi have endured and kept tradition in private in hopes of preserving it. You have to understand that our people have been killed in the past for discussing these things openly.

I do wish better understanding, so if there is anything that you would like me to elaborate on, I will do my best to do so.

@Lil devils x

He's saying that "animal-like creatures" doesn't mean anything since "animal" is such a broad term. What did you mean by that? What is the interpretation of it? Like which animals?

As for your point about "insect-like", that opens it all wide up to confirmation bias and wild moving of the goalposts. You display it yourself quite nicely here, by ignoring the misses (like actual insects) and counting possible hits (defining "insect-like" as "tiny; tiny enough to qualify for amoebas", ignoring everything else that is attached to the word "insect" since that isn't in line with evolutionary understanding).

Is this really any different than a semi-Literalist Christian who tries to fit Genesis to the Big Bang theory, concepts of abiogenesis and of evolution and then claims "the order of creation" is in line with how animals and people developed? Ignoring the misses, counting the hits? Is this really any different than a Muslim who uses the Quran and points to references of his god creating life from water? The birthplace of life on Earth according to most scientists? And ignores or twists everything that doesn't fit?

It's certainly interesting to hear other mythologies on these forums, but I find your... let's call it "certainty" you display whenever you bring it up not any less weird than that of the Christians trying to bend and twist the words of their scriptures to fit modern understanding of science. The fact that it's oral tradition doesn't change that; arguably, it makes it worse because it's even more easily affected by the times than a written, copied and translated text is.

Skeleon:
@Lil devils x

He's saying that "animal-like creatures" doesn't mean anything since "animal" is such a broad term. What did you mean by that? What is the interpretation of it? Like which animals?

As for your point about "insect-like", that opens it all wide up to confirmation bias and wild moving of the goalposts. You display it yourself quite nicely here, by ignoring the misses (like actual insects) and counting possible hits (defining "insect-like" as "tiny; tiny enough to qualify for amoebas", ignoring everything else that is attached to the word "insect" since that isn't in line with evolutionary understanding).

Is this really any different than a semi-Literalist Christian who tries to fit Genesis to the Big Bang theory, concepts of abiogenesis and then claims "the order of creation" is in line with how animals and people developed? Ignoring the misses, counting the hits?
Is this really any different than a Muslim who uses the Quran and points to references of his god creating life from water? The birthplace of life on Earth according to most scientists? And ignores or twists everything that doesn't fit?

It's certainly interesting to hear other mythologies on these forums, but I find your... let's call it "certainty" you display whenever you bring it up not any less weird than that of the Christians trying to bend and twist the words of their scriptures to fit modern understanding of science. The fact that it's oral tradition doesn't change that; arguably, it makes it worse because it's even more easily affected by the times than a written, copied and translated text is.

First, I was condensing a very long history into a brief reply for a poster who asked a question, and stated that this was a "very shortened summary", not to be taken as an elaboration of the subject.

Second, The approved translation "approved choice of words" by tribe historians for the history of the four worlds to Spanish occurred in the late 1500's before your Darwin even lived, and from there it was translated from Spanish to english later. In understanding oral histories, you should understand that we are required to use the exact words that have been approved, and that is not my choice, and is considered a very very wrong thing to do in my culture to change the words without approval.

Third, as for " Animals" according to the description given to me, we started out without fur and grew fur during the second world.

You should realize that the last approved translation existed prior to your cultures understanding of evolution, and the terms used were to give an visual understanding of the subject that was being discussed. You see, you are mistaken, this was not changed to fit modern times at all, this existed prior to your civilzation having better terms to define the information being discussed, and new terms have not yet been authorized for use yet. Though, you can imagine when this was told to the Christian Spanish in the 1500's.. they thought it insane that we thought we were anything other than human before, and did not respond well.

Lil devils x:
You should realize that the last approved translation existed prior to your cultures understanding of evolution, and the terms used were to give an visual understanding of the subject that was being discussed.

Sure, as is the case for Genesis and the Quran. That doesn't mean the bits that happen to fit modern understanding - again, confirmation bias - are revealed truth.

You see, you are mistaken, this was not changed to fit modern times at all, this existed prior to your civilzation having better terms to define the information being discussed, and new terms have not yet been authorized for use yet.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it was necessarily changed to fit (that's why I decided not to respond to your point about "approved words"), I'm saying the interpretation of it changes to fit. Genesis wasn't changed that much either. It's the interpretation that uses "insect-like" as a stand-in for amoebas and other microscopic organisms, for example, that appears to be heavily reliant on confirmation-bias and the same processes used to make Genesis fit as well.

