Global climate change.......

[Ya Mu]

It seems to me that most posts are reflecting politics instead of simply looking. If one looks at the ice shelfs, glaciers, mountain tops etc what do you see?

[Owledge]

It seems to me that most posts are reflecting politics instead of simply looking. If one looks at the ice shelfs, glaciers, mountain tops etc what do you see?

Some getting smaller, some getting bigger. In total if might still be more melting than freezing, but I mean, c'mon... looking at singular phenomena is pretty unscientific. It also can be manipulated very easily. It's useful for visual propaganda.

 

My current personal standpoint after broad political, scientifical, historical and sociological research:

- Whether the global temperature is rising or falling is too hard to tell. There are people on both sides that have an agenda rather than an interest in truth.

- CO2's influence is insignificant at best.

- The media has an enormous influence in shaping public opinion about the topic.

- The whole thing is so full of lies and contradictions!

 

Generally, not limited to this matter, it is perplexing how obvious many bis scams are! Most people are satisfied with pre-filtered information or they filter it by themselves looking only for proof of the standpoint that they heard first. It reminds me of one time in a forum when a FOX documentary about the alledged faking of the moon landing(s) was posted. The docu's explanations were incredibly weak and amateur-like, but some people, after only watching this docu, were absolutely convinced that the moon landings had been faked. No more doubt. No further discussion necessary. I suppose this is when people are just satisfied with believing SOMETHING.

 

Again (and I also noticed this by looking at myself a mere year ago): Very often opinions are based on totally logical reasoning, but the fact basis is flawed! That's why control of information is the main thing used for controlling the population and that's why we all seem to have less and less time left for research. It's tragic! You tell people that they have to consider some facts to save democracy and they answer that they have more important things to do, like shopping.

 

Example Iran: The newspapers here only tell one side of the story... the western one. They report some general, vague things that Ahmadinejad said, but not that he suggested the USA to first apologize for their 1953 coup sabotaging iranian democracy! And that's undisputed, historical fact, but people simply don't know! These things would give people a fit of dizziness and are thus carefully kept away from the masses. Half of what's going on in the world according to the corporate media is pure lies.

(By the way, not that you think I support someone like Ahmadinejad. I'm mostly beyond this way of thinking. A. is playing the same bogus game of politics like they all do. But he's got a point there, you have to admit. But Obama has so much confidence in the disinformation that he can respond to A. as if he never said it.)

 

 

BTW: Isn't this thread in the wrong sub-forum? Would fit to Off-Topic, I think.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Hardyg

[Ya Mu]

Some getting smaller, some getting bigger. In total if might still be more melting than freezing, but I mean, c'mon... looking at singular phenomena is pretty unscientific. It also can be manipulated very easily. It's useful for visual propaganda.

 

And per the other posts that quote "scientific" data both viewpoints are correct. It seems to me that "scientific" depends on one's political viewpoint which was my reason for posting what I did. Apparently "scientific" has not formulated a single factual viewpoint, now has it? Otherwise there would be a single agreed upon viewpoint.

 

I think planet X is responsible

[seadog]

Well I don't really care about what anyone says in regards to climate change.

I do however care about what the earth says

And I can tell you in south eastern Australia the message is loud and clear.

Tenth consective year of drought

Hottest day ever recoreded not by a point or two but by three whole degrees. An eye ball drying,lung burning47.5c or 120f for our American friends

Over two hundred people dead from bush fires some of which reached tempatures in excess of 1800c

Coldest night ever recorded for Janurary 3c

Water catchments down to 30% capacity for the nations second biggest city,which by the way has an influxs of 1200 people arrive every week.

This week we are expected to have another day of over 35c with galeforce Northerly winds.

Followed the next day by galeforce southwest winds and a top of 18c.

The only good thing about this scenerio is there will be waves in excess of 8 foot.

[Owledge]

Tenth consective year of drought

...

Coldest night ever recorded for Janurary 3c

That's another interesting thing. Here in Europe it seems to be getting colder. Some will say that is because of the Gulf stream, and it's part of the climate thesis, that at some places it gets warmer, while at other places colder. So less global warming than if it got warmer everywhere.

