Man vs. Earth

BRT said:
I admit, I haven't tagged along for the entire thread, but the title says it all, "Man Vs. Earth."

The article in question is 100% optics. This culture is so dumb, they believe anything they see. Including that fish "photo".
Click to expand...
Enhancing art for the persuasive argument maybe... I don't doubt that plastics release chemicals and they are polluting up our earth.. Talk about culture being dumb .. Polluting ourselves seems more dumb to me.
 
Umm... the paradigm used to visualize an atom is a visual aid to understanding the physics... it isn't a picture of an atom, and it almost certainly doesn't really look like one. It's not unusual at all to use graphics that allow the reader to picture something that isn't otherwise obvious. The task of attempting to photograph a fish in the North Atlantic eating anything at all would be daunting and expensive, let alone photographing one eating something that small. A photograph of the fish cut open to reveal the stomach contents might be a bit nastier than the editors wanted. I guess I fail to see how using a computer to generate graphics that are eye-catching and appealing in any way reflects on the science or reality of an article's content. Especially since the practice is common as cow piss, these days.
 
DSMc said:
Really? Pot meet kettle. Time for you to stop just looking at the pictures and read some research.
Click to expand...
That's my point; today's public is not reading--they are going off the pictures. That's why it is so easy for the establishment media, DC, academia, and Hollywood to drag this generation around by the nose. Since moving pictures were conceived back in the 30's, seeing is no longer believing. The thing that sets in the average household living room has been lying since it was black and white.

Oh, and my point was the optics, the "research" is easy to debunk. But they know that their quasi-research is not their strong suit--that's why the picture takes up the entire page!
 
Well, this is an article in a newspaper about the research on a subject that's had numerous articles published in the last several years. Granted, Fox News probably didn't cover any of it, they were too busy buying into the bigfoot costume in a bathtub with possum guts story. The fish graphic was likely generated by one of the media outlet content providers, since it wasn't part of anything I've read previously on the subject. I have a stack of trade journals for the chemical industry, and many of the articles contain images that are credited to the content providers (wire services that provide and disseminate research articles for the scientific community) and not to the researchers. They're sometimes photographs of the lead researchers in a lab, or a graphic that depicts a visual representation of the molecules involved, etc. to give the reader an inkling of what the article is about. These are generated, usually, by the content provider's graphic arts department because their job is to package very esoteric, technical information in a form that lay persons can understand. The articles are often written by their staff, as well... condensed versions of the research articles that can often only be comprehended by professionals within the industry. Believe it or not, research papers don't make very entertaining reading in the form they are submitted to scientific publications. The images included in chemical research papers, for example, are usually in a form of scientific notation that wouldn't make any sense at all to anyone but a chemist.

One of the articles I'm looking at shows a section of DNA molecule overlayed with a photo of the lead researcher. Is it an actual photo of the section of DNA that the article is about? Of course not. It's a "stock photo" CGI image blended into another photo of the researcher to create an eye-catching image to accompany the article. The PhD molecular biologist didn't create the image, the people responsible for getting the research material disseminated to the public, in a form they can grasp, created it. This is the way it gets done, because research scientists generally are not magazine publishing experts and have better things to do than explain molecular biology to lumberjacks.
 
JeffGu said:
Well, this is an article in a newspaper about the research on a subject that's had numerous articles published in the last several years. Granted, Fox News probably didn't cover any of it, they were too busy buying into the bigfoot costume in a bathtub with possum guts story. The fish graphic was likely generated by one of the media outlet content providers, since it wasn't part of anything I've read previously on the subject. I have a stack of trade journals for the chemical industry, and many of the articles contain images that are credited to the content providers (wire services that provide and disseminate research articles for the scientific community) and not to the researchers. They're sometimes photographs of the lead researchers in a lab, or a graphic that depicts a visual representation of the molecules involved, etc. to give the reader an inkling of what the article is about. These are generated, usually, by the content provider's graphic arts department because their job is to package very esoteric, technical information in a form that lay persons can understand. The articles are often written by their staff, as well... condensed versions of the research articles that can often only be comprehended by professionals within the industry. Believe it or not, research papers don't make very entertaining reading in the form they are submitted to scientific publications. The images included in chemical research papers, for example, are usually in a form of scientific notation that wouldn't make any sense at all to anyone but a chemist.

