.
VR
Xzavier's Journal



THIS JOURNAL IS ON 144 FAVORITE JOURNAL LISTS

Honor: 0    [ Give / Take ]

PROFILE




6 entries this month
 

11:38 Mar 30 2010
Times Read: 787


An evolutionary problem?



I was watching a show about monkeys and language, it was very interesting. During the first half they focused on primates in African and the second half on primate in South America.



Now for those of you who know me I don't subscribe to direct evolution, that is one group of animals evolving into another. I do believe in adaptation, micro-evolution and the like.



Something all would agree to is the fact that evolution (right or wrong) takes time and is exceedingly rare. The chances of say a squirrel in the US evolving into a bat and a squirrel in Europe also evolving into a bat (without any connection between the two) is pretty much impossible. Two evolutionary paths don't repeat.



I could be wrong about all of this but it's something to think about.



North and South America didn't connect until 20 million years ago (mya) but South America and Africa (where primate first came to be) split 120-100mya. And N. America and Africa didn't split until 150mya or so. The problem is the first real primate didn't evolve until 50mya.



So say that any monkeys on N. America migrated to S. America 20may, that isn't so hard to follow. But to say that the same few species of pro-simians jumped ship from Africa to NA (when they split) and then to SA when they connected, given the vastly different eco-systems, and then both sides evolved into incredibly similar species is a bit hard for me to really understand. Especially when there is at least 50mya of time to evolve.



One theory is that some primates migrated hundreds of miles across seas and oceans on floating mats of vegetation. I would be ok with that if it didn't sound completely retarded. Take a small mammal (say a cat or even monkey) put it on a salt-water logged pile of veg. and set it adrift for say 3 weeks to 3 months, I'm not so sure it would survive..needing fresh water and food and all.



So the "drift" theory really doesn't cut it.



There are a lot of problems with the way primates are said to have come to be on this side of the globe and then to say they followed mirror evolutionary paths is a bit much. Take evolution and dino's for example. The same group of animals, one continue as reptiles and the other (some say) turned into birds, all over the same distance of time as American and African primates. So doesn't it make sense that SA primates should be rather different in fundamental ways?



Another question is why there aren't any primates in NA today? You could say that the Ice Age drove them south or into extinction but then we don't find masses of bones like we do the other animals of that time and if that's so why didn't they migrate back north once it was warm enough for them again?



I know a lot about evolution but I'm not an expert, I know tons about geology and a fair amount of biology but I just don't get it. Maybe I missed a few classes I shouldn't. To me it would seem that the theories need re-working a fair deal. Really these are just some questions I have and I could be staring the answer but it just isn't jumping out at me.


COMMENTS

-



 

05:23 Mar 28 2010
Times Read: 820


"Homosexuality and Christianity" it took 3 days to write but I hope it was worth it and will make you think and if it applies to you I hope it will help you come to peace with who you are. If you'd like to re-post it ~~anywhere~~ please just send me a message.



____________________________________________________________________________________________



Homosexuality and Christianity

By: Xzavier McInnes/JBR2322

03/26/2010




In today’s world there tends to be massive conflict between the concept of homosexuality and the popular interpretations of Biblical scripture. There are few things more important, more personal and more integral to an individual than their faith and sexuality. This has led, in modern times, to much hurt, hatred, and misunderstanding; and regrettably it has led to many leaving Christianity and/or committing suicide. How can a person live in peace with themselves when they are one way, yet they think that the way they are goes against the very God that made them? Much of what we see today in our culture, churches and personal ideals comes from a period of time beginning shortly before the writing of the King James version (KJV) of the Bible. To better understand this complicated topic we must look into the history of Christianity and how things change over time.



Christianity as a solidified religion didn't really come about until circa 325 AD when Emperor Constantine the Great prompted the First Council of Nicea. And the Bible itself (the 66 books of the Old Testament/New Testament) didn't really come about until 400 years after the Resurrection. The Bible wasn't written in English - in fact the original books were written in three different languages for the vast majority of the text. The majority of the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Both languages have many differences to English including words with no translations and many with multiple meanings. This makes it imperative to use the original words and their context (at the time of writing) to really understand what the Bible says as it applies to us today.



