Concerning, at present, probably the most important topic of your life

[Muel]

Tonnes and tons don't come into my line of work much- it's all about Newtons or kg's... Unless we're talking dimensions at which point (probably thanks partly to biking) things go from being metric at small scales, to imperial part way through, to metric again at larger scales again. "That needs to be about 10mm, but it needs to be placed about 6" from that nut and 3m up on top of the tunnel".

Haha, tis the life of any form of engineer in Britain. My Dad is a CNC Turner and constantly has to convert between metric and imperial. Even has a set of whitworth spanners somewhere too.

Metric to imperial to metric sounds truly horrendous! What is your job role Dave?

There's an app for that.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Metric to imperial to metric sounds truly horrendous! What is your job role Dave?

Wind tunnel manager at Southampton Uni but the way my brain works (knowing 20", 26" wheels but M5, M6 screws etc. from bikes) I tend to switch almost seamlessly depending on the application. Below about 50mm things are in mm, it then becomes inches and feet up to maybe a metre and then changes back into metres beyond that (for the most part). I guess it doesn't help that our main wind tunnels are old imperial units (one being 7' x 5', the other 11' x 8') but when I speak to customers on the phone I convert those to metric again!!

[Ali C]

Juuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssst out of question Dave, Do you believe in the Illuminate?

[eskimo]

Was only a matter of time before this thread went off somewhere else i guess.

To those who didn't read all the stuff, there was some philosophical meaning behind certain posts. Those were the main ones, but the majority of people are too wrapped up in their lives to try and understand such philosophical matters.

Just for the record, i believe in the modern day Illuminati. But it has quite a loose meaning now, so in the form of "one controls all", i think is true. It's not hard to comprehend some from of something owns all the money. Obviously there are independent countries and nations, but i'm sure even they have some money being exported. It's definitely a weird one.

[trialsiain]

Was only a matter of time before this thread went off somewhere else i guess.

To those who didn't read all the stuff, there was some philosophical meaning behind certain posts. Those were the main ones, but the majority of people are too wrapped up in their lives to try and understand such philosophical matters.

Just for the record, i believe in the modern day Illuminati. But it has quite a loose meaning now, so in the form of "one controls all", i think is true. It's not hard to comprehend some from of something owns all the money. Obviously there are independent countries and nations, but i'm sure even they have some money being exported. It's definitely a weird one.

Or they have more important stuff to be doing and just dont care..

[1a2bcio8]

Or they have more important stuff to be doing and just dont care..

Or they're too blinkered to even consider an alternative way of looking at the world regardless of what that might mean to the quality of theirs and other peoples lives.

Deep regret is inevitably what people will experience if we lose the NHS (two-tier system of rich and poor), experience droughts (potentially 2025 or sooner), flooding (already more common but set to increase), famine, etc.

I suspect fear and an attempt to rationalise it away makes up a significant amount of most peoples responses in this thread. The fear of actually facing difficult realities, the fear of change and also the fear of having possibly been wrong. Apathy is a powerful tool for shutting down emotions that might otherwise cause distress but is achieved by deadening a part of yourself in the process; a part that can enrichen your life. It's somewhat akin to not seeing the doctor about a lump because of the possibility it might be cancer. No doubt that process has lots of denial and rationalising and it might help you feel better at present but it threatens to completely tear down those things you're trying to protect.

No doubt most of you will read this and automatically dismiss it with annoyance, disinterest or something similar without really giving any thought to it - and then maybe you'll argue against it despite that. Perhaps take a moment to consider what your motivations are as you do though.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[trialsiain]

this is getting way to deep.

[1a2bcio8]

this is getting way to deep.

Why is that a problem? Properly ask yourself?

[Muel]

Why is that a problem? Properly ask yourself?

Because life is too short to bother?

[1a2bcio8]

But then did you miss what I said? You're saying the quality of your life would be interfered by thinking about what's happening too much but yet not thinking about things has the very real possibility of interfering with your quality of life in a significantly worse way. I can't see you arguing against things like drought, flooding, no NHS, etc. (which is kind of a minor list of the problems we're facing) as being better than 'thinking' about what's happening with yourself and the world around you. This is called burying your head in the sand which contains the delusion that hiding your attention about reality can somehow make what is not good about it go away.

In other words, and the primary point I've been trying to make, there is a contradiction between what you say you want and what you are actually doing. Wanting a good quality of life requires thinking about life. There's no escaping that fact.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[MadManMike]

Ben, whilst I agree with you, I'm sure half of the troubles you post on here are actually caused by the fact that you over think everything.

In other threads, some small points made by others are over analysed to a degree I've never seen before - hard to explain, but to me it seems you should do less thinking and more living.

[Muel]

I think you've misunderstood Ben, I meant that life is too short for discussions this deep and this long about issues that may or may not be fact or come to pass. I never said life is too short to care about drought, flooding or the NHS!

[1a2bcio8]

Ben, whilst I agree with you, I'm sure half of the troubles you post on here are actually caused by the fact that you over think everything.

In other threads, some small points made by others are over analysed to a degree I've never seen before - hard to explain, but to me it seems you should do less thinking and more living.

I am living and my life has always become richer the more I've explored it and found that some behaviours I've engaged in weren't good for me. This includes behaviours I've been pushed into by society and others that I am, like everyone else, at risk of adopting regardless of what most of society is doing. Thinking about life - what you're doing, what's happening around you, etc. - is the basis for developing a saner, happier one rather than the inescapable foundation for having an unhappy one because you're bogged down by thought. Undoubtedly you risk thinking too much and I have been there in my teens but like everything in life you need balance. Thinking too much or too little are both detrimental.

I think you've misunderstood Ben, I meant that life is too short for discussions this deep and this long about issues that may or may not be fact or come to pass. I never said life is too short to care about drought, flooding or the NHS!

The fact that there is any debate, particularly one that comes with such emphasis from the scientific community, and contains the involvement of eminent scientists, studies in the most prestigious scientific journals, etc. warning us of the dangers of global warming should be enough to make you pause. Most of what's happening is not being debated. There is more carbon in the atmosphere and this is a greenhouse gas. It has been steadily increasing at faster and faster rates since the Industrial era (1800s). We've achieved an increase that usually happens over thousands of years in just a couple of hundred. Most of the debate is centred around precisely how this will affect us but science can make pretty accurate predictions about what will. It's important to consider the fact that much of the 'science' that denies global warming relates to or is funded by large energy companies with obvious vested interests. In their absence, there would undoubtedly be significantly less confusion about global warming.

Furthermore, the situation of the NHS is completely grounded in fact. What is happening is contained within the policy changes to the NHS that allow for corporate buy outs, decreased transparency, etc. If you take the time research you will find the exact details within the policy. Most NHS staff are against the changes. We've already seen a massive loss of jobs within the NHS, the closing down of hospitals, specialised services, etc. all that have already cost lives and will continue to do so.

These are just some examples of what's happening and will happen that's grounded in sound evidence and fact. I'd list more but undoubtedly you'd find some way of viewing what I've said that allows you to continue to ignore the problems we are all facing.

One more thing though actually; in your every day experience every decision is made upon a probability. If you ignored any situation or information because it had some degree of probability you wouldn't do anything. A lot of things have a good probability though. It's just you choose to emphasis the condition of probability in those areas you don't want to deal with as though its a quality only contained there. Science is even probabilistic yet it functions pretty well in its dealings with the material world. If there's a good probability of a powerful storm would you sail? I don't think you'd say "oh well, 90% doesn't really mean much, I'd only listen if the chance was 100%."

I think I'll probably end my involvement in this thread at this point as there seems little purpose to continuing.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[eskimo]

Or they have more important stuff to be doing and just dont care..

this is getting way to deep.

But yet "they" have time for an opinion. What is being asked is that people use this available time to relearn about their current understandings, but yet people refuse to because of subconscious thoughts. Until i talked to Ben in person, i wasn't sure what he was asking. But what he was asking, was what i was doing anyway.

I think you've misunderstood Ben, I meant that life is too short for discussions this deep and this long about issues that may or may not be fact or come to pass. I never said life is too short to care about drought, flooding or the NHS!

But from Ben's perspective you have to; to fully understand why people are making the choices they are.

Talking about these topics doesn't require such thinking, but when talking about why, who etc, it does.

I can't explain myself via typing, never can.

[ooo]

When we talk about the world going pear shaped we are not worried about our own lives. Every one of us will die, we will all experience our own 'end of the world'. So caring about environmental and social change is about thinking about the direction of the human race and trying to prevent suffering across future generations.

Or they have more important stuff to be doing and just dont care..

Fortunately for you generations of people have sacrificed their time to do this before you; which means that you aren't lying in a puddle of your own filth dying or suffering under a dictatorship.

The progress of the human race has only been perpetuated by the few, and those few need support. Most people in fact do nothing but take in their whole lives and contribute nothing at least be grateful for the scientists, engineers, politicians and soldiers that have sacrificed so much for us.

The way i see it. I can tolerate people who are so ungrateful for life on earth and incapable of compassion to their fellow humans that they can't even see why someone would want to discuss things that affect our future, but I think those people should be ashamed of themselves when they try to stop others from engaging in a positive activity.

Deep regret is inevitably what people will experience if we lose the NHS (two-tier system of rich and poor), experience droughts (potentially 2025 or sooner), flooding (already more common but set to increase), famine, etc.

Unfortunately, I think these people won't regret. To regret, you have to be aware that you are responsible for the consequences of your choices, and that you have a choice and a duty to make an informed choice. These people will probably just see it as an absurdity that has been imposed on them, they will think 'life is shit I don't deserve this' and continue not thinking and not helping. When it is exactly what they have earned.

Because life is too short to bother?

Its not the length of life that brings meaning it what you do in that time. If you think that taking a small amount of time to concern yourself with topics like environmental change is a waste of your life, then it really says a lot about you.

