Global Warming: Real Science or Real Politics?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6851
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Global Warming: Real Science or Real Politics?

Post by Webwanderer » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:03 pm

This thread is a little off topic, but no more so than war or pollution. The following are a few articles exposing how we are being led down the path of fear for the sake of a political agenda, and of the real science that is not being reported in order to support that agenda.

Fear of some future event is a driver to action and, as we all know in the non-dual community, fear is purely concept based. Many politicians and political organizations slant, distort, suppress, and yes, even invent, information in order to forward their personal and group agendas by enlisting your action. Could this be happening with the global warming threat?

Awakening, to a large degree, is related to our ability to see clearly through those concepts we hold, and thereby release our attachment to them. We’ve all been the victims of misinformation designed to inflame our emotions, and control our minds, about one thing or another throughout our whole life. Unfortunately that is the nature of politics and, all too often, business advertisement. Even our friends and family are likely to give a biased view on events to enlist our support.

Jumping to early conclusions, without looking at facts directly, or at least listening to informed dissenting points of view, is likely to make us into “useful idiots”. (“Useful idiots” is a term used by Soviet agents in the 70’s referring to those American’s who were easily led by communist propaganda and would assist in their goals.)

It is imperative then, that when it comes to issues that may steer the course of world events, that we get as much quality information as we can, so that we may be clear of manipulation when the time comes to make decisions on these issues.

Now, for those whose fingers are even now trembling upon their keyboards to remind me that it is all an internal world of Being and that there is no me, I stipulate and agree completely. However, I still go to movies and enjoy a good plot even though I am fully aware that it is but colored light playing on a blank white background, and that I am but a spectator sitting in a chair being manipulated by the movie industry into having an enjoyable deversion. So the basis of this post is of interaction with form, but not becoming attached to the results.

The following are a few articles that detail some of the science, and scientists, that stand in dissent of the view being promoted as “settled science”. If you have a genuine interest for an accurate picture of the global warming issue, then click on some of the links below. Spend ten minutes to find out what you’re not being told. These links are but the tip of a melting iceberg. As always, truth will make us free.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... bed2f6&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 46d1fc&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 80121a&k=0[/url]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... c45dcf&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 5af353&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 332f1f&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 015777&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... ee479f&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... c7f723&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 12aeb5&k=0

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:14 am

Can we make an end run around this debate by agreeing that if we don't liberate ourselves from an intense dependance on fossil fuels, we will likely blow everything up before any possible warming kills us off?

Warming aside, aren't there other good reasons why we should be rather immediately begin making serious changes to the way we consume energy?

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6851
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:27 am

Phil Wrote:
Can we make an end run around this debate by agreeing that if we don't liberate ourselves from an intense dependance on fossil fuels, we will likely blow everything up before any possible warming kills us off?
I would agree that we need to wean ourselves from foreign fossil fuels. But that has nothing to do with the fuel; it has to do with the source of those fuels. I’m unaware of any impending war with Texas.

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:44 am

Hey WW,

Ha, we've been at war with Texas since 2000, if you catch my drift. :-)

Yes, agreed, liberation from foreign sources first.

But there just isn't enough fossil fuel within our own borders to last forever, so the issue remains.

Even if we found tons of new fossil fuels in Alaska or the Gulf, it would have to be enough to fuel the whole world, or we will still be sucked in to fight to death conflicts.

Even endless sources of free non polluting energy won't totally solve the problem, because such a discovery would just cause us to consume other limited resources at a faster rate. It truly is a now problem at it's core.

But, anyway, liberation from foreign fossil fuels might be a place we could all agree to start. They're doing it now in Brazil, if I have the story right.

Who in the US has the courage and ability to lead this project? Nobody, as best I can tell.

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6851
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:24 am

Even though it won’t last forever, it is worth noting that there is still a great deal of fossil fuels in the US, not just oil, but there are huge coal reserves and oil shale. The same mentality that fights efforts to utilize those fuels is the same mentality that is advancing the belief that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming. And the technology presently exists for safe nuclear power.

Efforts to limit access to those fuels are the primary reason for dependence on foreign sources.

What is the truth? Are fossil fuels a significant cause of global warming?

If it is true that fossil fuels are not the primary cause of global warming, then we are unnecessarily being led down a path to destruction by lies and deceit. Even if we don’t destroy ourselves by violence, we could cripple the economy by wasting half a trillion dollars through legislative efforts to stop greenhouse gases that will have little or no effect on climate. That same money, or part of it, could go into developing alternative energy that makes sense.


Phil Wrote:
Even if we found tons of new fossil fuels in Alaska or the Gulf, it would have to be enough to fuel the whole world, or we will still be sucked in to fight to death conflicts.
If the US became energy independent, there would be such a glut of available oil they couldn’t give it away.