Historically homosexuality wasn't a concept the ancients really understood, at least not as an orientation. For most of known human history we see examples of same-sex relationships and in many cultures, such as Greece and Rome, from which we get our society today, same-sex relationships had various levels of acceptance all the way up to being an important and expected part of life. There weren't "gay/straight" people, there were just people. In many cases, including Native American cultures, those who had an attraction to members of the same sex were placed in a higher class, usually as spiritual leaders. Being "gay" was not a bad thing, it wasn't unmanly, and most leaders had at least one homosexual relationship.



In many ancient and some modern cultures it was commonplace to have male lovers, and in order to become a "man" there needed to be some type of homosexual relationship or activity. Homosexuality was a normal thing, it was important in the raising of boys and an integral part of their cultures and religions. It was something to be honored. For example, the story of the Sacred Band of Thebes is one that the ancients held in high regard. The Sacred Band of Thebes was a military group of 150 age-structured male couples who fought and died with great gallantry in the battle of Leuctra (371 BC). I can give pages of positive homosexual accounts throughout the world ranging from 1500 BC all the way up to modern times; however, the purpose of this is to discuss sexuality and Christianity. And with that proven history and context I will move on to what the Bible itself says.



There are many examples of flawed interpretations between the original texts and English/Latin translations. Some were simple mistakes; others were done for the sole sake of personal opinion and politics. Most of the Bible has been translated correctly but in some areas, including alleged texts on homosexuality, it has been greatly perverted by accident and conscious attempts to oppress. The KJV has been used for centuries to oppress, deny and murder many groups - women, divorcées, blacks, mentally handicapped, homosexuals, physically disabled, intellectuals and dozens of other minorities. This isn't "for the Bible tells me so", but all because of incorrect translations and people’s interpretations based on their own pre-existing prejudices.



So how do we overcome this? By looking at the actual words and contexts, and then letting the Bible speak for itself, free of our own desires, ideas or "it just does" thoughts.

The extremists and most regular Christians often point to the following scriptures as proof of God’s dislike for homosexuality and evidence that being gay is wrong:



1. Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

2. Leviticus 20:13: man lie with mankind as with woman

3. Romans 1:26-27: men, leaving the natural use of the woman

4. 1 Corinthians 6:9: nor effeminate



When reading the Bible many tend to pull out single verses and use them as weapons, however they will ignore the rest of the passage, chapter, its context and the fact that many words in the KJV do not have the same meaning as they do today. This is a very dangerous practice and even the Bible itself warns against it (2 Timothy 2:15).



The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is perhaps the most used passage aimed at condemning homosexuals. That fact is somewhat odd in that Genesis is part of the Jewish scripture, written by Jews and most Jews don't see it as having anything to do with homosexuals but with those who are rude, cruel, show no manners and the like.

Before I get into things I want to give you an interesting fact. The names "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" were not the actual names of the cities. "Sodom" comes from Hebrew S'dom which means "burnt" and "Gomorrah" comes from amroah which means "a ruined heap". It's obvious the names were given after the fact and so the term 'sodomite' is vastly misinterpreted and would seem to mean "those of the burnt".



Genesis 19:3-5

3. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

4. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.




Obviously the controversy centers on the 5th verse. I find it hard to see how people can use this story as a means of condemning a group of people on moral grounds when in verse 8 Lot offers his own daughters, against their will and without marriage, to be raped by the townsmen. But aside from that blaring issue it is safe to assume that not every single man in the city was gay, to believe that is absurd. The fact that Lot had lived in Sodom for years and offered his daughters up to the men shows that he knew they were heterosexuals. What happened was these men, these heterosexual men, came to these "strangers" and in an attempt to assert their power over them they wanted to rape them. Now, this isn't a foreign concept. In ancient times it was common to rape men and women to show dominance, to humiliate and to destroy whatever desires of action (good or bad) the victims might have had. You see, the men of Sodom saw the angels as strangers and did not know if they were there to do harm, after all Lot did hide them away. These men of Sodom (and the victor armies who would rape the conquered) were not homosexual in the least, they were committing acts of violence and rape - and that is the crime, that is the sin. To be a heterosexual male and then to be raped by another male goes well beyond just a case of rape. It would force them into an act that goes against their very own individual nature and would be a source of ultimate humiliation.



