Display posts from previous
Sort by

25 by granny_skot
I find that most often when anyone sets themselves up as an authority above all others, watch your pocket book and your freedom. you've got a power junkie going after both.

One of the reasons that Theocracy is the supreme evil.

in my opinion of course.

Granny

26 by saturnalias
For example, ?Global warming,? i.e. the idea that there is a continual rise in the earth?s temperatures due to man made activity, is very likely a dead issue, perhaps temporarily, but more than likely it is going to go the way of the global cooling scares of the 1970s. It is not coming to the forefront. It?s been there and gone. We can deduce this from two facts. One: Al Gore?s ?Live Earth? or whatever it was called was a man made flop. In fact just recently the BBC dropped previously scheduled programs dealing with this subject because there is no interest in it, or in being lectured by rock stars and celebrities whose own lifestyles are far removed from those they would impose on others.

Second, the Global warming? crowd is no longer calling themselves the ?Global warming? crowd. They now insist on the new title of ?climate change? crowd. There are several reasons for this all beside the point, but switching the name and the topic in midstream is a pretty good indication that none of this is catching on, as ?global warming? so a new marketing technique is set in motion. From this we can safely suggest if not outright conclude, that this particular ?movement? has at least stalled. Not our hero, though. He hasn?t caught up yet.

Wow. Just wow.

Perhaps if your only source of knowledge about global warming is the mainstream media, then this would be your conclusion.

If, on the other hand, you read the reports and conclusions of the scientists who have spent their careers studying climate, you would come to a much different conclusion. A good place to start is realclimate.org. You will find an explanation of the supposed global cooling of the 70's, along with clarification of just about any question you may have on the subject.

And just to be clear, Al Gore is not my hero, I was opposed to Live Earth for environmental reasons and I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth.

Astologically, you can expect the fight over climate change to ramp up over the next 3 years as Saturn and Uranus oppose each other leading into their ingresses into Cardinal signs. Once they enter Libra and Aries, they will form a T-square with Pluto. Jupiter also gets involved in 2010, forming a conjunction to Uranus in Aries opposite Saturn and Mars at that point, square to Pluto.

The planets indicate a battle is brewing between the status quo, governments and power brokers and those looking for big change. Global warming (a term very much still in use BTW) will be one area of conflict.

27 by Tara
Dear Tom, no offence meant but you appear to be a little bit mad when it comes to acknowledging climate change. Tell it to the polar bears.

Getting back to yesterday's eclipse, this in the news today:

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia's state television reported Tuesday.

It was the latest show of Russia's military muscle amid chilly relations with the United States.

Channel One television said the new weapon, nicknamed the "dad of all bombs" is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs."

"The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability,"

And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut would say.

Tara

28 by Tom
Hi Guys,

Whoa! I thought I was being clear when I wrote an earlier post, but evidently this is not the case and I struck a nerve. And no, I am not now and was not then angry (see below). Let me try this again, but first:

I. The idea that since I am purportedly not persuaded by the man made global warming alarmists, I must be getting my information from the mainstream press is hilarious. Since my views of global warming had nothing to do with my post I would normally ignore such remarks but this one is so ill informed that I can?t do it. Just who do you think the mainstream press is? I would argue that Newsweek (Be Afraid Be Very Afraid ? cover story), Time Magazine (recent cover story impugning the motives of those who disagree with the global warming advocates), and NY Times editorials and stories too numerous to count are the mainstream press and they are not anti man made global warming. The only thing I can think of that would motivate such a response is the belief that anyone who does not buy into Al Gore?s discredited movie is anti-global warming, and the mainstream press did not accept Gore?s flick lock, stock and barrel. Well Al Gore doesn?t buy into it either. He just bought a private jet. Let?s get a grip here. The mainstream press is on your side- maybe not to extent you want them to be, but they are on your side.

II. My views of ?global warming? were not at issue. Here is what I responded to. Someone posted a link to a website and asked for opinions. I went to the website and found that the writer of the article in question did not have his or her feet on the ground when he or she pooh poohed 3000 years of human history. I called it hubris and it is. Political correctness is not a substitute for thought. It is, in fact, anti-critical thinking. The author of the post also asked for opinions on the idea that the astrological configurations mentioned in the article indicated ?global warming? coming to the forefront of issues. My response is that the global warming movement not only isn?t coming to the forefront, but rather has peaked. This is a tacit rejection of the idea that the configuration had anything to do with global warming. If the movement has peaked then the configuration can?t mean it is ?coming out.? None of this has anything to do with the scientific veracity of man made global warming, or my opinion of it.