One of the articles I'm looking at shows a section of DNA molecule overlayed with a photo of the lead researcher. Is it an actual photo of the section of DNA that the article is about? Of course not. It's a "stock photo" CGI image blended into another photo of the researcher to create an eye-catching image to accompany the article. The PhD molecular biologist didn't create the image, the people responsible for getting the research material disseminated to the public, in a form they can grasp, created it. This is the way it gets done, because research scientists generally are not magazine publishing experts and have better things to do than explain molecular biology to lumberjacks.
Click to expand...

Well said Jeff. I went to college for Bio/Chem and read enough of the peer reviewed scholarly documents to understand their layout quite well. They can be technical, and very dry at times. Informative, yes.....but the average person usually won't crave that information so fully as to actually concentrate and focus all awareness on the reading at hand. It can be difficult to do. So these kinds of pictures and visual stimulations can be helpful if not used to deliberately deceive. If you want to dig deep, you can probably find what your looking for on BOTH sides of any argument.

That's the tough part. There is so much darn "information" out there, and everyone thinks they are "right." This creates such confusion and lack of trust in the information, that no one knows what the hell to believe anymore. Well, I don't at least :loco:

On a positive note, I think there is a Truth deep within us that we all crave, and is accessible to every human being if you are sincere in your desire to know it....but that is a whole different conversation...anywho... climb safe dudes and dudettes! : )
 
Last edited:
Some people get their "research" from the same place Al Gore does. No thank you.

Get ready! Ten years ago, Al Gore predicted this would happen THIS MONTH!
Written by The Analytical Economist on January 3, 2016
al_gore-300x180.jpg


If climate change alarmists are going to continue to make predictions, they could save themselves a good deal of embarrassment by predicting out into the future long after they’ll be dead.
Gore predicted, when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was first released at the Sundance Film Festival, that the earth would be in “a true planetary emergency” within the next ten years unless drastic action was taken to reduce greenhouse gases.
CBS News reported at the time that Gore’s film predicted the worst-case scenarios would be a new ice age in Europe, massive floods in China, India, and other areas. Gore described himself as a “recovering politician” to the Sundance audience at the time and that he “benefits from low expectations.”
 
BRT said:
That's my point; today's public is not reading--they are going off the pictures. That's why it is so easy for the establishment media, DC, academia, and Hollywood to drag this generation around by the nose. Since moving pictures were conceived back in the 30's, seeing is no longer believing. The thing that sets in the average household living room has been lying since it was black and white.

Oh, and my point was the optics, the "research" is easy to debunk. But they know that their quasi-research is not their strong suit--that's why the picture takes up the entire page!
Click to expand...
To you its man vs. Man and dog eat dog then? How is The research easy to debunk? Do you believe anybody? Do you believe in making your world a good place or care about it? If I told you I've swam religiously in a once beautiful estuary for years now and have been watching it die more each time I return.. will you take my word on that or call me a lair? Do you think its just normal or a cycle that this just an occurance, that fish for example aren't around like they once were or eel grass for example, one of the mainstays in the ecology and what's left is mostly covered with algae chocking it out. Ahh fuck it ..it Don't matter. You probably don't believe that anyway. What ever Man. You aint gonna change the world right. So no thing matters ?
 
Treetopflyer said:
To you its man vs. Man and dog eat dog then? How is The research easy to debunk? Do you believe anybody? Do you believe in making your world a good place or care about it? If I told you I've swam religiously in a once beautiful estuary for years now and have been watching it die more each time I return.. will you take my word on that or call me a lair? Do you think its just normal or a cycle that this just an occurance, that fish for example aren't around like they once were or eel grass for example, one of the mainstays in the ecology and what's left is mostly covered with algae chocking it out. Ahh fuck it ..it Don't matter. You probably don't believe that anyway. What ever Man. You aint gonna change the world right. So no thing matters ?
Click to expand...
You mentioned an estuary--yes, I believe you. I also believe that BP spilled millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf. That was remedied; both by human intervention, and natural purification processes. I also believe that Mt. St. Helens erupted and belched debris, rock, & ash for miles. Today it is a lush thriving habitat. I also believe that there were atomic occurrences in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki and today they are almost completely returned to their former stabilized condition. These are all micro.