As an outsider, I just don't see any significant difference, is what I'm saying. Why would I give any of these - all of them based around modern interpretation of ancient words that are made to fit - any preference? It's not any more convincing than the others. None of them are.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
You should realize that the last approved translation existed prior to your cultures understanding of evolution, and the terms used were to give an visual understanding of the subject that was being discussed.

Sure, as is the case for Genesis and the Quran. That doesn't mean the bits that happen to fit modern understanding - again, confirmation bias - are revealed truth.

You see, you are mistaken, this was not changed to fit modern times at all, this existed prior to your civilzation having better terms to define the information being discussed, and new terms have not yet been authorized for use yet.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it was necessarily changed to fit (that's why I decided not to respond to your point about "approved words"), I'm saying the interpretation of it changes to fit. Genesis wasn't changed that much either. It's the interpretation that uses "insect-like" as a stand-in for amoebas and other microscopic organisms, for example, that appears to be heavily reliant on confirmation-bias and the same processes used to make Genesis fit as well.

As an outsider, I just don't see any significant difference, is what I'm saying. Why would I give any of these - all of them based around modern interpretation of ancient words that are made to fit - any preference? It's not any more convincing than the others. None of them are.

The actual words in Hopi do not mean " Insect like". But "tiny creatures moving around" would be more accurate. Take that for what you will, or however you wish to translate that. Hopi have their own names, not English names for things, so it is hard to match an accurate description in English without using the Hopi name for it, because it could or could not describe the english word. Your guess is as good as mine on that one. So as to take the meaning in Hopi, you have " tiny creatures moving around" Whatever you would view that as in " modern terms" is up to you. LOL

You can choose to view it the same as the bible or the quran if you wish, that is your prerogative. Though our tradtion tells us that we started out as tiny creatures moving around and transformed over long periods of time into what we are now. Take that however you wish, it is not up to me to convince you, I am not here to indoctrinate you into Hopi, in fact we are forbidden from doing so, and even the tribes who actually join our people and become Hopi are encouraged to keep their own histories and beliefs, not take ours.

My purpose is to expand understanding, not recruit anyone.

EDIT:
I also would like to add, that in describing our behavior in the first and second world, as other than human creatures, we were horrible and fought much and could not get along and ate one another.( WHile teaching us about the second world creatures my grandfather would hunch over and act like a monster and scare us all.) It was made understood that our previous forms were very undesirable.

Edit 2: If you choose to read up on hopi traditions, this key will help you better understand so it makes a bit more sense. In Hopi, everything is a " being" and given a persona, so this may help:
Tawa= Sun
Dark Spider woman= black hole*
Sotuknang= air/ atmoshere
Masaw= earth**
Tokpella= space
If you have a question about any others, let me know and I will help.
* Dark spiderwoman, and grandmother was used by many tribes and may have other meaning as well depending on the " spiderwoman" you are discussing.
** He is also seen as fire, and death depending on the usage.
Hope that helps. :)

Lil devils x:

And, yes, my purpose is better understanding, it is difficult when you are trying to convey something for which there are not words in English to explain.

Except that there are words in English, and you clearly know what those words are. If you can explain that "tiny insect-like creatures" means "tiny creatures moving around" then obviously there are words for what you're trying to convey (or at the very least there are words that do a much better job of conveying what you mean). In the case of you using "little ice age" to refer to a period of cooling, I've given you the language you need to convey your meaning: "a period of cooling."

If you honestly don't know the word for something then that's fine, and I'm happy to help you figure out what would fit better. But if you say something that makes sense in English (but is factually incorrect) I'm not going to assume that you're using the words to mean something other than their definition--I'm just going to think you said something that's false. If the issue is that you're not using words correctly then you need to make that clear--and then if you're told a word or phrase that better suits your meaning, it hampers communication for you to continue using the wrong word.

I do wish better understanding, so if there is anything that you would like me to elaborate on, I will do my best to do so.

