live in Winnipeg for 20 years and you'll see the effects of climate change. I used to bundle up every year on Halloween and there would be snow on the ground 9 times out of 10. Now, it's warm out with no threat of snow for a couple of weeks at the end of October. Fall has been essentially eliminated. We went from 20 degrees Celsius and sunny to -5 with snow in 2 days. That's fucked.
This isn't just something that happens now and then, either. This is every year. It's been gradual, but the climate is most definitely changing and to say that we had nothing to do with it is pure ignorance. This is far beyond simply some strange weather.
Honestly, I don't blame the leaders for reflecting where the people are. When the vast majority of the people one governs continue to rape and pillage the earth, good luck on turning that around! The leaders are meant to represent the people. It's up to individuals, en masse to make these changes within. I don't buy into the "it's up to our leaders to do it for us" routine. People pretend they care, while they drive their cars, and then expect things to not continue on in the direction they are. It's denial and lack of personal responsibility. So when a handful is blamed for the willful ignorance of many, I see otherwise.
The Feds could help fund more research/production of hydrogen cells for vehicles. I personally think that is our best option. I mean, the emissions are water vapour! It's not going to happen for a looooong time though. Funding research for new, renewable energy costs them money. Taxing the already available non-renewable, pollution causing energy source makes them money. Basically, it all comes down to cash.
That being said, there's no reason for a private company not to do the same.
i'll say the SAME thing that i always say on this thread that ultimately will result in ZERO people responding ...
Study the greenhouse effect - dispute that piece of science and get back to me ... otherewise - you guys are just googling the same shit ... i can blog that i'm the king of spain - doesn't make it right ...
if you really care to understand this topic/issue - educate yourselves ... but if all you want is to hear shit that goes along with your beliefs - then what you essentially are is a sheep ...
polaris, this is my deal: I've been seeing for quite awhile now that scientists are limited by the levels of their own awareness. One's personal inner level of consciousness influences how they tie the facts together into theories. The only thing that is 100% in science is practical applications of what is uncovered. Once we start moving into theory and how we interpret the facts, then it becomes debatable. At this level, what one sees from one mindset may dramatically change as one opens to a new paradigm of perception. Einstein was adamant about this and in opening scientists to how their own awareness affects their personal bias and how they slant what they discern. Physicist David Bohm also was driven to make a big issue out of this, because as he saw it, the general scientists did not have an aptitude to understanding their own psyche and how what they see is determined by their own inner filters. He spoke out when he could on the certain practical parameters of a science-lifestyle and how peer pressures, career concerns, etc. created pressures on the average scientist that prevented them from truly discerning what was before them.
Then, when we add to that the media, and that the information that comes to us is filtered through the purposes of select few....I am not quick to judge at all. Well, I'm not going to judge, period.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The Feds could help fund more research/production of hydrogen cells for vehicles. I personally think that is our best option. I mean, the emissions are water vapour! It's not going to happen for a looooong time though. Funding research for new, renewable energy costs them money. Taxing the already available non-renewable, pollution causing energy source makes them money. Basically, it all comes down to cash.
That being said, there's no reason for a private company not to do the same.
When we're ready to attune to our environments, rather than view ourselves as outside of them, then we'll live very much differently.
I see humans in general on the cusp of moving beyond their illusory isolated ego-view. There will be much environmental chaos play out as we make a huge and dramatic leap as a species. Many are going to learn through cause and effect what not to do. During this leap, I keep my eye on the underlying energies of life and evolution, themselves, rather than on the ideologies we create and that continue to keep us feeling detached or separated from our environments.
Once we transition past our ego-view, we move into KNOWing of our position at-one with the environment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
polaris, this is my deal: I've been seeing for quite awhile now that scientists are limited by the levels of their own awareness. One's personal inner level of consciousness influences how they tie the facts together into theories. The only thing that is 100% in science is practical applications of what is uncovered. Once we start moving into theory and how we interpret the facts, then it becomes debatable. At this level, what one sees from one mindset may dramatically change as one opens to a new paradigm of perception. Einstein was adamant about this and in opening scientists to how their own awareness affects their personal bias and how they slant what they discern. Physicist David Bohm also was driven to make a big issue out of this, because as he saw it, the general scientists did not have an aptitude to understanding their own psyche and how what they see is determined by their own inner filters. He spoke out when he could on the certain practical parameters of a science-lifestyle and how peer pressures, career concerns, etc. created pressures on the average scientist that prevented them from truly discerning what was before them.