Being homosexual and having same-sex sex are NOT the same thing. Over 90% of men will, at least once, find themselves sexually attracted to another man to some degree. It doesn't make them gay. A man can have sex with women, men, pretty much anything that feels good but it doesn't make them a non-heterosexual, especially since in the case of Sodom it was males wanting to be the active, dominate, sexual partner. This passage mentions nothing about being homosexual, it only talks about same-sex rape and the lack of hospitality. While the physical sin was rape the greater lesson was that of hospitality. In that time being proper hosts was paramount. To violate hospitality laws could result in death. You were to treat guests, strangers, all people coming to your town or home with great honor and respect. You would offer them all you had including protection. When the men of Sodom threatened to rape the angels they broke all codes of hospitality and showed themselves to be exceedingly corrupt and in the eyes of the Hebrews (and by their laws) they were vial and worthy of destruction.



The 'moral' of the story is rape is wrong and that dishonor is worthy of death (according to ancient laws). Love and/or sex among consensual people couldn't be a sin. The larger issue of law falls upon the lack of hospitality.





Leviticus 20:13

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."




Most agree that this verse is talking about same-sex sex but again it's not talking about those whose nature it is to be homosexual. Christianity is not about the Old Testament (OT) which Leviticus is in; in fact the OT has nothing to do with the actual Christian faith. The New Testament (NT), the story of Christ (thus Christian) is Christianity, not the Jewish books of the OT. But, for argument’s sake, let us say that the OT is as important as the NT. Many hold that you must believe the entire Bible or none of it - well this produces a problem. The problem arises because many OT verses tell us that much of modern daily life is an abomination. It is a sin to eat pork and certain birds; slavery is acceptable; giving your daughters away is common; and beating disobedient women and children is encouraged. Surely we no longer agree to those things. So how is it that we follow one part (anti-gay, although it isn't talking about actual homosexuals) but not another?



Some would say, because Jesus came to fulfill the law. This is true. But if, through Christ, we no longer have to stone our children to death, why then must we discriminate against gays? The only logical answer is because it fits in with personal opinion only. To be Christian is to worship Christ and Jesus himself never said a single word about born homosexuals. We are not the judge of mankind, we do not know the mind of God, we haven't the right to say one scripture is law and another is not, for to do that is a sin. The OT isn't part of the faith of Christianity, it is its history and it contains many good ways to live your life, to treat others and so on, but it is not equally the law of God unless we are to follow all of it, which we can not.



Ethics, laws, ideas all change. What doesn't change is the word of God (aka Jesus Christ). God may have spoken to Moses (the author of the first five books of the OT) but that doesn't mean Moses was free from error. It also doesn't mean that what men determine is scripture (as is how the Bible as it is today came to be) is the word of God.



Romans 1:26-27

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.




Here is a classic example of a word having two different meanings because of changes in society/linguistics and because of misinterpretation. Using the modern meaning of the word "natural" you would think that it's obvious, a man leaving the assumed normal use of a woman and having sex with another man. But it doesn't take into account the question of orientation, something the ancients had no concept of. Having an orientation didn't matter because you simply were who you were; unlike today where we're all forced to live in boxes. We are identified by what makes us different as opposed to the correct way of being identified as humans with the same rights as everyone else, regardless of other characteristics.



A key to understanding this and other NT passages is to remember that Paul (the author of Romans and 12 other books) is the time at which they were written and his role as a promoter of this new "religion". During his life Christianity (at the time it was little more than a sect of Judaism) was illegal and heavily oppressed by the Roman Empire. This led Paul to find ways to separate this new Christian culture from the culture at large and to find ways he could attack Rome at it's heart. Same-sex activities was an integral part of many popular Roman cults and so Paul, in an attempt to condemn the pagan cults, decided to deem a part of those cults 'immoral'. The acceptance of homosexual behaviour (be it by heterosexuals or others) was not as widespread in Jewish culture as it was in Greco-Roman society so it was simply another way to differentiate the "Christians" from the "Gentiles". Paul also said women weren't allowed to speak in church but few today support this notion.



This passage was originally written in Greek and the word "nature/natural" comes from the Greek word phusikos which means "instinct" or "governed by ones nature". Thus it is immoral to do that which is against your individual nature. A heterosexual man having sex with another man is a sin because it goes against their nature i.e. their instinct. However, a homosexual male having sex with another homosexual male is not a sin for it is within their nature. Again we see that the sin isn't that of homosexuality but of going against the way you were made. The people it speaks of have left what is natural for them to pursue that which is abnormal according to how they were made. Being a homosexual however is something that is inborn, it is your nature and so there isn't anything wrong with it.



1 Corinthians 6:9

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...