I've already given you a suggestion for improving understanding: don't say "little ice age" or "mini ice age" to refer to something similar to the Little Ice Age, because it was not an ice age. I'll take it a step further: if you know the correct terms in English to convey a point, use those terms and not other, inaccurate terms. If you're told "this word fits your meaning better than that word" use the word that fits better.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

And, yes, my purpose is better understanding, it is difficult when you are trying to convey something for which there are not words in English to explain.

Except that there are words in English, and you clearly know what those words are. If you can explain that "tiny insect-like creatures" means "tiny creatures moving around" then obviously there are words for what you're trying to convey (or at the very least there are words that do a much better job of conveying what you mean). In the case of you using "little ice age" to refer to a period of cooling, I've given you the language you need to convey your meaning: "a period of cooling."

If you honestly don't know the word for something then that's fine, and I'm happy to help you figure out what would fit better. But if you say something that makes sense in English (but is factually incorrect) I'm not going to assume that you're using the words to mean something other than their definition--I'm just going to think you said something that's false. If the issue is that you're not using words correctly then you need to make that clear--and then if you're told a word or phrase that better suits your meaning, it hampers communication for you to continue using the wrong word.

I do wish better understanding, so if there is anything that you would like me to elaborate on, I will do my best to do so.

I've already given you a suggestion for improving understanding: don't say "little ice age" or "mini ice age" to refer to something similar to the Little Ice Age, because it was not an ice age. I'll take it a step further: if you know the correct terms in English to convey a point, use those terms and not other, inaccurate terms. If you're told "this word fits your meaning better than that word" use the word that fits better.

You know, I just checked that again, and again, I found the experts in the field on this subject stating, " the people were thrown into an instant Ice age" in reference to the onset after the supervolcano erruption. If the experts in the field find that term appropriate, I would assume that you are just attempting to make a bigger deal out of something than what it is. They used it in the EXACT context I used it, referencing the same event. Apparently other more prominant geologist disagree that it causes misunderstanding and find it fine to use that reference, since they do so themselves. They didn't even bother to put " little" in front of it. It appears to me that you are making a big to-do about nothing.

Watch the video linked in post#65 in this thread and you can become enraged as the experts on the subject use it in the very same manner in which I did. :)

EDIT: And yes, I do feel I used the term adequately, and elaborated on the context sufficiently and that it should not be changed simply because farkus and his toadie want to try and make me change it to overcompensate for the fact that he stated that yellowstone would not cause world wide climate change when the core samples in Greenland, the computer simulations and other scientists disagreed with him.

No, I'm not convinced we have made an impact to a tipping point in that we are drastically altering earth's climate and weather patterns.

While civilization has carved up and demolished a lot of flora and fauna, it's hard to take these apocalyptic claims seriously when we cannot even come close to matching the output of a single bolt of lightning. It's further a bizarre claim to make to someone who understands history, how tiny of a sample of data we have, and that the earth has gone through radical changes throughout history, up to and beyond ice ages.

But even if we can, for the sake of argument, concede that humans are a significant factor, the solutions range from inept to absurd, and seem designed by frauds and greedy, salivating villains. Furthermore, in order to have any realistic counter-effect of these alleged environmental effects, it will take the dedicated effort of the entire world to cull industry, change infrastructure and force people to live very different lives. How many people and nations want to make deep sacrifices, and would they unite? People can't even agree on a brand of beer.

It reminds me of a quote about the space elevator, in that these achievements will happen fifty years after everyone stops laughing.

AgedGrunt:
No, I'm not convinced we have made an impact to a tipping point in that we are drastically altering earth's climate and weather patterns.

While civilization has carved up and demolished a lot of flora and fauna, it's hard to take these apocalyptic claims seriously when we cannot even come close to matching the output of a single bolt of lightning. It's further a bizarre claim to make to someone who understands history, how tiny of a sample of data we have, and that the earth has gone through radical changes throughout history, up to and beyond ice ages.

But even if we can, for the sake of argument, concede that humans are a significant factor, the solutions range from inept to absurd, and seem designed by frauds and greedy, salivating villains. Furthermore, in order to have any realistic counter-effect of these alleged environmental effects, it will take the dedicated effort of the entire world to cull industry, change infrastructure and force people to live very different lives. How many people and nations want to make deep sacrifices, and would they unite? People can't even agree on a brand of beer.

It reminds me of a quote about the space elevator, in that these achievements will happen fifty years after everyone stops laughing.

