More temperature lies

polaris

dmitry wrote:

Farmers maintain their land because that land is their livelihood, and they also do everything they possibly can to maximize their crop yield every year. What you've written doesn't make any sense. With modern farming techniques there is no such thing as overgrowing food on existing farm plots.

The correct answer would be

d. grow as much food as you can every year and maintain the land.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

you miss the point completely ...

polaris

angelica wrote:

The truth on this subject, polaris, is that I have no idea what you know environmentally. If you can see environmentally what I see psychologically...and if you see as far beyond the common view of the environment as I do psychologically, then I have great respect for what you see. I trust you will operate from the best and most aware position you can. I cannot blindly put my faith in another, however. I'm being honest and expressing why I don't trust the science. There are way too many human power struggles involved and that I see play out all over the place, psychologically and politically.

I speak to many principles that exist as is. I don't claim that I am perfect. I'm not even close to living consistently from my own principles. I'm not close to living consistently at a place detached of ego.

In principle, living beyond ego is about valuing all views. And all perspectives, even when I don't agree, or when I outrightly think they are wrong. In seeking the greater good, one must rise above their own perspective, in order to embrace all the variables. The basis must be on a mutual respect, which is the opposite of 'my view is superior, yours is not'. any one-up, one-down view or one that says I'm right/you're wrong starts off at a place that is not ready for problem solving.

the issue here is that you are clearly a skeptic on the climate change front but discussing the topic via science is not to your liking - so, you don't believe the thousands of scientists nor any other person in this thread - so be it - but your approach of calling many people blinded by their bias is what is offensive ... you are projecting that to people you know nothing about ...

this line sums it up ...

The problem is they are unconscious of their own agenda-issues beneath the surface that drive them to align with certain sources of info, and certain ideologies over others

angelica

polaris wrote:

the issue here is that you are clearly a skeptic on the climate change front but discussing the topic via science is not to your liking - so, you don't believe the thousands of scientists nor any other person in this thread - so be it - but your approach of calling many people blinded by their bias is what is offensive ... you are projecting that to people you know nothing about ...

this line sums it up ...

The problem is they are unconscious of their own agenda-issues beneath the surface that drive them to align with certain sources of info, and certain ideologies over others

I accept people being offended.

And yet, it's easy to see when people have an intent of infringing on the freedom of other people. I'm not cool with that. When I see someone attempting to curtail capitalistic purposes, because they don't agree with them, people make themselves clear by their actions. When people are working through their personal power struggles (ie: attempting to control behaviours of others), and when they are actively involved in this, rather than at a stage of what I see as problem-solving, it is what it is.

Ultimately, I can only come from my own position, including my observations that are based on my life skills, knowledge, and yes, my own personal agendas.

Key in moving beyond ego is to work out solutions given all dissonant starting positions, with the purposes of all in mind. I'm always open to doing so.

I have not once said I don't believe any scientist or view. What I am saying is that I have no way of knowing what to believe given the vast majority are unconscious of their motivations. And people justify their to-me-questionable actions, when in fact, the questionable actions cannot be justified as I see it. Therefore I must reserve judgement on the global warming debate since these other obvious issues are glaring all around me and are not being acknowledged, owned or addressed, and are clouding the real points for me. I accept it if you don't like my view...I'm merely sharing it...it is what it is.

When people are able to see the validity in each other's views, and show a willingness to work together on a level playing field, I will no longer consider people blinded by their personal biases--I will consider them to be willing to accept them and go beyond them.

angelica

For me, the key is, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread, focussing on polution, which is practical and our responsibility.

At the same time, for those who feel they know what is what in terms of the science, I am all for them discussing it if they feel the inclination!

It's just not my strength here.

There are many who are into the science aspect. I am into the social, humanitarian aspects of how people contribute to or solve their problems. I seek the latter. And when I see this issue continue on and people continue on with the same methods, perpetuating what is not working, I see that for what it is in my view. And I realize that humans are gaining strength and awareness in this information age. We're not willing to forego our opinions to the 'experts' any longer. And I see the value in that. And I also see that whether or not we are on board with this natural evolution of humans in the western world in this area at this time, it is happening anyway. I personally seek to adapt to what is.

polaris

angelica wrote:

For me, the key is, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread, focussing on polution, which is practical and our responsibility.

At the same time, for those who feel they know what is what in terms of the science, I am all for them discussing it if they feel the inclination!

It's just not my strength here.