Once again we have a problem with translating the original Greek into English and from Old English to modern. The term "effeminate" even today does not mean homosexual but one who acts like a woman, "girly", isn't manly etc. The trouble with using that is quite simply that what is and isn't - "manly" changes with every generation. In 2010 it may be considered unmanly to enjoy opera, say "I love you" or kiss another man (regardless of context), wear certain colors and so on, whereas in 1900 is was fairly common for youths to hold hands, grown men express their love for one another and in order to be a true gentleman you would have to enjoy the finer things of life (opera, jewelry, etc). The Greek word used in this passage that has been translated to effeminate was malakia. Malakia means spineless, weakness, and was associated with femininity in men. Thus the passage not only has nothing to do with same-sex sex but also nothing to do with homosexuals. The sin the word refers to is that of being weak, acting like a woman (or man if you are a woman) and a lack of bravery, not standing up for what you believe in. During the time that passage was written homosexual relationships were not considered effeminate and were sometimes considered an integral part of becoming a strong male, especially in Greece.



The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind", most scholars agree, refers to prostitutes.



It is a sad thing in our time that homosexuality has been so closely linked to weakness, feminine behavior, perversion and so on, but that is the fault of society. The Bible does not make such a connection. In the past being gay was acceptable and looked upon as a decent, normal thing. Today that isn't the case. We have to ask ourselves which society is the correct one - the one that has condemned an innocent group of people for hundreds of years or the one that defended all its citizens, regardless of their personal lives, for thousands of years? There can be no mistake, the anti-gay feeling in modern times, the false teachings of some religious extremists that led to such a feeling - that is wrong, abnormal and goes against the will of God and the very nature of humanity.



Some ask, if one is born gay and another is born predisposed to becoming an alcoholic, does that mean he should be a drunk? I ask if you're born straight and another born to drinking, does that mean he should be a drunk? The answer is obvious. Alcoholism goes against biology, it wrecks the body, and it goes against morality because it causes physical and mental harm. Homosexuality causes no such harm; it hurts no one and is even mirrored in the animal kingdom. If God made all things then why would he make animals who are documented in their same-sex behavior (and some exclusively gay) and yet contradict himself by making humans to be against homosexuality but allow many to be born that way? It makes no sense.



You might say that being gay is harmful because of the rates of depression and suicide among homosexuals (namely youths), however the problem isn't that they're gay. The problem is that their family, their country, say they are gross, evil, against God. Being told you're disgusting would make anyone depressed, and having your family and church turn from you would make anyone think of suicide. It saddens me greatly to think that the most important group of people, our most beautiful resource, children, would be subjected to centuries worth of baseless hate and discrimination just because they have questions, just because they may have acknowledged their sexuality as they were made.



The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and there is no real reason why you cannot be both homosexual and a Christian. If you are gay you were made that way and God doesn't make mistakes. The problem isn't with you, but with those who would act foolishly and hatefully and try to hurt you because of their ignorance, closed mindedness and hate. God is about love and accepts all people who accept him. Mankind has used the Bible for sinful activities from the moment it came to being. Let us hope that after reading the facts the use of scripture for discrimination against gays and others will cease.



In closing I want to stress that the fault is not that of the faith or the actual words of God but lies with the men and women who try to cause evil. You may have experienced a lot of discrimination at the hands of those who profess to be Christian, but not all Christians are that way. The following is a list of groups/denominations which have a positive message or policy toward homosexuals:



· Generally, the Anglican Church of North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, hold the view that there are no grounds to condemn homosexuality as sinful based on the Bible.



· The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, has a current policy which states that persons who are homosexual in their self-understanding are allowed to be ordained, but must maintain a lifestyle abstinent of sexual relations. Outside of ordination the policy states that GLBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation.



· The Metropolitan Community Church is an international fellowship of Christian congregations. It is considered by many to be a full mainline denomination or communion. Currently there are 300 member congregations in 22 countries and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to GLBT communities. The acceptance of homosexuality is an important part of its theology.



· The Presbyterian Church (United States) is the largest U.S. Presbyterian body. Gays are welcome to become members of the church.



· Quakers, the Friends General Conference, strongly support equal rights for homosexuals.



· The United Church of Christ, In July, 2005, the 25th General Synod encouraged congregations to adopt wedding policies that do not discriminate based on the gender of the couple and to support legislation allowing homosexual marriage.

COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
07:49 Mar 28 2010

twisted perversion of historical events can be spun in so many directions it leaves one wondering if anything is really taboo.





xxEmaeraldxx
xxEmaeraldxx
22:08 Mar 28 2010

Now that is an eye-opener about the Quaker's point of view on homosexuality.





jennaKARRO
jennaKARRO
23:49 Mar 28 2010

OH! I am going to cut and copy this! I hope you don't mind. I have been using that very argument on the Sodam and Gamor...what have you forever and I didn't even know that about the names.



My parents are going to hate this, but it proves what I have been telling them since I was 10! Maybe I am not so dumb after all...*wink*





muckymuck
muckymuck
02:21 Apr 05 2010

Very detailed. It leaves little to argue bcause you brought up all the major points gay bashers use as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuality. Good job!





hannahrose
hannahrose
09:31 Jun 13 2010

WHYCANT PEOPLE JUST ACCEPT PEOPLE AS THEY ARE? THERE IS NOTHING WRONGWITH BEIN GAY. TO ME BEINGGAYISAS NORMAL AS BEING VEGAN OR ASIAINOR WHATEVER. SOME OF THE MOST WONDERFUL FRIENDS I HAVEAREGAY.I WISH PEOPLE WOULD STOP BIENG SODAMM JUDGEMENTAL AND TREAT OTHERS SA THEY WOULD LIKE OT BE TREATED.



 

04:57 Mar 26 2010
Times Read: 852


The following are some of the most beautiful love letters I've ever read. They are from various historical men/boys to their boy/male lovers.



"Hail my best of masters.



If any sleep comes back to you after the wakeful nights of which you complain, I beseech you write to me and, above all, I beseech you take care of your health. Then hide somewhere and bury that "axe of Tenedos" [proverb for unflinching justice], which you hold over us, and do not, whatever you do, give up your intention of pleading cases, or along with yours let all lips be dumb. . . .



Farewell, breath of my life. Should I not burn with love of you, who have written to me as you have! What shall I do? I cannot cease. Last year it befell me in this very place, and at this very time, to be consumed with a passionate longing for my mother. This year you inflame that my longing. My Lady greets you.



FRONTO TO MARCUS AURELIUS AS CAESAR (139AD)"



"Go on, threaten me as much as you please and attack me with hosts of arguments, yet shall you never drive your lover, I mean me, away; nor shall I the less assert that I love Fronto, or love him the less, because you prove with reasons so various and so vehement that those who are less in love must be more helped and indulged. So passionately, by Hercules, am I in love with you, nor am I frightened off by the law you lay down, and even if you show yourself more forward and facile to others, who are non-lovers, yet will I love you while I have life and health. . . .Farewell, my greatest treasure beneath the sky, my glory.



FRONTO TO MARCUS AURELIUS AS CAESAR (139AD)"



"(1)

The roses, borne on their leaves as on wings, have made haste to come to you. Receive them kindly, either as mementos of Adonis or as tinct of Aphrodite or as eyes of the earth. Yes, a wreath of wild olives becomes an athlete, a tiara worn upright the Great King, and a helmet crest a soldier; but roses become a beautiful boy, both because of affinity of fragrance and because of their distinctive hue. You will not wear the roses: they will wear you.



(2)

The handsome boy, if he is wild and cruel, is a fire; but if he is tame and kind, a shining beacon. Therefore do not consuume me with flame, but let me live; and keep the altar of Compassion in your soul, gaining a firm friend at the price of a short-lived favour; and take time by the forelock – time which alone makes an end of handsome boys even as the populace makes an end of princes. For I fear – yes, I will speak out my thoughts – lest, while you linger and hesitate, your beard may make its advent and may obscure the loveliness of your face, even as the concourse of clouds is wont to hide the sun!..... Ah me! In hesitating we have waxed old – you because you would not divine my love sooner, I because I shrank from asking. So before your springtime quite departs and winter comes upon you, grant springtime’s gifts in the name of Love, I pray.



FLAVIUS PHILOSTRATOS TO A HANDSOME BOY (300s AD)"



"PUALINUS OF NOLA TO AUSONIUS

[c. 385]



You and me: for all time which is given

And destined to mortal men,

For as long as I am held in this confining, limping body,

No matter how far I am separated from you in the world,

You will be neither distant from me nor far from my eyes:

I will hold you, intermingled in my very sinews.

I will see you in my heart and with a loving spirit embrace you;

You will be with me everywhere.