Then, when we add to that the media, and that the information that comes to us is filtered through the purposes of select few....I am not quick to judge at all. Well, I'm not going to judge, period.
so ... you are saying that potentially the plethora of scientists that make up the IPCC and have had their work peer-reviewed are biased and that the scientists that get paid by oil companies and refuse to have their work peer-reviewed are also bias - therefore, it's hard to form an opinion?
i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at really ... again - if anyone is interested in finding out whether climate change is man-made ... simply study the greenhouse effect ... it's basic science ...
To me, science, like religion, has been removed from its position as the authority.
The essence of scientism has come to an end, where we once accepted unquestioningly what we are told by fallible scientists.
Now both science and spirituality are being reclaimed by the people, and these tools for discerning the truth are being taken back by the individual to use realistically.
Yes, again, this process where we integrate the value of what science uncovers into our daily lives (like spirituality) is just that...a process. As we transition there will be much trial and error. Things will appear chaotic.
And yet, to remove any authoritarian stance that is handed down to individuals in an imbalanced way, keeping individuals unempowered, and convinced of their inability to decide for themselves is a healthy adaptive step, imo.
Try as we might, we can't fit life, experience and humanity into the ideologies we once wanted to. We can't legislate people into waking up or taking responsibility. As a matter of fact, the ongoing idea of legislating all the "positive" change, is a continuance of the illusion of our human authority over life, reality and existence.
It's time to rather ride the wave people! We can't legislate it to do our bidding!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
so ... you are saying that potentially the plethora of scientists that make up the IPCC and have had their work peer-reviewed are biased and that the scientists that get paid by oil companies and refuse to have their work peer-reviewed are also bias - therefore, it's hard to form an opinion?
i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at really ... again - if anyone is interested in finding out whether climate change is man-made ... simply study the greenhouse effect ... it's basic science ...
That's not at all what I said. If you are raising such biases as a valid point, I accept that. It's entirely different than what I see, which is not to say wrong.
edit: this may be what I mean afterall, if I am understanding you....I misread what you said initially.....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
so ... you are saying that potentially the plethora of scientists that make up the IPCC and have had their work peer-reviewed are biased and that the scientists that get paid by oil companies and refuse to have their work peer-reviewed are also bias - therefore, it's hard to form an opinion?
i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at really ... again - if anyone is interested in finding out whether climate change is man-made ... simply study the greenhouse effect ... it's basic science ...
One thing I can say is that those that make up the IPCC and who are peer reviewed each individually have their own personal agendas in each moment that influence what they see and what they interpret. That is a fact.
I can't paint them into categories of those with good intent and those with nefarious intent. As I know ALL people operate with unconscious drives all the time that influence what they see.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My personal view stems more from acknowledgment that "science is THE truth" is an illusion.
There are so many forces and natural phenomena that we describe and talk about. And to do so is highly complementary to understanding all of life and nature.
The problem comes in when people take the maps we have used in science, to explain these natural forces, to actually BE the natural forces. They are not the same thing. We can completely depend on practical application of what we've uncovered with science...and yet, we're still mesmerized by electricity, or what we've uncovered through quantum physics! We can get results over and over, and still not exactly understand what is going on beyond our maps! The map is not to be confused with the territory!
Scientism asks that humans submit to the 'truth of science'... those who push the 'truth of science' expect people to submit to it, and to give up philosophy or spirituality as ways of, alongside science, understanding our lives, environments, and where to go in making our choices in each moments. It's just not practical. Or realistic.
Science on the other hand is an amazing tool to use. And it accomplishes what philosophy and spirituality cannot. In a whole universe, we must integrate all together wholly, into the big picture.
If humans output something far, far beyond 'basic science' and that represents all of who they are, I see that as being healthy, integrated and entirely realistic. Whereas for humans to rather align to a linear thought process of idealogy is not whole, or healthy.
When people start to wake up to their own power, and realize in each moment what they do in practical terms, beyond the science....that pollutes and damages our environment, there will be no turning back--they will be happy to take responsibility and make change within and without. Adding fear or external control, imo, is not a solution at all, but rather exacerbates the problem. Also, adding external control gives the individual the false impression that things are 'taken care of' so they can happily continue in their sense of complacency.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Why has it gone from "global warming" to "climate change"?]