Seadog, imagine what could be done for drought areas if they took all the money for the Kyoto protocol for direct, local help. An it's the same with hunger and poverty in the world. The Kyoto protocol is like burning the money. And in the U.S. alone more than 30000 scientists want it canceled. That's what Al Gore calls the very few unteachable dissenters.

 

A 'fun thought' I recently heard is that if all Greenland-ice melted again, it would create a huge area for vegetation that binds carbon.

 

When people lie over and over, sooner or later they'll stumble over their lies. People are contradicting each other. They tried to explain the lag of CO2 behind temperature with the oceans reacting to a small man-made global warming, then heating up and releasing huge amonts of CO2. (I'll ignore at this point how this alledgedly very delicate balance can be disturbed by man-made CO2, but not by increased solar activity.)

Now the newest 'trend' is decreased coral growth due to a higher CO2 concentration in the air causing the oceans to absorb more of it and thus having their pH becoming more towards acidic.

And there you have a paradox: The oceans produce CO2 because they're heating up and because of the then higher CO2 concentration in the air absorb more of it?!

 

Well, being this a forum about Chi cultivation and such, people who are not just selectively open-minded will not be surprised when I say: It's tragic! People could have gotton their cars built to run on water and vacuum energy roughly since the beginning of the automobile itself. The old game of power, dominance and control is what separates this planet from being a paradise.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Hardyg

[Dreamingawake]

[seadog]

I don't believe this is a issue of politics or agenda.

This is a issue of heart.

I don't need a scientist or a goverment spokesmen or a corporate mouth piece to tell me how it is.

The earth itself tells us.

We share this planet with each other and a multitude of other life forms.

As a species we take more then our share.

Some where along the line the acquistion of "things" became a virtue and it is wrong.

I don't care about who has signed what protocal or how much money is being spent on what.

Unless we have a change of HEART then we as a species and the myriad of other life forms will suffer.

 

If Green Lands Ice cap melts it would be unprecedented disaster for the sea life that live there,more then just humans are effected by such scenrios.I fail to see how that can be a "fun thought"

 

Hunger and poverty exsist in the world because of greed and stupidty

The same greed and stupidity that drives westerns to demand coffee,sugar,chocolate and cheap cotton apparel.

Once again this is a matter of heart.

 

I suggest Hardyg instead of wondering how much co2 is in or isn't in the atmoshpere or how much coral is effected by an increase in ph. Take sometime to visit the many beautiful places in Germany and consider closely what you see around you. Go to the black forest and look closely at the trees there,look at the leaves in summer and ask yourself about the nature of acid rain.

 

When I wonder did the mark of a man become measured by what he acquired not by what he gave away.

[NeutralWire]

Edited March 1, 2009 by NeutralWire

[seadog]

One of my favorite passages in the new testament;

"Consider the lily of the field it neither reaps nor does it sow,still Solomon in all his glory was not a richly clothed."

[Owledge]

...we stole as many of her carbon assets as we could reach...

Carbon assets .... stealing ... rhetoric about moral belief systems. It's very religion-like.

Of course we should care for nature. The point that I'm trying to make is that when dealing with this problem mostly emotionally, it's easy to overlook people who are using that to (edit)their(edit) advantage. In a way it's ingenious: The big liars of the world invented a scare with which they can catch warm-hearted, caring people in their net. A quote comes to my mind about that for good people doing bad things, it takes religion. It's not empty words that scientists say this thing has become a religion, because it shows many of those features.

 

People really need to stop thinking (I initially wrote stinking! ) in fixed patterns or seeing themselves in certain roles. I think I could tell you some basic facts about my world view or habits that for some people would be very confusing because they fit in no pattern ... except the love for truth.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Hardyg

[Seth Ananda]

Nice posts sea dog..

 

I have always loved the Sky, espescially that Crisp, Clean Blue on a bright cloudless day. Its getting harder and harder to find Sky like that.

I used to be able to drive 40 min's from the city to see it like that, but now its at least a 4 hour drive.

 

I miss it.

 

I would have thought the Taoists here would be more intune with Nature. My mistake

 

Seth.

[Dreamingawake]

Nice posts sea dog..