And when released from this bodily prison

I fly from earth

To the spot in heaven where our universal Father places me,

There too I will keep you in my spirit;

Nor will the end which frees me from my body

Release me from your love.

For the mind, once it has survived loss of limbs,

Continues to grow out of its heavenly root,

And therefore must keep both its understanding and affections

Along with its life.

And just as it experiences no death, it will experience no loss of memory

But remain forever alive, forever mindful.

Farewell noble master."



"BO JUYI TO YUAN ZHEN



[805AD]



Since I left home to seek official state

Seven years I have lived in Ch'ang-an.

What have I gained? Only you, Yuan;

So hard it is to bind friendship fast. . . .

We did not go up together for Examination;

We were not serving in the same Department of State.

The bond that joined us lay deeper than outward things;

The rivers of our souls spring from the same well!"



"Paris

12-24 January 1892



I often think of you and see you in my dreams, usually looking sad and depressed. This has added a feeling of compassion to my love for you and makes me love you even more. Oh God! How I want to see you this very minute. Write me a letter from College during some boring lecture and send it to this address (14, Rue Richepanse). It will still reach me as I am staying here for nearly two weeks.



I embrace you with mad tenderness.



Yours

P. Tchaikovsky"


COMMENTS

-



LadyKrystalynDarkstar
LadyKrystalynDarkstar
06:40 Mar 26 2010

Lovely. I am in awe.





CrimsonShadowFox
CrimsonShadowFox
06:58 Mar 26 2010

wow! those are awesome ^^





jaggedxtears
jaggedxtears
20:09 Mar 27 2010

Through the ages our passions seep through pages and now through our precious cyber world.....





 

23:19 Mar 06 2010
Times Read: 918


In keeping with my last entry on global warming I thought you all might enjoy some graphs backing up my position that we're still in a cool period and that any warming falls within normal cycles. Humans may have a role in the past 30 years of warming but it still does not go above normal ranges if you look beyond the short (geologically) time of 2,000 years.





2000yr

2,000 year chart





12000yr

12,000 year chart





450000yr

450,000 year chart





5millyr

5 million year chart





68millyr

68 million year chart





COMMENTS

-



birra
birra
01:07 Mar 07 2010

*swoons*



You had me at graphs....





WhiteWolf
WhiteWolf
02:12 Mar 07 2010

Oh my what big graphs you have.... :)





Severus
Severus
01:03 Mar 09 2010

Qualitative Reconstruction is what it is called my friend., and unlike you most don't have a clue.



What does it mean??

A Qualitative Reconstruction is done when there is no history to go on, in this case a reconstruction is needed because a reliable surface temperature record exists only since about 1850.

Using historical records & data such as times of grape harvests, sea-ice-free periods in harbours, shiping records, and diary entries of frost or heatwaves to produce indications of when it was warm or cold in particular regions. These records are hard to calibrate and are often only a guess of the temprature from a mid evil farmer. further more they are only available sparsely through time. Many of these records are available only from developed regions, and are unlikely to come with a wide sample of data nor will it have a good range of error estimates to confirm the testing results.



Facts are facts, and the facts on globle warming is that there are no hard facts. Globel Warming is a myth. Now if I could just get you on board with the Pyramids. lol





xRobin3x
xRobin3x
05:00 Mar 24 2010

To me, it looks like a major climite change is comeing? idk.... i may be pulling thoughts outta my hat.





Xzavier
Xzavier
05:08 Mar 24 2010

Yup you're right we are, however we aren't to blame and there isn't much we can do to stop it either. It's what happens. Humans just happened to be around during the middle part through the ending of a climate cycle, so now we're seeing the end of one and the beginning of another. The new happens to be warm, many changes will happen, many species will go extinct (the ones that are too specialized for cold climate) and others will evolve.





xRobin3x
xRobin3x
13:28 Mar 24 2010

i heard storys of another ice age. but of course a ice age is a way of te earth healing its self too.





dabbler
dabbler
21:39 Apr 22 2010

But.. now what are all the doom forecasters going to do with their big red Warning Flags?



thanks for collecting the graphs.





 

11:37 Mar 05 2010
Times Read: 932


(Includes commentary by yours truly)



Al Gore's global warming claims aren't fooling Americans



Tennessee Voices

Once, there was a short-lived sitcom about two lovable but hapless New York City cops who, whenever chaos reigned, always seemed to be elsewhere on some laughable misadventure. As the opening credits rolled, a frustrated dispatcher could be heard mournfully pleading, "Car 54, where are you?"



