Wend that brew my way if you would my good man, and in return I'll promise not to take the piss outa your grey bonce for at least a month, honest guv!
On 3 Sep, 14:36, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > As I've often suggested, the cycles have come before, and will come again, > and we humans can adapt or die. :) > Speaking of which, I've a fresh batch of magic brew steeping now, Arch. > Shall I save you a cup? Best swallowed while warm, and quickly, with a > dollop of honey after. > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The Eocene ran from 56 million to 34 million years ago, much longer > > than humans have existed unless science is just a Bishop Usher > > memeory. Geological evidence from the early and middle part of this > > period offers troubling news: the average temperature in the tropics > > at this time could have been as high as 40°C while the poles were at > > temperatures of 15 or 20°C. None of our climate models accounts for > > how this "Eocene hothouse" might have arisen (New Scientist, 21 June > > 2008, p 34). This is bad news for life on Earth. For a start, any > > tweaks we make to our climate models to account for it will produce > > scarier predictions of warming. Secondly, it suggests that there is no > > feedback mechanism that will stabilise a warming world against runaway > > climate change. And third, there is geological evidence for plant > > extinctions in the Eocene. If the modern Earth goes the same way and > > plants in the tropics start dying, that will provide yet another way > > for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to rise faster. The Eocene > > hothouse anomaly suggests that our worst-case scenario is probably > > optimistic to say the least. Human contributions have been puny in > > comparison. The only place safe to sun-bathe may well be Santa's back > > garden and the elves have already staked out the sun beds as surely as > > early-rising Germans in Majorca. This makes me wonder whether the > > secret primaries are politicians go through involve such matters as > > pissing in the wind contests. > > > I'm agnostic in the sense I can't disprove the existence of some kind > > of god (to be honest I think 'something' we don't construe well is > > likely and is likely to have nothing to do with our fables around the > > world). Information such as the above and a lot of basic science we > > are all part of is at bottom what I believe in. The elves, of course, > > only appear when Chris and I share his magic brew whilst teasing > > Flying Harringtons on the days we devote to world domination in our > > off-shore bunker created by skimming Craig's massive profits as owner > > of this group (some believe Craig is only a fictitious Patsy we have > > set up in case the IRS rumble us). In light of the above, there are > > real questions about Dawkins telling us god probably doesn't exist and > > we should just get on with life. What signs do we show of a form of > > lie that takes the real information above seriously?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
