Slashdot Mirror


Abrupt Climatic Change Coming Soon?

rRaAnNiI writes "Just read an extremely interesting article about the possibility of having a 'little ice age' quite soon - within a decade. The frightening thing is that it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone know how to build an igloo?"

17 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. More Bullshit on Slashdot... Mods are crackheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    haha

  2. xth post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    xth post biotches!! Owned!

    1. Re:xth post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      x = 10

  3. this is all BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    First the liberals tell us we need to stop living our lives because the world is going to get too hot and we'll all melt. Now they say we're going to freeze instead?? Come on people, the bullshit meter is off the scale here.

    1. Re:this is all BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Both parties are pretty bad.

    2. Re:this is all BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      "Republicans"? Pot, kettle, black.

  4. Imagine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ..a beowulf cluster of this!

  5. Igloo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I AM CANADIAN!

    =)

  6. Re:scary stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    How about you not use "frell". It isn't even an accepted slang word, it only appears in place of "fuck" on a certain Sci-Fi show, and it just shows how much of a loser you are.

  7. Re:Does anyone know how to build an igloo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    As a Canadian citezen, I had to take igloo making in school from grades 1 - 8. It is a manditory skill. In addition to the traditional 'cut-ice' igloo, I know how to make a snow-pile shelter, a bluff-snow shelter, and an embankment wind shelter. All part of living in the great white north, with strong beer and no running water :)

  8. Canadians are cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ..Well, it's a lot better than being USian!

  9. Re:History Lesson by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "What is this mysterious light that you speak of?"

    Study the ancient texts young Padawan. The library is open from 8pm to 4am.

    graspee

  10. Re:Does anyone know how to build an igloo? by ostrich2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    -40C? Is that as cold as -40F?

  11. Re:Year without a summer by Planesdragon · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    The term is so generic that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all fall under the heading of "theist".

    Those aren't disparate religions. They all proclaim to follow the same deity, who revealed Himself to Abraham, albiet with different ways.

    A better scattering would be "Christians, Hindus, Cherokee Shamans, and Wiccans." (Who can then be broken down into "Monotheists" and "polytheists" and "pantheists"--"one god", "many gods," and "all is god", IIRC.)

  12. Re:Year without a summer by Planesdragon · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    hey believe that there is a God who is
    relevant to what goes on in the world; deists believe there was a God
    who created stuff in the beginning, but that he's no longer active;
    they don't see a connection between any deity and morality, and any
    morality they have is based on human society.)


    Those sound more like divisions within the same religion over what God does, not if He exists.

    I think the question never was "Is Jesus Christ the son of God, who will judge the dead etc etc?" But rather "what does God do in day-to-day life?"

    Sort of like arguing over whether or not the President is a liar / a philanderer / an idiot. You don't argue who he IS, just what kind of a person he is.

    Then again, Franklin (if alive today) very well might become an atheist--or he might be devoutly religious. Never met the man.

  13. Er, no it hasnt't. by Planesdragon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "God" means three things.

    Either it's the Allmighty Supreme Being, or its a non-infinite creature of far-beyond-human power, or it's "a thing deserving of worship."

    God, used as a name and always capitalized, always means the first thing. The grammatical usage of the second two meanings are identical.

    'course, there's a heck of a lot of argument as to what God / the gods are like (/what is and is not a god), so it's not good to use in an argument with people who might disagree with you.

    (So you're right, just not for the reason you said. ;) )

    1. Re:Er, no it hasnt't. by Planesdragon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "God", used singularly as a name (like "John") is a name, and means a particular being. An appeal to "God" is an unambiguous claim, just like an appeal to "the pope." (There is only one in the sphere of human knowledge, and no question that this being is the same being for all.)

      'A God' or "one of your gods" means a finite being worthy of worship. This grammatical usage is almost never used.

      'your God' means that thing that you worshiped, and is often only used when confronting someone with hypocricy in their own religion.

      God, the name, is not ambiguous. "Do it that way because God says so" is a very clear statement--follow the prior-stated proceeding becasue the Supreme Infinite Being says so.

      The reasont that appeals to God (or 'the gods') are not used in scientific (or merely rational) discourse outside of intra-religion dialogues is that the true nature of God (or the gods) is a rather extreme variable. He might be kind and loving and just--or She might be vengfeful and cruel and vindictive. We know that there's only one supreme all-mighty force, we just don't know (in a scientific "we know the Earth is roundish" way) what He's like.

      (Within religion, of course, we do--but that has sadly become a subset of standard dialogue, not a common assumption.)

      The third usage, 'your god' or 'that thing you worship' is not used in a common discussion because it's rude.

      To say it again: don't make an appeal to God, but don't do it becuase it's beyond the scope of defined terms for most discussions, not because there's any real doubt that the Supreme Being isn't the same one that someone else is thinking of.