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:57 am

Webwanderer wrote:Even though it won’t last forever, it is worth noting that there is still a great deal of fossil fuels in the US, not just oil, but there are huge coal reserves and oil shale.
Ok, good point. We could make electricity from all the coal, and then drive electric cars, etc.
Webwanderer wrote:And the technology presently exists for safe nuclear power.
I'm coming around on nuclear power. It's beginning to seem less dangerous than fighting fossil fuel wars.

A remaining significant hangup is the waste. Creating poisonous waste that we then hand down to hundreds of following generations is just so arrogant, having a hard time getting past that.
Webwanderer wrote:Efforts to limit access to those fuels are the primary reason for dependence on foreign sources.
Ok, I hear you, still listening.
If the US became energy independent, there would be such a glut of available oil they couldn’t give it away.
Right, the price would drop dramatically, and then we'd all start consuming it at an even faster pace.

I'm totally with you on energy independence. For the US especially, such an effort fits perfectly with our cultural personality and technical talents.

How do you feel about a big tax on gas, used to fund alternative energy research?

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6851
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:32 am

Phil wrote:
I'm coming around on nuclear power. It's beginning to seem less dangerous than fighting fossil fuel wars.

A remaining significant hangup is the waste. Creating poisonous waste that we then hand down to hundreds of following generations is just so arrogant, having a hard time getting past that.
The waste is a problem, but it pales in comparison to what we are facing now. I believe a solution to locking up the waste is not far off.

How do you feel about a big tax on gas, used to fund alternative energy research?
Totally against it. Raising the price of gas hurts low income people and fuels inflation.

I am in favor of scrapping the entire income tax system in favor of The Fair Tax (See HR 25). The windfall would generate plenty of tax dollars to fund alternative energy research.

Answers to these problems can be found, but not by chasing false demons.

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:41 am

The waste is a problem, but it pales in comparison to what we are facing now. I believe a solution to locking up the waste is not far off.
Will welcome any details you can share. I like the idea, but can't figure out where to put stuff that will be dangerous for 10,000 years. It seems we need some way to make it undangerous, as we use it. No idea what that might be.
I am in favor of scrapping the entire income tax system in favor of The Fair Tax (See HR 25).
Some version of flat tax?
The windfall would generate plenty of tax dollars to fund alternative energy research.
I like the idea of overhauling the tax code, but should that be a precondition for funding serious energy research? Priorities, that's what decision making is all about.

A stupid tax system probably won't kill us. Energy wars might.

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6851
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:59 am

Will welcome any details you can share. I like the idea, but can't figure out where to put stuff that will be dangerous for 10,000 years. It seems we need some way to make it undangerous, as we use it. No idea what that might be.
http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zct ... r2.htm#nw4

Answers are being worked on to the disposal problem. This problem can be solved.
Some version of flat tax?
No. A national sales tax. Now don't jump off a bridge. Do your homework. This plan has been thoroughly vetted. See this website and read the book "The Fair Tax" by Neale Boortz and Congressman John Linderman.

http://www.fairtax.org/

A stupid tax system probably won't kill us. Energy wars might.
There are no energy wars, only political ones.

User avatar
Narz
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:16 am
Location: NY Metropolitan Area
Contact:

Post by Narz » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:02 am

From my research the so-called "scientific consensus" is quite optimistic, cornucopian even. Global dimming is protecting us from the worst of the damage we've caused.

Check out this BBC documentary if you haven't already : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... al+dimming

No energy wars? You must be kidding, right? What do you think we're sending young boys to die in the desert over? Some holy sites?

The good news is that we won't physically be capable of burning the amount of fossil fuels we are now for much longer. The bad news is that even without any pollution whatsoever global warming will continue for centuries. Lets just hope we don't hit the tipping point to release that methane in Siberia.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”

InfinityCurve - my YouTube Channel :)

User avatar
din
Posts: 952
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by din » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:02 am

I'm glad this thread on global warming was started.

The answer to global warming does not lie on the level of form, it lies within you.

In the division within you and me.

"Fix" yourself, become whole, and you'll fix not only the global warming problem, but all problems.

From a course in miracles:
How many people does it take to save the world.

One.

And that person is you.
The outer world, including the problem of global warming is a manifestation of our inner state.
:)

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:17 pm

Hey there Din Dancer Amadeus,
din wrote:The answer to global warming does not lie on the level of form, it lies within you. The outer world, including the problem of global warming is a manifestation of our inner state.
I believe you are right, but it doesn't do us a lot of good.

I really do agree that the root of most of these problems is our insatiable need for more, more, more. Outer world, reflection of inner state. Agreed.

But the thing is Din, nobody has provided a practical solution to the inner state. Not you, not me, not Tolle. 3,000 years since the Budda, and we're still fubar. Such teachings are a positive influence, yes, but they have been proven over long experience not to be "the solution".

So we are stuck having to do the best we can on the level of form in the outer world. Posing ourselves as being above this is probably not accurate, and in any case is not really a contribution as it will give lots of us one more reason why we shouldn't take responsibility for the world we've created.