 

I have always loved the Sky, espescially that Crisp, Clean Blue on a bright cloudless day. Its getting harder and harder to find Sky like that.

I used to be able to drive 40 min's from the city to see it like that, but now its at least a 4 hour drive.

 

I miss it.

 

I would have thought the Taoists here would be more intune with Nature. My mistake

 

Seth.

 

The Whole point that those of us dont buy into this global warming crap are trying to make is that it's distracting

people from real environmental issues. environmentalism has become a religion that has nothing to do with the

beliefs that founded it. Instead of trying to stop the destruction of the rainforest or save endangered whales, were

trying to fight carbon?!? further proof of environmentalism as a religion can be found in the fact that recycling is

actually BAD for the environment. Aside from being ridiculously expensive, it also creates unbelievable amounts

of toxic chemicals as a side effect that end up; guess where... in the environment

 

proponents of global warming always try to draw the line in the sand between those that believe them and

those that dont to make it look like anyone who doesnt support Gore's outright lie hates the environment.

I would put forward that gore hates the environment because he diverting effort from REAL issues for his own

political agenda.

 

There are many issues that need to be addressed to protect our home but as long as people focus on this lie

all these important problems get ignored.

[joeblast]

Do people simply forget that we live in a dynamic environment? Of course I am in favor of harmonious existence, but that is not the issue being addressed here and is a little outside the original scope of the topic at hand. Unfortunately, the issue IS a political one and much less a scientific one...the science should drive the politics, but when the tables tip and politics start driving science, well, then we have an issue, kinda like some days of old where theology drove the science. Here's an applicable quote: "Reality lies outside of belief or disbelief." Better science is going to be the only thing that saves the world's economy from being raped by a fictitious crisis. I am all for better and cleaner technology, but done the right way - not as part of a stifling mandate pushed down from ignorant powers that be! (Now why did that Co2 satellite have NO failsafe on the cause of failure, where they would normally have two or three failsafes? Go figure something with the potential to settle out an "issue" of such "importance"...or does it help keeping everyone in the dark until the legislation is already enacted and there's crapall we can do about it?) And people wanted to knock Bush's subscription to the fact (=reasoning to stay clear of that Kyoto fallacy) that we really dont know enough to start spending all kinds of exorbitant sums preventing something we 1) cant even remotely accurately predict and 2) have next to no control over anyhow. Smart idea, IMHO...

 

So it basically boils down to a bunch of people making a big deal of things they do not understand well enough to warrant making a big deal of. Fun.

 

How can one point to an ice shelf breaking or a glacier receding and automatically play the AGW card in assessing the situation? Things like this take years (decades, centuries, depending on the process in question) to manifest. i.e. when I was in alaska this year I saw that it takes roughly 250 years for snow that fell on the juneau ice field to make it down towards the front of the glacier. So the weather of the last 5-10 years can really only say so much about a present snapshot. That's another reason why I referenced Motyl's article on climate change called Noise and Timescales. People are taking noise and arbitrarily extrapolating certain effects in their incomplete calculations and are making uninformed yet dire predictions from such - totally dismissing the myriad ways the earth will correct itself. Hence the reason Mr Gore and Mr Hansen fail miserably at making any long term predictions. (Mr. Hansen, please retire from NASA and continue your political activities, that's where your heart seems to truly lie, since you have dismissed the scientific method.) I keep seeing their corrected and re corrected data/predictions displayed on such things like sunspot cycle predictions or even an el nino. Its high time we started recognizing that pretty much every single climate model is fundamentally flawed and can only be taken as a loose approximation relevant to a certain set of tightly correlating data - kinda like Newtoniam Mechanics being relevant for certain physical processes, but go outside of its applicability (i.e. perihelion procession of Mercury, orbital processes of neutron stars, etc.) and the set of equations quickly loses its predictive power.

[Wayfarer64]

If you get yr information from any politician - be it Gore or Reagan or Bush or Trotsky- In my opinion you are probably being lied to!

 

I have seen the Earth go thru some radical changes these past several years. Seen with my own eyes and felt on my skin, as well as breathed through my resperatory system...

