Start A Petition

Climate No 1 Threat to Polar Bears

Environment  (tags: climate-change, humans, polar bears, threat, animals, animal welfare, environment, protection, habitat, ecosystems )

- 3746 days ago -
The very survival of polar bears depends on how well humans fight climate change, which is the biggest threat facing the giant carnivores, the five nations bordering the Arctic said.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Judy Cross (83)
Friday March 20, 2009, 9:28 am
Warmists are really pushing the Polar bear story. I suppose if they figure if they get you all misty eyed it is easier to to get you to ignore that it is cooling, has been cooling for a number of years and that the ice is coming back.
Other things they want you to ignore is that warming/cooling is cyclical and is caused by various ocean currents like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

"Like the PDO, the AMO is characterized by multiple decades of predominant warmth or predominant coolness in the ocean basins. They both have a tendency to be tri-polar, that is for the warmth in the warm phases to be found in the north and tropical oceans with a band of cooler water in between and in the cooler phases, coolness in the north and tropical belts with relative warmth in-between.

In the warm phase, the following annual correlation with surface air temperatures is seen. In the ocean areas, the ocean temperatures and surface air temperatures are virtually the same. Note the higher correlation of warmth in the tropics and subtropics and further north in the North Atlantic. Note relative coolness nearer 30N especially further west. Also note how during the warm phase, much of the northern hemisphere tends to be warmer than normal on an annual basis, including the arctic and Greenland (the topic next week)."

Past Member (0)
Friday March 20, 2009, 2:27 pm
I love the majesty of these beautiful Polar Bears. I hope they can survive the Climate Change. It would be a shame to lose such beauties.

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 4:02 am
Please Sign Petition to Save the Polar Bear!

Polar bears may soon be wiped out. The sea ice polar bears depend on is rapidly melting. Accounts of bears starving and drowning are on the rise as they are forced to swim farther and farther to reach the solid ice they need for hunting and resting.

15,000 signatures and going strong - let your voice be heard - TAKE ACTION!!

As for the "Ice is comming back" mantra repeated by Judy - here are the real data:

Artic Report Card 2008


The continued significant reduction in the extent of the summer sea ice cover is a dramatic illustration of the pronounced impact increased global temperatures are having on the Arctic regions. There has also been a significant reduction in the relative amount of older, thicker ice.

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 10:10 am
Reality catches up with Chris the Crusader yet again.

"The idea is that the expedition should take regular radar fixes on the ice thickness, to be fed into a computer model in California run by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, whose team, according to the BBC, “is well known for producing results that show much faster ice-loss than other modelling teams”. The professor predicts that summer ice could be completely gone as early as next year. It took the Watts Up With That? science blog to point out that there is little point in measuring ice thickness unless you do it several years running, and that, anyway, Arctic ice is being constantly monitored by US Army buoys. The latest reading given by a typical sensor shows that since last March the ice has thickened by “at least half a metre”.

“In most fields of science,” comments WUWT drily, “that is considered an 'increase’ rather than a 'decline’.”
The 'Global Warming Three' are on thin ice
The ony problem with a project to prove that Arctic ice is disappearing is the fact that it is actually getting thicker,

BernadetteP P (72)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 10:15 am
we need save befre the alaska gov. we kill them osem to be more imoirtnat then these bears

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 10:35 am
"Chris the Crusader yet again ..."

Yup, that is me ... and I will continue to fight for the polar bears and other creatures (including humans) which are being hurt (or wipped out) by climate change... and no ammount of harrassment or name calling from you will stop that LMAO!!!

"there is little point in measuring ice thickness unless you do it several years running..."

That is why the 100-year record is so important:

This graph needs to be updated to inclue 2008 data - that point would be just below 2005 levels (and just above 2007 levels).

Judy keeps saying that since 2008 was SLIGHTLY above 2007 levels (which was very low) that there has been a meracilous "recovery" - which is plainly BULL. That meracilious year (2008) was the SECOND LOWEST levels in 100 YEARS and she claims a "recovery" LMAO!!! Yes, Judy, reality continues to intrude upon your dogma (no matter how many times you IGNORE the facts)...


Judy Cross (83)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 10:53 am
What a pathetic attempt to wipe out reality.

What good is posting out of date data. It is NOW that is important ,and NOW THE ICE IS 1 METER THICK

A trend line from two years ago is totally meaningless given the shift to cooler conditions.

Significant Snowstorm Possible Early Next Week - 19 Mar 09
Unseasonable cold weather continues in Fairbanks - 17 Mar 09
Never-ending winter - More snow in the Cascades - 17 Mar 09
New snowfall today bumps Sea-Tac into 6th place tie all-time - 15 Mar 09
Another 10 inches of snow expected in the Cascades - 15 Mar 09
Ten to 18 inches of snow expected in the Cascades tonight - 14 Mar 09
Cold weather returns to Alaska’s interior - 14 Mar 09
See Record Low Temperatures across the US...
40 Low temp records broken across Western Canada - 12 Mar 09
Slap-in-the-face-winter isn’t over yet - 1 Mar 09
See What's Happening in Other Parts of the World.

See for links to the stories above.

Chris the Crusader should probably stock up on long underwear.

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 11:07 am
That is called WEATHER, climate is based on trends - you still have no understanding of that concept what so ever...

Your childish remarks are just that, childish ... and a clear sign of a weak argument LMAO!!!!

Here are the CURRENT extent data:

The extent is CLEARLY below the 1979-2000 average levels and is very near those of the 2006-2007 levels which was the LOWEST LEVELS IN 100 YEARS - on matte what Iceage Now (the denialist site) says, the CURRENT extent is far below average and near record lows!!!!!

And here are the data for February from 1980-present - what kind of trend do you see???

As you said Judy, reality just keeps catching up with you LMAO!!!!

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 11:16 am
"A trend line from two years ago is totally meaningless given the shift to cooler conditions..."

The data presented above are current, the NASA article I presented is current, and the 100-year graph is current with the data point I discussed ... so your "out of date" calim is as boguas as your recovery calims LMAO!!!!!!!

and just to continue my "crusade", here is another ACTION item for those interested in doing something about climate change:

Support Earth Hour 2009

Vote for the Earth by turning off the lights at 8:30 p.m., March 28, 2009, for one hour--Earth Hour--to raise awareness and take action to fight climate change. Send a letter of support too!

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 5:55 pm
” There can no longer be any doubt that the Sun has entered an historic period of dramatically reduced activity which will bring us many long years of deep cold weather. This was predicted by me and a few other scientists around the globe but of course we were not taken seriously because of the politics of global warming and the refusal of many media outlets to print or telecast alternatives to the now discredited man made global warming concept. According to national and international sources that monitor the Sun, what is happening on and in the Sun is nothing short of record setting, astounding, and at the same time worrisome. The solar wind is at its lowest level in fifty years. The surface movement on the Sun has slowed to record rates and according to NASA’s previous announcements is ‘off the bottom of the charts.’ Most telling is the current prolonged lack of sunspots between the normal 11 year solar cycles 23 and 24 which is about to set a one hundred year record for time without sunspots. NASA also has long since forecast that cycle 25 will be ‘one of the weakest in centuries.” All of these events in combination leave little doubt that a ‘solar hibernation’ lasting several decades delivering the coldest weather in over two centuries has in fact arrived.”

David Gould (155)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 6:58 pm
I am with you on this one Chris...and yes I will fight hard to save Polar bears if we maybe too late to save humans from the predicted mass die-out to come in the future...Climate is changing and the trend over the last two and a half centuries has been upward...but the weather chart is the little spiked line that goes up and down every few years...perhaps eventually people might see the difference between climate and weather...but I have me doubts about expect a cool blast of nonsense from our resident denier...who believes that bananas cure all ills.

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 7:02 pm
"There can no longer be any doubt that the Sun has entered an historic period of dramatically reduced activity which will bring us many long years of deep cold weather."

Then why are we at a 100 year HIGH in temprature?

Yes, the sun is A FACTOR in climate, but it certainaly is not THE cause in changes...and it lost ist correlation with temprature in the 70's when the green house effect became more dominant...

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

Fact 4
Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone

I find it HALARIOUS how when you are proven wrong on one point, you simply ignore that conversation and simply REPEAT the next dogmatic statement (which was proven wrong many time before)...the broken record continues on and on and on and on...LMAO!!!!

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 7:14 pm
David - yes, unfortunately we are already commited to a significant rise in tempratures due to the CO2 and other green house gasses we have put into the atmosphere - we are already losing lives and species, and will lose more as the problem intensifies. But hopefully, with ACTION, we can reduce some of the adverse affects and keep the damage to a minimum...

"perhaps eventually people might see the difference between climate and weather..." --- I think most of the people actually do get it...I think even Judy really does get it, she just wants to IGNORE it because it proves so "inconvinient" to her dogma :)

Dee C (23)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 8:25 pm
Thank you Cher..
And thank you Chris for the information..

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 8:40 pm
Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming "mistaken".

"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 8:49 pm
Top U.S. Scientists and Economists Call For Swift, Deep Cuts In Global Warming Pollution

More than 1,700 of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists today released a joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. Issued just days before the Senate begins debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, the statement marks the first time leading U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.

Scientist roll call
Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academies of Science from 19 countries

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature
However, it's more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...


Past Member (0)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 10:21 pm

The magnet of earth, seasons have shifted for about a month and thus the living places of the animals, birds and other natural species getting affected from these humanly caused changes. Though it is natural to happen but the pollutants are harming everything. I am humbly submitting an opinion in a broader context. Most amazing, the dog can bark, but the horse can save our life, the other most amazing can be killing our own pets and the trees and plants that we sow. What can we say about a horse you see it can feel if the rider is having a trouble ahead and thus warns. We adopt kids, but what about adopting the entire natural world. For example, it appears that US has declared the most loyal animal, which is also royal the terrorist and putting it to exile for slaughter. The animals can be put to other works as in the coaches and games-the planers know it better than the marketers, who simply want to turn every source and resource of life into money. Now, the officials and the people can use the protests against the suffering of the animals, but slaughtering is something totally different and need attention. You see it is global suffering.