That's easy. Once warming trends stopped and cooling trends started showing up, "they" had to call it something else. Climate Change is an easy one, because no matter what day, year month, millenia, cause, cycle, etc... there will always be Climate Change. Nobody could possibly deny Climate Change.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
That's easy. Once warming trends stopped and cooling trends started showing up, "they" had to call it something else. Climate Change is an easy one, because no matter what day, year month, millenia, cause, cycle, etc... there will always be Climate Change. Nobody could possibly deny Climate Change.
or pollution, which is what the focus should really be on
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Why has it gone from "global warming" to "climate change"?]
Climate is defined as: Climate is the average weather usually taken over a 30-year time period for a particular region and time period.
By definition, it's always changing.
because the significance of the impact of global warming is global climate change ... what we should be concerned about is the mass flooding that has occured around the world; the droughts; the extreme temperature fluctuations; they all have correlated impacts to our lives and the world we live in ... similar to someone dumping a barrel of toxic waste into a river - there are impacts ...
Interesting article, but all of us are still waiting for conclusive evidence on both side of the fence. Nothing has disproved the unproven manmade global warming yet. Wait and see, and in the meanwhile, we could at least try to take care a care of our own environment as it's not at its best right now.
The problem is that the global warming hysteria can lead to crazy headed politics on both sides. Let's look at polution and deal with it and quit with the "point of no return" histrionics of Al Gore and Co.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
That's easy. Once warming trends stopped and cooling trends started showing up, "they" had to call it something else. Climate Change is an easy one, because no matter what day, year month, millenia, cause, cycle, etc... there will always be Climate Change. Nobody could possibly deny Climate Change.
Exactly. It's quite a bit like the guy on tv who supposedly communicates with the deceased relatives of families on his show.
TV Guy: "Jeffbr...I sense he was feeling...what's the right word...about something big in his life...something important...a big event...it's coming to me..."
Family Member: His upcoming wedding?!
TV Guy: YES!!! That's it!
Family Member: He was worried about it.
TV Guy: YES!!! Worried was the feeling I was getting!!!
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
One thing I can say is that those that make up the IPCC and who are peer reviewed each individually have their own personal agendas in each moment that influence what they see and what they interpret. That is a fact.
I can't paint them into categories of those with good intent and those with nefarious intent. As I know ALL people operate with unconscious drives all the time that influence what they see.
i understand your position ... but we are entering a realm that has no definitive meaning or action ...
as an environmentalist - i believe global climate change is the biggest issue facing life on this planet ... moreso than wealth distribution; imperialistic wars; etc ... this is based on my understanding of the issue at hand ... am i definitive source - definitely not ...
the issue tho is that success for me requires the efforts of the many not just the few ... we can have 75% agreement on actions for a problem but will not get anywhere if those 25% happen to be the biggest problem ... so, while we continue to "discuss" the same topic for the last 5 years - the problem is only getting worse ... so, the time for action is NOW ... so - there really isn't room at this stage in my mind for discussions of the perceived biases of various scientist's agenda ...
i understand your position ... but we are entering a realm that has no definitive meaning or action ...
as an environmentalist - i believe global climate change is the biggest issue facing life on this planet ... moreso than wealth distribution; imperialistic wars; etc ... this is based on my understanding of the issue at hand ... am i definitive source - definitely not ...
the issue tho is that success for me requires the efforts of the many not just the few ... we can have 75% agreement on actions for a problem but will not get anywhere if those 25% happen to be the biggest problem ... so, while we continue to "discuss" the same topic for the last 5 years - the problem is only getting worse ... so, the time for action is NOW ... so - there really isn't room at this stage in my mind for discussions of the perceived biases of various scientist's agenda ...
You yourself are saying that that problem is getting worse. What are you planning to do now to change that perpetuation of the problem and create actual change?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Exactly. It's quite a bit like the guy on tv who supposedly communicates with the deceased relatives of families on his show.
TV Guy: "Jeffbr...I sense he was feeling...what's the right word...about something big in his life...something important...a big event...it's coming to me..."
Family Member: His upcoming wedding?!
TV Guy: YES!!! That's it!
Family Member: He was worried about it.