Now while I am quite convinced of our impact in this matter, I do whole heartedly agree with you on what I have seen in regards to "solutions" and the whole " green industry". Instead of offering actual solutions they are just trying to cash in. So called " green products" being sold in plastic bottles, forcing people to purchase" green lables", which is more harmful than good. I don't see them promoting actual healthy cost effective alternatives, rather they want to turn it into a brand and make it a luxury item. What I have seen thus far from the promotion of this is not any better than what they were using before. It does not cost much to reduce impact, yet they try to push people towards spending more money. You can actually make perfectly biodegradable products in your own home easily and inexpensively! The biggest problem I see is actually disposable consumerism, and it cannot be addressed because that is the driving force of the present economy. They are not suddenly going to go back to making refridgerators that last a lifetime, or cars you never have to replace or lightbulbs that will outlive you. Since they will not, not only does it force everyone to spend more than they earn to survive, and have nothing to retire on, but it also accumulates a huge amount of toxins, both on the production end and on the disposing end.

If this is truly to be solved, yes the worlds economy would have to change, as well as the companies, and the consumers. Buying a new PC every couple of years is just as bad as the rest of the industries in this regard, if not worse, since you have to replace that more than you do an oven. All of this crap produces toxins being built and again produces toxins to dispose of. Yet we see people placing plastic in their recycling bins when it actually releases more toxins to recycle it than it does to make it in the first place.

It is madness and I do not see real solutions being offered to resolve it, only people wishing to line their own pockets. If we do not address planned obsolescence our environmental and financial problems will only get worse, not better.

Lil devils x:

You know, I just checked that again, and again, I found the experts in the field on this subject stating, " the people were thrown into an instant Ice age" in reference to the onset after the supervolcano erruption.

Which scientific journal did you take that quote from?

If the experts in the field find that term appropriate, I would assume that you are just attempting to make a bigger deal out of something than what it is. They used it in the EXACT context I used it, referencing the same event. Apparently other more prominant geologist disagree that it causes misunderstanding and find it fine to use that reference, since they do so themselves. They didn't even bother to put " little" in front of it. It appears to me that you are making a big to-do about nothing.

If scientists are equivocating between cooling and ice ages then they're wrong, however I think it's more likely, based on your actions in this thread, that you're misrepresenting what they say. I've seen you do that with Wikipedia (and pointed out the errors, and got no response from you), so I'm not about to trust your interpretation of what the scientists say.

The fact that they "don't bother to put "little" in front of it" is a good sing that they're using the terms correctly, because people who know what the words mean know that you don't call something a "little ice age" unless A) it's a small ice age, or B) it's the Little Ice Age. So yeah, I'm going with "you don't know what the words mean, and aren't understanding the people who use them correctly".

Watch the video linked in post#65 in this thread and you can become enraged as the experts on the subject use it in the very same manner in which I did. :)

Yes, because TV shows about science are known for their high degree of accuracy. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste the majority of an hour on that. If you can offer some peer-reviewed research showing a link between volcanoes and ice ages then feel free, but a youtube video isn't going to cut it.

EDIT: And yes, I do feel I used the term adequately

Your feelings are irrevelant. Words have definitions, which you are ignoring. An ice age is not just a period of cooling. The Little Ice Age was not an ice age. Events similar to the Little Ice Age are not ice ages. Volcanos causing the Little Ice Age in no way indicates that they cause ice ages. If you have a problem with any of that I recommend you take it up with a dictionary.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

You know, I just checked that again, and again, I found the experts in the field on this subject stating, " the people were thrown into an instant Ice age" in reference to the onset after the supervolcano erruption.

Which scientific journal did you take that quote from?

If the experts in the field find that term appropriate, I would assume that you are just attempting to make a bigger deal out of something than what it is. They used it in the EXACT context I used it, referencing the same event. Apparently other more prominant geologist disagree that it causes misunderstanding and find it fine to use that reference, since they do so themselves. They didn't even bother to put " little" in front of it. It appears to me that you are making a big to-do about nothing.

If scientists are equivocating between cooling and ice ages then they're wrong, however I think it's more likely, based on your actions in this thread, that you're misrepresenting what they say. I've seen you do that with Wikipedia (and pointed out the errors, and got no response from you), so I'm not about to trust your interpretation of what the scientists say.