How the slaughtering of the horse and other animals suffering affects us, we may take it as a discussion. You see the pollutants are present in the entire environment. The soil, water, fire, air and space have it. Some people believe and find that there are four basic constituents of formation of life. They usually ignore space believing that the space is an empty space. The concept of ether is for the waves and vibrations present in it. The ultraviolet and cosmic rays are present in the space. However, it is not the matter that needs our attention.

While, on the entire Internet and the websites, we have noticed that pollution has been ignored and most of us are blaming some people about CO2. We need to develop the ideas and the concepts about the pollutants. The water is pure, but we have to remove the pollutants. The causes of the pollutants are not simply the industrialists. Even we the humans and the entire natural world in suffering release the alpha rays, which harm the space around the planet. This space pollution is not a cloud of pollutants that the developed or the rich countries may send to the developing or the poor countries. When we talk about peace, we have to have it by our selves. Now, the suffering that we are going through due to any stress, anxiety, depression, frustration and other physical and mental diseases is harming the waves in the space by the alpha rays. Should we delete the people, who suffering from the diseases and thus they may harm others?

No, we do not have to. We need to develop the philosophical concept so that we are not conditioned as if an animal. This is the concept of pollution free thoughts. We talk about the Go Green and Let Go theories, but when we come down to the ground, that is, in the practical life we again become psychological and there is mostly no room for any philosophy.

We are afraid of poverty so Law of Attraction is there to heal us, but it does not remove the thought pollution, the pollutants that allow the releasing of alpha rays. We can access to beta rays and rarely experience the theta rays. We know that we have insomnia present all around the world and it is not just because of the CO2. This is because of the thought pollution. Please, wait a minute, we may not be having any thought pollution, but suffer as if a passive smokers. It is same with slaughter and suffering of the animals, like horses, cows and so on, and the birds, what to say even the plants connected with computer can give the signals of suffering when thirsty or otherwise. Kindly take such issues seriously because we have to unite the food chain and thus take up the bits as if collecting life for us, the humans not just US, the USA (and other developed countries)-the common though us and US. Thanks!

Dale Husband (123)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 11:15 pm
"In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him."

I would have fired Happer too. Why? Because he lied, then and now. Note: In 1991, Bush Sr was still President and would have been the one appointing Happer to the Department of Energy. Bush Sr., like most Republicans then and now, were global warming "skeptics" too.

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 11:38 pm
Dale, Happer didn't lie...
gore said he was going "TO ALLOW SCIENCE to INTRUDE on PUBLIC POLICY"

In other words, get out of here with your truth, we have a scam to pull off.

“Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” “,25197,25182520-2703,00.html

Chris O (507)
Saturday March 21, 2009, 11:53 pm
Scientific opinion on climate change

A very LONG list of organizations supporting human climate change - and links to the organizations for fact checking and additional information...

Judy Cross (83)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 12:07 am
It is easy to get organizations to endorse a particular offer them a nice fat donation and get a committee together which you place the "right" people on and voila' endorsement.

wikipedia is good for botany, but nothing with a political twist can be relied on.


Kenneth L (314)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 6:21 am
Thanks Harmander for philosophy. You're right, it IS severely neglected, almost non-existent in the western world.
All the focus on what humans do to the planet is helpful. It gets people LOOKING when they are used to NOT LOOKING.
A wise man said 'Look, don't think'. Look, decide, act.'
If everyone operated for the greatest good for the greatest number of things
then the world would be much better.

Judy is an intense 'flamer'. Evidently Chris or Dale or others had a group "Addressing Global Warming" and had to kick Judy out as a flamer. Let's face it. The title of that group means it's for people who beleive in global warming.
If Judy wants her own group, let her start one called "Addressing Global Cooling" or something.
Unfortunately she just continues the same tactics here and can get away with it because it's a news thread, not a group.


Chris O (507)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 6:26 am
Apparently it is easire "buying off" individuals than it is entire organizations (you consistently quote folks/blogs supported with oil money)... as to wiki, you just show an inability to follow linked materials...a problem most intellegent readers do not suffer from...

And if you are casting aspersions about organizations being "baught off" you sure as heck better have some EVIDENCE to back up your sweaping claims LMAO!!!! Heck, you even say that I AM BAUGHT OFF when your evidence is lacking ... empty words with no basis in FACT LMAO!!!!

Chris O (507)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 6:31 am
Kenneth - Actually she was thrown out of SEVERAL GROUPS after being asked REPEATEDLY to stop harrassing other posters - just as she does on every climate change article posted in the news network...her obvious objective was/is to disrupt conversation and harrass ANYONE who "dares" promote action on this issue...

Past Member (0)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 8:39 am
Well, Respected Kenneth and other honorable members, I cannot accept any thanks because the words include the rejection of a member, namely Respected Judy. Why should we respect her?
1. She is not there to make mockery of the other group members as the most opposing person is the best for the creative criticism and the creativity criticism.
2. She is acting on behalf of the people, who are authentic in reaction towards the most established, which we accept axiomatically.
3. The critic, who opposes is right. I must express that I also criticize to the extremes as if the cartoonists do.
4. Her presence is the flame of candle that keeps the topic burning
5. She is daring and can oppose and thus offers us an opportunity for correction-a wise accepts the correction.
6. She has opposed the information and the knowledge that is not our own, so we are not absolutely sure that our information is the only right source available on earth, so gives the threads and links to which we can go for checking the points of concern.
7. Her main concern is to stop the influence of the industrialization and its impact on our conditioning and reactivity towards the natural life
8. She has not expressed more than what is expressed against her by others. Some people have even used the words that are not suitable for addressing any woman.
9. Her contexts are full of concern as if delegating or representing on behalf of the people, who are not scientists or the technologists, but are direct victims, and these are five billion people and the billions of members of the natural world.
10. that being aggressive and emphatic does not prove anything, one cannot be polite to please others-she is not trying to please us, rather she has presented the language that satires and thus stirs up the fire that we have dumped in the voice of conscience covered by the dust of data and information technology.
11. Last, but not the least is that aggression is not towards any member-her golden statement is-stop the industrialists to harm the natural life on the planet-she is supporting it in all possible means. Let us forget the pleasing talk shows of the politicians and the marketers and listen to the concerns that need to awake our hidden angers and rages-the child within all of us-the real human.

You see we all are signing the petitions from many people and noting the latest news for discussion. No petition can work that way, the Respected Chris has saved the forest, but we have to save the planet together, so let us clap for Respected Judy for her compassion that is absent in most of us because ours is based on the information technology-the readymade foods and thus the junk foods. On behalf of all, I sincerely thank her to keep the sympathy and compassion alive, while trying to let the apathy go. Thanks!

Kenneth L (314)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 2:43 pm
Harmander, are we talking about the same person?!

You say her intention is to "stop the industrialists to harm the natural life on the planet". That's not her intention. Where do you get that idea? Her intention is to make any else wrong who has the view that mankind has had and continues to have an effect on climate. That's not noble.
And I haven't seen her goal is to 'protect the natural life on the planet'. I personally follow almost every news story that has to do with helping nature and I rarely see her EVER saying 'Thanks so and so for this story, and I signed the petition' that most other people do.

You say, "The critic, who opposes is right". What does being a critic have to do with rightness? It's just an action of taking an opposing viewpoint against another viewpoint. Has nothing to do with whether that thing being talked about is either right OR wrong.

I think your sympathy is misplace Harmander. As Chris just posted before yours, she has harassed other people enough to be thrown out of several groups. That's a fact. That takes some doing. Not too many people get that distinction on Care2 and there's a reason.

I don't agree that she is all sweetness and light Harmander.

You also say "so let us clap for Respected Judy for her compassion that is absent in most of us..." I disagree fully. Most of us on these threads ARE very compassionate.

You say, "She is acting on behalf of the people, who are authentic in reaction towards the most established, which we accept axiomatically." Who is accepting climate change and global warming as being 'most established'? Most people on these threads don't accept it because of that. It is not an axiom for most of the people on these threads as far as I know.

"She has not expressed more than what is expressed against her by others.." I don't agree with that. Actually she uniformly posts EXTREMELY LONG posts, the only other ones who do are Dale H. and Chris O. I don't, Most of the other people on these news stories don't.

I think you are misplacing and indulging in a little too much sympathy Harmander. I understand the gist of what you are saying to a degree that anyone has the right to express their viewpoint but she is not a stellar example on almost every thread she posts on regarding global warming.

When you say "Her contexts are full of concern as if delegating or representing on behalf of the people", that can be said of anyone else here.


Kenneth L (314)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 3:08 pm
Let's see if Judy attacks anyone first Harmander. Go back to the 4th post on this thread where she says "Reality catches up with Chris the Crusader yet again." NO ONE has attacked her whatsoever before this. LOOK. Then see how Chris immediately is put on the defensive and has to defend himself in his next post. LOOK. That's the TRUTH of what occurred. That's an ATTACK on Chris. She doesn't use nasty little words but she's STILL ATTACKING a person.

Then after Chris defends himself and attacks her back, she re-attacks with "What a pathetic attempt to wipe out reality". Wake up Harmander! She engages in attacking others just as much as anyone else. And as you can SEE she proved SHE attacked someone FIRST.

Do you not notice that she also never creates a news story about global cooling or some other 'natural' life story? Where is her 'compassion and representing the people'? It only has to do with attacking and putting down ANY idea by ANYONE that climate change might be real and global warming might be due at least in part to human beings.


Dale Husband (123)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 5:17 pm
"gore said he was going "TO ALLOW SCIENCE to INTRUDE on PUBLIC POLICY"

In other words, get out of here with your truth, we have a scam to pull off."

Your words, Judy, not Gore's. And you have accused me of making things up?

"It is easy to get organizations to endorse a particular offer them a nice fat donation and get a committee together which you place the "right" people on and voila' endorsement.

wikipedia is good for botany, but nothing with a political twist can be relied on."

Assertions without a shred of evidence. If I were a Creationist, I'd say simular things about scientists who support the theory of evolution. And I'd be lying too.

I've written a lot about how science is advanced and how some dissenters can split off after losing in the scientific debate, so they engage the general public in the political process with misleading claims and assertions that they wouldn't dare put before their colleagues.