 

There is a problem with climatic systems being so herky-jerky and having new and odd swings in ever increasing arcs of range and intensity.

 

Why that is..? It should be addresssed, and done so without political agendas.

 

The human race has affected our environment- just look at the ever so thin layer of atmosphere that surounds our globe -it is obvious in any photo taken from space that it is a very thin and fragile entity. Use your common sense as well as yr senses to understand what is happening.- the hell with the politics -(& - I am usually VERY political!)-

 

Science and common sense should prevail in this issue.

[Seth Ananda]

I guess the problem here in Australia is that any of the Anti man made climate change proponents are Rabid right wing pro Industry anti green people.

 

They are basicly thrilled that some scientists (a couple of thousand - a reletavly small %) say that climate change has nothing to do with us (or that our part is very low, and the rest is just part of natural cycles...) And interpret that as meaning 'Yay! The enviroment is fine, lets put up more refinerys, chop more trees..."

 

Also science is far from a field of emotionally impassionate objective people. I watched my Friend ( a scientist ) go down the No man made... path. He is basicly a Right wing conservative, and once he heard the idea it took him all of an evening to read one side of the argument and proclaim it as "Proof!"

 

Basicly the second he saw the chance to Alli himself against Tree hugging hippies, he took it.

 

he and many others fall into the category of "How dare you tell me I cant have a Television in every room, vcr's, Dvd's, mobile phones that i replace every 6 months, Drive suv's or better yet a Hummer, have swiming pools, and create mountains of trash a month!!!"

 

These people just do not want to change. If they accepted That the greenies might be right they would have to change their lifestyle, by being pushed into a position of responcibility. And know one wants that .

 

(I dont want to feel guilty for aquiring all the stuff i am used to having)

 

Hence I am allways for any Envioremental message or campaign as it is creating awareness in the minds of a people caught between Right and Green. Any public attack on the green (even if correct) is a dis service to the planet and only serves to lean the minds of the people back towards the - You can have it all, whatever the cost- mentality.

 

Also many of the -not man made- arguments have been readily dis proven as well.

 

And the whole end the Kyoto thing is plain B.S. The underlying message is Yay! lets burn heaps more fossil fuel!

 

I think if you cant see the simple equation that Toxic smoke up close, is also Toxic when it spreads out into our air then you are maby

- A scientist payed by the petrol industry to find the right proof

-A scared little person terified of having responsibility

-A scared little person who is worried he will be forced to change his lifestyle that he likes and is comfortable in

-mentally impaired

-Or just an entrenched intellectual who loves to Pick the least popular argument as his truth and create as much emotional stress and turmoil over it through arguments as he can. We all have our addictions and many people simply need conflict chemistry to feel alive. If you are in this category you probably dont even know that you gravitate towards the perspectives that will get you your fix. You think 'you' believe them, the same way some one with candida thinks its 'them' that craves the suger.

 

Stop poisoning our planet you Assholes!

 

Over and out!

[joeblast]

Seth, that's a pretty crappy, absolutist, and broad brush you just swathed across the canvas. Granted this tends to happen whenever a strong polarizing agent is introduced into the equation, but when rabid environmentalism goes haywaire, its every bit if not moreso destructive and disruptive than the side it purports to correct. Its like up in the missiquoi river in upstate VT where environmentalists made a stink about a new bridge being made because it might disrupt a little niche where these certain toads and turtles lived, when the fact of the matter was that the old bridge was of bad design and it propagated algae blooms so severe it made the water poisonous to drink (and it killed a few local dogs that swam in it.) Its this very myopic sense of misplaced do-gooderness that we're dealing with in this AGW movement. Just because you want something to be "cleaner" or "better" doesnt mean that you have the first inkling of what cleaner or better is, much less what getting from point A to B entails.

 

Wayfarer, I hope the heck you didnt interpret that as some source of information of mine. Seriously, now! To agree with a certain viewpoint is not to subscribe to A to Z. (but then again, I also believe in a free market society where the government isnt your nanny, so what does that make me? ) As to the swings of intensity...look outside the frame of the last 10-30 years...or century, even. As to places getting fouled, yes, I've seen that too, and in the same place I reference above where I used to go and enjoy the waters of lake champlain every year, but as of ~15, 20 years ago its just not the pristine place it used to be. Sad, to be sure, but its not going to get better by sequestering carbon or something silly like that.

