- This topic has 24 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Excellent piece on the herd tendency in science to railroad popular ideas. This is big cycle thinking, similar to Taoist ideas about heaven-earth-humanity together evolving destiny. Yes, human role is growing with our population and technology, but I personally accept the likelihood the sun, stars, and earth beings are still the biggest players in the climate game. Science in still in diapers….
michaelThe Sunday Times [London]
{front page story}
February 11, 2007An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate
changeNigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the
orthodoxy must be challengedWhen politicians and journalists declare that the
science of global warming is settled, they show a
regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were
treated to another dose of it recently when the
experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts
the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier
on climate change due for publication in a few months’
time. They declared that most of the rise in
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to man-made greenhouse gases.The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that
the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about
it. Older readers may recall a press conference at
Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top
nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his
lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned
out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10%
uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for
any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through
with a better idea. That is how science really works.Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised
in favour of one particular hypothesis, which
redefined the subject as the study of the effect of
greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits
essential for innovative and trustworthy science are
greeted with impediments to their research careers.
And while the media usually find mavericks at least
entertaining, in this case they often imagine that
anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global
warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a
result, some key discoveries in climate research go
almost unreported.Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures
that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary
symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of
Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to
the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds
in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent
warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you
that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape
petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites
around nine days later than they did 50 years ago?
While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978,
it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re
forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is
“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no
sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global
warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether
Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed
that global warming has stopped. The best measurements
of global air temperatures come from American weather
satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall
change since 1999.That levelling off is just what is expected by the
chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives
climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse
gases do. After becoming much more active during the
20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly
level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of
possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the
lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300
years ago.Climate history and related archeology give solid
support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century
episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a
long string of similar events produced by a
hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval
Warming.The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe
the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered.
Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the
Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a
long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the
world was warm.What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such
emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold
periods, linked to solar activity and going on long
before human industry was a possible factor? Less than
nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of
cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun
to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the
self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with
inconvenient discoveries about how the solar
variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness
may change too little to account for the big swings in
the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since
Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a
much more powerful mechanism.He saw from compilations of weather satellite data
that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic
particles are coming in from exploded stars. More
cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field
bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its
intensification during the 20th century meant fewer
cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the
other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the
lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world
cloudier and gloomier.The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea apart from
its being politically incorrect was that
meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be
involved in cloud formation. After long delays in
scraping together the funds for an experiment,
Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National
Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.In a box of air in the basement, they were able to
show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming
through the ceiling stitched together droplets of
sulphuric acid and water. These are the building
blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after
journal declined to publish their report; the
discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the
Royal Society late last year.Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about
Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I
have been privileged to be on the inside track for
reporting his struggles and successes since then. The
outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars,
co-authored by the two of us and published next week
by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe,
when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse
gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less
than advertised, but nobody can really say until the
implications of the new theory of climate change are
more fully worked out.The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those
contradictory temperature trends are directly
predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow
there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile
humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more
appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can
forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun
and the stars.The Chilling Stars is published by Icon.
No matter if it is the sun or greenhouse gasses, the result is that it is helping the human mind to shift.
And I think Mr. Bush is doing the planet a BIG favor by doing what he is doing,
and our climate change is doing exactly the same.We are forced to change as we were not prepared to change in a more natural balanced way.
The sun, the stars, nature (human included) are helping mankind, depending on our willingness to listen it will be the hard way or a more digestable way.Do you know that feeling of being tired of yourself, playing that same record over and over? Well I do with this one. Oh man, I become terribly boring…
Allow me a replay of this one: what the hell do I know…
Several thoughts on this:
1) Most climate scientists are not politicians and hate politics and just love to do their science without thinking or caring about social implications. They have overwhelmingly found human influence on climate change not because they want to or have vested interest in it, but becaues it is so.
2) So what if Antarctica is cooling a little – that is only one tiny part of the whole world. The Arctic is warming like crazy.