Recently a similar question has been directed to Al Gore, our resident global-warming alarmist extraordinaire. Perhaps wanting some explanation for the embarrassing revelations of serial fraud committed by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or just needing help shoveling record-high snowdrifts, the common folks were met with icy silence. That is, until this past weekend.

On Sunday, Mr. Gore emerged from hibernation and he had something he wanted to say … and say … and say. In The New York Times, the former VP- turned-future-enviro-billionaire needed 2,000 words to let us know how foolish we are to believe our own eyes and frostbitten tootsies. As is normally the case, his lecture was overly wordy and insufferably pedantic, but here's a shot at a synopsis:



We've just endured the second-hottest January in 130 years, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, the Earth is suffering widespread droughts and floods simultaneously, hurricanes threaten, species extinctions are accelerating, millions of "climate refugees" are being displaced, civil unrest prevails, large-scale crop failures and pandemic diseases loom, and the "collapse of governance" is inevitable.

To make things even worse, "scientists" have confirmed that global warming has been "grossly understated." Wow! In other words: same old same old. Quixotic Al is back atop his noble methane-emitting steed, and jousting once more with those medieval wind turbines.



The culprit? Well, here goes: Capitalism's victory over communism caused "hubristic" free-market triumphalism that allowed wealthy corporations whose business plans relied on "unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons" to weaken advocates of regulatory reform just as the Senate's failure to pass cap-and-trade legislation prevented an otherwise Earth-loving China from reducing its profligate pollution, while at the same time newspapers and magazines were replaced by television "showmen masquerading as political thinkers who packaged hatred and divisiveness as entertainment." Got it? Ipso facto: Things got hot.



Gore and his ilk increasingly resemble the old Japanese soldier who continued to resist surrender on a South Pacific island for three decades after the emperor had called it a day. Al, the war's over. Thousands of legitimate climate scientists have blown your cover. Evidence can be found in Lawrence Solomon's book The Deniers about the "world-renowned scientists who stood up against global-warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud."



For decades, our education and media elite have foisted the false religion of Earth worship on us. The fact that global warming is at the bottom of Americans' list of concerns indicates they get it; and that's a testament to their native intelligence.



--Mike Kimmitt, communications consultant, Franklin.

Http://www.tennessean.com

_____________________________________________________



Now, before you start calling me some global warming denier let me state that I do in fact believe in global warming. I believe that the Earth is going through a cycle, the same cycle it's been doing for millions of years. We're coming out of an ice age people, of course the Earth is getting warmer. Yes humans have polluted the shit out of the planet but our 150 years of industrialism I'm afraid to admit isn't enough to wreck massive cycles of warming/cooling that can take 1,000 times as long to play out then humanity has even existed. Most of what we see as "proof" of global warming caused by man is conjecture, assumption and plain ole coincidence.



There's a lot we've done wrong and a lot we need to do to make this place better like cutting back on emissions, using renewable fuels, limiting logging, coming up with new ways of fishing the oceans, crop technologies etc but those are all good ideas no matter the case.



I'm sorry Mr. Gore, Bush, nor I, are to blame for Katrina raging along the coast, we aren't to blame for that poor Polar Bear we see everyday on commercials swimming in a "warm" Arctic Sea and we aren't to blame for the bloody Sahara Desert. Many are to blame however for your 5 houses (one of which I've been to in case you forgot) that suck up more energy and produce more carbon in a year then I probably will in my lifetime.



It's scary seeing the Earth change, it really is. But, after freezing my butt off (it's snowed more here than it has in almost a decade) I'm not inclined to feel the collapse of civilisation all because of us evil capitalists. Humans have a very bad habit of having a very short memory. We freak out over warm periods of a decade or century and yet forget that in 1650-1850 there was a small ice age! We also ignore the fact that there have been plenty of times when temperature and carbon were many times greater than it is today and life thrived. Sure we may lose some species and that really does suck but it's called evolution, remember? To think we can control all life, all nature to keep it as we have it now is arrogant, foolish to try and down right stupid.



