May 21 2011, OOPS, its not the end of the world...

[tcmtech]

Well for some time now they, the unnamed established religions, (We know who) have been going on about how today is going to be the end of the world.

Why The World Is Going To End On May 21, 2011
YouTube - ‪WARNING! Rapture on 21 May 2011 & End of the World on 21 Oct 2011‬‏
Judgment Day May 21: When will the world actually end? - CSMonitor.com

OH WAIT!!!! There is still hope it may happen, Its not 6 PM local time.
(Which local time, being there are 24 of them world wide?)

The end-of-the-world FAQ sheet : Hot Topics

OOOPS... Did they get the day wrong again and who gets to explain how this is not a scam?

Oh ya a backup date just in case someones wrong, thats how.

**broken link removed**

Well anyway I am still here and its officially 6 PM May 21 2011 someplace on this planet now. How about you, Global Warming anyone?

 

[Sceadwian]

Not really worth commenting on, nut jobbers have been making claims about the end of the world forever.
heh yet I cared enough to post this =)

 

[Dr_Doggy]

...........



ever hear of the 7TH day adventist, and how they started?

>one day a christ follower drew some imaginary lines from the bible, and concluded that his return was going to happen on a Saturday of some week,,, so he goes out,,, waits..... nothing.....goes back .....recalculates.......and discovers that he had the wrong Saturday, so he goes out the next week.... LOOP<

the funny thin is that every Saturday he went out someone would ask him(them) what they were doing ,,, he/they explained, thus gaining another follower x=2n^2 or watever,, now they are big bro exempt cult!!

 

[Sceadwian]

There's plenty of them out there, a lot of sheeple in the world.

 

[tcmtech]

I just thought it was sort of funny being that they have been pushing this May 21 2011 end of the world bit for some time.

I think I first became aware of it at least a few years ago now.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I just thought it was sort of funny being that they have been pushing this May 21 2011 end of the world bit for some time.

I think I first became aware of it at least a few years ago now.

I thought they gave up giving exact dates, and had settled on saying 'soon'

 

[upand_at_them]

Years ago, there was this lady who hung out at the sports stadium in my city. She was always there, shouting to the fans walking to the game, that the world was going to end in three days. It was always three days from today, because I guess she thought...if she lives long enough eventually she'll be right.

 

[Sceadwian]

The reasonable Christians out there did Nigel, they realized how stupid it made them look and kills their recruiting abilities. These fringe lunatics are just that, money grubbing opportunists with a thin vener of holyness to make it all look legit.

 

[ThermalRunaway]

Well, making a 'prediction' that the world is going to end at some point in the future without offering any dates is absolutely no insight whatsoever. Everyone knows the world is going to end some day, that's pretty obvious. If some local natural disaster doesn't do it, and we don't get destroyed by collision with some large body in space, then eventually the world will be engulfed by our own Sun as it enters the red giant stage.

We don't need religion to tell us the world is going to end some day, it's already pretty obvious to everyone. And we don't need any supernatural God to be the cause of it either, it can just as well happen on its own!

 

[tcmtech]

Further investigation shows he has been at this for a while. In 1994 he tried it the first time, obviously without success.

12 failed end of the world predictions, for 1990 to 1994

NEWS: Camping Misses End of World | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Rapture Hangover: Can Harold Camping Come Out To Play?: Gothamist


Maybe he needs to talk tot he Global Warming and Climate Change spin masters about how to go about doing a right and proper large scale scam.

He should have spent the money on money grubbing scientists instead of billboard companys to back him up!

 

[ericgibbs]

We keep talking about the end of the World, don't we really mean the end of Mankind [ and to be PC, also Womankind]..??

My best guess is the World will be around a long time after humanity has become another fossilised species.

Hopefully the next 'top' life form in evolution will have more more 'savvy' than the current one.

 

[upand_at_them]

Maybe he needs to talk tot he Global Warming and Climate Change spin masters about how to go about doing a right and proper large scale scam.

He should have spent the money on money grubbing scientists instead of billboard companys to back him up!

Yeah, all those "money grubbing" scientists who barely make any money at all and do the work for the love of it. Versus the global warming deniers of big business who have a real financial incentive to lie....they're want EVEN MORE money.

 

[Sceadwian]

<Please note all of the statements I am about to make are personal and not meant to be a definitive declaration about anything or a challenge to any other persons point of view, merely the expression of my thoughts based on the thread's evolution to date>

Yes, exactly that ericgibbs, but so much more! It is about end times, for the universe, for the world, for the end of mankind, or for the end of an individual, and the fundamental failure for humans to understand their own consciousness. It all stems from it's roots, the end of our our perceived existences. There is almost nothing that terrifies the average human being like the unequivocally guaranteed statement that who I am will cease to exist at some point in the future which I can not determine. It is the sheer irrational but very quiet fear that builds up in some people that leads to these type of dramatic events, especially considering as we age we noticed that we age and gradually come closer to the realization that the actualization of our existence ceasing sinks in.

The universe as we know it is in a constant state of change, that is the only constant (physics people please no comments ;>) and humans in general hate change they want stability, sanity, safety, comfort, in a world that changes around us faster than we can deal with it. A physical species can go extinct or change, but what all this about is the human consciousness itself which has developed because our mental facilities have become so complex that overall system interactions in the mind have created something that is perceived (by itself) as a distinctly separate entity, science has shown that consciousness doesn't exist in any one portion of the brain it's a total interaction of the components awake at once that defines our state of mind during our waking moments.

When we sleep much of the brain go into a low activity state while others stay active, and there's a cyclic change in what portions are active at any given time, which leads to dreams. During conscious moments when various portions of the brain are in these higher activity states leads to our 'state of mind' and again these change constantly driven strictly speaking by the system as a whole attempting to keep itself running, that's what life does, it tries to live.

Humans have evolved biologically to the point where we have some of the best overall physical system to manipulate our environment in as many ways as possible, we're super adaptable. The brain has developed as well because of this extreme human flexibility, and more importantly ability to affect our environment to the degree where we have changed what 'naturally' would be occurring with so much feedback from our own actions that we're effecting the system in which we exist.

More to the point the basics of life food clothing and shelter are virtually guaranteed for the bulk of the population, at least enough for survival.

People take input from all around them, so what they learn as they grow begins to define them as a human being as time passes, some are fed information so strict it overrides even common sense, because common sense isn't actually common at all, all of our 'sense' has to be taught, we have some default reactions that lean us in the right direction to survival but those reflexes are typically not needed in the current human populations because you don't have to be a good hunter to live, you just have to pull in a paycheck enough to afford the basics, or perhaps grown out of insufficient good teaching live in a welfare system where because of the growing conditions you must be cared for by others or the state.

Regardless of all this survival is no longer a problem for us, just the inevitable end. In some people the desire to survive carries over into the conscious mind, and the mind will concoct any number of ways to deny what is known because the simple truth can't be accepted for what we're designed for (to live).

The true sadness I see here is the people that focus their lives on this simple truth; we will all die. If we fill our lives with this preoccupation with change, in other words the end of our biological and conscience existence then we're filling our life with voided experience opportunities. These people ever truly enjoyed their lives as much as they could because they were so preoccupied with it's end that they forsake satisfactions we can achieve while living that make life what it should be for a healthy consciousness, which is just that, growth.

Growth by increasing knowledge through new experiences till the day our consciousness' cease is the only solution to live a happy life, and I'm not talking emotionally happy, that's a small portion of the human consciousness even if it does have a large effect on our actions. I've only been alive for a scant 33 years and I barely consider myself an aware individual, from when I started at my first moments of consciousness I have made so many mistakes and errors it's amazing I've made it this far at all! But I'm learning from those mistakes, and that is to me what living is about; to learn.

The people that go to these extremes in their lives are the ones that are having circular logic blocks in their mind, they are not flowing forward they are caught forever in some perceived existence that is only in their mind fearful of some outcome that is so opposite to their known existence that they refuse it could be something to grow and learn from, we'll never find any truth, only growth.

These people have died before their bodies are gone, their consciousness is so fixed so unmovable that it will deny further input regardless of the source because in their minds reality is different.

I can state nothing more than the complete sadness I feel for individuals that close their minds to anything; while we must act in a system (the world and governments around us) when we become entrenched we become categorized, and we entrench ourselves deeper because that's comforting to the mind to be defined and know(n), and that leads into the pure death that is believing in something for the sake of the belief itself. We must always question, especially ourselves and our beliefs, because it is from that questioning that we learn, and grow.

We will never reach the destination of perfection but if we don't try no one ever will.

Thanks for the time, if you made it to the end of this post I herald your curiosity for trying to understand the viewpoint of another.

 

[tcmtech]

Yeah, all those "money grubbing" scientists who barely make any money at all and do the work for the love of it. Versus the global warming deniers of big business who have a real financial incentive to lie....they're want EVEN MORE money.

Feel free to post your side of they story. Being we don't have much for deniers here, rather just skeptics, willing to listen provided the info adds up.

However don't think for a second that none of us will be checking your sources to see how valid they are and remember an opinion is not a fact no matter how much you want to believe it to be true just like the title of this thread relates to!

 

[Sceadwian]

Yeah, all those "money grubbing" scientists who barely make any money at all and do the work for the love of it

You mean the ones that earn up to 100 grand a year, or the ones that intern for slave wages at 5 grand a year?

 

[tcmtech]

So who is getting the $2.6 billion in tax dollars that the government is handing out this year just for said research?

Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research - FoxNews.com

United States Global Change Research Program

Or those who depend on it as a primary single source of funding.

**broken link removed**


Not exactly related but an interesting read about Antarctica and the hystory of scientific studies there if you have the time!

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Google Books

 

[upand_at_them]

Yeah, you're right all that money is going to one or two fat cat scientists. They're just sitting at home and laughing.

Human-caused climate change is a global scientific consensus. Just as evolution is. Of course money is spent on it, its effects have dramatic consequences.

But if you're going to cite Fox News, you've got your mind made up already.

 

[BrownOut]

Yeah, you're right all that money is going to one or two fat cat scientists. They're just sitting at home and laughing.

Human-caused climate change is a global scientific consensus. Just as evolution is. Of course money is spent on it, its effects have dramatic consequences.

But if you're going to cite Fox News, you've got your mind made up already.

Amen, the Fox News crowd has always found representation on this forum. Most of the subjects about end of the world and whatnot are just segways into another denalists rant. We've been over this time and time again, and always the same old denier story, and yet the same claims to not be deniers, Ha! While they rant about widespread fraud, it turns out it is they theirselves who propagate it.

Yeah, all those "money grubbing" scientists who barely make any money at all and do the work for the love of it. Versus the global warming deniers of big business who have a real financial incentive to lie....they're want EVEN MORE money.

Right again. The deniers take this track each time, and never prove a dam thing about all the money the dedicated scientist are supposedly making. The other truth they will never face is that big oil and other industries who have a vested interest in denying Global Warming pay much better. You could buy 1000 climate scientists for just one radio fat-cat who parrots denier claims.

 

[tcmtech]

But if you're going to cite Fox News, you've got your mind made up already.

So what would be the proper source to cite then?

NASA?
https://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

Harvard?
**broken link removed**

The Sun?
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience

USGS?
**broken link removed**

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute?
**broken link removed**

Ice core research?
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Just asking.

 

[BrownOut]

NASA might be a good place to start, if you go to the source and not a cherry picked article that wasn't produced by anyone at the space agency.

Climate Change: Causes

To wit:

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.
Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.
A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.
Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.
The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2011/05/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

Also this on the sun's contribution:

several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

Now the we know what NASA really says, the deniers will go back to their old canned argument, something about over-paid scients and such. NASA is good enough when they can be cherry-picked to make them look like they have counter evidence to global warming, but when confronted with the real deal, we'll hear a completely different tune.