TV Guy: YES!!! Worried was the feeling I was getting!!!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You yourself are saying that that problem is getting worse. What are you planning to do now to change that perpetuation of the problem and create actual change?
well ... i do a lot of things but really that is irrelevant to this discussion ... problems only get solved when people acknowledge that problem exists ... that is the biggest obstacle to change now ...
My opinion goes either way on global warming. I think we need to be worrying less about the temperature of the earth and more about the pollutions and extinctions we are causing. If we are the cause of Global warming or cooling, I'm sure its minimal. It was MUCH warmer during the age of the Dinosaurs and MUCH cooler during the Ice Age. The Earth is going to get warmer or cooler again either way. It will eventually all die as our sun burns out.
I think the biggest problem we have is over-population. We are running the planet dry of resources.
We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion people in the last 100 years. If there were only 1/6 of how many people there are now, pollution and the worry of global warming wouldn't even be an issue. Thats just a few generations ago.
We are like a spreading disease. Wear a condom people!
Seriously, I'm only 30 and there were half as many people in the world as there are now when was born.
well ... i do a lot of things but really that is irrelevant to this discussion ... problems only get solved when people acknowledge that problem exists ... that is the biggest obstacle to change now ...
I find all people are open to the fact that our pollution is causing tangible signs of devastation around us. Even the staunchest anti-global-warming types realize we are doing deplorable things to the environment.
People do get up in arms about differences in ideology, though, and can go back and forth on that, while avoiding actual change. And certainly I see the psychological limits that create limited change in terms of output for most people..a lack of connecting with their environments in actuality, even though they understand the theory of why they 'should'. As well, this issue takes on major power struggle aspects--politically--people use this to further their own ego-based personal agendas against others, at the expense of the big picture (which is typical of ego) rather than creating actual problem-solving.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't think anybody can deny that we are experiencing a great deal of climate change on this planet. It is evident in every part of the world at various levels of severity.
What these threads usually boil down to is not really whether or not it is happening, but why. I used to completely dismiss the notion that humanity has had the impact that people claim, and then I did some research and I had to back peddle a little but not all of my questions were answered. I'm no longer interested in getting into a heated debate about this, so I have a couple of questions that basic science should be able to answer in no time flat:
1. If what we are experiencing is not part of a natural cycle, why are there tropical plant and freshwater fish species in northern Alberta...If those species were able to survive in that region at some point in history, wouldn't that indicate that severe climate change has been a fact of life on this planet long before us people came around?
2. As someone posted earlier, and as I asked a long time ago in one of these threads, how does the IPCC explain that surface temperatures on other planets is also on the rise?
#==(o )
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
I find all people are open to the fact that our pollution is causing tangible signs of devastation around us. Even the staunchest anti-global-warming types realize we are doing deplorable things to the environment.
People do get up in arms about differences in ideology, though, and can go back and forth on that, while avoiding actual change. And certainly I see the psychological limits that create limited change in terms of output for most people..a lack of connecting with their environments in actuality, even though they understand the theory of why they 'should'. As well, this issue takes on major power struggle aspects--politically--people use this to further their own ego-based personal agendas against others, at the expense of the big picture (which is typical of ego) rather than creating actual problem-solving.
I think the biggest issue of all is still money, much more than ideology. To stop polluting like we're currently doing would cost a lot. Asking countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions is costly and some people do not think its worth it. In the end it's more a matter of actual money than ideology - look at kyoto for instance.
I think the biggest issue of all is still money, much more than ideology. To stop polluting like we're currently doing would cost a lot. Asking countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions is costly and some people do not think its worth it. In the end it's more a matter of actual money than ideology - look at kyoto for instance.
Minimizing it is great and all, but if we cut polluting in half, but there are twice as many people on the planet 20 years from now, no good will come from it.. I think the source of the problem is over-population.
I don't think anybody can deny that we are experiencing a great deal of climate change on this planet. It is evident in every part of the world at various levels of severity.
What these threads usually boil down to is not really whether or not it is happening, but why. I used to completely dismiss the notion that humanity has had the impact that people claim, and then I did some research and I had to back peddle a little but not all of my questions were answered. I'm no longer interested in getting into a heated debate about this, so I have a couple of questions that basic science should be able to answer in no time flat:
1. If what we are experiencing is not part of a natural cycle, why are there tropical plant and freshwater fish species in northern Alberta...If those species were able to survive in that region at some point in history, wouldn't that indicate that severe climate change has been a fact of life on this planet long before us people came around?
2. As someone posted earlier, and as I asked a long time ago in one of these threads, how does the IPCC explain that surface temperatures on other planets is also on the rise?
1. Continental drift - we used to be one continent. Having said that - yes, climate has fluctuated historically but we're talking thousands upon thousands of years ... the real drastic changes all have been explained through some natural occurence ... the issue now is that we are the trigger and it is happening at a much faster rate ...
2. I don't think the IPCC is concerned as much with stuff on other planets ... at the end of the day - we are still discovering planets ... measurement tools to measure planetary surface temperatures can infer a multitude of reasonings ...
I don't think the IPCC is concerned as much with stuff on other planets ...
Wow. I guess that's basic science at its best.
#==(o )
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
it's a panel of climate scientists ... you're dealing with a lot of intagibles when it comes to planetary studies ... they are nowhere near as advanced as the science we have on our own planet ...
because the significance of the impact of global warming is global climate change ... what we should be concerned about is the mass flooding that has occured around the world; the droughts; the extreme temperature fluctuations; they all have correlated impacts to our lives and the world we live in ... similar to someone dumping a barrel of toxic waste into a river - there are impacts ...
Let's take the argument away from climate change for a second, and focus on pollution. I don't for one second think pollution is acceptable. I think picking up trash is great. I think recycling is fantastic. That said, global warming/global climate change/global whatever is questionable IMHO and a number of other's opinions. According to many people's logic (and your's I believe), global climate change is supposedly a function of pollution. This is where I get lost in this debate.
Pollution is the "source" of the problem, according to you and people who agree with you, pollution IS the problem according to me and people who side with me. Why can't we just agree to fight to constrain pollution and not need to dwell into the scare tactics of global warming? I don't think anyone would deny that dumping is bad. Stick to that route and you're more likely to get people on board. IMHO the problem comes in when people want to shut down the capitalist society for environmental reasons. IMHO things pollution should be limited and I believe markets are the best way to handle the problem. Pay to pollute may not sound attractive, but I bet it would constrain things. IMHO the environmentalist front is sometimes (actually many times) used as an attack on capitalism.... therefore, a number of people aren't sincere in thier attachment to the environment, instead they are using it for a political agenda.
Lastly, the only other issue I have with this whole debate is simple: If we can "change the climate" one way (which I don't believe we can), why can't we change it back the other? If for some reason, we have the ability to alter climates, why can't we alter them back to normalcy? That side of the debate says we can change things..... therefore, we have climate control, just not a very good one yet. I don't think one can say "we can make it bad, but can't make it better". Yes, the technology may not be there, but who's to say it can't or couldn't ever be there?
it's a panel of climate scientists ... you're dealing with a lot of intagibles when it comes to planetary studies ... they are nowhere near as advanced as the science we have on our own planet ...
Ok, fair enough. One thing I know is that I don't know enough about it to debate the topic.
My final thoughts on the subject. Ok, not my thoughts but whatever...
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
Comments
This isn't just something that happens now and then, either. This is every year. It's been gradual, but the climate is most definitely changing and to say that we had nothing to do with it is pure ignorance. This is far beyond simply some strange weather.
The Feds could help fund more research/production of hydrogen cells for vehicles. I personally think that is our best option. I mean, the emissions are water vapour! It's not going to happen for a looooong time though. Funding research for new, renewable energy costs them money. Taxing the already available non-renewable, pollution causing energy source makes them money. Basically, it all comes down to cash.
That being said, there's no reason for a private company not to do the same.
Then, when we add to that the media, and that the information that comes to us is filtered through the purposes of select few....I am not quick to judge at all. Well, I'm not going to judge, period.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I see humans in general on the cusp of moving beyond their illusory isolated ego-view. There will be much environmental chaos play out as we make a huge and dramatic leap as a species. Many are going to learn through cause and effect what not to do. During this leap, I keep my eye on the underlying energies of life and evolution, themselves, rather than on the ideologies we create and that continue to keep us feeling detached or separated from our environments.
Once we transition past our ego-view, we move into KNOWing of our position at-one with the environment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
so ... you are saying that potentially the plethora of scientists that make up the IPCC and have had their work peer-reviewed are biased and that the scientists that get paid by oil companies and refuse to have their work peer-reviewed are also bias - therefore, it's hard to form an opinion?
i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at really ... again - if anyone is interested in finding out whether climate change is man-made ... simply study the greenhouse effect ... it's basic science ...
Climate is defined as: Climate is the average weather usually taken over a 30-year time period for a particular region and time period.
By definition, it's always changing.
The essence of scientism has come to an end, where we once accepted unquestioningly what we are told by fallible scientists.
Now both science and spirituality are being reclaimed by the people, and these tools for discerning the truth are being taken back by the individual to use realistically.
Yes, again, this process where we integrate the value of what science uncovers into our daily lives (like spirituality) is just that...a process. As we transition there will be much trial and error. Things will appear chaotic.
And yet, to remove any authoritarian stance that is handed down to individuals in an imbalanced way, keeping individuals unempowered, and convinced of their inability to decide for themselves is a healthy adaptive step, imo.
Try as we might, we can't fit life, experience and humanity into the ideologies we once wanted to. We can't legislate people into waking up or taking responsibility. As a matter of fact, the ongoing idea of legislating all the "positive" change, is a continuance of the illusion of our human authority over life, reality and existence.
It's time to rather ride the wave people! We can't legislate it to do our bidding!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
edit: this may be what I mean afterall, if I am understanding you....I misread what you said initially.....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I can't paint them into categories of those with good intent and those with nefarious intent. As I know ALL people operate with unconscious drives all the time that influence what they see.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's where you are losing them, Polaris.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
There are so many forces and natural phenomena that we describe and talk about. And to do so is highly complementary to understanding all of life and nature.
The problem comes in when people take the maps we have used in science, to explain these natural forces, to actually BE the natural forces. They are not the same thing. We can completely depend on practical application of what we've uncovered with science...and yet, we're still mesmerized by electricity, or what we've uncovered through quantum physics! We can get results over and over, and still not exactly understand what is going on beyond our maps! The map is not to be confused with the territory!
Scientism asks that humans submit to the 'truth of science'... those who push the 'truth of science' expect people to submit to it, and to give up philosophy or spirituality as ways of, alongside science, understanding our lives, environments, and where to go in making our choices in each moments. It's just not practical. Or realistic.
Science on the other hand is an amazing tool to use. And it accomplishes what philosophy and spirituality cannot. In a whole universe, we must integrate all together wholly, into the big picture.
If humans output something far, far beyond 'basic science' and that represents all of who they are, I see that as being healthy, integrated and entirely realistic. Whereas for humans to rather align to a linear thought process of idealogy is not whole, or healthy.
When people start to wake up to their own power, and realize in each moment what they do in practical terms, beyond the science....that pollutes and damages our environment, there will be no turning back--they will be happy to take responsibility and make change within and without. Adding fear or external control, imo, is not a solution at all, but rather exacerbates the problem. Also, adding external control gives the individual the false impression that things are 'taken care of' so they can happily continue in their sense of complacency.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's easy. Once warming trends stopped and cooling trends started showing up, "they" had to call it something else. Climate Change is an easy one, because no matter what day, year month, millenia, cause, cycle, etc... there will always be Climate Change. Nobody could possibly deny Climate Change.
or pollution, which is what the focus should really be on
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
because the significance of the impact of global warming is global climate change ... what we should be concerned about is the mass flooding that has occured around the world; the droughts; the extreme temperature fluctuations; they all have correlated impacts to our lives and the world we live in ... similar to someone dumping a barrel of toxic waste into a river - there are impacts ...
I completely agree with that. I'm on board with this line of thinking:
The problem is that the global warming hysteria can lead to crazy headed politics on both sides. Let's look at polution and deal with it and quit with the "point of no return" histrionics of Al Gore and Co.
Exactly. It's quite a bit like the guy on tv who supposedly communicates with the deceased relatives of families on his show.
TV Guy: "Jeffbr...I sense he was feeling...what's the right word...about something big in his life...something important...a big event...it's coming to me..."
Family Member: His upcoming wedding?!
TV Guy: YES!!! That's it!
Family Member: He was worried about it.
TV Guy: YES!!! Worried was the feeling I was getting!!!
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
i understand your position ... but we are entering a realm that has no definitive meaning or action ...
as an environmentalist - i believe global climate change is the biggest issue facing life on this planet ... moreso than wealth distribution; imperialistic wars; etc ... this is based on my understanding of the issue at hand ... am i definitive source - definitely not ...
the issue tho is that success for me requires the efforts of the many not just the few ... we can have 75% agreement on actions for a problem but will not get anywhere if those 25% happen to be the biggest problem ... so, while we continue to "discuss" the same topic for the last 5 years - the problem is only getting worse ... so, the time for action is NOW ... so - there really isn't room at this stage in my mind for discussions of the perceived biases of various scientist's agenda ...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well ... i do a lot of things but really that is irrelevant to this discussion ... problems only get solved when people acknowledge that problem exists ... that is the biggest obstacle to change now ...
I think the biggest problem we have is over-population. We are running the planet dry of resources.
We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion people in the last 100 years. If there were only 1/6 of how many people there are now, pollution and the worry of global warming wouldn't even be an issue. Thats just a few generations ago.
We are like a spreading disease. Wear a condom people!
Seriously, I'm only 30 and there were half as many people in the world as there are now when was born.
People do get up in arms about differences in ideology, though, and can go back and forth on that, while avoiding actual change. And certainly I see the psychological limits that create limited change in terms of output for most people..a lack of connecting with their environments in actuality, even though they understand the theory of why they 'should'. As well, this issue takes on major power struggle aspects--politically--people use this to further their own ego-based personal agendas against others, at the expense of the big picture (which is typical of ego) rather than creating actual problem-solving.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What these threads usually boil down to is not really whether or not it is happening, but why. I used to completely dismiss the notion that humanity has had the impact that people claim, and then I did some research and I had to back peddle a little but not all of my questions were answered. I'm no longer interested in getting into a heated debate about this, so I have a couple of questions that basic science should be able to answer in no time flat:
1. If what we are experiencing is not part of a natural cycle, why are there tropical plant and freshwater fish species in northern Alberta...If those species were able to survive in that region at some point in history, wouldn't that indicate that severe climate change has been a fact of life on this planet long before us people came around?
2. As someone posted earlier, and as I asked a long time ago in one of these threads, how does the IPCC explain that surface temperatures on other planets is also on the rise?
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
I think the biggest issue of all is still money, much more than ideology. To stop polluting like we're currently doing would cost a lot. Asking countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions is costly and some people do not think its worth it. In the end it's more a matter of actual money than ideology - look at kyoto for instance.
1. Continental drift - we used to be one continent. Having said that - yes, climate has fluctuated historically but we're talking thousands upon thousands of years ... the real drastic changes all have been explained through some natural occurence ... the issue now is that we are the trigger and it is happening at a much faster rate ...
2. I don't think the IPCC is concerned as much with stuff on other planets ... at the end of the day - we are still discovering planets ... measurement tools to measure planetary surface temperatures can infer a multitude of reasonings ...
Wow. I guess that's basic science at its best.
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
it's a panel of climate scientists ... you're dealing with a lot of intagibles when it comes to planetary studies ... they are nowhere near as advanced as the science we have on our own planet ...
Pollution is the "source" of the problem, according to you and people who agree with you, pollution IS the problem according to me and people who side with me. Why can't we just agree to fight to constrain pollution and not need to dwell into the scare tactics of global warming? I don't think anyone would deny that dumping is bad. Stick to that route and you're more likely to get people on board. IMHO the problem comes in when people want to shut down the capitalist society for environmental reasons. IMHO things pollution should be limited and I believe markets are the best way to handle the problem. Pay to pollute may not sound attractive, but I bet it would constrain things. IMHO the environmentalist front is sometimes (actually many times) used as an attack on capitalism.... therefore, a number of people aren't sincere in thier attachment to the environment, instead they are using it for a political agenda.
Lastly, the only other issue I have with this whole debate is simple: If we can "change the climate" one way (which I don't believe we can), why can't we change it back the other? If for some reason, we have the ability to alter climates, why can't we alter them back to normalcy? That side of the debate says we can change things..... therefore, we have climate control, just not a very good one yet. I don't think one can say "we can make it bad, but can't make it better". Yes, the technology may not be there, but who's to say it can't or couldn't ever be there?
Ok, fair enough. One thing I know is that I don't know enough about it to debate the topic.
My final thoughts on the subject. Ok, not my thoughts but whatever...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.