3) What I read about the cosmic rays elsewhere is this: when the Sun’s rays decrease then it lets in more cosmic rays. The cosmic rays may cause an increase in cloud cover. But, this only adds a feedback mechanism. When the sun does less warming, then there might be more clouds, and when the sun warms up there might be fewer clouds. But, what type of clouds? Wispy cirrus clouds full of ice crystals cause atmospheric warming, while puffy low clouds are full of water vapor and they cause cooling.
4) I have posted some links with simple videos and such about global warming on the taobums site, if you are interested.
5) Michael – I know you are in touch with the Sun, Earth and Stars and thus sense their influence on weather, but are you in contact with the gasses in the atmosphere and whether they like this attention?
Chris
Hi Chris, some responses here, if you please-
“1) Most climate scientists are not politicians and hate politics and just love to do their science without thinking or caring about social implications.”
I think it is important to restate that most scientists of any kind, while not being politicians overtly, are very adverse to the full truth and like to reestablish entrenched, popular ideas for the sake of self-protection. It seems obvious to me that they are quite heavily influenced to do so by governments who want to control the evolution of humanity.
“They have overwhelmingly found human influence on climate change not because they want to or have vested interest in it, but becaues it is so.”
I have looked at this a lot and always have the feeling that we do not have the entire picture of the situation of climate change. I know we are affecting what is happening and maybe we are the primary affectors, but it seems to be a big maybe.
Science, like the article says, likes to jump to conclusions in an effort to prove how smart it is and to attempt to control things. And frankly, while some of the evidence presented by Al Gore, for instance, looks convincing, I have to fall back on the knowledge that he is after all, a politician, and therefore is quite suspect in his motives. Also, and more importantly, as I view it, when a person has a very visible position in the world they have that position because they are representing something the present mass mind wants to look at or believe. This makes the possibility greater that the information is at least somewhat warped or incomplete.
“2) So what if Antarctica is cooling a little – that is only one tiny part of the whole world. The Arctic is warming like crazy.”
The point there was that if the global warming idea is true then parts of earth cannot be cooling simultaneously.
“5) Michael – I know you are in touch with the Sun, Earth and Stars and thus sense their influence on weather, but are you in contact with the gasses in the atmosphere and whether they like this attention?”
What do you mean by “this attention”? What is your question really asking?
The last thing that comes to my mind is to question why it is more important to know what is happening than it is to focus on the harmony we want instead of. The human tendency is to find a problem and try to fix it instead of to assume responsibility for what is going on no matter what the cause and make a change in our consciousness so that the outer moves into harmony again.
Maybe it looks big to us and it really isn’t so big. Maybe it’s all just a little blip of dynamic change in the greater scheme of things and that if we treat it that way, rather than dwelling on it and giving it undue attention, we can move on more quickly to a better state.
I sense the passion and compassion in your writing and think that you might be tending to direct it with “right and wrong” in mind rather than “ultimate goal.”
-Blessings, Alexander
Voice wrote “Most climate scientists … have overwhelmingly found human influence on climate change not because they want to or have vested interest in it, but because it is so.”
Many assume that anyone who agrees with man made global warming is honest and anyone who disagrees is being paid off. There is a new situation brewing that anyone who disagrees with man made global warming needs to be stripped of their certification or fired.
Global warming is a tricky situation. The recent UN publication was the executive summary that was written by politicians. It’ll be interesting when the scientific report comes out in the next month or two. I’ve heard it might back off on a lot of the summary’s claims.
There is even a theory that global warming has stopped and we’re about to enter a new phase of global cooling. Won’t that be fun!
There is still a debate about global warming. And there is still a debate about what is an appropriate solution.
It’s too bad the environmentalists demonized nuclear power. Matter to energy is the only way to go.
Alexander,
You, as always, have interesting thoughts.
I disagree with how you present scientists (my profession since 1984) from your statement that “most scientists of any kind…are very adverse to the full truth and like to reestablish entrenched, popular ideas for the sake of self-protection. It seems obvious to me that they are quite heavily influenced to do so by governments who want to control the evolution of humanity.”
