In an article titled
"What Do You Mean Ecology" by Robert Wolf, http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-do-you-mean--ecology-by-robert-wolff-120508-73.html
Roger Stritmire writes a comment titled " Global
Cooling"
From the first sentence, I know that you don't know what
you're talking about, which is a shame because you are right that the word
"ecology" is important. That's what makes the sham science currently
being promoted as "climate science" insisting that the planet is
about to burn up so damned dangerous. Much of what you say is sensible, but all
of what you say is damaged by your acceptance of the dangerous lie that CO2 is
a threat to the world's climate. Try reading a little bit about the real science that
has led James Lovelock
along with the founder of Greenpeace and many other former adherents to the
global warming theory to reject the climate alarmism of the 1990s. Keep the
peace.
In support of Mr. Strtmire, Greg Koch writes in his "One thing is
the modeling"
I would add that
there is quite a bit of catch-up necessary for ecology studies that had a surge
back in the '60s and '70s, and how dreadful it was during my more
impressionable years to study our ridiculous linear representation of the
world. Better metrics for ecology were developed using nonlinear math in the
'90s. Among its countless recent inroads, we developed a far better picture of
cyclic warming from El Nià ±o and anti-El Nià ±o with its severe population
control. Although, many cycles develop over geologic time when a human being
looks like gnat larvae on the Earth's ass. (I would add to Roger's comment - Be
patient.)
I would discuss both
statements by saying that because one hears a scientist making a statement does
not mean that he is correct. More importantly,
the above quotes neglect the bigger picture of environmental destruction through
deforestation, standardized cropping by industrial farms, the pollution of the
waters and air, and dead zones in the ocean created by our actions. Even if you neglect global warming and put
blinders onto the trends, then you can't neglect the horrid effects of actions
such as mountaintop removal, gulf oil spills and nuclear power plants close to
exploding while spitting out deadly radiation.
Furthermore, if we
look at the work of physicist David Bohm or the neurologist Karl Pribram, we would
find that science in its theorizing on the "holographic universe," in which
this manifest world arises out of an unmanifest state as saying nothing
different than the tribal religions of our ancient grandparents. Were these people rational when bouncing
about naked and singing to the Gods while perhaps inhaling a natural herb that
makes one journey into other dimensions?
Yet, they say the same thing as science.
Perhaps more of us should inhale those herbs! Indeed, limiting ourselves to this three
dimensional universe may be the nail that ultimately puts the final nail in the
coffin of our species. Perhaps more
rationalists should smoke weed or ingest some mushroom? Their point of view would definitely change and
would provide evidence that their view is relative to their mind state and is
NOT absolute truth. Science is simply A
way of looking at the world and not THE way.
Some of those in
science have JUST come around to understanding what the ancient tribal
religions and the mystics of the modern day Christian, Jew and Muslim
state. Perhaps we could say that we
devolved during the past 6,000 years with the advent of civilization and its
nursing the likes of rational philosophy and science? Yet, giving credit where credit is due, some
scientists are revisiting the role of religious teachings regarding the
creation of the universe (e.g., the holographic theory). Indeed, as I state in my unpublished
manuscript, Sophia's Web, holographic
theory places the creation stories of various religions, including the Bible's Genesis 1, as being eternally
now.
According to the
theory, this reading and my writing emerge from the state of what physicist
David Bohm calls the Unmanifest Implicate Order. When studied closely, this
Unmanifest sounds a lot like Genesis 1:2 as well as creation myths throughout
the world. The point is that if you take
the story from a rational point of view, you would think the book says the universe
was created 6,000 or so years ago. No,
it is saying that the universe in its ground is uncreated and this moment of
your reading and my writing arises from that uncreated ground. Think about the implications of this. Where is the real power for change? The power
is in me and you. This is exactly what the corporations, scientists and
government do not want you to know. The
power is in us, not the scientist or anybody else.
Furthermore, as
discussed by the "Roundtable on Climate Change" held in Portland, ME on 5/13/12,
the evidence regarding global warming from both traditional scientific and personal
levels is not as conclusive as Strtmire and Koch suggest. In attendance at this roundtable were: Lisa Pohlmann, executive director, Natural
Resource Council of Maine, Curt Spalding, Administrator EPA Region 1, Jestena
Boughton, owner of Colony Hotel in Kennebunkport, Anthony Buxton Preti
Flaherty, Augusta, Sam Day, high school student and outdoorsman, Harry Dwyer,
ghost dancer, forester and certified master logger, Mark Green, PhD, ocean
acidification scientist St. Joseph's College, Peak's Island, Martha
Kirkpatrick, Rector of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in Lincolnville, David
Marshall, City Councilor, Portland, Steven Mulkey, President of Unity College,
Burck O-Herin, Sheepscot Wellspring Land Alliance and registered guide, Tony
Ownes, MD, emergency room physician, Cape Elizabeth, Peggy Pennoyer, MD allergy
and asthma specialist, Scarborough, Mark Power, commercial energy efficiency engineer
in Portland, and Steven Rowe, former Maine Attorney General.
Many of these Maine
natives spoke to the change in the weather and its result on the land,
including its use for hunting, fishing, and other sports and the increase of
health problems from increased environmental stress. They too provided data,
scientifically derived, regarding the warming trends of the planet. Thus, their data apparently contradicts the
purported statement by Stritmire regarding James Lovelock which also signifies
that science is not some "objective fact finding rational discipline." Indeed, it is open to the individuality of
interpretation and may even be swayed by other factors, such as cultural
conditioning. As an electron behaves as
a particle when it is being observed and a wave as it is neglected, then it
appears that environmental science is a function of who is looking and what he
is looking at.
Furthermore, more
important than the data derived from science, we should closely listen to the
stories of Mainers who have ticks that normally come out in late June latching
to their skin in March and April. What's
even worse is that the "old timers" in the crowd say they never knew of ticks
when they were younger! Even more
important, some of the panelists were working in the field and up close to the
results of global warming and deforestation.
They weren't detached scientific types engrossed in rational
thinking. Yes, these people walk into
what was once rich and diverse woodlands and instead find a monocropping of
pine trees that have taken the place of the rich diversity inherent in the old
days before standardization and monoculture cropping. And what's the cost to the world? Any bug that goes after a pine tree will find
a wild feast and ultimately destroy the entire forest. And, as any person versed in Chaos Theory
would realize, the changing of one variable changes everything else.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