{{{Peer Review in Science

Peer review is one of the most critical ways that modern science operates. Any observations or experiments reported in science journals must be described in precise detail so that other scientists may replicate them. This guards against error. If the papers are not detailed enough to be verifiable, they must be rejected for publication. And if the papers are published and later the observations or experiments are not replicated by other scientists, despite attempts to do so, the claims are denied. This is how science has worked for centuries.

Here's an example of peer review in action:
Scientist A reports in a science journal that polar bear populations in a certain area have fallen to half their level of ten years ago, and cites an earlier report from ten years ago for support.
Scientist B publishes a report in the same journal a few months later confirming the earlier report from scientist A. Thus, the claim that polar bear populations have fallen is then considered a fact.

But while peer review in actual science journals is an orderly process, there are ways in which public understanding of science can be sabotaged. Here's how:

Scientist A reports in science journal One that polar bear populations in a certain area have fallen to 40 percent their level of ten years ago, and cites an earlier report from ten years ago for support.
Scientist B publishes a report in the same journal a few months later confirming the earlier report from scientist A.
Scientist C publishes a report in the same journal a year later confirming the earlier report from scientists A and B.
Scientist D reports in science journal Two that polar bear populations in another area have fallen to 60% their level of twelve years ago, and cites an earlier report from twelve years ago for support.
Scientist E publishes a report in the same journal a few months later confirming the earlier report from scientist D.
Scientist F reports in science journal Three that polar bear populations in another area have fallen to one-third their level of 15 years ago, and cites an earlier report from 15 years ago for support.
Scientist G publishes a report in the same journal a few months later confirming the earlier report from scientist F.
So a consensus emerges among the various scientists and their journals that polar bears are declining in numbers. Further examination concludes that global warming is the cause.
However, Pseudoscientist H publishes a report claiming that polar bear populations in most areas have INCREASED over the years. This report is NOT published in a science journal, but instead is posted on a website run by a front group paid for by corporate interests.
Denialist J reads the report by Pseudoscientist H and because of his profound bias chooses to disregard as lies all the reports by the various scientists about declining polar bear numbers and chooses instead to blindly take the report on the front group's website as fact.
Denialist J proceeds to copy and paste the report by Pseudoscientist H all over the internet, creating the illusion that there is a controversy among scientists about the polar bear populations when in fact there is none.

Does this make sense to you?}}}

{{{Natural selection and the scientific peer review process

Natural selection describes the process by which variations in a population of organisms is edited out over time to enhance the ability of the individual organisms to survive and reproduce in an environment. Even if over 90% of all mutations, being random, are harmful to the next generation, natural selection can still eliminate those and keep those others that are beneficial, thus countering the destructive effects of mutations in general.

It is the same with the scientific peer review process. Because science has made so much progress over the past few centuries, most people have the impression that scientists are unusually brilliant, nearly infallible, and totally objective in their views and methods. But in fact, that is simply not the case for most of them, at least as individuals. Scientists can be just as mistaken, corrupt, dogmatic, and failing in their efforts and assumptions as the rest of humanity. A few of them can even be downright stupid!

If that is true, how can science be trusted to produce reliable facts and theories? Because the scientists use peer review as their means to test any new ideas put on the table by one of their number. No scientist’s word need be taken at face value. In order for his idea to be accepted as anything beyond a speculation, he must show observational or experimental data, clearly defined, that supports it. Thus, it should always be possible for other scientists to duplicate the results of the first scientist making the claim. If attempts to duplicate the observations or experiments do not produce the same result, the idea is rejected.

Sometimes the peer review process goes too far in its skepticism, and a valid idea, such as continental drift, is rejected and even ridiculed by scientists even though it explains all the data collected and is contradicted by none of it. But that’s why repeated testing of that idea is required, as long as it is not outright falsified. Continental drift WAS accepted in the 1960s once an overwhelming amount of evidence was found to support it and those geologists who had been bigoted against it in the 1920s had died or retired, and a new generation had arisen that was more open-minded. Those who supported the continental drift theory were able to come up with a mechanism, plate tectonics, that explained it, and once they did opposition to it faded away rapidly.

Individual scientists may fall so deeply in love with their own ideas that they refuse to accept the peer review process when it rejects their ideas. Then they become cranks who no longer do science, but instead put out propaganda to appeal to the scientifically illiterate. This is especially true of Creationists and global warming denialists who happen to have science degrees. They even go so far as to attack the peer review process itself! But it must be noted that they can never produce anything that would produce superior results in terms of seeking objective data in the universe and explaining it.

Scientists who refuse to recognize that an idea of theirs is wrong are like a population of organisms that are too specialized in their lifestyle to adapt to any sudden change in their environment, resulting in their extinction. Fortunately, the progress of science continues even in spite of such incidents, just as life on Earth has continued despite the mass extinctions that have wiped out most species that evolved in Earth before.}}}

{{{Stages in the climate change debate

There have been several stages in the climate change debate among scientists.

The first stage was over what direction the Earth would be going in, warming or cooling. This was in the 1970s and was over by the late 1980s with the warming side winning.
The second stage was what was causing the warming being observed, natural forces or man-made ones. By the year 2000, that was largely settled with man-made causes being identified and natural ones being ruled out.
The third stage is the one we have been in since the 1990s, attempting to make the climate change models as accurate as possible. How fast are we warming and how severe will be the consequences of that warming? Because this is far more detailed and uncertain, the debates among scientists at this stage will be fiercer and last much longer, but are no less important.
Unfortunately, those who remain denialists about global warming will attempt to portray issues related to the third state of the climate change debate as if it somehow relates to the second stage (they can no longer deny that stage one has been settled, however). Then they misrepresent the issue in popular publications, including newspapers and blogs. This sort of deceptive advocancy should not be tolerated by anyone who knows the actual facts, as well as how science and debates within it are actually done.}}}

NOTE: I wrote that blog before Judy started her absurd ranting about global cooling being in our immediate future. Funny how she wants us to worry about catastrophic cooling now, but expected us to ignore the much greater and longer term warming that took place from the 1970s to 2005. Such cherry-picking instantly destroys her credibility, period.

{{{The difficulty of teaching science

Most people take science courses in high school or college that are required of them, and once they graduate their science education stops. They learn no more, because science is not central to their chosen careers, and so they tend to ignore advances in science made since they left school. These people may be considered "scientifically illiterate", tending to forget or distort what little they learned.

Some people, who actually become scientists, are on the cutting edge of their field and deal with very complex issues and problems that the average scientifically illiterate person would not even begin to understand. As a result, there is a huge gap between the average person and the typical scientist that makes communication almost impossible.

And there there are people like myself, who did take science courses in school, but are also self-educated about science. They were originally inspired by scientists like Carl Sagan, Jacob Bronowski, or David Attenborough, who dedicated themselves to popularize science via books and television series. Once I as a child became enthusiastic about science, I kept going, because the more I knew, the more I wanted to know. And unlike many people among those who are scientifically illiterate, I recognize that science is not merely a collection of facts, but that it has a methodology for confirming those facts and that its ultimate goal is to explain those facts via the establishment of theories. A theory, such as those of evolution or the Big Bang, is the most powerful thing in science. Saying that evolution or some other concept in science people may find objectionable is "only a theory" is a bit like saying Barack Obama is "only the President of the United States".

Pseudoscientists who have an ideological ax to grind, such as Creationists, global warming denialists, or AIDS denialists, can take advantage of the limited knowledge of the average person to decieve him with fallacious or even outright false claims that then lead that person to conclude that science itself cannot be trusted to provide reliable information. Thus, they perpetuate the cycle of ignorance.

Scientists who attempt to popularize science for the common people must symplify what they do to reach them. But that symplification is itself a distortion of science. For example, it is common knowledge that Gideon Mantell and his wife Mary discovered Iguanodon, one of the first known dinosaurs. What is not so well known is that Mary later left Gideon because he had abandoned medicine to focus totally on paleontology. Also, Sir Richard Owen, another paletonologist who actually coined the term dinosaur, was a bitter enemy of Gideon and even attempted to destroy Gideon's reputation after his death. Owen was also an enemy of Charles Darwin, denying his theory of evolution. Such things, which clearly show that even the most brilliant and dedicated scientists have character flaws, are ignored by most of those who write popular science books. But this does science a disservice, since it gives the impression that scientists tend to be infallible and thus the average person can never hope to understand what they do. When common people see people with science degrees promote bogus ideas, they mistakenly think the fake expert and his fake ideas are as legitimate as real experts with real ideas and thus there is a "controversy" that really does not exist.

Even worse, some people get so attached to personalities within science that they forget that science as an enterprise can only suceed by moving forward, rather than be attached to any individual. This attitude of attachment is derived from religion and should have NO place in science. We can admire the works of Sir Isaac Newton, but we should never be limited to what he did. Otherwise, Albert Einstein would not have developed his theories of relativity. Science in Europe ground to a halt during the Dark Ages because certain Greek philosophers and scientists, such as Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Galen, were thought to have found all the right answers and thus were venerated as infallible.

This is why we make such a strong effort to guard against attempts to mislead children in schools with pseudoscience masquading as science. We have to fight a constant uphill battle, because if even one generation is misinformed about the real issues in science, we will be set back decades or even a century in the effort to gain more public support for scientific research as well as in the effort to recruit more scientists.}}}

{{{Fake science groups

Science thrives on controversy and debate, as long as the participants all agree on the same rules of logic and evidence and use no double standards to judge the facts and issues. It's when one side engages in some sort of trickery that the efforts to reach a definite conclusion to any debate in science are hindered. Here's what can happen:

A prolonged controversy among scientists ends when definite evidence is found to support one side of the debate, but the evidence is so complex and laden with uncertainty that only a scientist or someone extremely well read and trained to judge the evidence, can make sense of it all.
The side that lost the debate includes members that are financed by powerful special interests (such as fundamentalist churches, fossil fuel companies, or Conservative legislators), who have a vested interest in one side winning or the appearance of a controversy continuing to influence the political process.
The losers of the debate withdraw from the mainstream scientific community and found several splinter groups to promote their alternative point of view. They do so not among scientists to have their questionable claims peer reviewed, but directly to the general public as FACTS.
Despite scientists in the mainstream community having dealt completely with all the possible objections to the issue in question, the dissenting side attempts to restart the controversy among the general public, not by asking legitimate questions, but by asserting that there is a conspiracy that caused them to lose the debate among mainsteam scientists. They then engage in fallacies that sound scientific but are not.
They appeal to the public for financial aid, and to spread their message via the internet and in other popular forums.
Which would you consider more credible? Ten organizations of 100 members each, that were founded less than ten years ago, including many members in two or more of these groups, which all have the same dogma; or one group that has over 100,000 members, no dogmas, and is over 100 years old?}}}

Kenneth said, "Do you not notice that she also never creates a news story about global cooling or some other 'natural' life story?"

