Paradelver

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I believe this may be one of the best sites of good information and summary reviews of climate change issues available: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ Consider the distance equation for planetary heating, which I have seen requiring the earth to rise anywhere from 86 degs to 3,100 deg. Celsius to account for solar heating of Jupiter and Pluto (another claim apparently). Somehow I doubt this theory.

I think it is rather humorous when there is speculation about 'possible' 'life out there' when there is a plethora of UFO sitings and crop circles, which, if even a fraction are authentic (there is abundant evidence of this) then we have never been alone. Perhaps we do not understand the time/space continuum as much as we might think, and life of the cosmos arises in such a way we are not yet aquainted with. Our 'space brothers' MAY be trying to help us not destroy the planet! I think many watch too many violent movies about 'aliens.'

Scientists regularly make snap judgments, as evidenced by the apparent verified (2,000-3,000 papers) that might just be replicating cold fusion. But, never underestimate the skewness that comes from big funding from vested interests that are not interested in the truth. The food comments related to Monsanto and the meat and dairy industries. To find out how valid 'conventional' research is, and how 'open' to all the potential options, just tally up the number of lobbyists that funnel our tax dollars to their special interest treasure chests. Buckminster Fuller called it the G.R.U.N.C.H of giants (Gross Universal Cash Heist). See? snap judgements. You comment on a book with evidence you have never read. Exactly my point. Read "Seeds of Deception" and visit http://www.earthsave.org , or don't bother to comment, eh? Ok, concerning the Gaia hypothesis, I mentioned the work of James Lovelock. Concerning scientistst that met resistance I mentioned several. Concerning food safety I mentioned documented information on the dangers of GM that is being repressed. Concerning Monsanto I mentioned legal actions on-going. What specifics do you not see in my comments? Denialist? About what? Me thinks there is a denialist, and it may not be me. I'm done here for now.

Certainly not. Science the primary apsect of a '5th' meme level of consciousness however, as Ken Wilber has it worked out (from a 50,000 person cross-cultural database of study), if you ever heard of him, but it is the dominant current level of consciousness of the industrialized nations - which is a dangerous level if you do not then move to the next level of some understanding of the interconnectedness of life on this planet. Of course there are many not even very aware of scientific facts enough to be intelligent with their assesments. Well I suppose the rats that died after the 90 day 'given' window of experimentation (all of them) with tomatoes and also potatoes that were GM might then indicate a certain 'deception' on the part of industry (i.e. Monsanto - who is in process of terrorizing farmers with threats of lawsuits because of Monsanto's seeds drifting onto THEIR plots). I am drawing broad correlations, as, as expected I met with resistance. Exactly my point about 'science' gaining some perspective and operating on more cylinders. For some good information try http://www.earthsave.org . And here, I thought you might be open minded. Ah well...

Concerning climate change I find it most helpful to try to understand the systemic mechanisms of the earth and get a sense of the scales involves. How it sequesters CO2 (limestone deposition via micro-plankton etc) and ocean salinity (lagoon/ eestuary evaporation) etc... Humanity has injected some 10% of green house gases into an equilibrium system. Now what happens when a 10% change in chemicals is injected into an equilibrium system? It will adjust. Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is just this. The earth behaves as a living organism and can be construed as such by the fine tolerances maintained, despite predicted greater fluctuations. This is something I think all scientists should look deeper into and ponder at great length before making superficial snap judgements as if they 'know' something. The best minds that have studied this in depth (I refer to Elizabet Sartoris for one) have concluded that we just don't know what will happen, but there will be a 'readjustments' required to accomodate the elements that have been shot into the atmosphere and dug up from depths in mining. For example, radioactive material, as Walter Russell (Tesla said he was 1000 years ahead of his time) proposed, are not understood at all, and have tremendous effects on the planet; I think probably much unknown. I know of a Dr. that found oxygen tanks placed near nuclear reactors were affected such that the oxygen would not ozonate. Before one states 'aww.. how could that be' I suggest one try it. Then there are pervasive and subtle effects of such strong nuclear radiation on the planet's surface we probably have not detected as yet on the human body... our science in my opinion to date, despite its relative 'advancement' is quite crude and crudely used, in addition to outright deception (see "Seeds of Deception" to observe the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods that are being repressed).

============================================ Well, if you notice, the great scientists always followed a pattern of getting much opposition for their 'unorthodox' ideas, inventions and discoveries that 'jumped' a couple of circuits ahead of their more 'conventional' collegues. No, it's not just refining the known facts or reordering formulas to fit some data (which is what much 'science' consists of of late) that makes real science in my opinion, it is open minded investigation to discover what has not been understood or recognized or known before. I submit Gallileo, Nikoli Tesla, Royal Rife, and many others. See Erlene Chanye's 'Man Out of Time' as a good example. It is always so. There are those ahead of their time that will always meet opposion, then there is eventual acceptance and amnesia about the great struggle that it involved. See Thomas S. Kuhn : http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html . I say 'ignorant' in the more ultimate sense, knowing that in the future what we know now will be so much of a thimble in comparison. I submit that there are a plethora of 'facts' that are rolling in like the perverbial tides, but UNDERSTANDING is rather short as is wisdom, conscious integration and perspective. This will take time and perceptual shifts before we become more truely enlightened communities in the scientific fields. There are great deconstructionist / perceptual splits at the time being that are contributing to our race toward a cliff of destruction which we see in most every department of human activity - especially the pervasive environmental crises. Our view and paradigms have to be questioned and changed if we (humanity) are going to survive on the planet. Truly open minds are very rare. ~ Anyone can 'know,' but the point is to 'understand' [Einstein]

This is a false dicotomy, which grew out of lost knowledge of our true involutionary-evolutionary-epigenesis process. I suggest we keep open minds with active investigation of the limitations of our THEORIES, learning to let go of BELIEFS to make way for enlightenment. A couple of questions for science 'believers': 1) Where is memory stored? (a deeper look at this gives one pause before accepting that it is just around the corner before we find those neural locations for each memory - someplace - in 'there.') 2) Bells Thereom, Non-Locality and other quantum physics puzzles... where is it all leading to? 3) Consider the mechanistic to Einsteinian assumptions (mostly based on mathematical equations) by physicists leading to construction of theories that are often taken as 'facts' when they are a constellation of mathematical formulations constructed into dogmatic scientific paradigms; and then worshiped by devotees, supported by Corporate Education for Cubicles Inc. Hence the confusion when 'God plays dice with creation' which Einstein could not stomach (i.e. quantum physics). As for Creationists - I can understand the temptation to just mush religious belief into physical facts of the universe, but it really does not ultimately serve one well (if one wishes to evolve that is). Actually, as I think about it, one can indeed seek to 'disprove' evolution by not 'believing' in scientific data (evolution is not linear or 'gradual' however, as we now know) by deciding not to evolve. Perhaps then one believes that Jesus will come down and 'rapture' the 'true believers' to heaven before the Middle East nukes itself with largess grants of military welfare from the U.S.. Pardon the foray into politics here as I tend to associate Creationists with chickhawk warmonger politicians that seem to be supported by many of them. I am sure some Creationists are not that politically regressive. I guess my point is we all are ignorant in the grand scheme of the cosmos, but at least we can try to grasp what information and wisdom is available, and make attempts to be open minded... it's what will save the planet.