The fact that they "don't bother to put "little" in front of it" is a good sing that they're using the terms correctly, because people who know what the words mean know that you don't call something a "little ice age" unless A) it's a small ice age, or B) it's the Little Ice Age. So yeah, I'm going with "you don't know what the words mean, and aren't understanding the people who use them correctly".

Watch the video linked in post#65 in this thread and you can become enraged as the experts on the subject use it in the very same manner in which I did. :)

Yes, because TV shows about science are known for their high degree of accuracy. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste the majority of an hour on that. If you can offer some peer-reviewed research showing a link between volcanoes and ice ages then feel free, but a youtube video isn't going to cut it.

EDIT: And yes, I do feel I used the term adequately

Your feelings are irrevelant. Words have definitions, which you are ignoring. An ice age is not just a period of cooling. The Little Ice Age was not an ice age. Events similar to the Little Ice Age are not ice ages. Volcanos causing the Little Ice Age in no way indicates that they cause ice ages. If you have a problem with any of that I recommend you take it up with a dictionary.

This is a forum on a gaming site, not a scientific journal. If it is perfectly okay for experts to use the term in the same manner when being interviewed for a special on supervolcanos, I would find it's usage on a fourm on a gaming site more than an approriate venue for the same usage. In the video, it shows the actual core sample data for you to see with your own eyes, if you are too lazy too view that yourself, then you can do your own homework on the subject, I will not be bullied into changing the terms they themselves used on the subject, nor will I be bullied into doing your homework for you. Now if it is okay with you, I would like to continue to discuss the topic of this thread rather than cater to your derailment of it. My purpose in posting on this thread is to discuss climate change, a subject I am very much concerned with, your purpose is to harass those posting on it. There is a difference.

Lil devils x:

This is a forum on a gaming site, not a scientific journal.

No kidding. But if you're making a scientific claim, then scientific journals are a good source to use to support your claims (assuming there's any merit to them). Providing a link to such a journal would go a long way in furthering the discussion.

If it is perfectly okay for experts to use the term in the same manner when being interviewed for a special on supervolcanos, I would find it's usage on a fourm on a gaming site more than an approriate venue for the same usage.

I'm not going to waste 45 minutes on a youtube video, and based on your posts in this thread I'm not going to assume that you're correctly representing what those scientists said. After all, you used a Wikipedia article as a support for your claim despite the lack of citations and a statement about the lack of evidence for volcanoes causing ice ages.

In the video, it shows the actual core sample data for you to see with your own eyes, if you are too lazy too view that yourself, then you can do your own homework on the subject, I will not be bullied into changing the terms they themselves used on the subject, nor will I be bullied into doing your homework for you.

You're not being bullied. You're being disagreed with.

Also, ad hominem noted.

Now if it is okay with you, I would like to continue to discuss the topic of this thread rather than cater to your derailment of it.

Discussing your claims is not a derailment--you've been making claims that are false, and then dodging when the errors are pointed out.

My purpose in posting on this thread is to discuss climate change, a subject I am very much concerned with, your purpose is to harass those posting on it. There is a difference.

You're not being harassed; you're being disagreed with.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

This is a forum on a gaming site, not a scientific journal.

No kidding. But if you're making a scientific claim, then scientific journals are a good source to use to support your claims (assuming there's any merit to them). Providing a link to such a journal would go a long way in furthering the discussion.

If it is perfectly okay for experts to use the term in the same manner when being interviewed for a special on supervolcanos, I would find it's usage on a fourm on a gaming site more than an approriate venue for the same usage.

I'm not going to waste 45 minutes on a youtube video, and based on your posts in this thread I'm not going to assume that you're correctly representing what those scientists said. After all, you used a Wikipedia article as a support for your claim despite the lack of citations and a statement about the lack of evidence for volcanoes causing ice ages.

In the video, it shows the actual core sample data for you to see with your own eyes, if you are too lazy too view that yourself, then you can do your own homework on the subject, I will not be bullied into changing the terms they themselves used on the subject, nor will I be bullied into doing your homework for you.

You're not being bullied. You're being disagreed with.

Also, ad hominem noted.

Now if it is okay with you, I would like to continue to discuss the topic of this thread rather than cater to your derailment of it.

Discussing your claims is not a derailment--you've been making claims that are false, and then dodging when the errors are pointed out.

My purpose in posting on this thread is to discuss climate change, a subject I am very much concerned with, your purpose is to harass those posting on it. There is a difference.