Actually, Judy does often create her own news stories to promote global warming denialism, but they are never as popular as the ones that report that global warming is still a problem. Hence her habit of posting comments of denialist propaganda on those stories.

Judy made a CHOICE years ago to reject the man-made global warming hypothesis and interprets EVERYTHING she sees according to the dogma, "We should do nothing about global warming," which is a completely unscientific state of mind. She grants automatic credibility to anyone who attacks that hypothesis and denies anyone who supports it, regardless of the totality of the evidence. Since her dogma can never be debunked, her denialism serves her well no matter what the outcome:

1. Temperatures drop drastically in some areas during the winter due to the Sun going quiet: "See, that proves that CO2 cannot cause global warming!" No, that is a non-sequintur. We have always noted the Sun's role in climate change, as well as weather patterns. But global temperatures are still too high. Wait until summer comes!

2. Temperatures and CO2 levels keep rising: "Global warming is really a GOOD thing, because warmer weather and higher CO2 levels will cause plants to grow faster!" Idiocy, because those same temperatures also make diseases spread faster and melt the polar ice caps.

3. Sea levels are still rising: "So what? Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. And I read from {fake expert} that sea levels actually fell centuries ago!" BIG LIE. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago and has NO relevance to the present circumstances. Plus, you CANNOT measure exact sea levels centuries ago by visiting an area once. You can only measure contemporary sea levels by direct measurements and make approximations of sea levels thousands or millions of years ago.

4. CO2 causes a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus: "Well, Mars has a CO2 atmosphere too, so why doesn't it also have a runaway greenhouse effect?"
Because Venus' atmosphere is nine thousand time denser than that of Mars.

5. CO2 levels have been rising since the 1950s: "Well, I read that CO2 measurements were made that were even higher than those of today." Most of those early measurements were made on continents near or in large cities, which emitted plenty of CO2 which would make the readings meaningless. The big island of Hawaii was chosen for long term CO2 measurenments because it was well away from any large cities, thus showing an accurate picture of actual CO2 levels in the atmosphere as a whole.

I could go on and on, but I think I've said enough for now.

David Gould (155)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 6:18 pm
So is the lady of the lake so still?

215 All silent there they stood, and still.
Like the loose crags whose threatening mass
Lay tottering o'er the hollow pass,
As if an infant's touch could urge
Their headlong passage down the verge,
220 With step and weapon forward flung,
Upon the mountain-side they hung.

Excerpt from Sir Walter Scot's "The Lady of the Lake"

Judy Cross (83)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 6:43 pm
I'm not even going to bother with most Dale's verbal diahorea All of his "science" is off the wall, half truths or outright nonsense.Notice, he never presents evidence to back up his rambling imagination. He is very tiresome and seems to think his particular talent for writing balderdash should be taken on its own.
Venus vs EarthMagellan radar imaged Venus - NASA Image

In some ways, Venus is similar to earth. It is about the same size as the earth, has a nickel-iron core, and has volcanic activity due to radioactive heating in the interior. But that is where the similarities end. Venus has some serious problems as a vacation spot - mainly that it is extremely hot and the atmosphere is a thick cloud of sulfuric acid, CO2 and other unpleasant chemicals.
So how did Venus get to be like that, and why is the earth different?

1. Venus is closer to the sun, which makes it hotter and prevents formation of oceans due to excessive evaporation.
2. Venus suffered a traumatic collision in it’s early days, which causes it to rotate very slowly and parallel to the ecliptic. This makes for long afternoons (thousands of hours long) which get extremely hot.
3. Because of 1 and 2, Venus was never able to sequester CO2 in limestones like the earth.

For the last few billion years, volcanoes on earth have been spewing out the greenhouse gases H2O, CO2 and CH4, as well as, H2SO4, SO2, H2S, HCl and Cl2. If not for the oceans and limestone sequestration, we would have a very thick, hot acidic atmosphere like Venus which could not support life. Fortunately, temperatures and other conditions on earth were just right to allow huge volumes of CO2 to move into the oceans and precipitate carbonate rock layers, where the CO2 became sequestered. This makes earth the pleasant place which we all enjoy.

And although a little poetry makes for an enjoyable break, essentially David G. has engaged in the equivalent of filibustering.


Chris O (507)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 7:17 pm
"I'm not even going to bother with most Dale's verbal diahorea ..."

No Judy never engages in personal attacks LMAO!!!!

"Fortunately, temperatures and other conditions on earth were just right to allow huge volumes of CO2 to move into the oceans and precipitate carbonate rock layers, where the CO2 became sequestered. This makes earth the pleasant place which we all enjoy..."

Quite correct, but the problem is that the sequesteration is not keeping up with inputs - thus there is a rising trend in green house gas concentrations - which, tada, least to WARMING!!!!

In particular see Figure 2 and Figure 4

The other troubbleing thing is that the planet seems to be losing this buffering ability:

Carbon Sinks Losing The Battle With Rising EmissionsCarbon Sinks Losing The Battle With Rising Emissions

The stabilising influence that land and ocean carbon sinks have on rising carbon emissions is gradually weakening, say scientists attending last week’s international Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

Dale Husband (123)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 8:50 pm
"I'm not even going to bother with most Dale's verbal diahorea All of his "science" is off the wall, half truths or outright nonsense.Notice, he never presents evidence to back up his rambling imagination. He is very tiresome and seems to think his particular talent for writing balderdash should be taken on its own."

In other words, you can't refute what I say, so you dismiss it all. Can you blame others for doing the same to you? Especially when you rant about AIDS not being a real disease, chemtrails being a threat to us, and American government officials being directly involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. To me, those claims are "off the wall, half truths or outright nonsense".

The statement by the Watts Up With That blog is enteirely correct, but doesn't really refute at all the man-made global warming hypothesis. One wonders why Judy presented it to us. My statement about Venus' atmosphere being nine thousand times thicker than that of Mars still stands. Remember when someone was actually foolish enough to compare the two? It's like comparing a swimming pool to the Pacific Ocean!

Past Member (0)
Sunday March 22, 2009, 10:17 pm
Well, Respected Kenneth and other honorable members, I have to restate what I want to express about why should we respect her, the Judy?

1. Her creative and the critical criticism is not against the person, but what one says-she does not say that Chris is a bad person, but one who may work harder to bring the real face of the problem in all possible means-what is the real difference between an army person and a terrorist-it is an ethical question for which claim can go into any direction, but we do not need.
2. She is acting on behalf of the people, who are authentic in reaction towards the most established, which we accept axiomatically. Now, these people are the politicians, who are united with the industrialists and the marketers-not with the common people.
3. The critic, who opposes is right. She is acting as a critic and thus the role of a critic always differ and mostly goes in the opposite than what we mostly believe is right because we have presented it with and from the most reliable authority. We do not accept everything that the authorities say because it has some room for social angle-the angle of the common people, which is not present. The industrial influence is present in global planning. Her presence is the flame of candle that keeps the topic burning because it is what a common person thinks and feels-not the experts-in my opinion the care2 is for the common people.
4. It is very difficult in the modern world to say anything against anybody-it is almost taken as if a personal attack. Everything on the Internet is checked and censured about what one says-President Bush used this policy as if to keep USA safe from the world. The phone taping (also one other president did it in decades ago), email opening, everything tracing from computers (our pc) and brains is not a wrong theory. It is happening. She is daring and can oppose such issues and thus offers us an opportunity for correction-a wise accepts the correction. This correction is for the US and the allied countries to lead propaganda against the entire world community to rule it through space technology and other ways of influencing the civilization of all countries. The terrorism, which we have faced in India and Asia, is a planned way. They were offered money and weapons. Then most of them became the salves as they get rich and influential people. I have personally noticed it in Punjab.
5. She has opposed the information and the knowledge and we have to accept that this very knowledge is not our very own, so we are not absolutely sure that our information is the only right source available on earth, so she also gives the links to which we can go for checking the points of concern, and mostly these are the common points-the world is in great depression and apathy-the one, who can shake it to act and react is doing a great work, no matter how, where and when. We need to irritate with teasing words at times, when mother’s only son dies, she needs to cry, so we make her cry. The world community is silent about everything that is happening in nature-the death of the nature, but no one mourns about it. Let us try to make one another think and feel so that we may cry-think, act and react for the dying natural world that includes humans.
6. She has not supported any industrials tactics for saving nature (though it is nature that saves us!), so her main concern is to stop the influence of the industrialization exploring the entire orbit and the atmosphere around earth, moon and mars, it is not just a child’s game, it goes to harm the space and soil equally. They, the technologists and the industrialists give its impact on our global developments as if the entire human civilization is developing, but rather it is our mind conditioning and thus elimination of creative reactivity in action towards the natural life
7. Her contexts are full of concern as if delegating or representing on behalf of the people, who are not scientists or the technologists, but are direct victims, and these are five billion people and the billions of members of the natural world. We are talking about the west only, the USA being the leader of the world and the entire west as the supporters. The most of the population of the world is in the Asia, Africa and Latin America, so when we use rude words these are represented, otherwise, USA and the allied countries rule even the UNO by having the permanent seats and veto vote powers. I felt it, so I wrote and there is no emotion, personal, sympathetic support in other context. So, we may better allow more criticism, but without “naming” anybody personally, it is the point where I do not agree with most of the good opinion givers. We all are in the same team-our work together is need of all.
8. We need aggressive and emphatic people, as they are brave, here I follow the rules of scouting to let anyone speak or express even though it may appear wrong. We may ignore such points and still carry the discussion. We do not need to get offend to the extremes; there is nothing personal-the global concerns. We are not to please others-she is not trying to please us, rather she has presented the language that satires and thus stirs up the fire that we have dumped in the voice of conscience covered by the dust of data and information technology spoiling space, soil, air, water, fire and thus the entire natural world, including humans.
9. Last, but not the least is that aggression is not towards any member, but the information and knowledge presented-her golden statement is, in my conclusion after reading her most of the opinions-stop the industrialists to harm the natural life on the planet-she is supporting it in all possible means. Let us forget the pleasing talk shows of the politicians and the marketers and listen to the concerns that need to awake our hidden angers and rages-the child within all of us-the real human, who wants to rebel, so that we may cry about the dying of the natural world and our personal concerns that are also dead for the world politics and the technological advancements.