The lies that are being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace is that we are facing global catastrophe. Think about it:
-Your parents were told that they were facing the next ice age.
-When you and I were in school, we were told that the globe was warming.
-My kids and yours are being told that the climate is changing. "Oops, our models were wrong." "We've finally got them tweaked so that they can accurately predict the future doom." Do you realize that there has never been a time when they believed their models or predictions were wrong? Not until they were proven wrong that is. So the lie has devolved into the most convenient deception that has ever been brewed--Climate Change. No matter what the weather does, man is doing it, and it is BAD. Last winter the record colds were evidence of climate change. This fall/winter, the record milds have been evidence of climate change.

You can drink the cool aid if you want, but this tripe is the same thing it's always been about-- Control. Like most other things--follow the money; BIG MONEY. Solyndra was not an isolated case; it just got all the attention. But money that's made from this green revolution is not the main thrust. George Soros, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, Buffet, Carl Ichan, & the rest want a decreased population. Ted Turner is on record as saying that the world population needs to be 500,000. Why? Because they want the resources for themselves, their families, and other elites. And they've found a way. You're eating right out of their hand. Limited resources--yea, keep reducing. I think Johnny Pro even advocated, in one of those posts, that we start killing ourselves off. That is precisely the mindset they desire. Why is homosexuality and abortion championed by the establishment media, Washington DC, academia, and Hollywood?--Population Control.

But who's gonna decide who is worthy of this precious thing called life? Me? You? Would you trust your gov't? How about the UN?

Maybe you like China's formula?--1 child per person--have any more and we'll kill them. What, that's infringement of your rights? All for the good of the globe, right?

Germany is so "forward thinking" that their birth rate is no longer keeping pace with their death rate. Talk about compulsory... I mean voluntary? Oh well, in this case, one will lead to the other.
 
Wow, BRT, you have some messed up logic and you are not even looking at a fraction of the information you have formed opinions on. Most all who have studied this subject have little concern that the earth will survive. The debate is whether we will.

But let's say all this is a farce, can you honestly say that you believe that mankind is doing things right? Do you shower, brush your teeth, shave occasionally. Why? It wouldn't kill you to shit on the dining room floor, so do you do that? Is it really unreasonable to view our world as a beautiful place that is worth at the very least keeping as clean?
 
Treetopflyer said:
This is what I'm talking about. Every person can choose to make a small positive change @BRT
Click to expand...
Is that what the recent summit in Paris was about? Is that what global carbon taxes are about? Is that what regulations limiting firewood heat is about? Personal Choice--I don't think so.

DSMc said:
Wow, BRT, you have some messed up logic and you are not even looking at a fraction of the information you have formed opinions on.
Click to expand...
Unlike many, I am not an opinion denier. As to whether my logic is "messed up", should be easy for you to poke holes in it--or was it easier to say, "...you have some messed up logic." Regarding "half the information"; go back to what I said in the last post. 30 years ago, it was a coming ice age, 15 years ago, it was global warming, now it's climate change. Do you think the "scientists" who generated those "models" had a fraction of their information correct? When they were 180 degrees out on two of their most recently observable predictions? Want the truth? They have OPINIONS too. Most of their opinions are steered by money. Do you think they could sit around and study whale habits for years on end without the deep pockets of the movers/shakers of the world? Monolithic gov't grants? The pretense that they are these completely objective observers is a bigger lie than the conclusions they "observe".


Is your plan to keep the planet as clean as your mouth?
 
BRT said:
.....Is your plan to keep the planet as clean as your mouth?
Click to expand...

My "plan" is to live my life with the understanding that I am of this world and to give it the same respect and care I would give to myself. I work hard and utilize all of my physical and mental resources. I understand that in order for this to keep working, even over the length of my short life, I need to take care of what I have.
 