I supported my views, and this is apparently what rankled, with a couple of facts. 1) Al Gore?s Live Earth flopped. 2) The BBC pulled some global warming programming because Live Earth flopped. They decided not to air programs they felt the public were not interested in. This too is a fact. I also mentioned the remark that came either from the BBC or someone remarking on the BBC decision (I forget which) that the BBC concluded people did not wish to be lectured by rock stars and celebrities about how to live when those people don?t live that way. This is anecdotal but I thought relevant. The BBC is not an insignificant institution. Therefore I opined that the global warming movement peaked. There are other reasons why I believe that, not the least of which is the string of ?end of the world? scenarios that I can recall since college. To wit: air pollution will kill us all. The population bomb will starve us all, and my favorite, global cooling will freeze us all (yup same people who are clamoring about global warming once bought into global cooling in the 1970s).

Now anything I wrote in the post could easily have been written by the most rabid global warming advocate. It is an observation, an opinion, and of course no one is required to accept it. That?s why they call them opinions. But if one is going to reject it, please reject it on the correct grounds, i.e. the movement has not peaked and may well be rising. For me I don?t wish to get into some kind of battling experts tirade. It is true that I don?t believe that preventing people from drinking out of plastic bottles will change the weather, but that is a whole other matter. I don?t wish to debate the issue here. If anyone wants to elaborate on the correctness of the global warming advocates, go ahead, but I won?t respond. It?s not relevant.

III. Tara wondered if I was angry, and I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to address that. No am I not angry and I wasn?t angry when I wrote that or this. I was taught that writing in the passive voice is poor writing unless it can?t be avoided. The passive voice has a tendency to soften things a bit though, and I am somewhat direct in my writing naturally. That?s style, not anger. It might not be good style, but that, too is another issue. I have had quite enough experience with ?have hads.?

It is also true that I am a horrible typist and because of that I spend as much time proofreading for spelling, grammar and typographical errors as I do writing. Because that takes so much time, I rarely proofread for style, and then the directness comes through. And my final excuse is that I write ?on the run? a lot, in hotel rooms between meetings and other work, late at night, and on weekends prior to attacking my ?honey do? list. Oh and there are the occasional posts written after a splendid meal and a wonderful bottle of Malbec that should probably wait until the following morning.

Unfortunately for me my writing has at times been construed as angry or brusque. That is not my intent, but the responsibility for the misunderstanding is strictly mine. No offense meant Tara.

I?ve just returned from Nunavik territory in northern Quebec and the polar bears are just fine. We try to avoid them though, particularly when they are hungry, and no, I wasn?t hunting. I was working at a nickel mine.

Tom

Global Warming Marketing

29 by saturnalias
Tom:

Your views on global warming had everything to do with the 2 paragraphs I quoted and were quite obvious from your comments. My comment about relying on mainstream media had to do with your citing The BBC to support your opinion that the issue is dead. A brief scan of the internet, for example, quickly proves that this isn't true. It also provides proof that the terms Global Warming and Climate Change mean different things, are not interchangeable, are not marketing terms and are still very much in use. As would non mainstream media sources such as peer reviewed scientific journals.

But you're right. This isn't the place for a global warming discussion, especially if you refuse to take part :D

I would, however, love for you to post your opinions at

www.realclimate.org

for the benefit of the scientists there. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to learn that the issue is dead and they can pursue other ways to scare the populous needlessly. :roll:

As far as your conclusions about polar bears, you aren't really serious are you? Do you have numbers for how many healthy bears there were last year or the year before or the year before that? Do you have numbers for the entire Arctic population and whether they're increasing or decreasing? Isn't it possible that polar bears are venturing onto land and into populated areas because their sea ice habitat is shrinking, leading to more sightings and leading to a misconception that there are more bears? Even the US Geological Survey is concerned.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/

30 by ###
Perhaps some folks haven?t noticed the mad dash to the Arctic lately. Russia has made its claim and planted a flag. Canada has announced Arctic development plans. Denmark is involved by way of Greenland. The polar ice cap is melting. Shipping lanes are opening up and more resources are becoming available for grabs. The world?s governments know exactly what?s going on and are eager to take what they can.

So who?s more convincing: governments and scientists, or those who opine from an armchair?

Bomb ?

32 by hazelbazel
Hi, Tara. Do you have the website link for that article? see below. Do you think this could relate to the Uranus conjunct Pluto generation born with Saturn opposition? I was reading some articles about that and seemed to be there was a September 22nd eclipse ? forgot year??

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia's state television reported Tuesday.

forgot

33 by hazelbazel
I agree about that website, I found the percentages quite odd myself, but instead of thinking the worst what came to my mind is a religious awakening. I read a time ago about the genome project, you know the one where they are breaking down the human gene relating to duplicating a human and having them reborn or more or less building the perfect human. Anyway, I?m thinking if somehow say the scientists found out for a fact that one or the other the big bang or the bible is it. I can only image what that would do to people and societies and cultures. I don?t think it would be the end of the world but I?m sure that would change things quickly and significantly. I did not do any type of chart or research on this so not sure really, just typing.
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Mundane & Financial Astrology”