I hope I am not totally wrong, I am not trying to please her or anybody else, but to moderate the way we are discussing, though I am not at all a moderator neither I wish to be. So, let us follow the rules of scouting. Thanks!

Kenneth L (314)
Monday March 23, 2009, 4:52 am
Harmander, you are not LOOKING. Again Judy attacks someone, this time Dale H: "I'm not even going to bother with most Dale's verbal diahorea All of his "science" is off the wall, half truths or outright nonsense".

How would you like someone to call what you have written Harmander as VERBAL DIARRHEA and OUTRIGHT NONSENSE? I don't care how you are attempting to put everything about her in sweetness and light but I know what I am looking at when I see someone SQUASHING someone else with words.
You say: "We need to irritate with teasing words at times..."
Again this is sweetness and light that you are trying to project onto everything. Saying Dale's words are 'VERBAL DIARRHEA' are not 'teasing words'. Look up the word 'tease' in the dictionary and look up the word 'insult' in the dictionary.

You say she is not saying Chris (or Dale) is a bad person. So what? Her words are RUDE, INSULTING, and her intention is to SQUASH, OVERWHELM, STOP others in those instances with her insults.

You keep saying: "She is acting on behalf of the people". What are you talking about? Everyone else here is too. So what?

I'll say it again, anyone has the right to express their opinion. Absolutely. Guaranteed. Beyond that it's HOW they do it.

I was wrong evidently when I said she never posts any environmental news stories herself, as Dale H. corrected me about that.

And finally, you seem to think that the correctness of something depends on on opposing viewpoints. It doesn't. Something is either correct or not correct. The truth that the earth revolves around the sun does not depend on others opposing that idea with the idea that the sun revolves around the earth.


Doug Wilson (30)
Monday March 23, 2009, 5:35 am
But Chris, we do understand climate trends. We do have data and science. It is colder. It doesn't do any good to argue about this anyway. There is a need: that being less pollutants. Doesn't matter if anyone knows, or can accurately predict the outcome for next year or the next ten. This has turned into a little war between people. It was meant to. It accomplishes very little good. No sane scientist or person thinks that polluting the planet is a good idea. There is no argument. There is however the division and distraction of the global warming battle. Let's just all agree that poisoning ourselves is bad. Then let's stop supporting anyone who makes or uses poison. At the simplest most basic level we need to stop exploding things. I admit it's fun and it's fast but we don't know what to do with the result. Everything we need to exist without creating toxins is already invented or will be really soon after we decide to agree. The key is to agree. We don't do that very well. We're great at arguing - it's kind of explosive. So the first step is to find something to agree on. We need to stop being led into arguments.

Past Member (0)
Monday March 23, 2009, 6:30 am
Respected Kenneth, I humbly express, how I read and interpret the statements, which are irritating (I fully agree that "naming"=using the names of the person, who comments is not an honorbale for the person. However, let us do it for:

"I'm not even going to bother with most Dale's verbal diahorea All of his "science" is off the wall, half truths or outright nonsense".

"I'm not even going to bother"

It means the person has reacted, "not bothering" is bothering.

"Dale's verbal diahorea..." it conveys that person has bothered so much about it that it needed some harsh words.

We use term the "vomiting" system of education-simply means that one vomits, what one learns. It is "voting"=modern system of education and learning.

"All of his "science" is off the wall...." it seems to convey that person has put some data that is not univesally accepted.

I wrote an essay in my first year of graduation at the University of Adelaide about the Law of Graviation, while suppoting Issac Newton and got distinction. My friend Sione Koloi also wrote, but against Issac Newton. He also got distinction. He said that an ant sitting on the apple can claim that the earth fell to it rather than claiming that the apple fell to earth.

"half truths or outright nonsense". It seem to convey that helf truth cannot be science or constitute a logical statemnt. I also studied logic, so my concern is not simply with right or wrong, but the logic one gives.

Why I seem favoring or appreaciating has a reason, for which I am submitting the essay for whcih I got the remark of best way to generalize the intellectaul and thus human develpoemnt (Well, thanks for reading. Meanwhile, I agree with Doug Wilson, it is the right expression what I want to say otherwise):


The Law of Gravitation-A Socio-Scientific Quest for Peace
Well, as a student of Physics, Human and Society-I, at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, I received the distinction in my following thesis work in 1990. The Paul Davis, the great writer in the Science, particularly, the Big Bang Theory was the head of the department of the Mathematical Sciences, and I was the student of first year of graduation in Mathematical Sciences.. From my Professor, I received the remarks that I should continue writing about the global generalization of the development of human development globally, and here it is for you as sharing and remembering my days at the university.

Today, it is simple to us to know that law of gravitation is just that a force exerted by two bodies upon each other, varies directly as the product of their masses and varies inversely as the square of the distance between them. This law (of gravitation) has been called the greatest generalization achieved by the human mind. It is simple now only because the human mind has experienced a great deal of understanding, time and hard work to bring this law into the simple and mathematical form:
F= Gmm' / r2

Where m and m' are masses of two bodies and 'r' is the distance between them and 'F' is the force acting upon them. Moreover, 'G' is the proportionality constant, called the gravitational constant. Even though it is known as 'Newton’s' law of gravitation, it is honor to all those who experimented and thought about it before Newton. Among many, Aristotle was one who thought about it. He was a man of wisdom because he used the available knowledge in a great and proper way. He believed in experience. He in particular held that knowledge proceeds from experience, and he was a gifted observer. It seems wise to say here that it was motion of earth, planets, stars and falling of objects towards earth, which was the cause of deliberation of human mind on law of gravitation. Before touching the wisdom of Aristotle, it is appropriate to mention that ancient people viewed it and that it was thought that earth drew the apple downwards; rather it was assumed that there was something inside the apple, which made it aspire to rush down to the ground. It seems that using of word "childish" to this thought is harsh because in this one sentence, the development of human mind (intellect) has its roots and it was the start.
Aristotle thought and believed that the bodies, which were heavier, fall faster than the lighter one. He also believed that vacuum was inconceivable (not possible). He also believed that velocity was inversely proportional to the resistance, so he thought that in vacuum, the body would fall with infinite 'speed' ('velocity' if direction considered). Aristotle, while handling observed features of the sky, discounted the importance of the simple, but eventually fatal, argument against the fundamental hypothesis of system. Aristotle was aware of these things including that the Sun, the moon, Venus, Mars and Jupiter at times seemed nearer and at other times farther away from earth. Of course, this does not mean that he proposed a theory he knew to be false. His approach was different from today's approach that original Aristotelian science was not simply bad modern science but an activity fundamentally different from it. As it seems that intellect is not confined to one human, it also seems that anything, which attracts human intellect, would produce development in the intellect. We see Aristotle's ideas and intellect to be appropriate at his time because the law of gravitation was attracting human intellect and it (intellect) was developing. Around the times of Aristotle, there was Aristarchuof of Samoa who suggested, that a simple world system would result if the Sun were put at the universe and evidently, he assumed that the earth has a daily rotation on its north-south axis, as well as yearly revolution in the orbit round the Sun. This suggestion is significant enough to be seen as one foundation stone among many. There was also contribution from an astronomer and geographer Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, even though they did it believing that the earth as immovable. They modified the system of concentric spheres and proposed a suggestion which was really a ''common sense appeal." After Ptolemy, there was a time of "Dark Age" when there was no significant progress in astronomical theory, and thus socio-scientific progress for peaceful living.
After a long time, around 1500 AD, Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543 AD) brought forward the Copernicus system, which replaced the Ptolemaic system. The ancient first observed and then concluded that they all, along with the earth, went around the Sun. However, Copernicus later made this discovery independently, after people had forgotten that it had already been made. Copernicus made a way for progress. Neither Kepler's laws nor the gravitational theory would have been discovered without Copernicus. It seems that if someone in a small group has done something wrong then the whole group would be shameful but as a group of humans on this planet, we have always searched ways to criticize and reject but not to comprehend. It also seems that this tragedy always has its place in deep heart of a human of intellect and wisdom. Bruno was such an example; he supported Copernicus’s theory. He spoke about it and for his outspoken heresies; he was tried by the Inquisition and was burnt at the stake in 1600 AD. Scientists have always played a leading role in the human civilization to put in the bright dimensions of intellect. A man named Tycho Brahe, a Danish astronomer evolved the answer to the problem whether the earth or the Sun as the centre of universe. He thought to look very carefully and to record exactly where the planets appear in the sky. This thought was great and bright dimension of intellect. This is the key of modern science and it was the beginning of the true understanding of nature-this idea to look at things. Therefore, he started and spent days and nights on his own island. It is only through such hard work that we can find out anything.