If “by the full truth” you mean the dimensions of spirit then, yes, you are correct. While some scientists are under the control of the government (such as the climate change scientists who Bush wouldn’t let report what they found), most are intellectually independent from the government. Scientists are, for the most part, independent thinkers drawn to the beauty of the world. They have strong intellects but, instead of taking that intellect and using it to make big bucks in business or engineering, they spend their lives investigating the world. Sure, they are limited to the material world, but I believe that their inspiration usually comes from early heaven. Remember, the language of science is math which, like early heaven, is a domain of purity – pure form, pure sound.
You say that you have “have looked at this a lot”, by which I assume you have read words. Unfortunately, I don’t think that words are not sufficient for deeply appreciating the argument of the climate change scientists. Mathematics is the real language of science, and words are just a shadow of the mathematical argument. To truly appreciate the inevitability of the warming, you need to look into the Stefan Boltzman law.
Your statement that “if the global warming idea is true then parts of earth [like Antarctica] cannot be cooling simultaneously.” Yes, they can, because the Earth is a big and complex place, and winds and ocean currents make the redistribution of heat and cold complex. As an analogy, have you ever had a warm shower and then been hit by a gust of cold air? That happens to me on winter days if I leave the bathroom door open – the rising air from the warm shower creates a convection current that pulls in cold air from the hallway. A similar pattern may be occurring in Antarctica where warming in much of the world pulls ocean currents in a way that causes it to cool. And, actually, 58% of Antarctica was warming, and 42% was cooling.
Now, in the following statement I think that you tip your hand: “The last thing that comes to my mind is to question why it is more important to know what is happening than it is to focus on the harmony we want instead.” The science of climate change is about establishing what is happening, not about what to do about it. The job and joy of the scientists is to find what is happening, what to do about it is up to others. If it is the case that you don’t care that it is warming, or don’t think that it is important, then that is your prerogative.
Climate change science is wonderful for me because it gets me in touch with the dynamic skin of Gaia. It is wonderful in the complexity and mystery that it houses within its basically simple form.
Chris
It’s likely that global warming is caused by a combination of factors.
1. Yes, the planet is probably warming because we are coming out of an ice age.
2. Yes, the planet is probably warming because the sun is having an effect (after all, the sun is close to 10,000 deg F, so a slight change can have a dramatic effect since we live in an approximate 100 degree temperature interval)
3. Yes, the planet is probably warming because we are polluting the planet
with a steady stream of greenhouse gases causing planetary CO2 to continue to rise.One thing to me is clear.
We are part of the planet, and should show it some respect.
Like any abused dog that eventually turns on its owner, the planet will
eventually turn on us if we as a populace don’t stop abusing it.Guess what?
It will win.It will correct the problem itself . . .
It will heal itself . . .
It’s self-healing will most likely be catastrophic for us humans living on it.It will cyclically return to a healthy state.
The solution is obvious.
If we wish to be treated as welcome guests here, then we should try to minimize any harmful impact, regardless of any cycles going on beyond our control.
If, however, we don’t care, then we should not upset by any planetary fury that destroys our current way of life.
The planet will endure regardless.
Steve
Chris, If you read the article I just posted above about PEAR lab you will understand what I mean when I say orthodox science is not interested in truth. I cannot count how many times I’ve seen the blockheadedness of entrenched science pointed out in articles, etc, over the decades, but it is clear you have no idea this is going on.
Here is a another sad anecdote to illustrate:
I am now reading a book called “The Field-The quest for the secret force of the universe” by Lynne McTaggart, a researcher/journalist. Amidst the various scientific journies she chronicles, she describes the story of a world class scientist named Jacques Benveniste whose research inadvertantly but conclusively proved that water has memory and therefore homeopathy has scientific verification. A fact which was duplicated over and over by other scientists. This scientist went through hell as his peers attacked his work (an attitude displayed constantly in modern scientific circles).
