It's about Global Pollution, Not Global Warming...

Understanding implies a logical process and some critical questionning, while memorizing is simply recording facts in your brain.
A computer can memorize but not understand. True science is understanding, not memorizing as you claim it to be.

In my opinion, I think you're being a bit harsh on science, that's all.
OF COURSE, I don't forget that scientists, like all human, can lie and be bribed...

 

All logic and reasoning is based upon root assumptions. .

In the case of mainstream science those root assumptions cannot be
tested using the scientific method. They must be accepted on faith,
which is quite un-scientific.

A few of those assumptions are:

1. That only the universe that can be perceived with the physical
senses, or technological extensions thereof, is real.

2. That the apparent laws of Nature as we now claim to understand
them were the same a billion years ago and will be a billion years
from now.

3. That something called "randomness" or "accidents" exist.

4. That the phyical universe creates/created itself. It is a closed system.

If any of those root assumptions are wrong, then all reasoning and logic
that pursues from them is wrong, and one obviously isn't going to
arrive at any true understanding....

Science is a self-referencing mental edifice. A vastly complex theoretical
structure that is accepted as reality by some people. Not by the vast majority
of people in the world, though.

That bribery is institutionalized. The corporations own the scientists and they
better "diiscover" things that end up making the coporations money or they
better learn to say "Do you want fries with that?".

That's one of the main reasons that scientists all tell us that Technology
will solve all of our problems. Technology is expensive stuff that makes
money for the corporations (and jobs and pensions for the workers....)

And scientists can be wrong. They have been proven to be, over and over again,
yet each current generation of scientists presents their favorite theories
as The Truth.

It is not possible to be too hard on such a corrupt institution.

The high priests of Science are the pawns of the corporations. Just as
the high priests of Christianity were in another age.

Science is simply a religion. The dominant religion of any historical period
always calls itself "The Truth", and all other paradigms, "religions".

The venerable institutions of higher learning in Britain and Europe have
verses from the Bible carved over their entranceways. When they were
first built, a very different science was taught there. One based upon the
Christian paradigm. We would call them "seminaries" now, but back then
they were what they are now: Supposed institutions of higher learning.

Littlefoot

 

So basically you're saying that science as a whole is corrupt and that the scientist who claim global warming is manmade are owned by corporations. Fine. However I cannot agree with you without proof of them being bribed.

 

Reread my post. There "bribes" are their salaries and grants and status and priveleges
and the equipment they need to do their research and their educations and the time
to do both.

I didn't say anything about global warming, but I will now: The obsessive and
almost exclusive focus on it is a green herring being offered by the corporations
to distract us from the other 95% of the damage we are doing to this planet.

This theatre on the global stage is being participated in by both its proponents
and detractors. The so-called "environmental movment" is also funded by the
corporations.

You could eliminate every human-produced greenhouse gas and we'd still
be trashing the planet at a suicidal rate.

That's what they don't want us to know. And what most of us don't
want to know, because we just want to go on living as we are and
leave it to Father Science to come up with magical technologies that
will save us.

Littlefoot

 

The environmental movement isn't only protesting against greenhouse gases. The same people also protest against deforestation, land, sea and air pollution, etc., etc.

You say they're funded by the corporations (wich implies they're twisting the thruth), yet you recognise that the other problems (pollution, etc.) are real and important... does it make sense?

I fail to see how the corporation would be advantaged by people who protest their own actions, example the abusive use and degradation of natural ressources.

I do agree however that global warming is far from being the only problem.

Peace

 

But they don't cut down on their consumption of industrial products, or their
investments in the corporations that produce them, which is the only way to
cut down on the above destructive activities.

Nor do they refuse donations from charitable foundations invested in those
corporations or from people who work for them (or their dependents) or directly
from those corporations.

For example: They (temporarily) save a forest in one location and make a big
public spectacle of it, and turn a blind a eye to the fact that the resource
corporation they have supposedly thwarted has just gone to another location
and trashed another forest.

Because the demand for its products has not diminished.

Sorry, I don't follow that.

They are advantaged (is that a word?) because that sort of activity presents the
illusion that something real is being done about the problem.

Those people protest, and then they go and patronize the same corporations.
They don't walk their talk.

And to you,

Littlefoot

 

Some do, but most don't, it's true. I do think that the problem is not only economic, it's also psychological. People are minded to consume, thanks the damn advertisment. They are not very conscious and critical of the world outside.

I understand your point. Until the demand hasn't diminushed, damage will be done somehow, somewhere. So the only efficient protest would be the BOYCOTT.

 

A rubbish dump twice the size of the United States has been discovered floating in the Pacific Ocean.

The vast expanse of debris, made up of plastic junk including footballs, kayaks, Lego blocks and carrier bags, is kept together by swirling underwater currents.

It stretches from 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.


I wonder who will clean this rubbish soup. Trashes are no older than 10-30 years. All oceans will be polluted heavily until our death. Do you like to have a children? Are you cruel as much to see them world dying?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=512424&in_page_id=1811

 

I think we should all band together, buy a lot of weapons, and form a militant environmentalist group. We could slash car tires, blow up some factories and then go into people's houses and kill them for not recycling.

The only way to stop it all is to force it to come to a stop. At this point, there's been enough warnings, enough attempts at gently persuading people to do good... it's going to take a fascist government to actually get people to stop killing the Earth. I mean, imagine the uproar when you have to tell people they can no longer drive to work in the morning, or they can't have their hamburgers, or they have to quit their jobs and become farmers.

The problem now is that the solution just isn't convenient enough, and it's also hard. As much as some people here seem to be putting down science, new technologies and advancements are probably the only way out of this mess... at this point, it's impossible to go back.

We must find ways of reusing the materials we have, and of finding new resources... even though there are no longer any fronteirs (which is a problem), except perhaps the deep ocean and outer space (or the rainforest, if we weren't so bent on destroying it), which have been underexplored, because capitalizing upon existing resources was somehow deemed more important than securing new ones.

This whole 'science is evil', and 'technology is bad' thing and 'let's get back to the land' stuff just isn't going to work for most people... what we need to do is rethink our priorities and focus on advancements that benefit not only ourselves but the whole planet and everything on it. Believe it or not, science and technology is an industry influenced primarily by the politics of its contributors-- when it becomes a matter of their own survival, they'll throw as much money as they can at anyone who can promise a solution.

 

Science wasn't on the bad trail all the time. The critical time was when guilds system failed. Please see history. This is very important to know that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
Since then the science was not 'protected' by the guilds and fall into the hands of stupid people hungry for a power.

My method is simple. When I walk on the streets I show to drivers that I'm unhappy that they poisoning air around. I grab my nose, etc... stinks fuj!