John Kepler (1571-1630 AD), a German astronomer and mathematician was an assistant to Brahe. After Tycho's death, Kepler continued the observation and when these data were collected, they came into the hands of Kepler, who then tried to analyze what kind of motion the planets made around the Sun but too big for Tycho Brahe to have made an error and ultimately find out three things. Therefore, he found three great laws, which are named after him and rightly bear his name. Although many before him worked. Robert Hook had spoken of universal attraction between all bodies; none had understood how to derive from it, by rigid mathematics. In Kepler's three laws, first he found that the planets went in ellipse around the Sun, with Sun as the focus. The second law states that during a given time interval, a line form the planet to the Sun sweeps out an equal area anywhere along its elliptical path. Moreover, his third law which he found after many years of finding the first two, states that the time to go round the Sun varies as a three half power of the size. Nevertheless, there was one question that, what does make planets go around the Sun? This was the point where a human of wisdom and intellect was needed to lay foundation of and develop the intellect of humans. Galileo Galilee, our symbol of the great struggle out of which science arose. He is known as father of modern science and was indeed a human of need for development. He was not only scientist but also a human of great spiritual wisdom. Galileo's letters has shown he held that God's mind contains all the natural laws. There are few things, which an intellectual person learns and understands, but it takes time that the whole humans learn, understand and comprehend it. Galileo's discovery, that heavy and light bodies gain same speed, and fall with same speed on earth. Despite the widespread story of Galileo’s experiment from leaning tower of Pisa, most people believed (enormously) that heavy bodies gain speed far more quickly when falling than do lighter bodies. He continued discovering even greater things. Galileo discovered a great principle called the principle of inertia saying that if an object has nothing on it and is going also at a certain velocity in a straight line, it will go forever. From Galileo's intellect came the telescope opening the gates to modern science and thus law of gravitation was shaping the intellect by its attraction for correction by scientists and philosophers.

Isaac Newton was one who was born within the year after Galileo's death. As has been said with much insight, Galileo represented the assault and Newton the victory. We recall that Kepler guessed that force reached out from the Sun. He was wrong. Descartes proposed that all space was filled with a subtle invisible fluid of contagious material, corpuscles. This was not right but then when everyone was searching the solution, Newton came forward and proposed a dramatic solution: the centripetal force on the planets is nothing but a gravitational attraction of the Sun. With the idea of centripetal force, it was clear that anything, which did not go in straight line, must have a force acting on it and this was an intellectual edition to Galileo's law of inertia. In addition, it became evident that the centripetal force (whatever its final nature) must fall of as the square of the increasing distance. Moreover, this inverse square law is the backbone of the concept of forces.

Newton's contribution was a revolution in science. However, there is always a room for improvement and perfection in intellectual development. This is clear from the correction, which Einstein made in Newton's law of gravitation Einstein had to modify the laws of gravitation in accordance with his principles of relativity. It seems wise to mention that the Cavendish's experiment for discovering G on the assumption that the Newton's law holds. Now the law of gravitation is source of our understanding of gravity of the earth and other planets, the artificial satellites around the earth, tides in the sea etc. Moreover, with the development of Quantum theory, it is clear that the law of gravitation does not really holds for small scale. There is no quantum theory of gravity today. While closing the discussion about law of gravitation, one thing comes into mind that if we had not known the law of gravitation, we would have taken much longer to find the speed of light. Moreover, it is also important to mention that the law of gravitation not only attracted scientists and philosophers, but also religious people and it is great intellect development of humanity that today we find there seems to be great understanding of this law. This law has followed the modern tradition of science as we see, but much more important things that this law has provided modern tradition. Actually, these two statements are mutually related as seem to be. Modern science is exactly in the same tradition as the discoveries of the Law of Gravitation. This law and its history is a symbol of human intellect, understanding, hard work and indeed the honor to scientists, humans in general and society as a whole that today we are having concept of socio-scientific peace and harmony in the world.

Let us ask ourselves

* Do we understand that socio-scientific progress has leaded our civilization to the new and higher dimensions of ease and peace of mind?

* Are we aware that we enjoy the outputs of socio-scientific progress but criticize it in the name of spiritualism?

* Do we understand that wisdom manifests itself through all dimensions of living including socio-scientific?

Thanks for reading. I hope that it conveys what I am trying to support. Thanks!

Chris O (507)
Monday March 23, 2009, 7:06 am
Doug - we can agree to dissagree on the tempratures - which are indeed still on a rising trend despite a cool couple of years...

However, what I do object to is Judy's constant calls fo INACTION and her constant HARRASSMENT (name calling,childish statements, and false accusations)of anyone who "dares" post a climate change article...I also object to the DISSINFORMATION she spreads - often quoting known denialist sites supported by oil money...I am a ACTION oriented person - that is why I have been on care2 for over seven years, have maintained a few groups, and have WORKED WITH many individuals here. "Arguments" are not my thing - but when I see an active dissinformation program being waged on the planet - I will respond. I will not stand ideally by and let such an attack go unanswered...

David Gould (155)
Monday March 23, 2009, 7:53 am
“And although a little poetry makes for an enjoyable break, essentially David G. has engaged in the equivalent of filibustering.”

Once again Ms Cross has demonstrated that she misuses language and attacks that which she doth not understand….for the record…

Filibuster is 1. the process of obstructing legislation by means of delaying tactic. 2. Also called a filibuster, a legislator who engages in such obstruction. 3. A freebooter or military adventurer, especially in a foreign country. 4. To obstruct legislation with delaying tactics. 5.To engage in unlawful military action…probably from the Dutch word for a pirate (vrijbuiter)

Ms Cross having demonstrated her lamentable ignorance as to classical history with regard to my reference to Nero fiddling while Rome burned she has now showed an equally regrettable lack of expertise in both linguistics and the true meaning of a well known and loved passage of poetry. One indeed wonders where the limits of her ignorance stretch…like the ever so subtle difference between weather and climate perhaps.

For her information and indeed her edification, I have never entered politics as a legislator nor have I ever engaged military endeavour. Hence her use of the word Filibuster is entirely inappropriate. As to her misunderstanding of those well known words from the Lady of the Lake…if her education is so lacking I would suggest an excellent commentary on so that she too can see the relevance of the quote.

Past Member (0)
Monday March 23, 2009, 8:23 am
Respected Kenneth and everybody, may I seek your attention please, you see we seem to go far away from our topic as we are discussing about minor issue-the making of issue a prestige issue. Anyway, one of my concern is about how we utilize the value system of estimation of worth of anything seems to be a tool for making a thing source or resource. The worth of water is too little so we may not collect it, as it is simply source in that way; on the other hand, the resources of petrol are simply sources as it not re-cyclic like water. The worth of the petrol seems to make us search for it as if it is a great resource of energy.

We seem to make a big storehouse of it, so that the source may remain the resource. For natural way of estimation the worth of energy as heat and light, while leaving other forms for this example, coming from the Sun everyday is so huge that the total wealth, in any form, present on earth is less than the worth of it. In other words, we cannot produce so much heat and light on earth in a day by all possible means of producing energy, whether electric, chemical, mechanical, and so on.

This self-assumed vale system of estimating the worth of anything disturbs the human psychology such that the tendency is to grab and collect or store. In the ancient sciences or scriptures this tendency in a better way accepting it as the desire is stated as the most fundamental quality of a human, that is, to collect, count and store. It also states that way one collect count and store indicates one’s future. Its explanation is as a psychological abnormality if one collects and stores without sharing and worse is if one counts what has one has stored and shared in many countable years by months. This is for personal psychology, not the problem of Economics.

These self-assumed estimations may lead to problems at both home and work place and thus, in our personal, professional, social, market and other ways of our association with society and nature. We have thus destroyed every treasure of earth and it includes our faculties of knowledge as we are no longer respecting any philosophy. Our philosophy seems to please one another and the authorities or the employers so that we may keep on pondering what we get from others than what we can give. The products that are made in a day are sold expensively more expensive than the products like the petrol that comes into existence in millions of years.

I wonder if our estimation way is right. Please note that it is not scientific idea, it is my observation for the subject matter of Philselfology-the blinding of Philosophy and Science with common sense, the conscience for which I am most opposed person in my vicinity and aggressive expressions as if a cynical person, who want to irritate others for some self-invested motives, perhaps billions of dollar scam in mind or trying to a big prison of world community, something is wrong with me-it goes at times while I am estimated as a human. While I try to work for until 2011-12 I hear people in the vicinity engaged in the abusive and vulgar language as if they have great concern against my humanly existence. So, pray for me. However, at care2, I feel at home. Thanks!

Kenneth L (314)
Monday March 23, 2009, 1:23 pm
Harmanger you state: "Dale's verbal diahorea..." it conveys that person has bothered so much about it that it needed some harsh words.

That's YOUR opinion Harmander! You can't nitpick and justify something just because YOU choose to. What about Dale's viewpoint about it? What about someone else's?

"We use term the "vomiting" system of education-simply means that one vomits, what one learns. It is "voting"=modern system of education and learning" What one vomits one learsn?!! I have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.

"All of his "science" is off the wall...." it seems to convey that person has put some data that is not univesally accepted." No kidding.

Well, since you want to justify whatever you want I hope you will justify for me when I call your posts (and this hurts to do this) verbal diarrhea Harminger. Your posts are off the wall, foolish reasoning, you are a self-appointed mediator and self-appointed philosopher. Do you get the idea? Your ideas are not intelligent, lack relevance, on and on and on. Do you like it? I'm not saying you're a BAD PERSON but I humbly and respectfully communicate this to you.

And not only this Harminger, but how would you like it if some particular person said this OF EVERY POST YOU POST FROM NOW ON, CONTINUALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY, and in all sorts of other ways too?

I do worry about what you said "While I try to work for until 2011-12 I hear people in the vicinity engaged in the abusive and vulgar language as if they have great concern against my humanly existence". What does that mean? Is someone doing that to you in some other area of life? If so, that would make it clearer to me why you try to justify it. DON'T JUSTIFY IT HARMINGER.


Kenneth L (314)
Monday March 23, 2009, 1:26 pm
And Harminger when I insulted you in the paragraph in the last thread, I was making it up to show you a point. That's all my friend.

Past Member (0)
Monday March 23, 2009, 7:51 pm
Well, Respected Kenneth, I honor you as a great person and a friend. When people in my vicinity, state and nation have changed the lifestyle into eat and enjoy, thus ignoring the topics that we discuss here at care2 and environment it seems they are simply abusive and vulgar. To make it clear I give some words about it.

However, before saying anything, I express why I favor Respected Judy, you see millions of people on Internet do not care about such issues, including in my vicinity to national level, she at least participate in such issues and is not vulgar, simply absuive. However, in future I will not try to justify it because I feel it is going too much on my behalf.