Here is an excerpt from the book:
“Besides Ennis’s results, there were all the scientific studies which lent support to Benveniste’s findings. Excellent, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials showed that homeopathy works…Despite the scientific design of the trial, an editorial in The Lancet, redolent of ‘Nature’s’ response to Benveniste’s initial findings, agreed to publish the results but simply refused to accept them:
‘What could be more absurd than the notion that a substance is therapeutically active in dilutions so great that the patient is unlikely to receive a single molecule of it?. Yes, the dilution principle of homeopathy is absurd; so the reason for any therapeutic effect presumably lies elsewhere.’
On reading The Lancet’s ongoing debate on the Reilly studies, Benveniste couldn’t resist responding:
‘This recalls, inexorably, the wonderfully self-sufficient contribution of a ninteenth-century French academician to the heated debate over the existence of meteorites, which animated the scientific community at the time: “Stones do not fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky.” ‘ ”
I’m sorry, Bro, but this is not how *I* am presenting scientists. This is how they are presenting themselves.
And when I say I have looked at the situation, I do not mean only that I have read about it. I mean I have “looked” at it with all three of my brains, so to speak.
I do not believe that we know what is going on with the planet. I believe that we have some info and a lot of questions and, as I said, we are interested primarily in determining what is happening because the ego likes drama. I do not agree with you when you say that the job of scientists is to find out what is happening. That is too limited and non-participatory. Science should never be separated from living any more than thinking should be limited to the head.
And, in the end, this is all about us waking up to the fact that the earth, humanity, the entire Field is just one big thing.
However, I appreciate your sincerity, even if it is laced with naivete, and I am happy to know you appreciate my interesting thoughts.
Best, A
Man made or natural – we know its happening.
I for one am disconcerted with the spin that Al Gore and his ilk are putting on it. They seem to have hi-jacked the whole operation and are looking to make vast amounts of money out of it.
I heard that Michael Crichton wrote a novel on this – State of Fear (or something) has anyone read it?
This is not to say that Polar Bears really aren’t drowning which breaks my heart.Chris
I think that you are describing the IDEAL scientist- Michael Faraday for example, whose life’s work had a major impact on our world today. He didn’t believe that mathematics was the “real language of science” however, he had to rely on Maxwell to formulate his theory in mathematical terms which he (Faraday) referred to as heiroglyphics. Mathematics comes after science not before it unless you are Pythagoras for whom Mathematics IS the language of the universe.
I am sure you fall into the category of the ideal scientist, in it for the beauty of it etc but it is clear that the majority of scientists today do not. The industrial world that we live in today is the birth child of self-interested or industrially influenced scientists. Even “disinterested scientists” have a reponsibilty for the theories they put forward and the way they are interpreted.
And there IS a mindset in modern science that is unwilling to look at aspects of reality that do not conform to standard theories. Scientists who do look into these areas have been ridiculed, attacked, suppressed etc.
I have a degree in Biology and taught science in schools for a short time. You only have to look at the curriculum for science (In England) to see how skewed it really is.
I became disillusioned with the distorted viewpoint that passes for conventional science today. I also think that this distortion is not always unintentional and has vested interests behind it. Education can make us or break us in the long run.
And after that biased media, funding and career opportunity provides the killing blow.According to NASA, there has been no change in atmospheric temperatures since 2000. The temperatures have been scattered, but have not changed.
It’s possible the warming trend is over and we’re about to cool off. But we know the drill; different catrastrophy, same solution.
Michael Crichton’s book is a mixed bag. You may want to read “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death” by Paul Driessen.
“Radical greens are masters at devising exaggerated, imaginary and bogus eco-catastrophes–then imposing policies that give them unprecedented power, deprive other people of their freedoms and opportunities, impoverish entire nations, and cause not just impoverishment, but incalculable misery, disease and death.”
“Malaria is another scourge made infinitely worse by green extremists. We used DDT to eliminate this mosquito-borne disease in the United States and Europe. Now well-off environmental activists can afford to rail against pesticide use in Africa, while they enjoy all the comforts that our high-tech, malaria-free society bestows upon them.”
“Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton was right on target when he told San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club: ‘Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die, and we didn’t give a damn'”
“‘When I helped create Greenpeace in 1971,’ Dr. Moore reflects, ‘I had no idea it would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum. I had no idea the movement would oppose genetic engineering and other programs that could benefit mankind – and adopt zero-tolerance policies that so clearly expose its intellectual and moral bankruptcy.'”
Two points:
1) You are right – there has been no warming since 2000. Why? There are all sorts of short term climate cycles such as the 11 year solar cycle, the 2.8 year ocean-current related quasi-biennial cycle etc. In fact, we may have a short cooling trend because of them (and won’t the press go wild with that one!). But, the longer term trend is clear.
2) You put in the quote by Patrick Moore: “‘When I helped create Greenpeace in 1971,’ Dr. Moore reflects, ‘I had no idea it would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum.” I key in on the phrase “scientific illiterates” in regards to our current discussion on global warming. The scientists have virtual consensus on what is going on, the debate is coming from the “illiterates”, that is, those who have not spent the time learning the language of science.
Chris
Alexander,
I presented you with my truth from my 23 years of experience as a scientist. You chose to not respect or engage with my truth, and instead shifted the ground to science as a whole.
I respect and study the later heaven manifestation of Earth and its jing. I also “study”, through resonance, Earth’s later heaven shen/spirit. I acknowledge that jing can be transmuted by consciousness (as shown weakly by the PEAR lab).
If consciousness was the motivating force in warming (which you seem to imply, but don’t state outright), then the pattern between physical forcing factors (e.g. solar intensity, volcanic dust, ozone concentration, carbon dioxide etc.) and the temperature would not be so clear.
I stopped reading your posts a few weeks ago because of a certain energy that you project, and I will now return to that behavior.
Chris
Hi Chris,
“I presented you with my truth from my 23 years of experience as a scientist. You chose to not respect or engage with my truth, and instead shifted the ground to science as a whole.”
I see your point and respect your developmental background and I recognize that you have good intentions. And I know that it’s hard to accept if someone says you are being naive. But you simply cannot argue with the facts which are constantly presented about scientists and modern science as a whole. And I believe it is MOST important to accept the truth of this. The only other thing we can do is be in denial and those results, as we can see from the present condition of the world, are catastrophic. How can you read what I have transcribed from a research book about science documenting the actual behavior of scientists and still refuse to believe that it is true? In doing so, you are proving what I said, what she wrote, and what Michael wrote when he introduced the global warming article: “…the herd tendency in science to railroad popular ideas…science still in diapers.”
“I respect and study the later heaven manifestation of Earth and its jing. I also “study”, through resonance, Earth’s later heaven shen/spirit. I acknowledge that jing can be transmuted by consciousness (as shown weakly by the PEAR lab).If consciousness was the motivating force in warming (which you seem to imply, but don’t state outright), then the pattern between physical forcing factors (e.g. solar intensity, volcanic dust, ozone concentration, carbon dioxide etc.) and the temperature would not be so clear.”
You are looking at it in a reductionistic and externalized way. Nothing is separated from anything else. You cannot “look at” “phenomenon” as if you were something else yourself. Spiritual science teaches otherwise as does quantum mechanics. “Consciousness” IS all those things you mention that you can study. Absolutely everything “out there” is just one thing- divine consciousness in form experiencing itself. And all that modern science has been able to do, when it is not in the act of trying to deny how things really are, is to prove what spiritualists have always said from the beginning of time: We are making all of this up. We are causing global warming- but how that is happening on the physical level is unimportant. It is our spiritual process in form that we are seeing everywhere all the time. That is my point. And also, that the limnited, unenlightened human mind/ego desperately tries to keep control of things by blanking out this knowledge.
“I stopped reading your posts a few weeks ago because of a certain energy that you project, and I will now return to that behavior.”
I’m sorry you feel that way. I have an intense passion about this subject, consciousness, which is at the root of all things for us. And it is my issue to resolve that I feel extremely frustrated with the denial people as a whole display at great great cost to humanity. I apologize for any leakage of anger that finds its way into what I write. Try to look underneath it to the meaning.
Blessings and good luck, Alexander
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.