You're not being harassed; you're being disagreed with.

I have supplied ample links in this thread for you to evaluate. Instead of addressing the content of every link in the thread, you have chose to attack a single phrase. If you would like to address the links I have already provided with data showing that data false, please feel free to do so before asking for more and making unsubstantiated claims and accusations.

If you refuse to address the links that have already been provided, including the core sample data from the video, I have nothing more to discuss with you on the subject.

"Although there are only a handful of Quaternary supervolcanoes, supervolcanic eruptions typically cover huge areas with lava and volcanic ash and cause a long-lasting change to weather (such as the triggering of a small ice age) sufficient to threaten species with extinction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/natural_disasters/supervolcano

So it is okay for BBC to use the term "small ice age" but I cannot use " little ice age"?

"During this instant ice age, temperatures dropped by as much.."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123142739.htm

"Yes, the ash will turn us into a mini ice age because it is so light"
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-supervolcano.htm

http://iceagenow.info/2012/06/civilization-ending-super-volcanoes-surprisingly-short-fuses/

But yes, we all know you are right and everyone else is wrong because of course only you can determine the proper words to use when someone else is describing something...

This would be considered a debate if we were actually debating climate change, but this isn't a debate, it is harrassment over the words "little ice age". which I have shown repeatedly used in the same context from many different sources. Oh wait here it is in the dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Little+Ice+Age
They must be wrong too...

Lil devils x:
"Although there are only a handful of Quaternary supervolcanoes, supervolcanic eruptions typically cover huge areas with lava and volcanic ash and cause a long-lasting change to weather (such as the triggering of a small ice age) sufficient to threaten species with extinction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/natural_disasters/supervolcano

So it is okay for BBC to use the term "small ice age" but I cannot use " little ice age"?

BBC is quoting Wikipedia (at the bottom it says "this entry is from Wikipedia"), and Wikipedia does not provide a citation for that claim.

Also, the fact that you think the words "small" and "little" are important here shows that you're still not understanding the issue.

"During this instant ice age, temperatures dropped by as much.."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123142739.htm

Scientists are not in agreement about whether the Toba eruption caused the resulting cooling, or about whether the cooling qualified as an ice age ( Source ).

"Yes, the ash will turn us into a mini ice age because it is so light"
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-supervolcano.htm

That claim is based off of the Toba eruption, so my above criticism applies.

http://iceagenow.info/2012/06/civilization-ending-super-volcanoes-surprisingly-short-fuses/

That article mixes up the term "ice age" and "volcanic winter"--they don't mean the same thing.

But yes, we all know you are right and everyone else is wrong because of course only you can determine the proper words to use when someone else is describing something..

I'm not determining what the words mean--they already have definitions. But by all means, continue dodging.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:
"Although there are only a handful of Quaternary supervolcanoes, supervolcanic eruptions typically cover huge areas with lava and volcanic ash and cause a long-lasting change to weather (such as the triggering of a small ice age) sufficient to threaten species with extinction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/natural_disasters/supervolcano

So it is okay for BBC to use the term "small ice age" but I cannot use " little ice age"?

BBC is quoting Wikipedia (at the bottom it says "this entry is from Wikipedia"), and Wikipedia does not provide a citation for that claim.

Also, the fact that you think the words "small" and "little" are important here shows that you're still not understanding the issue.

"During this instant ice age, temperatures dropped by as much.."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123142739.htm

Scientists are not in agreement about whether the Toba eruption caused the resulting cooling, or about whether the cooling qualified as an ice age ( Source ).

"Yes, the ash will turn us into a mini ice age because it is so light"
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-supervolcano.htm

That claim is based off of the Toba eruption, so my above criticism applies.

http://iceagenow.info/2012/06/civilization-ending-super-volcanoes-surprisingly-short-fuses/

That article mixes up the term "ice age" and "volcanic winter"--they don't mean the same thing.

But yes, we all know you are right and everyone else is wrong because of course only you can determine the proper words to use when someone else is describing something..

I'm not determining what the words mean--they already have definitions. But by all means, continue dodging.

If you had watched the video, you would see that scientists are now in agreement that the supervolcano caused a 10 year cooling after examining the core samples in greenland, what they are not in agreement of is whether the volcano set off the 1000 year cooling or not. Please get your facts straight.