In other words, and the primary point I've been trying to make, there is a contradiction between what you say you want and what you are actually doing. Wanting a good quality of life requires thinking about life. There's no escaping that fact.

It does, but lazy people leave it to the very few to think about things and make change for the better....

but to me it seems you should do less thinking and more living.

and this is exactly why we have people that spend so much time thinking.

[1a2bcio8]

Recent article that highlights global warming events grounded in sound science:

"But the more important point to remember is that never in the history of the planet have humans altered the atmosphere as radically as we are doing so now. And the climatic consequences for us are likely to be radical as well, on a time-scale far faster than humans have ever experienced."

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/03/07/an-inevitable-headline-in-2014-planets-co2-level-reaches-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-existence/

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

and this is exactly why we have people that spend so much time thinking.

Theoreticians won't save the planet. In fact academics researching what's happening won't save the planet, especially if the Illuminati are hell bent on taking over the world with big businesses and are in it purely for profit. And if the governments are spraying shit in the sky that's making things worse we're really f**ked.

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/03/07/an-inevitable-headline-in-2014-planets-co2-level-reaches-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-existence/

But then http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html

[ooo]

Theoreticians won't save the planet.

Yes you are right, but thinking (and discussing) is the first step in doing. Not thinking or doing without thinking is unlikely to create positive change.

I'm not saying its all we need, but it is important. We have so much power that we aren't harnessing. For example if you look at the work of Prof. Gene Sharp a non-violent actionist and author. Long story short, he wrote some books and people like me and you in oppressed countries read them and a small number of people spread ideas and lead a movement to regain their freedom. So far IIRC non-hostile takeovers have been carried out in Burma, Serbia, Georgia,Ukraine plus a few more.

[1a2bcio8]

Theoreticians won't save the planet. In fact academics researching what's happening won't save the planet, especially if the Illuminati are hell bent on taking over the world with big businesses and are in it purely for profit. And if the governments are spraying shit in the sky that's making things worse we're really f**ked.

But then http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html

The science underpinning the 'The Global Climate Swindle' has been massively debunked. Check out, as one example, the following:

"The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media

Mainstream scientific opinion has been unable to find a better explanation for the change in global temperature increase (through CO2 emissions) than man made causes. There will always be people that see things differently and rightly so but just because those people exist doesn't make them right. Most of you subscribe deeply to science - I know this from past debates on religion - so if the model on anthropogenic global warming (man made climate change) has survived falsification - for many decades - and for that reason is supported by a significant majority consensus within the scientific community then really you need to take it seriously. Unless you want to contradict yourself.

[1a2bcio8]

Theoreticians won't save the planet. In fact academics researching what's happening won't save the planet.

As ooo points out, ideas are where we begin and anyway, science goes beyond theory and usually tends to offer practical solutions to problems. Global warming is no longer a hypothesis but a tested theory that has withstood continued efforts to deny its accuracy. Just how quickly its effects will harm us or the extent of them is more debatable but the fact of it radically changing the world as we know is pretty much accepted.

In terms of us just discussing matters this is the fundamental ground from which change follows. Without a discussion, an understanding, etc. nothing more could ever come. Actions always follow from intentions which are grounded in intentions that exist in a set of ideas and feelings. Without a specific shaping of those things appropriate actions would not follow.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Global warming is no longer a hypothesis but a tested theory that has withstood continued efforts to deny its accuracy.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. As said before, climate change is clearly happening but the theories of what's causing it, what the end result will be, if we can affect it etc. are varied and much of it apparently guesswork. I'm still not convinced either way but also don't see a massive point in us going to the n^th degree to do all we can when countries like China, India and America are burning everything like it's going out of fashion and causing far, far more damage than we can ever hope to fix.

[1a2bcio8]

Some nice easy reading based upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that contradicts your position:

"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate systemis unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."

"The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.^[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years isattributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.^[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.^[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.^[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.^[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions." - my emphasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It's interesting to note that the last effort to deny this science originated from those working within the oil industry...

Also, since then the consensus has gradually concluded that estimates at the rate of change have usually been too conservative.

[1a2bcio8]

Furthermore, stating that the actions of other countries is a reason not to make any effort yourself is a total logical fallacy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. How do you expect anyone else to change if you yourself are unwilling? If we never did anything different because everyone else was the same then life would become totally stuck yet the nature of life, given history, shows that everything is totally changeable and is so on a grand scale. It does, however, always begin with minorities and people who make the effort regardless of what the majority are doing. A change within, in particular, a powerful and wealthy nation could bring about momentum elsewhere.

America has the greatest CO2 emissions per american but China outputs significantly less per person. In that sense, Europe generates more CO2 emissions. Overall we're pretty similar though.

[Rusevelt]

Is there any connection with some the extreme natural disasters that happened in 2012, and if so, will these natural disaster become even more apparent from all the relevant studies and analysis?

[1a2bcio8]

As I understand it, yes.

So expect, in the UK, in all likelihood, colder winters and wetter summers.