[Owledge]

@Seth

Please don't feed the divide! When you feel that to counteract a one-sided agenda, you have to join an opposing one-sided agenda, you are feeding that system that doesn't care for truth. You are writing about people having to feel guilty or the need to cut back on a pretty high quality of life, but by this you're widening the gap. It's just details. Try to understand: When you disregard truth it doesn't matter what you do, it will harm everybody. A daoist view on this should help - about how we are all connected, all one. Those people might be totally 'right-wing' ... so what? Aren't you appearing to them as totally 'green treehuggers'? How can people possibly believe that you get problems solved for all of humankind by acting in this way?

Stand for yourself without letting other people define you! Don't trade one lie for another! Have confidence in truth! When something seems to be factual that supports the 'right-wing' case, you have to acknowledge it. With time, people will be confused because they don't see a bias in your actions and that's a good starting point for telling them about the importance of truth.

 

I could write a lot more about this, but maybe you got the idea.

 

Thomas Jefferson: "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom."

This topic fits very well in this forum, I'd say, because it's about enlightenment.

[lino]

It is all CRAP!!!

 

Numbers and studies can be manipulated and outright faked.

 

It is a way to make the carbon trading scam to look more legitimate.

 

It won't do dick to prevent disasters like the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

[seadog]

This is why we have to approach the issue with HEART.

first and foremost we are humans, it is not an issue of being right wing or left wing

what bird can fly with only one wing?

Its not about finger pointing,or blaming others for pollution

Its not about political agendas and who has the truth.

Rather its an opportunity for each of us to really consider our lives and our actions.

Does our day to day decisions foster life,do we give back as much or more then we take.

Our are interactions with the world around us honest? By that I mean do we conciously make the best descions on behalf of ourselves and the rest of the planet.

Do we treat our bodies well?Do we treat those we love well?Do we treat the patch of earth we inhabit with respect?

No one can answer those questions for us.Not polticians,not scientists,not greenies,or meanies,or any other in betweenies.

Only we can as individuals.

Lets no longer allow the rhetoric of media and mouth pieces decide for us how to be a true human being on this planet earth.

It doesn't have to be a huge statement,rather action with honest intent.

 

I Am fortunate enough to have had the money to fit my house with solar panels for our power needs.

In the sceam of things its no big deal, but on another level it is wonderful.

 

Having panels makes you aware of the sun or the lack of it.When I awake in the morning and the sun is streaming into my bedroom I know I Am getting power. If the sun is not shinning I know I will have to be careful with my power usage.

A simple matter but none the less its importance should not be under estimated.Because it is such simple observations that keep us in tune with whats REALLY happening around us.

 

Tell me do we have the same interactions when we rely on coal or nuclear energy for our daily power needs?

Do we need to look up at the sky when our power comes from hunderds sometimes thousands of miles away.

 

Am I alone in thinking that the modern world attempts at every turn to divorce from the natural world?

I for one will never surrender my right to walk with barefeet.

 

 

VIVA The True Heart.

[Owledge]

Nicely said, seadog!

One thing though...

Tell me do we have the same interactions when we rely on coal or nuclear energy for our daily power needs?

Do we need to look up at the sky when our power comes from hunderds sometimes thousands of miles away.

 

Am I alone in thinking that the modern world attempts at every turn to divorce from the natural world?

I for one will never surrender my right to walk with barefeet.

It is a highly philosophical matter: What is natural? To be precise, what you describe is being in tune with what the sun does, not the entirety of nature. And when you think negative about coal or nuclear power coming from hundreds or thousands of miles away ... well... you could say that solar power comes from 93 million miles away.