Everybody who cares to will work on their inner state by whatever method they prefer, for their own reasons. This is all good, but it's not going to solve global warming, energy wars etc.

Let's give it up guys. And be real for once.

We don't have a solution to the personal state that works well enough to make it the heart of any global solution.

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6851
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:13 pm

Narz Wrote:
No energy wars? You must be kidding, right? What do you think we're sending young boys to die in the desert over? Some holy sites?
Don’t you think this is a bit simplistic? Are you saying that terrorism plays no part? How much responsibility do those who restrict access to domestic sources of energy bear for dependence on Middle Eastern oil? It seems those political groups get a free ride. It’s one of those nasty little skeletons they would rather not talk about.

These groups have effectively blocked access to oil, coal and nuclear energy sources for years. Yet these same groups put forth very little effort to create a “moon mission” style effort to develop alternative clean burning fuels; some lip service yes, but nothing compared to their efforts to block access. Could it be the energy problem works to the advantage of these groups in there effort to gain political power? Anyone clear of the emotionalism they seek to generate can see that it does.


I watched the BBC documentary you posted. I’ve heard it before. Global dimming is an interesting take. However, any BBC documentary is suspect in my view. The BBC has a long history of promoting an agenda through selective and distorted broadcasting. Unfortunately this is what happens to a news source once they damage their credibility.

Have you read the links I posted above, or is it a settled matter for you? Each one can be read in about ten minutes. If you are not looking at other scientific theories, also based upon documented evidence, then your opinion, while strong, is not based on sufficient knowledge to be credible. It’s easy to let fear create conclusions before a full understanding of the available science is digested, even on a layman level.

Political forces needing popular support to advance their agendas have a long history of telling us only what they want us to believe. It is common practice to deny and discredit anything that might get in the way of the advancement of those agendas, regardless of it's truth and accuracy. If these groups are not acknowledging the input of science that fairly indicates that what is actually happening in global climate is not fully understood, then that is proof positive of an agenda being pursued.

Keep an open mind; find out what they don’t want you to know. It’s the only way to keep from being their pawn.

User avatar
din
Posts: 952
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by din » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:35 pm

phil wrote:Hey there Din Dancer Amadeus,
din wrote:The answer to global warming does not lie on the level of form, it lies within you. The outer world, including the problem of global warming is a manifestation of our inner state.
I believe you are right, but it doesn't do us a lot of good.

I really do agree that the root of most of these problems is our insatiable need for more, more, more. Outer world, reflection of inner state. Agreed.

But the thing is Din, nobody has provided a practical solution to the inner state. Not you, not me, not Tolle. 3,000 years since the Budda, and we're still fubar. Such teachings are a positive influence, yes, but they have been proven over long experience not to be "the solution".

So we are stuck having to do the best we can on the level of form in the outer world. Posing ourselves as being above this is probably not accurate, and in any case is not really a contribution as it will give lots of us one more reason why we shouldn't take responsibility for the world we've created.

Everybody who cares to will work on their inner state by whatever method they prefer, for their own reasons. This is all good, but it's not going to solve global warming, energy wars etc.

Let's give it up guys. And be real for once.

We don't have a solution to the personal state that works well enough to make it the heart of any global solution.[/quote]
[/quote]


From what Eckhart has said, (and I tend to agree with it, because it sounds good to me,) is that the world of outer manifestation will change spontaneously when enough people go thru the inner transformation. You need a certain percentage of the people to go through this in order to have the momentum for the whole to change.

Eckhart gave the examle of the flowers that spontaneously appeared on the earth, at first there were only a few, but within a short time, the earth was covered with them.

That's where we're at now, with a translucent revolution taking off and when enough of us have "transformed" then the outer manifestation will spontenously change.

How?

I have no idea, and neither does Eckhart, he has said as much.

If it doesn't happen fast enough then we will be wiped out, which, of course, is another possible solution. This will get rid of earth's "virus" as Heidi says. :D
:)

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:07 pm

din wrote:That's where we're at now, with a translucent revolution taking off and when enough of us have "transformed" then the outer manifestation will spontenously change.

How?

I have no idea, and neither does Eckhart, he has said as much.
Every so often I like to yell the word Rubbish! -- just to stay in practise. :-)

The now movement has no idea how awakenings in a few might translate in to outer change for a simple reason.

It has no interest in the subject at all!

All it has is fanciful dreams of spontaneous change that will somehow sometime somewhere miraculously arrive.

Based on no evidence at all, rather inspite of 3,000 years of evidence to the contrary. No plan at all, no coherent theory even.

Every time this poster has tried to explore the effect of awakening on social issues I get shouted down by a chorus of the sanctified who are certain it is unconscious to even consider the question.

Over and over and over, we are forced to return to the tiny topic of "me and my situation".

HARUMPH!

Ok, I feel better now, thanks.... :-)

Post Reply