Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> |
− | {{notice|As this is a controversial topic, there may be several {{rw|climate_change|denialist}} trolls lurking below. Beware of feeding them.|image=Troll.png}}
| + | '''NOTICE:''' As this is a loaded topic there will be several Trolls lurking here below. Beware of feeding the trolls... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC) |
| + | |
| | | |
| Well, never mind then. Oh well. -- [[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 1:02, 12 September 2016 | | Well, never mind then. Oh well. -- [[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 1:02, 12 September 2016 |
Line 52: |
Line 53: |
| :: For the convenience of archeologists working in the Middle East. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 01:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | | :: For the convenience of archeologists working in the Middle East. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 01:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
| ::Thank you! Yes, it sounds to me like the point would be to remove the religious aspect. Personally, I don't really mind the religious terminology, I just see it as historical, keeping a record of where the names and numbering came from. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Also mine! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | | ::Thank you! Yes, it sounds to me like the point would be to remove the religious aspect. Personally, I don't really mind the religious terminology, I just see it as historical, keeping a record of where the names and numbering came from. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Also mine! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) |
− | :::Well, "it is the established convention" isn't quite correct either.. checking Wikipedia suggests to me that it's a large argument, and that people that aren't Christian or Muslim (i.e. just under half of all people) really never used the AD/BC notation in the first place. BCE/CE appears to have originated in Jewish European communities some point before the 1700s. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.192|172.70.100.192]] 20:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
| + | |
| What this comic doesn't show is what kind of changes occurred in the previous interglacial period as opposed to the current one. Since the current one is not yet over there could still be a stage of an interglacial with rapid temperature rise which we are only now reaching, but has happened in previous interglacial periods. | | What this comic doesn't show is what kind of changes occurred in the previous interglacial period as opposed to the current one. Since the current one is not yet over there could still be a stage of an interglacial with rapid temperature rise which we are only now reaching, but has happened in previous interglacial periods. |
| [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.54|108.162.219.54]] 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | | [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.54|108.162.219.54]] 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
Line 141: |
Line 142: |
| Current scholarly wisdom is that the Homeric epics, (the Iliad and the Odussey) were composed at the second half of the 8th century, perhaps around 720 BCE. | | Current scholarly wisdom is that the Homeric epics, (the Iliad and the Odussey) were composed at the second half of the 8th century, perhaps around 720 BCE. |
| [[User:Konstantas|Konstantas]] ([[User talk:Konstantas|talk]]) 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | | [[User:Konstantas|Konstantas]] ([[User talk:Konstantas|talk]]) 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC) |
− |
| |
− | :Except that no historical evidence has ever contradicted the Bible, and many archaeological discoveries were predicted by it.
| |
− | :According to proper scientific analysis, it is the most accurate historical document(s) in existence. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.51.173|172.70.51.173]] 02:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Darryl
| |
− |
| |
− | I wonder if it is getting to be a good time to make a followup, showing the further warming over the last several years and the rightward movement of the 'if we...' paths. 21-Feb-2020
| |
− |
| |
− | ~5000 BCE is <s>higher</s> slightly lower then now [[User:Squishmallow fan]] ([[User talk:Squishmallow fan|talk]]) 01:47, 10 February <s>2011</s> 2024 (UTC)
| |
| | | |
| == Actual best-case scenario == <!-- please keep this header so it can be linked from off-site discussions --> | | == Actual best-case scenario == <!-- please keep this header so it can be linked from off-site discussions --> |
Line 193: |
Line 187: |
| | | |
| The translation of the explanation in "Telegraph", written in Morse code, is: "Now, the mother of Samuel Morse always sent the lad out on a horse." [[User:Agusbou2015|Agusbou2015]] ([[User talk:Agusbou2015|talk]]) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC) | | The translation of the explanation in "Telegraph", written in Morse code, is: "Now, the mother of Samuel Morse always sent the lad out on a horse." [[User:Agusbou2015|Agusbou2015]] ([[User talk:Agusbou2015|talk]]) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC) |
− |
| |
− | == "Sad comics" ==
| |
− | <blockquote>...So after the election of a climate change denier later in the year of this comic's release, several sad comics have been posted. Some of the reason could be that Randall no longer believes that even his worst fears (as expressed by the current path at the bottom) will hold up, when USA gets a president, who will on purpose act in a way that scientist claims will make the temperature rise even more. See more here.</blockquote>
| |
− |
| |
− | I've mentioned this on the talk page for [[2137: Text Entry]], but I'll reiterate it here: this observation is not factual, not relevant to the explanation, and does not belong in the description of this comic. If you read it in context, you will see that it is also a non-sequitur, clumsily inserted after one or two factual sentences - it does not follow from anything prior in the discussion. It is poorly expressed and the point being made is unclear in any case.
| |
− |
| |
− | While the user doing this may well have honest intentions, they are simply defacing articles with their own anti-Trump projections and spamming a link to their own, misleadingly-titled page ([[Sad comics]]) which has no clear meaning or explanatory value. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 16:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
| |
− | :I have removed the offending paragraph. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, and this graph shows it.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.19|172.68.50.19]]
| |
− | :I agree that it has probably been a disaster (certainly a gamechanger) for the ecosystems, causing changes and challenges that are so much different to what everything else woupd have experienced without such a heavy hand of humans upon the planet. But for "the human race",vI wonder if there'd be so many billions of us if industrial (and post-malthusian) developments had never arisen. By a simplistic numbers game, we are (currently) ranking higher than it seems likely a more nature-tuned alternative 20th/21st-Century would have looked like.
| |
− | :A higher population doesn't guarantee "success", I know, and only hindsight will say for sure whether unprecedented growth leads to unprecedented decline in the same 'scoring' value (indicating that it isn't the best score to use long-term), but some would say this. (Not me, I'm just philosophising here.)
| |
− | :Beyond this, if only by entering the Industrial Age do we have the ability to foresee and forestall some asteroid impact..? Perhaps then the (somewhat damaged) ecosystem actually lives on 'better' (subjectively) from our flawed attempt to industrially improve the planet, to our own ends, the rediscovery of ecoprinciples and then the successful aversion of another planet-killing asteroid (or at least the development of "arks" to let the current biodiversity to ride out the problem, here or elsewhere). Unless you have the view that the post-now changes (like the post-dinosaur/etc changes) are themselves higher scoring on the nature-scale. (But then if an unaverted asteroid is equal to a prior one, then is our polluion of the world equal to when earlier organisms started to fill the atmosphere with deadly oxygen and convert the world to an entirely different phase of life?)
| |
− | :What can definitely be said is that we're doing ''something'', but expect some people (who aren't actually full-on deniers) to suggest that it isn't really a bad thing. Which it probably is, of course. Or at least not the ''best'' thing, and there's probably better outcomes than the one we're tumbling into, by whatever measure. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.31|172.70.86.31]] 09:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
| |