Understanding the true beauty of nature means abandoning the phony idea of (the necessity of) scarcity. Because as I mentioned before, there's a very 'natural' energy that is available all the time, without the sun shining or the wind blowing, and it was discovered during the times of Nikola Tesla, if not earlier. It makes you understand that solar or wind power in the current way of availability is just a means of control, and people like Al Gore make a fortune out of it. Theoretically it would be possible to do the same with vacuum energy, but because of its simplicity, it would require a much higher degree of oppression. I think we're still suffering from the great initial resistance of people like J.P. Morgan when he realized that Tesla wanted to make this technology freely available, combined with the behavior of industry to hold new things back as long as they could possibly draw any profit from running the old things.

 

In a utopian world where everything is a closed cycle, the speed of the cycle would be nearly irrelevant. There would be an over-abundance of things for everybody, because life on earth could not possibly 'use up' all of the sun's energy.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

Nor would we need to use up the sun's energy. The sun will take care of that of its own accord, and we'd best have moved on from this lovely rock before that happens. Once we can 'burn like the sun does' and efficiently extract power from it, then electricity will ostensibly be made for free (though they'll still charge you for it I'm sure.)

[Spectrum]

depend on what spectrum your trying to predict from? I mean we're kinda looking out the portal of a ship at this point, everything is funnelled down to us. we're going to need some more direct means of see what it is we're looking at when things change.

[Ya Mu]

Am I alone in thinking that the modern world attempts at every turn to divorce from the natural world?

 

I sure hope not.

 

 

. It makes you understand that solar or wind power in the current way of availability is just a means of control, and people like Al Gore make a fortune out of it.

 

?????

 

What makes everyone think that anything to do with solar energy or wind power has to do with Al Gore and control? It does not. Solar is a viable energy source that we should be using instead of coal or nuclear for several simple reasons that don't have a damn thing to do with any political agenda by any part or person.

It is fact that coal has polluted our environment. We can't eat fish from most lakes or the ocean without being concerned about mercury content. The power plant burning of coal is responsible for the majority of this pollution. The moving of coal requires huge investments in burning diesel fuel to transport it long distances, which further contributes to pollution. And this doesn't take into account the mining and its implications of destroying the earth. We have moved ores about from one place to another not taking account of the ecologic and magnetic imbalances this creates.

 

Nuclear energy is not the solution. How many are aware of or even concerned with the near nuclear disasters that we have had in the USA alone? Apparently not many. How many really believes that we can contain nuclear waste for the years it takes for this ugly TOXIN to reach "safe" levels? Do you really think concrete and steel can do that? We have no way of actually knowing but do you wish to bet the lives of your grandchildren or their grandchildren or great grandchildren?

 

Solar energy is available NOW. All it takes is to invest in it. Many say they don't have the money but do have the money to buy an SUV. What kind of responsible priority is that? Yet our government subsidizes coal, nuclear, and oil to the point that, if these subsidies applied to solar we all could afford clean and distributed power systems. How many folks believe that central power stations are the best way to generate power? Apparently many. But if a person simply looks at the infrastructure required to do so they could easily conclude that distributed power makes a whole lot more sense.

 

I think that we have choices to make and if we do not make the proper choices the earth will soon throw off the virus called humanity because it will not allow itself to be destroyed by humanity's toxic choices.

 

If anyone has been practicing energetics for a period of 10 years or so then they ought to be able to feel the chaotic energy changes that are currently happening. Weather patterns are getting really chaotic. And this is fact and does not depend on one's political viewpoint. It depends on a person simply opening up to feeling the energy changes.

[joeblast]

I sure hope not.

?????

 

What makes everyone think that anything to do with solar energy or wind power has to do with Al Gore and control? It does not. Solar is a viable energy source that we should be using instead of coal or nuclear for several simple reasons that don't have a damn thing to do with any political agenda by any part or person.

It is fact that coal has polluted our environment. We can't eat fish from most lakes or the ocean without being concerned about mercury content. The power plant burning of coal is responsible for the majority of this pollution. The moving of coal requires huge investments in burning diesel fuel to transport it long distances, which further contributes to pollution. And this doesn't take into account the mining and its implications of destroying the earth. We have moved ores about from one place to another not taking account of the ecologic and magnetic imbalances this creates.

 

Nuclear energy is not the solution. How many are aware of or even concerned with the near nuclear disasters that we have had in the USA alone? Apparently not many. How many really believes that we can contain nuclear waste for the years it takes for this ugly TOXIN to reach "safe" levels? Do you really think concrete and steel can do that? We have no way of actually knowing but do you wish to bet the lives of your grandchildren or their grandchildren or great grandchildren?

 

Solar energy is available NOW. All it takes is to invest in it. Many say they don't have the money but do have the money to buy an SUV. What kind of responsible priority is that? Yet our government subsidizes coal, nuclear, and oil to the point that, if these subsidies applied to solar we all could afford clean and distributed power systems. How many folks believe that central power stations are the best way to generate power? Apparently many. But if a person simply looks at the infrastructure required to do so they could easily conclude that distributed power makes a whole lot more sense.

 

I think that we have choices to make and if we do not make the proper choices the earth will soon throw off the virus called humanity because it will not allow itself to be destroyed by humanity's toxic choices.

 

If anyone has been practicing energetics for a period of 10 years or so then they ought to be able to feel the chaotic energy changes that are currently happening. Weather patterns are getting really chaotic. And this is fact and does not depend on one's political viewpoint. It depends on a person simply opening up to feeling the energy changes.

Ya Mu, you have good points, although some of it has some logistical issues.

-mind the 'everyone', I dont know anyone that subscribes to that pov.

-solar & wind are viable, but not to such an extent that they can replace coal or nuclear anytime soon or cheaply in terms of infrastructure, especially not on a large scale. those of us that can afford to hit up some solar cells, great for you!

-waste aside, nuclear concerns are overblown

-aw jeez, I just saw this now....virus called humanity??? *bows out of ridiculousness*

[Ya Mu]

Ya Mu, you have good points, although some of it has some logistical issues.

-mind the 'everyone', I dont know anyone that subscribes to that pov.

-solar & wind are viable, but not to such an extent that they can replace coal or nuclear anytime soon or cheaply in terms of infrastructure, especially not on a large scale. those of us that can afford to hit up some solar cells, great for you!

-waste aside, nuclear concerns are overblown

-aw jeez, I just saw this now....virus called humanity??? *bows out of ridiculousness*

 

If solar was subsidized to the point that nuclear, coal, and oil is there is absolutely no reason that we could not phase out the nuclear and coal power plants. Yes it would take a while to implement but the technology is here today. It would be just as affordable as coal and already is more affordable than nuclear.

 

To say that nuclear impact is overblown is a viewpoint that reflects non-study of the situation. Are you saying you actually believe we can store nuclear waste in concrete and steel and it not ever ever have leakage? Are you not aware of the close calls we have had with the nuke plants? I am and have been involved in studying this; we are only a hope and a prayer away from nuclear disaster. Did you know the design life of those plants was only 20 years and that every day they operate past the design life leads to degradation of safety integrity? How about the de-commissioning of the plant? How is it to be done? OK, take a crane and dismantle it. Woops! that crane is now contaminated. So let us take another crane and dismantle the first. Woops! that crane is now contaminated. ............past the half life.........

And the thinking that we can all of a sudden build a lote of thos safe nuke plants and solve our energy situation. Do you know how many companies actually build these?

 

OK, I understand your reaction to the word virus, but it is just an analogy. You would understand to what I am referring probably only if you believe the Earth is sentient. If you believe the earth is simply a thing I can certainly see why you would think that is weird. I would as well. But try SEEING the earths energy field that is just like the energy field you SEE around people, assuming you are an energy practitioner. It is the same, only larger. When people get contaminents in their energy field they get sick. At some point their immune system kicks in. The analogy certainly applies if we simply see what is happening with the Earth at this point in time.

 

And while I am at it who doesn't get the fact that if we destroy all the trees then humanity will cease to exist? Acid rain, man chopping down trees to put up a parking lot, toxic contamination from chemicals; we need to start paying attention to those things NOW not later. And it should NOT be a political statement but a statement of living in harmony with all things. Chopping down trees to make paper? Hemp would be a lot better.

The toxins produced by man are causing disease. Cancer from these toxins is rampant. WE ALL NEED TO WAKE UP! Forget about being a republican, democrat, oyster or whatever but instead let us all be what we really are, Vibrant Beings of Light and let us assume responsibility.