Last edited:
BRT, you are quite correct in many of the examples you stated, but most of what you reference is what made it into high profile media. All of which (as you stated) suffers from the bias and inaccuracy of money and public interest. Do you go and think beyond this? Because what goes mainstream is nothing more than the pretty pictures, the publishing hooks, that you railed against in an earlier post.

Mike and Jeff referenced the difficulties found in absorbing available information that is not mainstream. With so much out there it does become a juggling act and there are no easy answers. But sometimes, you can just take some time to look around and ask yourself, does that make sense?
 
What if it's not man vs earth? Did we forget the details again? What if it is 'man for earth'? A little less earth for man. Consider the solution more, and the over whelming main stream problem less. Maybe it should be 'man on earth', because that is what it is. Who knew?
I shit in clean water yet I love swimming in the lakes. I put my garbage on the curb yet I frown upon litter. I'm disconnected. But I just blend in so who cares?
People have slowly become emotionally disconnected from the earth. Now we have a huge population of people who don't care. And we have a huge population of people who do care, However, Within the caring people, we only have a small yet growing population of people who actually practise earth care. Not only preach it. At this point I feel a bit hypocritical but I could be worse. I could be an average Canadian. I could be better, I could be an average Costa Rican, if you follow the 'Forbes cleanest countries' which refers to gdp per capita. Ha. But Forbes list is something to go by and shows we could learn from our ancestors in Europe.
Some People don't want to accept that they can change and improve their earth care practices. They figure it's a lost cause. It's too easy to follow mom and dad and the main stream and blend in. And incredibly acceptable. Conformity is cool. And I'm a cool sheep. Water down the drain, garbage to the curb, fuel up the fuel tanks.
Shigo I believe, was the guy that said that there is no waste in nature. What if everything is related and there is no waste on earth? Everything you see, is of this earth. And don't bother looking at Mars and stars. Life is probably out there. Or it may be out there. Who knows? I know that life is here, and we are compromising it. So now we need to focus on maintaining and preserving it. Possibly even bringing it back. (Extinct yet dna recorded species)
Ironically, I have to go deal with shit. These nice folks want to increase there house from 5000 or more to 6000 or more. So they need a larger septic system. Luckily the expansion is into an area of EAB dead ash. A few small sugars will come down, and sadly, only a few reach the bylaw limit for replacements. But the bigger question is, 'why is it even legal to build a house greater than 3000 feet let alone 6000 feet?' 10 Foreign families would live in there.
People argue that it is there property, they should be able to do what they want. It's not though. It's earths property. It's OUR world. Respect it. It's not a free world for the taking, it's a greed world for the taking and ruining. Property ownership gets taken advantage of. Like an ignorant cop abusing his power.
This square footage issue is a classic example of our increasing disconnection through glamour, greed and capitalism.
It was 0 Fahrenheit this morning. A beautiful sunny day. It's warming up. But that's not the point. It's the getting dirty and mixed up. If you stir the earth enough, eventually it will throw up. Who knows what it will look like? Who wants to know? Looks like most of us do. Oh, the suspense. And if any thing is wasted, it's the garden.
Throw fuel on the fire, throw fuel in the truck. Turn a blind eye, cause who gives a _____?
Figuratively speaking, We need to stop ____ing the earth, we need to make love to it. We need to cherish it. This long message and all we really need is to listen to DSMc, and live 'of' the earth. Not 'off' the earth. It seems so obvious yet so far away. The least I could do, is bring the earth closer to myself. Imagine we all did this. It's not an infinite earth, and it's not an infinite problem.
Anyway, seriously, I need to hammer number plates on trees. Sorry, gps not mainstream for this one. Too many old school people involved, including me. Gonna attempt to save a big sugars roots though.
Next time I hope I drive a Prius to carry me, or a bike cause I'm local. And I hope it's to Change a plan to a smaller house and requires a planting plan for the increase in forest. It's not funny. This will happen, at least somewhere. Probably in Europe.
Every leaf counts. Every litre of gas, every garbage bag, every square foot.
Here is an attempt to scale down the size of this small earth. Take a square piece of land 113x113 km. that is 1 degree by 1 degree. From one degree parallel to the next is 113km. The earth is small.
0076a93c9d503b13a19b53a64c6a30e9.jpg

and still we have this on the shelf. Not because we need it but simply because it is still in demand and still makes a buck.
e0c7f7d536c4eaa6f9c045291f95fc63.jpg