There are many who are into the science aspect. I am into the social, humanitarian aspects of how people contribute to or solve their problems. I seek the latter. And when I see this issue continue on and people continue on with the same methods, perpetuating what is not working, I see that for what it is in my view. And I realize that humans are gaining strength and awareness in this information age. We're not willing to forego our opinions to the 'experts' any longer. And I see the value in that. And I also see that whether or not we are on board with this natural evolution of humans in the western world in this area at this time, it is happening anyway. I personally seek to adapt to what is.

why would you focus on pollution? it's primarily the same scientists that are saying we need action on climate change ... and how would you feel about addressing pollution if it in fact curtails a "capitalistic" purpose which apparently is what ultimately needs to be defended in this world ...

again ... you talk about the humanitarian aspects but the reality is that you cannot solve a problem you don't acknowledge ...

angelica

polaris wrote:

why would you focus on pollution? it's primarily the same scientists that are saying we need action on climate change ... and how would you feel about addressing pollution if it in fact curtails a "capitalistic" purpose which apparently is what ultimately needs to be defended in this world ...

again ... you talk about the humanitarian aspects but the reality is that you cannot solve a problem you don't acknowledge ...

You want to debate that I focus on taking practical responsibility?

My agenda here is different than yours, as I stated earlier. Not oppositional to, but rather compelementary to. Therefore, if you are asking me to solve a problem that in your view I don't acknowledge, you are not understanding what I am setting out to do.

I am opposed to going against natural life principles. Therefore I am seriously limited in what I control and what I don't control. In plain language in this discussion, on this topic at this time, I personally am not able to limit the freedoms of corporations, even when I see the mayhem that is created by them--even though I very much disagree with what they justify. And I would not force such limits on them if I had the 'inauthentic' power to do so.

polaris

angelica wrote:

You want to debate that I focus on taking practical responsibility?

My agenda here is different than yours, as I stated earlier. Not oppositional to, but rather compelementary to. Therefore, if you are asking me to solve a problem that in your view I don't acknowledge, you are not understanding what I am setting out to do.

I am opposed to going against natural life principles. Therefore I am seriously limited in what I control and what I don't control. In plain language in this discussion, on this topic at this time, I personally am not able to limit the freedoms of corporations, even when I see the mayhem that is created by them--even though I very much disagree with what they justify. And I would not force such limits on them if I had the 'inauthentic' power to do so.

no ... i'm interested in knowing why you consider addressing pollution worthwhile but not climate change ...

so - in essence, any limitations to the freedoms of corporations is something you want to avoid ... that is a fair position for someone to take ... corporations just aren't my concern primarily ...

angelica

polaris wrote:

no ... i'm interested in knowing why you consider addressing pollution worthwhile but not climate change ...

so - in essence, any limitations to the freedoms of corporations is something you want to avoid ... that is a fair position for someone to take ... corporations just aren't my concern primarily ...

It's like mental health issues. I personally disagree with the illness models that underly psychiatry and the general way mental health is looked at in our society in this time. And at the same time, it's obvious to me that there are many, many people who need practical hands on support, help, and even tools of psychiatry, so I choose to work in the field, towards the empowerment of such individuals, even using the tools of the very discipline who I disagree with.

Because I don't agree with the theory doesn't stop me from seeing what goes on around me. I see rampant disconnects with the environment and what that causes. (And again, in global warming, it's not that I don't agree with the theory, it's that I have no way of knowing either way, so I feel any agreement/non-agreement would be purely arbitrary for me.)

What is your primary concern?

polaris

angelica wrote:

It's like mental health issues. I personally disagree with the illness models that underly psychiatry and the general way mental health is looked at in our society in this time. And at the same time, it's obvious to me that there are many, many people who need practical hands on support, help, and even tools of psychiatry, so I choose to work in the field, towards the empowerment of such individuals, even using the tools of the very discipline who I disagree with.

Because I don't agree with the theory doesn't stop me from seeing what goes on around me. I see rampant disconnects with the environment and what that causes. (And again, in global warming, it's not that I don't agree with the theory, it's that I have no way of knowing either way, so I feel any agreement/non-agreement would be purely arbitrary for me.)

What is your primary concern?

my concerns are all forms of life on this planet

angelica

polaris wrote:

my concerns are all forms of life on this planet

Thanks.

I will say that my agenda is based on this concern as well. My methodology is about being on an even playing field with others, so that they are open to where the Truth itself can get through to them influentially. If what I speak is not the truth, or whatever aspect is not, or is inapplicable, it will fall away. We all win with the Truth and with natural evolutionary purposes.

dmitry

polaris wrote:

you miss the point completely ...

Perhaps, but I can see pretty clearly that you are talking out of your ass

polaris

dmitry wrote:

Perhaps, but I can see pretty clearly that you are talking out of your ass

haha ... yeah ... ok ... :rolleyes:

dmitry

polaris wrote:

haha ... yeah ... ok ... :rolleyes:

well, it made me laugh too when i wrote it. nothing personal.

yahamita

75 today in Oregon..Should be lots and lots of snow by now...