The attention paid to the dips in what is an overwhelmingly dramatic increase in GHGs is worth noting but not dwelling on. And while I am and will remain a huge fan, we all look at this issue through our own lens and I think it disingenuous to purport a balanced post when I and others familiar with previous writings can quite easy see your opinion. I think skepticism is the foundation for good science, but the treatment of publishing climate scientists likens them to second-class citizens when compared to other branches of science. Unfortunately the traditional model for debate allots equal coverage for each side of an issue, even if malicious intentions and purposeful disinformation campaigns characterize one ‘side.’ Even IF CO2 doesn’t cause warming, disproving over 200 years of physics, fossil fuels are still a finite resource – we have to figure out another energy solution either way. The science of this problem is simple, it’s the politicization of it that is tragic for our children and grandchildren. The seriousness of climate destabilization is a threat to civilization itself - if we do not find a way to end our carbon addiction, the conditions that fostered the rise and dominance of mankind will cease to exist. These are inter-generational crimes being committed, and history will judge our inaction.
And first, I have to reply to the older charges and to my first accusers, and then I will go to the later ones. For I have had many accusers, who accused me of old, and their false charges have continued during many years; and I am more afraid of them than of Anytus and his associates, who are dangerous, too, in their own way. But far more dangerous are these, who began when you were children, and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause. These are the accusers whom I dread; for they are the circulators of this rumor, and their hearers are too apt to fancy that speculators of this sort do not believe in the gods. And they are many, and their charges against me are of ancient date, and they made them in days when you were impressible—in childhood, or perhaps in youth—and the cause when heard went by default, for there was none to answer. And, hardest of all, their names I do not know and cannot tell; unless in the chance of a comic poet. But the main body of these slanderers who from envy and malice have wrought upon you—and there are some of them who are convinced themselves, and impart their convictions to others—all these, I say, are most difficult to deal with; for I cannot have them up here, and examine them, and therefore I must simply fight with shadows in my own defence, and examine when there is no one who answers. I will ask you then to assume with me, as I was saying, that my opponents are of two kinds—one recent, the other ancient; and I hope that you will see the propriety of my answering the latter first, for these accusations you heard long before the others, and much oftener.
|The Apology of Socrates|
In the same way, human pride in being able to think and reason may be a false assumption. The great quantum pioneer Erwin Schrödinger thought so: "There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness... [I]n truth there is only one mind."
I would have faith in asserting that the Universal Mind contemplates It.
A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005) (14)
Earlier in a 1994 breakthrough paper, Alcubierre showed that superluminal space travel is, in principle, physically possible and will not violate the tenants of the theory of relativity15. Puthoff16 later analyzed these findings in light of the present SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) paradigms that insist that we could not be visited by extraterrestrial civilizations because of the speed-of-light limitations dictated by the general relativity theory. He suggests that super- luminal travel is indeed possible. This leads to reduced- time interstellar travel and the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation, which our limited under- standing of physics and scientific arrogance has “forbidden” in some sectors for most of the 20th century.