ralis

You last line is nothing more than an escapist attitude. That is what troubles me about Buddhists. As to the first, lineages and gurus are a thing of the past in which I am not interested in such authoritarianism.

Read it 25 years ago.

Why not cut to the chase and state what you know.

How cryptic!

Fine. Why not impart what you know.

I would like to know also.

Jax, I have broached this issue before in regards to Dzogchen and it's practicality for everyday life. Intuition, resourcefulness, creativity and having insight in everyday relations, whether it be in personal relationships or business communications, contract negotiations are what I consider grounded activities and I am not certain how Dzogchen really applies. Honestly, in general, I just don't see it in the Buddhist community. Day trading the markets or even being involved in a poker game are just two examples that apply to ordinary life and I am not certain if Dzogchen would make one a better trader or even poker player.

LOL! He was an inspiration to Jeff Beck.

I don't recall if I have posted this or not but Roy Buchanan was one of the all time greats. He inspired a lot of players. He makes it look too easy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDOIL5OqvYs

Jax is introducing rigpa in this thread. Yes, it is non verbal.

I provided many links to valid research and the Scientific American article which is a brief overview of the research.

JB has repeatedly stated that he will beat down, poke holes and destroy any argument I bring to this issue. See his previous posts. Like I said, what ever answer no matter how precise, will be wrong. Seems like bullying to me.

I agree. The 'classic double bind' applies here. Any answer I provide is the wrong answer. Reminds me of this scene from 'Full Metal Jacket'. This movie explores the 'double bind'.

On what basis are you weighting the various drivers according your research that is different from the published climatology research? Volcanism and other factors will drive climate change but in this instance are you comparing and contrasting with CO2 absorption? Does not follow. Are you positing that the CO2 in the atmosphere is from volcanic activity? Are you aware that volcanoes have signatures in the ash that can be traced back to the source? The output from volcanic emissions are 130 million tonnes.http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php Emissions from fossil fuels are as of 2010 were 9 billion tonnes/year. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html Your comparison in the last sentence so as to minimize the effect of CO2 and give greater weight to water vapor does not take into account that CO2 increase absorbs more water vapor. To claim coefficients of greater magnitude of water vapor as opposed to CO2 absorption by posting graphs that have no authorship and I can only assume the data contained in the graphs are not from climatology research. BTW, I tried to find the author of the graphs to no avail. Gvien that I have no way to substantiate by what order of magnitude you are referring to. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html To conflate weather patterns with long term climate change models might fit in a linear model but in a complex system such as the biosphere short term weather patterns are tiny iterations or a fragment of the whole climate picture. On what basis do you claim the sun is 'very significant' in terms of global warming? I have yet to find any documented research to substantiate your claims. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Out of the blue the Venus argument crops up? I guess Witch made an analogy to Venus but in no way was stating that the earth would heat to 460 degrees. What is your point?

edit

Brief overview of the process whereby the research and modeling are being conducted on AGW. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=discovery-of-global-warming

Honestly it is by experience, ultimately.

Does the 'wisdom eye' follow the heart seeing?

If I could make a suggestion, is that if one is able and knowledgeable go out and sky gaze. At least that helped me understand seeing a bit more. At least for me it cracked some of my limitations.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_system The above is a good start. Furthermore, I don't see the deniers taking measurements at the polar ice caps, drilling ice core samples, taking ocean ph readings, conducting atmospheric measurements of co2, collecting satellite data and so forth. The research data are massive and the above will point in the right direction. The question is what observations are the anti AGW persons engaged in? Articles from 'Nature' are only available in abstract form and must be paid for.

In whatever one is doing in the moment?

Serene Blue, The above statement says it all as to why I don't take him seriously. Terms such as coefficients used out of context with no reference to the researched data that one may find in journals such as 'Nature' and so on. Generally calling the scientific community laughing stocks No data or research whatsoever with baseless accusations.

If you read his past posts in the pit on AGW then you will see my point. Witch stopped debating him because of his patronizing attitude toward her even though she has a B.S. in Math. His argument appeals to junk science purveyors and is a rehash of what he gleans from a few blogs and in particular Anthony Watts who entertains AGW deniers. JB believes he has debunked Dr. Hansens work via email exchanges on AGW, by claiming that the sun is responsible for global warming as opposed to co2. That issue has been addressed by the research community and found to be baseless. Yet the denier crowd still holds this point of view. If you care to read the data on the research, Google it. However, an understanding of non-linear chaotic dynamic systems will be required. The anti AGW crowd fails to understand the biosphere as such a system. When the forecasts slightly change, the research scientists are accused of manipulating the data. Such are baseless accusations given that such systems are sensitive to initial conditions with the only constant being change. I don't believe for one minute given JB's past history on this issue that he wants to debate but slam me down for adhering to real science based on sound research. Seems more like an inquisition as opposed to debate. Watts blog entertains junk science purveyors who cherry pick data to prove a point. http://wattsupwiththat.com/