The vulgarity in the dual meanings of languages and cultural representation and its expression has invited a downfall. Now, India is in grave threat of religious, spiritual and cultural disintegration and it may lead to its extinction. This reason is on the downfall of language and cultural dignity. Most of the media programs that include radio, television, newspapers, magazines, films and internet based categories have deformed the Indian languages and cultures. The languages used in any form have depleted the rich heritage of literary level.

People, particularly the youth have started to enjoy the programs and presentations that are vulgar to such an extent that even the western philosophers and the thinkers may find the absence of classical values in music, fashion, movies, films and other forms of media. Moreover, while traveling in the buses, the most of the music is full of vulgarity. Why do the Indians follow it? The reason is simple they seem to have forgotten the rich heritage that is present in the languages, arts, philosophy and other faculties of knowledge. The label of “ancient” has made all of the Indian civilization to sleep in the lap of modern world of anti-Indian ways of life.

India represents the most natural way of living. Now, natural life never gets ancient, it is as true as water that is present in the tap and in the mineral bottle. If we drink fresh water from the mineral bottle, we do not find ourselves ultra modern, but something that could have been kept alive if we have followed the natural ways and means. The yoga is the most natural and never changes with time and space. We cannot claim that yoga is an ancient practice. Drinking water, exercise, mediation and other related human activities never get old. The question of great concern for all of us is if we follow the science and technology in the right perspective.

We go for the facilities and luxury. In all of such cases the science claims that what is not natural is not for humans. If we wear the Indian woven cloths, we remain natural. Does science say that cotton harm us? No, it does not claim, but it claims that what is artificial and non-organic, processed and thus prepared technologically is not natural, so it is harmful. Why cannot we agree? Simply because the market and media gives name and fame to the industrial revolutions all the times and right from the childhood we learn to follow it. It is the blind faith on media and advertisements.

We have so many alternatives and even the industry can give us the natural and organic products, but they find us ignoring it. Whatever is not natural for us is vulgarity, and it may be in any form, country and or even in the world. The technology is promoting the art, including the music in the artificial way. If one cannot sing in a rhythmic and lyrical way, that is classically, the computer can fix it. The one, who can pay can be a classical singer and with marketing anyone can beat the original singers, who are classical. In the movies, any manipulation can give the artificial in a better way than the original.

The music mixing has the ability to mix all songs of the world into multiple languages and it is so popular that the rap music mostly beats the classical music globally. The Indian youth have this great gift to excel and defend as well, but they seem to follow the western style. On the other hand, the western world has turned towards adopting the eastern or the Indian ways of natural living. Yoga and the mediation, the organic foods and so many other arts, crafts, lifestyle and new ways that are ancient for the Indian youth are now modern for them. It usually appears that such moves for the world community may harm the marketing, advertisements and the media in general. Here is one simple question:

Do the ads not earn, which are boosting the natural studies, researches, and products?

We happen to believe that ads promote the business to the highest level. What about the multilevel marketing concept. It is working globally and getting great profits as well as source of earning for many people. The concept of saving is same earning, and we will discuss in other article. Now, it is the vulgarity that we are talking about. The naked person or the one without cloths may not be vulgarity. In many Indian cultures, particularly the aborigines do not wear cloths, it is not vulgarity. Many people do not wear full cloths in the west and it is not vulgarity.

The vulgarity is use of force, drugs, mesmerizing, hypnotizing and blackmailing someone to get any desire fulfilled. The natural products can give everything we need. However, we force, give fertilizers as drugs, put everything to artificial processes and thus get our desired results. It is vulgarity against nature. We seem to abuse it to the highest as no other living thing harms nature this way. The arts and the languages follow the process of evolution with more research in these, but now we can find the manipulation in such a way that technician can make anything original, as said before.

Thus, we do not find the birds chirping, animals enjoying life, plants flourishing. Moreover the trees do not give fruits and the farm houses are full of industrial products to be fed to the soil. We now use the logo again that mother should feed the infant. However, what is available naturally we usually avoid. Nature gives what is the best for all of us. However, we want to drink the processed milk for the infants that are we, the humans using this concept in all fields and the areas of our life.

We know that this vulgarity in the philosophical, scientific, artistic, psychological and other faculties of knowledge is not paying us, but we tend to deform it. This deformation in the name of reformation and in extreme cases the revolution is an insult to humans, nature and life in general on our earth, I have noticed many similar discussions in the similar manner on various websites-it is the thought pollution. Thanks!

I again thank you Respected Kenneth for your humbleness and great concern for sensitivity and the feelings.

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday March 24, 2009, 5:26 am
Yes, I agree that a person who at least stands up and says something they are passionate about is quite rare, not only in the western world but as you say, in India. This is better than apathy that's for sure.
I agree with everything you say about how things have become 'vulgarized' in almost every area (maybe EVERY area) of human activity.
You realize of course though that having a calm, vulgar-free state of mind is extremely hard to do for most people. Though oneself can have it, though one can communicate it doesn't mean that others can simply adopt it or have it themselves.
It does flow calm into an area that's for sure which is good. Calm, order, beauty, affinity for other humans and other life-forms, all these things are good and help things.
India is somewhere I've never been so it is not real to me as to what the culture is like there, though you've described it a bit. Are you Hindu too? I seem to see some aspects of it in your writings.

I bet you're overwhelmed by the way things are in India. All one can do is confront (face without flinching) what IS, and then work to improve it. There must be some groups or organizations with people who consider things and have responsibility the way you do in India. There is more power in groups (supposed to be anyway!) and effectiveness than just one person by themselves.
Human beings are aberrated Harmander. He is basically good but can act badly. HELPING is better than NOT HELPING, TAKING RESPONSIBILITY is better than NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.
In my opinion, too many people are myopic, they are concerned with only their own personal survival and sometimes their immediate family. That leaves out the survival of other humans as fellow members of the human race, other life-forms (nature, creatures, any other living thing), the survival even of the physical planet as a whole and more. Right away that lifestyle fails and fails miserably. The best solution to things is to operate on the basis of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of things.


Past Member (0)
Tuesday March 24, 2009, 7:14 am
"The best solution to things is to operate on the basis of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of things."
Respected Kenneth, you see it is only the begining of the Coexistence, which has never ending process-as if a joy of life.

I am a Sikh, but have done the Comparative Religious Studies, some in Philosphy and others on my own. I would humbly submit an article about the natural world and how we, the Indians look at it:
Natural and Organic World and the Universal Laws and the Principals-I

The health and medicines go from person, family to global life and the presence of ease, the absence of disease in these. We take healthcare natural way. We have many problems as war and pollution from self to social and global level. The solution of these always seems a hidden mystery in our feeling it as personal need, necessity and duty. The diversification of problems does not make it bigger than the solution that seems to have bits different hands as granny's natural ways.

The united hands share the solutions for all problems that are like individual contribution in making of a supercomputer, one as personal instrument or computer of mother nature following the universal laws and principles in great and divine (the original form) way. What we call hope is faith and in faith we share trust with one another.

The personal religions and faiths just strengthen this bond of universalizing of our souls, which are so humble and are always just waiting our call for individual and personal research.

For example in the Indian Philosophy of Religion, particularly, the Sikhism and the other ancient concepts express that the salt is one of the life givers, as without it the human life cannot exist, it is spirit. It gets the unique attribute, the status of god in the scriptures because of this very fact. Anything without which, our life cannot exist, we call it the life giver or god, as said in the scriptures; it also includes the water, fire and air in the above process of boiling of the water. So all of these thus go to idealism, these are physically present or felt so the realism is not absent, the process of boiling and scientific knowledge about it can not be unnatural, that is, naturalism is also present. As we discussed about the violation and violence of words, similarly it also applies to fire, air, water and solid.

The previous one was pollution of words, now if we consider water, it may acquire the pollution in return, what it does cannot be its own effect; it is the effect of caused pollution by any means.
The water, in any form whether river, sea, oceans, etc., is considered life giver, as said before, and thus it is said to be having the status of god, its purification was considered so significant in Ancient Indian Philosophy that it was revered because of its life giving property to the spirit or consciousness. To worship it was to simply keep it clean and offer or add herbs, flowers, and other things that purify it, so in return it gives good health to the user. The same was true for fire, air and solids that we use. In the modern age, these are having pollution, which harms the health restoring power in these.

We may assume that if we keep on going, without taking more interest in the organic farming and the products, our condition will be different. It seems as if it will be seeking some rainwater for drinking, while our ship is moving across the ocean, the seas of water. Similar condition is present when one is seeking water in the floods. If just needs our reflection for our future generations, as well as for us in the future.

The person goes sick and preventive measures taken for it are to remove the negative energy by process of purification, the process may be any but the Naturopathy or Ayurvedic (Nature Care and Cure-The Organic Way) earns the great favor from the villagers or old people. We do it so that the life giving energy is one it its way to self-restoration, that are, starts to work in the body keeping the health in good form. Therefore, the word Dainta's is an attribution to those things that cause lowering of life, and thus blocking the process of evolution.

We may assume the humans as in the middle of these two. For example, the water is life giver, but once pollution enters, its quality of life giving is having severe disturbance and thus it leaves the good effects, instead it harms the living things until they are dead by micro-germs and bacteria.

Therefore, in the scriptures, this pollution is termed as the presence of Dainta's in it. These attributes are also termed as the positive and negative energies. The Devta's represent the positive energy; that is, life giving and the Dainta's on the other hand represent the negative energy, that is, creating hurdles in human progress and development. Now humans, being neutral, have free will to either support the Devta's or Dainta's, that is, the humans can remove the pollution in which Devta's help and in creating it the Dainta's support. We may take example of water again, if we purify it, the work of removal of impurities is sustained by it, some added Potassium Permanganate is an example, on the other hand in the pure water even a minor thing with fungus if thrown it spreads itself to great extent.

Natural and Organic World and the Universal Laws and the Principals-II

The very word god is having the great attribute with the feelings of reverence, it is the Devta in the Indian Philosophy and Religions, this word means the life giver, and there are so many things, which are life giver that one cannot remember all names. For example, the oxygen, given by the trees, makes trees very important as these contribute to the continuity of life.

The Sun, the Moon, other planets and so many other things that contribute to the continuity of the life on our earth are also having the names as we call it, the life givers or gods (Devta's).