Lil devils x:

If you had watched the video, you would see that scientists are now in aggreement that the supervolcano caused a 10 year cooling after examining the core samples in greenland, what they are not in agreement of is whether the volcano set off the 1000 year cooling or not.

Cooling =/= ice age.

That video is from the History Channel, which is not known for it's high degree of accuracy (science TV in general tends to have problems--oversimplification, presenting discredited or outdated ideas as though they were still accepted by mainstream scientists, and, yes, misuse of terminology).

Additionally, that video came out in 2008. In 2009 Alan Robock published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research questioning whether the Toba eruption caused an ice age, so clearly the debate is not settled (source is the same as from my previous post).

Please get your facts straight.

That's good advice. You should take it.

I believe that it's a possability. However, I also don't believe we're anywhere close to doing it yet.

Humans and all their human things occupy such a small part of the world still that I think it's silly to believe that we're affecting the world on such a scale yet. Granted, some of the things we're doing are worse than others. Worse than our evil CO2 emissions would be the deforestation down in south america. CO2 emissions can be stopped, but it's another thing to replant and let grow thousands of years of forest growth. So we do have some impact. However, the idea that we're destroying the enviroment by not driving electric cars is rediculous. In human history, starting just before the end of the second world war, how many nukes have we detonated? How many high yield bombs have we detonated? The Tsar was big enough to make a nuke look like a pop gun, and yet it didn't affect the enviroment in the same way natural events like tsunamis, hurricanes, and volcanos do.

I'm not gonna say that we can't screw up or fix the enviroment, but we're not there yet. We are still too insignificant to affect a system of that scale. Small stuff, yes, like extinctions but we're not going to suddenly, or even over the next couple hundred years, turn asia into a barren wasteland or africa into a fertile greenscape. We're just not as influential as people like to give ourselves credit for.

ShadowKatt:
I believe that it's a possability. However, I also don't believe we're anywhere close to doing it yet.

Humans and all their human things occupy such a small part of the world still that I think it's silly to believe that we're affecting the world on such a scale yet. Granted, some of the things we're doing are worse than others. Worse than our evil CO2 emissions would be the deforestation down in south america. CO2 emissions can be stopped, but it's another thing to replant and let grow thousands of years of forest growth. So we do have some impact. However, the idea that we're destroying the enviroment by not driving electric cars is rediculous. In human history, starting just before the end of the second world war, how many nukes have we detonated? How many high yield bombs have we detonated? The Tsar was big enough to make a nuke look like a pop gun, and yet it didn't affect the enviroment in the same way natural events like tsunamis, hurricanes, and volcanos do.

I'm not gonna say that we can't screw up or fix the enviroment, but we're not there yet. We are still too insignificant to affect a system of that scale. Small stuff, yes, like extinctions but we're not going to suddenly, or even over the next couple hundred years, turn asia into a barren wasteland or africa into a fertile greenscape. We're just not as influential as people like to give ourselves credit for.

While it's true that humans certainly can't "destroy" the environment in dramatic sensational ways, they don't have to. All sorts of things are dependent on things continuing to work the way they do now.

An oil spill, for example, is dramatic, but not that big in the scheme of things. But an oil spill in the right place can cause serious problems for areas dependent on fishing. A chemical spill into a river can cause all sorts of problems for years to come.

Having said that, though, people go around causing similar sorts of problems deliberately. There's plenty of other ways to give a country a good kicking rather than a few environmental changes where it hurts, and song of those are respectable, or even have a long and glorious tradition behind them.

thaluikhain:
All sorts of things are dependent on things continuing to work the way they do now.

Unfortunately it's impossible to keep things as they are now. We're going through a mass extinction, and are well past the point where the ecosystem can be restored to it's former, "blanced" state (if it's even accurate to refer to an ecosystem as "balanced"). Some things might look similar when the mass extinction ends, but we won't have the same ecosystem we have now.

BrassButtons:

thaluikhain:
All sorts of things are dependent on things continuing to work the way they do now.

Unfortunately it's impossible to keep things as they are now. We're going through a mass extinction, and are well past the point where the ecosystem can be restored to it's former, "blanced" state (if it's even accurate to refer to an ecosystem as "balanced"). Some things might look similar when the mass extinction ends, but we won't have the same ecosystem we have now.

True, but not everything is as important to the societies humans have built for themselves. As long as the things that are do, or society can adapt to the things that are that don't, it's not such a concern in that way.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked