2012, the End of the World? - Page 2

Oh boy....so whats gonna happen to the forum...

no offense, but this just sounds like some people who are very paranoid made this up...

It's on the Internet, so it must be true!

no offense, but this just sounds like some people who are very paranoid made this up...

It can't be made up! The I Ching verifies it! They said so right on the Television!

[Note: I do not acknowledge the I Ching or any other divinatory tool as a valid source of information. And these days, I also have serious doubts about televised broadcasts as a valid source of information as well...]

Not everything on the internet is true!!!

Where do all these lies about TV and the Internet come from?

Where do all these lies about TV and the Internet come from?

Well, uh, hmm.... the internet...
:P

Not everything on the internet is true!!!

If that is the case then I'm not sure I should believe you!

I can remember a few years ago (well maybe more than a few) all of the planets, except one lined up almost exactly. Everyone wondered what would happen.

There were all sorts of goofy theories floating around. The day came, the day went, nothing happened. Nothing will happen this time either, unless maybe Colonel Sanders gets his hands on Chicken Little.

Hoppy

Lol i do not think that anything bad will happen. I do believe that there is enough evidence to say that the sun will have a magnetic polar shift. This however will be a good thing as it means we will see a slight reduction in the overall temperature of earth and the drought that is currently going on in Australia will hopefully end.

Lol i do not think that anything bad will happen. I do believe that there is enough evidence to say that the sun will have a magnetic polar shift. This however will be a good thing as it means we will see a slight reduction in the overall temperature of earth and the drought that is currently going on in Australia will hopefully end.

You might have that wrong, this event will lead to increased solar flares, or sunspots, and higher energy output. Maybe global warming associated with carbondioxide and methane gas is your present problem.

Don't eat so many beans!

Oh boy....so whats gonna happen to the forum...

We'd take it into the parrell universe with us.

where it's known as webdani.

ooooo

lol webdani, thats a good one

if daniweb ever closed my life would be empty

long live dani + daniweb!

You might have that wrong, this event will lead to increased solar flares, or sunspots, and higher energy output. Maybe global warming associated with carbondioxide and methane gas is your present problem.

Don't eat so many beans!

This magnetic shift actually marks the end of the 11 year sun spot cycle.

According to the Wikipedia:

2012 is the target date for everyone in India to have access to a toilet, putting an end to defecation in public.

That would be a good event for mankind, and a bad event fo the many flies.

Actually the Mayan calendar does end in 2012, but a new one will take it's place.

This magnetic shift actually marks the end of the 11 year sun spot cycle.

Sunspot cycles are actually measured from maximum to maximum, with 2007 predicted to be the low. You can check it at:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

It talked about the Mayan calendar and that it abruptly ends in 2012.

It is not the end of the world; it is the end of an age. There have been four ages before the present one; we are presently in the fifth age, which is supposed to end December 21, 2012. The previous four ages all ended in some sort of natural calamity: water, wind, quakes and storms, wild animals. . .

The first age was the Age of the White Haired Giants;
the second age was the Golden Age;
the third age was the Age of the Red Haired People;
the fourth age was the Age of the Black Haired People.

A Google search on “Mayan calendar” turns up many good links. The Wikipedia entry is quite informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar

There is also an interesting calendar at the following link, on which are listed significant events from the Mayan calendar, the Christian calendar, the Jewish calendar, and as well as astrological events:

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/cal.htm

> The first age was the Age of the White Haired Giants;
> the second age was the Golden Age;
> the third age was the Age of the Red Haired People;
> the fourth age was the Age of the Black Haired People.
And your archaeological evidence for any of this is where?

I predict that come the date in question, this long-dead thread will be bumped with some pithy "still here" one-liner tag.

>the third age was the Age of the Red Haired People;

JB!!!!!!! ;)

I predict that come the date in question, this long-dead thread will be bumped with some pithy "still here" one-liner tag.

I volunteer to be the one who does it, assuming I am still around.

>the third age was the Age of the Red Haired People;
JB!!!!!!! ;)

: ) hahahah good one ;)

Just to mention another famous futurist. The years 2008 through 2012 are referred to by Nostradamus as the "Time of Troubles", a period full of war, despair, and evil, but also of hope and promise.

> a period full of war, despair, and evil, but also of hope and promise.
So no change there then.

Sorry, but vacuous predictions about "there will be a war in a far off land" just don't cut the mustard, because that is pretty much true, pretty much all of the time. In typical revisionist interpretation after the fact, the adherents claim success.

Pick your disaster, rinse and wring your waffley prediction and voilà, instant "validation".

yeah theres been constant war

1914-1918 www1
1939 - 1945 ww2
1945-1990 cold war
1990 - 2007 w.o.t etc

So you think there will be also be war in 2012? The war on terror is not really a war, and is mainly an excuse to start a war at any time.

> yeah theres been constant war
You can do much better than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars

> So you think there will be also be war in 2012?
Given the above list, it's a damn good bet that you'll find at least one somewhere on the planet at sometime during the year.

The good news for 2012 is that the Koyoto Protocol will come to an end.

The USA did not sign the protocol because it would have levied a carbondioxide tax on countries regardless of the fact that some countries like the USA are net corbondioxide consumers. The USA is a net carbondioxide consumer because of its large forests and agriculture.

The good news for 2012 is that the Koyoto Protocol will come to an end.

Agreed...very good news. Which means, of course, that the Kyotophiles will be looking for a way to either increase the duration, or else get a new, probably even more-restrictive 'agreement' in place.

The USA did not sign the protocol because it would have levied a carbondioxide tax on countries regardless of the fact that some countries like the USA are net corbondioxide consumers. The USA is a net carbondioxide consumer because of its large forests and agriculture.

How are you defining 'signed' in this case? It is my understanding that President Clinton did in fact sign something related to the treaty (not sure if it was the treaty itself or not, although I think it was), but never sent it in to Congress for ratification. If I am incorrect in this understanding, please point me to a source of correct information.

Please also note that I will be skeptical of the 'correct information' content of any clearly cyannic sites.

In that case I stand corrected, the thing was never ratified then. The main reason for me was the explanation why it was never ratified. I think someone knowledgable about carbondioxide net usage explained that to Bill Clinton after the fact.

President Bush may not know how to pronounce "nukilar" correctly, but he knew all about carbondioxide net usage of the USA, in contrast to Al Gore.

President Bush may not know how to pronounce "nukilar" correctly, but he knew all about carbondioxide net usage of the USA, in contrast to Al Gore.

:D Finally, I've found someone who understands...

There's also potentially severe economic affects that may have come into play by signing the Kyoto Protocol... or so I've heard...

> The USA is a net carbondioxide consumer because of its large forests and agriculture.
Rubbish.
Plant/tree growth is just a short-time carbon lifecycle. You eat the food you produce, and emit CO2. Wood which rots or burns emits CO2. Even if you export vast amounts of these products, it might look good for the US, but it's still only an equilibrium on a global scale.

Plant growth can only remove CO2 if you permanently take it out of the carbon cycle, by say burying timber in deep mines (to become coal once more at some future time).

If you burn any fossil fuel at all, you're adding to the problem.

> There's also potentially severe economic affects that may have come into play by signing the Kyoto Protocol...
> or so I've heard...
Or so you've been told by those with a vested interest.
But those with a different view might regard it as an opportunity to be capitalised on.