Even the air in which the oxygen is present is life giver. It is the deepest research by Indian sages that found so many things, that contribute to continuity of life, as the life givers whether in male or female form of energy (Devta's or Devi's).
Moreover, they made research on how one can keep them in pure form so that they can give their best. It is such a great glory of these life givers, which the significant contribution these possess; reveals itself the way these should be kept, treated and revered. We may again take example of water, how to keep it pure is our need not the need of the life giver. The example of the Sun, as the life giver is such that it greatly contributes to the continuity and evolution of life in our solar system, however in the pollution it is not that the Sun that has changed; rather the sunrays enhance the negative energy of the pollution.

The Ozone Layer or excess of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth now is lowering the level of evolution, as the heat, as life giver also is promoting diseases and disharmony, such that the excess of the negative energy is retarding the evolution.

Again taking it that the negative energy carriers, the biotic or micro-germs and bacteria causing bad health pollute both blood and immunity systems and it said in the scriptures, the Ancient Sciences that these dwell on it. It seems a wonder or rather tragedy that even the dwelling is sustained on the taken anti-biotic. Not all the measures, which a human intellect can ever afford, may make our life free from diseases without the help of the life givers. Even the perfect body cannot escape from it, as temperature proofing is not same as waterproofing.

The reference of life continuity that blocked by negative energy or Dainta's is such that they are said to eat what decays, in it degeneration is also included may be of vital fluids, blood, bone, flesh or fat, etc., it simply means they both cause and eat it. In other words, it is what they sow, reap and harvest. The negative energy is said to have tendency to grab, the demerit of Asurs or Dainta's, that is why it seems that the scriptures says that the property that belongs to these is used for grabbing and causing both the decay and degeneration.

When the life giver are causing life difficult to exist, it is again that these are not able to contribute because of lack of Satikar, their recognition as life givers and allowing these to work according to Nature not according to human nature. It is idealisms in the practical way that in the Indian Philosophy and the scriptures the metaphysical beliefs support that ultimately all the life givers depend on Mother Nature, who also depends on the Divine Laws and Principles. Like great Philosophers and Scientists, believe today that if we leave everything Mother Nature, she would restore the distortion in the cyclic process of evolution and thus food chain. The very process of evolution well embedded in all forms in the Nature in a rhythm that the nature thus promotes the evolution in totality, and we the human beings are subjected to it.

On the other hand, the nature does not seem to support any single headed evolution, like the concept of a full evolution in humans while ignoring all other forms of life, namely the vegetarian world, the animal kingdom and life giving things on the earth or any other planet. Even within the human body, there are solids, like bones, teeth, skull, etc., and other life giving things, the muscles are like vegetarian world, neuromuscular systems like animal kingdom. Moreover, these all seem to be sprouting from the center of evolution, that is, our brain and its rich or highly conscious or intuitive center, that is more related to glands like pineal and pituitary. Moreover, of course the intellect, the finest tool in the human body, and working humbly no matter whether the user is using it with positive, neutral or negative energy, it works as a humble servant as our body does.

It seems that we are in need to pause to analyze if the evolutionary revolution is similar to nature. It may be our self-assumed quest to explore the best of the possible evolution for humans, however we seem to ignore that the complete environment of the globe that is life giver along with other forms of life, namely the vegetarian world, the animal kingdom and life giving things on the earth. All of which constitutes the continuity of evolution as well as the food chain.

The Indian Philosophy of Religion and other scriptures, the Ancient Sciences, particularly the Ayurveda and the similar ones other countries like China, Japan, Egypt, etc. and even the modern ones in the names of Herbals, Vegetarianism and Home remedies, specifically talk about the individual, family, social and global healthcare. More natural we become more closer to nature we go to receive the natural restoring powers and energies present in nature and us, it is simple and the need of all as if a call from Mother Nature. Thanks.

P.S.: Kindly accept that as we say Respected Kenneth, so is Mother Nature, mother is word of honor. In India for it both Shri and Sri are most popular, both means Respected Earth or nature and even any part of creation addressed with the feelings of reverence, it is not gender as many people in west seem to believe. Thanks!

Past Member (0)
Tuesday March 24, 2009, 7:23 am
Respected Kenneth and everybody! (It is story to keep going as fellows, we have to prove it!)

He sees that John and Victor are arguing, his bulb goes on, he approaches them, he does not say anything, but standing close to them just listens they are saying to each other,
“Do you love me?” Victor asks John.
“Yes,” he replies.
“How can you prove it?” he asks John.
“I cannot prove it. Can I?” he replies.
“But you have to prove it,” he asks.
“Tell how I can prove it?” John asks.
“Why did you say that do not bother about me?” Victor asks.
“Do you bother about me?” John asks.
“Yes, he does,” he’ says.
“You are just a kid, why are you interfering in our conversation, can you prove it that Victor bothers about me?” John asks.
“He always try to give all that he has; I have noted many times that he always search good things and ideas for you. He speaks on your behalf to everyone. He always praises you among people. He always want to support you in everything. Is not it a proof that he loves you?” he says.
“You are so young and how can you notice such things?” Victor asks.
“I do not notice anything, rather I can feel it, have you ever noticed that your mum bothers about you?” he’ asks.
“I am not a mad, I do not notice it, I can feel it. Hey, you seem right. Thanks for your bulb on, you have given us a good idea,” Victor says.
“You do not have to prove it by saying like this because I am a kid as you just said,” he’ replies.
“We are sorry, you are not kid because you speak what your granny has told you, so you are like our grand Pa, is it ok now,” they say.
“No, you are wrong, totally wrong, I can prove it,” he says.
“What is wrong?” they ask him.
“I try to learn from everybody, my grandparents, parents, teachers, friends and everything, and I am not your grand Pa, I just your child friend,” he replies.
“Ok, our child friend what can you tell about us, can you tell me more about Victor, can you do it with your bulb on?” John asks.
“Let me think, yaw, I feel that you should thank for all that good thoughts, wishes and ideas that he gives you. Moreover, have you ever thought if you have helped him as he wishes? Just put your bulb only,” he says.
“I cannot really answer these questions,” John replies.
“He behaves with you as he does with me and others. He does not mind what you say or do and it proves that he loves you. Is not it?” he’ says.
“You have put my bulb on and I feel sorry. I realize that I forgot to remember that you have you’re your family, relatives, friends and so many other things, I am sorry, John,” Victor says.
“It is all right,” John replies.
“It is not all right, you have not said that I am also Victor’s friends, you just said his friends, it is not nice,” he’ says.
“Sorry, you are our friend,” they say.
“I am not your just friend,” he says.
“Then what are you?” Victor asks.
“I am your child friend, not just friend,” he smiles.
“Your bulb is shining too much our eyes cannot see anything and it is also beyond proof,” John says.
They look into one another's eyes and it proves that they are friends. They smile and then laugh loudly. It adds a new color to their friendship.
“Why are you laughing?” he’ asks.
“We are proving that we are friends and you are our child friend,” they say together.
“You have to prove it, it is simple just switch off your bulb,” he says.
“Which bulb to switch off? The one that is not working, O, you mean we should be leaving, the day is switching off. Your idea is fresh like our last year’s climbing the Mount Everest, you know all bulbs were freezed,” Victor says.
“Ha…ha…ha…” he laughs.
“Why are you laughing. I think you are laughing at us, is not it?” his young friend John asks with a laughter.
“You cannot prove it because the bulbs in the refrigerator never goes off when we open the door, is not it?” he asks.

They laugh and tears of joy make it a moment to wonder about his bulb, which always goes on. Whenever any two of them meet, they first laugh and then say,

“Good Night, do not forget to prove it that it is getting dark and night is waiting for us as all night bulbs are going on with new ideas.”
“Good Night, we will prove it tomorrow, when the morning bulb goes on” the reply comes.
Daily Moral Insight for a Peaceful Night
Is not an innocent question when we know the answer?
Are not we having blessings with subtle interactions, which are beyond any proof?
Is not it an innocence when we try to prove human relations with words of what we do for others when others know and realize it without our saying so?
Are not we having the touch of appreciation when we accept others as they are while having friendship with them or even without it?
Is not the greatest beauty of life that each one of us is having is a unique expression of existence?

Arielle S (313)
Tuesday March 24, 2009, 7:29 am
I'm not sure why anyone would deny global warming but Chris the Crusader, you have another soldier in your battle. Thanks for putting up with the naysayers - your cause is just and I thank you for doing what you do.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday March 24, 2009, 7:53 am
There are some heroes among us-I dedicate my poems to them for keep going. Respected Judy and Respected Chris, we admire both of you; so on behalf of all kindly accept these dedicated poems:


You, yes you! Get up
And walk like a lion
And shine like a star
For you, yes you are the
Only one, who can do this;
Neither they nor we
Can do anything but
You, yes you can do
Everything, so get up
And be brave like a hero
And shine like a great day
For you are the only one, who
Can walk on the road
Of your life and it awaits you
For the crown of victory
Must shine on your head,
For none among them or us
May ever shine like you,
Yes you and those like you.
Thanks that you are the Sun
To the earth and moon feels Bhagouauty

"A Great Victory"

To you, we say that
When light comes, she
Dispels the darkness
And this is a great victory
And when sight comes, she
Creates the memory
And this is a great victory,
And when greatness comes, she
Dispels the selfishness
And this is a great victory
And when wisdom comes, she
Creates the human
And this is a great victory
And when life comes, she dispels the death
And this is a great victory and
When vision comes, she
Creates civilization, Bhagouauty
And this is a great victory.

P.S.: Well, you see Bhagouauty is my penname:
Mr. Mathew: Well, what is Bhagouauty? I don’t understand this word?
Mr. Johnson: Well, you see it’s his penname.
Mrs. Johnson: What does it mean?
Mr. and Mrs. Mathew: It means that nature has the power and energy to restore its original form no matter how many damages occur in it.
Mr. and Mrs. Mathew: It’s a wonderful idea.
Mrs. Mathew: Is it a word from Sanskrit or Hindi?
Mr. Johnson: Yaw, it’s a blend of both Sanskrit and Hindi. It’s same as the power for philosophy and energy for the laws that nature possesses, and our self in the lap of consciousness experiences.

Thanks again and keep going!
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.