Again, yes we should do what we can to make things better but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. NASA, the UN and many other groups (as well as PBS) are constantly saying we barely understand how our world works yet you and your "sky is falling" ilk never fail to try to control how not only the planet works but how the entire global economy works. Capping CO2 to a degree is one thing but taxing it is another. Everything that lives above water, and most below, gives off carbon in case you forgot. We should work together, not dictate the actions of 6.8 billion people, 192 countries and their $70.2 trillion in yearly output based on non-science and the falling numbers of your bank account.



-Xzavier McInnes

Xzavier is a physicist, pharmacologist, minister, architectural drafter and flaming queen.


COMMENTS

-



Nightgame
Nightgame
14:57 Mar 05 2010

A most interesting read and you've made some great points.





CarnelianMyst
CarnelianMyst
23:47 Mar 06 2010

This is great. Cut through the bullshit and gives us understandable facts. When Al Gore went on Oprah to scare everyone, his stock went way down with me. Move over, Al. The flaming queen has spoken!





 

01:31 Mar 03 2010
Times Read: 957


Chile Earthquake May Have Shortened Days on Earth



The massive 8.8 earthquake that struck Chile may have changed the entire Earth's rotation and shortened the length of days on our planet, a NASA scientist said Monday.



The quake, the seventh strongest earthquake in recorded history, hit Chile Saturday and should have shortened the length of an Earth day by 1.26 milliseconds, according to research scientist Richard Gross at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.



"Perhaps more impressive is how much the quake shifted Earth's axis," NASA officials said in a Monday update.



The computer model used by Gross and his colleagues to determine the effects of the Chile earthquake effect also found that it should have moved Earth's figure axis by about 3 inches (8 cm or 27 milliarcseconds).



The Earth's figure axis is not the same as its north-south axis, which it spins around once every day at a speed of about 1,000 mph (1,604 kph).



The figure axis is the axis around which the Earth's mass is balanced. It is offset from the Earth's north-south axis by about 33 feet (10 meters).



Strong earthquakes have altered Earth's days and its axis in the past. The 9.1 Sumatran earthquake in 2004, which set off a deadly tsunami, should have shortened Earth's days by 6.8 microseconds and shifted its axis by about 2.76 inches (7 cm, or 2.32 milliarcseconds).



One Earth day is about 24 hours long. Over the course of a year, the length of a day normally changes gradually by one millisecond. It increases in the winter, when the Earth rotates more slowly, and decreases in the summer, Gross has said in the past.



The Chile earthquake was much smaller than the Sumatran temblor, but its effects on the Earth are larger because of its location. Its epicenter was located in the Earth's mid-latitudes rather than near the equator like the Sumatran event.



The fault responsible for the 2010 Chile quake also slices through Earth at a steeper angle than the Sumatran quake's fault, NASA scientists said.



"This makes the Chile fault more effective in moving Earth's mass vertically and hence more effective in shifting Earth's figure axis," NASA officials said.



Gross said his findings are based on early data available on the Chile earthquake. As more information about its characteristics are revealed, his prediction of its effects will likely change.



Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100302/sc_space/chileearthquakemayhaveshorteneddaysonearth

COMMENTS

-



WallFlower
WallFlower
01:35 Mar 03 2010

Yeah...I read that, and obviously you know me well enough by now...so you can only guess what went through my mind upon reading that article haha.

I wasn't worried about the shortened days...but the first thing that I thought of was, "I wonder if this shift in the earth's axis is going to hurl us closer to Apophis." haha.





Laura202
Laura202
02:49 Mar 03 2010

I have read time and time again earth's axis will switch how it is tilted.





atyourwindow
atyourwindow
06:04 Mar 03 2010

again this is a job for the bloombox, powercell of the future!!!......i want one!





airwitch08
airwitch08
00:35 Mar 24 2010

Not very concerned. You've been really current with all of these things happening and the global warming. It fascinates me, but hell, I won't sit there and fear it. It's not worth it to fear.








COMPANY
REQUEST HELP
CONTACT US
SITEMAP
REPORT A BUG
UPDATES
LEGAL
TERMS OF SERVICE
PRIVACY POLICY
DMCA POLICY
REAL VAMPIRES LOVE VAMPIRE RAVE
© 2004 - 2024 Vampire Rave
All Rights Reserved.
Vampire Rave is a member of 
Page generated in 0.1137 seconds.
X
Username:

Password:
I agree to Vampire Rave's Privacy Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's Terms of Service.
I agree to Vampire Rave's DMCA Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's use of Cookies.
•  SIGN UP •  GET PASSWORD •  GET USERNAME  •
X