The other side says 'cleaning cars wastes water'. Driving them wastes fuel. But if there is no waste, then grey water could be cycled to clean cars and. And the fuel isn't wasted, it's burned and transformed.
Basically, the earth was a completed puzzle. Not perfect, but sound. We keep taking pieces out, sometimes cutting them up and trying to put them back in. Sometimes throwing them away. Chaos Theory says it won't go back together but at least we could double or triple or multiply 100, our time or at least the time of life on earth. Ultimately life of people and life otherwise will likely end and that's ok. Not perfect. We will leave footprints, but why not try to finish with an effort to regain pride. Something a distant life form could look at as honourable.
This message was brought to you by the sun. It kept me warm in my truck. Thanks to the greenhouse effect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am a conservationist. I believe that most people will take care of their local environment, as will most corporations, to the best of their ability.

I absolutely resent the government enacting policy under the auspices of caring for the climate. They simply cannot/will not make better decisions than individuals and private enterprise.
Want examples of their failure?
-Public schools
-Public welfare
-Social Security
-The national deficit
-Obamacare
-Recent EPA spill

What about industry "meeting" their standards? Volkswagen--how many environmentalists bought their diesels because they were assured that they were "saving the planet"? VW is not the only business enjoying governmental environmentally friendly kickbacks, while doing what they want behind the scenes. They're just the one that got caught. Do you think the gov't, the UN, or the research scientists can be trusted any more than the businesses that "backdoor" the system?

This nut just passed further gun control law through executive action. The giant fist is closing around the throat of the American people. And it's all about Control.
 
"Shigo I believe, was the guy that said that there is no waste in nature."
Did you know that tree roots grow as much as they possibly can--in length & girth? Regardless of the tree's nutritional needs? Ever see a cat kill a mouse, then just play with it? I've seen horses founder so bad that they cannot even walk on their front legs. Little waste--accurate; "no waste"--fairy tale.

"These nice folks want to increase there house from 5000 or more to 6000 or more. So they need a larger septic system. Luckily the expansion is into an area of EAB dead ash. A few small sugars will come down, and sadly, only a few reach the bylaw limit for replacements. But the bigger question is, 'why is it even legal to build a house greater than 3000 feet let alone 6000 feet?' 10 Foreign families would live in there.
People argue that it is there property, they should be able to do what they want. It's not though. It's earths property."
=Control...Who gets to choose what life is "worthy"? You redtree? Maybe you'll volunteer yours? Let's see how much you care about the planet. No, the fact is, everyone wants such things imposed on others.

This is the crux of the entire matter--the USA is the last place on earth where personal property has any meaning at all. Freedom trades in the currency of personal property. Do you realize that was one of the only laws that kept blacks subservient to whites after the Civil War. They couldn't own property. Without property ownership, they couldn't vote. Once environmentalists control what you can & cannot do with your property--it is no longer your property. And by the way--it will belong to someone. "Mother Earth" doesn't have an army. "Mother Earth" doesn't write & enforce law. Those who control the climate law will control your freedoms and mine, because they will control our property. Those resources equal power; which will be wielded to dominate and impose their will.

"Next time I hope I drive a Prius to carry me, or a bike cause I'm local. And I hope it's to Change a plan to a smaller house and requires a planting plan for the increase in forest. It's not funny. This will happen, at least somewhere. Probably in Europe.
Every leaf counts. Every litre of gas, every garbage bag, every square foot.
Here is an attempt to scale down the size of this small earth. Take a square piece of land 113x113 km. that is 1 degree by 1 degree. From one degree parallel to the next is 113km. The earth is small."
=More control. Do not pass go, place your head directly in the noose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom