|New Civilization News: Work To Save Planet Earth|
Category: Environment, Ecology
57 comments18 Sep 2005 @ 13:47 by Elisa Young @188.8.131.52 : Typical AEP Response
The National Academy of Sciences released their findings - no form of carbon sequestration works. If they burn the coal it doesn't matter they pump it 10,000 feet under the ground - the earth (or water) can't absorb or transmute the CO2, only slows it down while it worms its way back out into the atmosphere. AEP is the largest user of coal in the western hemisphere.
State boundaries/jurisdiction on global issues?
I'm still trying to get air emissions monitoring down here from being in the cross fire from Cheshire and New Haven. AEP says we don't need monitoring because we have no industry here (???) Hello. I can see the smoke stacks from my window.
Maybe some giant fans would help them keep it within their county lines and other side of river.
Elisa is an activist friend who lives on the Ohio River...in fact quite near the village of Cheshire, which AEP (American Electric Power) BOUGHT rather than provide stack cleansing for their toxic fumes that were killing off the inhabitants.
18 Sep 2005 @ 17:04 by bushman : And ,
don't forget, we have had an over active sun since 1997, as if the sun dosnt have anything to do with global warming, then there is all the micro wave emmisions from satilites to cell phones, and what, HARRP? But I had just read that most scientists working on understanding global warming, do say the northern hemispere is past its tipping point, sea Ice has not returned as it used to. As far as the EPA and envirormentalist go, it wont matter what they do when the world wide coastlines become flooded in the next 50 years or so, all that industry is on water ways that will be underwater eventualy, you think those big companies will move inland more, will they clean up the toxic pits before they are under water?
18 Sep 2005 @ 23:50 by Open Mind @184.108.40.206 : Ignorance of SCIENCE and actual DATA
can't be tolerated. The Green Frakiness about the so-called man-made global warming are not quite on key.
Ozone layer? Nah...Greenhouse gasses? Nope....
Bushman is right. Try the sun.
But don't take our word for it, use a search engine to look up info on "Global Warming" and "Sun" - it's all over the internet.
Try to stay open minded and read a variety of views: [link]
Environmental zealots have so many so scared to death that reason and good science have essentially disappeared.
19 Sep 2005 @ 02:59 by astrid : and who pays
you and your corp. to accept PROPAGANDA "Science" and "Data" by the guys who have nothing but destruction in mind??? ... Could it be that YOU get paid by them????? What an Open Mind, eh?
Ever dawned on you that there's a whole s....load of Scientists with their integrity intact ( not corrupt ) who can prove you wrong in a minute or two!
... and you really think Environmental zealots can scare the daylights out of people more than the Governmental and corporate sickos with what they are doing to the environment?!
IF we were stupid enough to listen to you,soon nobody would have a sustainable Planet here on Mother Earth anymore!... ; ) Then again: That must be the day you look forward to to celebrate.... and we who don't keep our eyes closed , brown nosing authorities, but use our own god-given Common Sense ( oh what a concept, eh? )must be really disturbing to guys like you!...
Let me guess: you are a fundmanetlist also, who thinks just like "Conda" : "Our Lord is coming soon, right on time". and who the hell determines THAT: "...RIGHT ON TIME"... ANY person with ANY thinking ability left beyond just brown nosing The-next-guy-up-on-the-ladder, must be scared to hear such a statement and wonder: "what in the world do these sickos have up their sleeve?"
I guess the sun just has forced its way here, never mind the protective layers that used to be between the Planets surface and the (Outer) Atmosphere are gone or trashed... Oooooh brother!.....
Pardon me for not falling for you sh.....! Yes, there's more than one of you out there!.... but that doesn't make YOU any better or more reliable, does it?
"Good science" the one that supports the ever ongoing, never ending destruction of a formerly very well balanced eco-system, eh? No, don't bother!
19 Sep 2005 @ 05:58 by bushman : Really astrid, lol.
Right now they got peat bogs in siberia, that are out gasing more carbon dioxide in a day than man has excreeted in the last 50 years, its true there are more over enthusiastic enviormentalist, eco-terrorits I call them, they are no different than the thugs you speek of in the gov. They do more damage than not by thier extreemisim, there is a balance, sure we would like every country to stop burning fossil fuels, but its not likely till some people start being roll models, with the tech we have handy. People are not going to live off the land like the natives did, least we blow ourselves to hell, or some cosmic disaster gets us, right now we must use what we got to build the greener future, big corps will bow to those that take thier clientel or kill them. Like the world is going to go cold turkey off oil, not in your life time nor mine anyway. Just go outside and look at the landscape before you, man has done plenty of damage, but nature, is capable of blowing whole continents out into space if it had the whim to do so. I know plenty of eco terrorists, they are extreem in thier views, please dont follow them, follow green peace, if your going to be there, at least they don't do more damage than good, yes there are things to fear that man does, but most of us also know this planet is unstable, it will flip continents and spew toxic gases, these are natral cycles on this planet even the natives know that much. The Hopi say this time we will be cleansed by fire. The ancciant stories are pretty much true about this aspect of life on this planet, bibles and other writings of what we call myth, are the remnants of true facts of the past, sure alot has been misused, misinterpited, and manipulated to control the sheep, we are not sheep, we can see past all the crap, and see the story that is there for all to see. Anyway dont you know CO2 is heavyer than air, it stays on the ground for the most part. So as I personaly believe man isn't helping the planet that much, I know that man isn't the only reason there is global warming, if you took all the animals on the planet they exhale more CO2 than all the humans and thier cars, people think trees make all the oxygen we breath, but the fact is, it's the grasslands that produce most the oxygen on this planet, those huge bamboo forests in China, what is bamboo? Its really tall grass. Man is doing some damage, but I have to say the planet and the sun, do more on a daily level than man could even do least we end up in a global nuclear war.
19 Sep 2005 @ 08:31 by jazzolog : Hello Tropical Storm Rita
Generally when an Internet writer superlinks himself to another site, we are led to understand that writer represents the site in some way...and perhaps even it is his site. If Open Mind is one of the distinguished professors at New Hope Environmental Services, INC, it interests me his only other reference is to the great scientist of equanimity, Rush Limbaugh. I think all doubters of the findings of world researchers about Global Warming should relocate to Florida immediately...and face the weather like a man! [link] And here's more info about New Hope and, of course, Heartland Institute~~~
Incidentally, members of Congress responded over the weekend to reports of the Justice Department's email to collect any information that environmentalists should get the blame for Katrina's devastation~~~
Democrats savage Justice Department over apparent attempt to blame environmentalists for flood
09/17/2005 @ 1:19 pm
An email message which suggested the Bush Justice Department was looking to blame environmentalists for a break in the New Orleans levee and the ensuing flood has sparked vehement responses among the Democratic caucus in Congress, RAW STORY has learned.
One congressman, ranking House Judiciary Democrat John Conyers (D-MI), penned a stiff letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales demanding answers.
In the email, obtained by the Mississippi-based Clarion-Ledger, the Justice Department wrote: "Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) fired off this statement to RAW STORY.
If the President is sincere when he says he accepts responsibility for the abysmal federal response to Hurricane Katrina, he should instruct his Justice Department to stop trying to smear environmentalists by blaming them for the government's failure to shore up the levee system in Louisiana," the California Democrat said.
"This smacks of a political witch hunt," Boxer added. "Instead of pathetic attempts to pass the buck by blaming groups who are looking out for the health and well-being of Americans, the Bush Administration should marshal the Justice Department to stand up for the victims against the con artists and U.S. taxpayers from unscrupulous contractors."
Conyers said the email, if true, results in a "diversion of time and resources" and "political, rather than an attempt to pursue a legitimate law enforcement goal or objective."
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement to the Washington Post in Saturday papers that the Bush administration "should be ashamed of themselves" if they are seeking to blame environmental groups for the flooding and its bungled aftermath.
"The slow recovery had little to do with the levees and everything to do with bad decisions in the immediate aftermath of the storm," Schumer said. [link]
Conyers' letter follows.
The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U. S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
Today I learned that according to an article in the Clarion-Ledger that your office has sent an email to U.S. Attorney's Offices asking "Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation."
If this is true, I am concerned that the motivation may be perceived as political, rather than an attempt to pursue a legitimate law enforcement goal or objective, which should be the Department's primary goal. This diversion of time and resources would seem particularly problematic given the difficulties the affected U.S. Attorneys offices have no doubt had in responding to Hurricane Katrina, and the incredibly heavy workloads they must be facing. As a result, I would appreciate your responding to the following questions:
Did your office circulate this or a similar e-mail? If so, to which offices was the e-mail circulated?
What caused your office to circulate the e-mail, and what personnel both inside and outside the Department were involved in the matter?
Did you set a deadline for a response? Have you received any responses yet? Please forward to my office any responses you have received or receive in the future.
Please estimate the cost - both out-of-pocket, and lost person hours - to both consider and circulate this request and for the various U.S. Attorney offices to respond?
What safeguards, if any, did you interpose to insure that a responding to this e-mail did not displace any legitimate law enforcement priorities of the applicable offices?
Has the Department ever sought information regarding previous litigation activity in connection with any other natural disaster other than Hurricane Katrina? If so, please provide my office with a description of such requests. I would appreciate receiving a full or partial response to this letter at your earliest possible convenience, and by no later than September 23, 2005 in any event. Please forward your response to my Judiciary Committee Minority Office, 2142 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.
John Conyers, Jr.
House Judiciary Committee
cc: The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., The Honorable William E. Moschella
19 Sep 2005 @ 17:37 by Quinty @220.127.116.11 : Voodo science?
Why does there always seem to be a connection between those who deny global warming and self-interest? I'm not a scientist but like most Americans a mere recipient of current scientific opinion. We could be wrong, of course, and the scientists might be wrong. But who should we more readily believe? Those who have years of training and experience who objectively search for the truth wherever it leads them? Or those who for one reason or another have a powerful subjective interest in the results?
The rhetoric of the far right has heated up recently. Big corporate interests and logging companies have always belittled so-called "tree huggers." Rather than listen to their science and their concerns they have always had a greater interest in discrediting them. Tree fruits and gaga hippies who give more importance to a tiny frog or butterfly than to society. And greed, of course, had nothing to do with it. Now the far right routinely brands common liberals and garden variety Democrats as the "far loony left." We are accused of being liars and of possessing grotesque ideas and opinions. Points of view which sound extremely bizarre and strange, at least to me, whenever I hear them described with glee on rightwing talk radio. "Who me? I believe in that? Where are these people coming from?"
Is this all simply a case of projection? Of accusing others of what they themselves routinely and constantly do? Is it expressive of the widespread corruption and incompetence we have in the White House today? Of the Christian right and t heir faith based approach to every aspect of life?
I'll still take cold science over "intelligent design" and comforting self-serving belief. Though, of course, the scientist may be wrong. Frankly I hope they are. But it seems apparent to me that for many decades powerful interests have ignored them only for selfish and self-serving reasons. That greed has always had a much greater part of it
19 Sep 2005 @ 18:15 by Hanae @18.104.22.168 : Facts and Myths about Global Warming
A conservative perspective: [link]
19 Sep 2005 @ 18:45 by astrid : Thanks, bushy,
you are always so very sweet, regardless topics & opinions! I do not agree with much of what you say here, but the way you say it is just a very gentle one! But, then again.... you yourself LIVE very much a sustainable lifestyle... so... what-ever compells you to defend the crooks!???!?!?!??....
Now, let's say you have two Ducks: your Heart and your Head.... Are you sure you have these little "dudes" in a row, so to speak?.... ; ) Seems to me after "being around" you for over a year, that your Heart is more "in a Row" than you head.... at least in this particular Q...hehehehe... Also, I think that there MIGHT be a little bit of truth to every side/every thing, but not quite enough ANYWHERE!.... Yet!.... We just need to work on that, eh? Everyone of us!
Thanks for caring! : )
19 Sep 2005 @ 18:47 by Hanae @22.214.171.124 : The sun did it? Hit or Myth?
MYTH: If Earth has warmed since pre-industrial times, it is because the intensity of the sun has increased.
FACT: The sun's intensity does vary. Indirect measures of changes in sun's intensity since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 show that variations in the sun's intensity do not account for all the warming that occurred in the 20th century and that the majority of the warming was caused by an increase in human-made greenhouse gas emissions.
19 Sep 2005 @ 18:53 by bushman : Ancciant maps
Of the land mass in Antartica plainly show little polar ice. We can argue the authenticity of the maps, or we could say the Atlantians and Lumerians caused the poles to melt as well. We had an ice age, however that happened 10,000 or so years ago, but we dont really have difinitive proof these nations existed. We don't know what the Earths normal is, as well we do know there was an ice age and we are at the end of it, that means to me that the norm is less ice than now even, I mean if the old maps are correct, and they are according to ice penetrating radar, then there was little ice at the poles. I agree though, humans may have sped up the process a bit, but I personaly can't see us humans as the main cause of global warming. Also, how did they map the Antartic so accuratly, if it was covered with ice like it is now?
19 Sep 2005 @ 19:49 by Hanae @126.96.36.199 : It's a natural cycle? Hit or Myth?
MYTH: What is happening is all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years (typical soundbite: "A new ice age is due now, but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming")
FACT: It is believed that during the last few million years, there have been MANY glacial periods, occurring initially at 40,000-year frequency but more recently at 100,000-year frequencies and that the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago: [link] So, yes, we know that there was an ice age 10,000 or so years ago, but we do NOT know that "we are at the end of it," nor do we know that "a new ice age is due now".
What we do know, however, is that evidences have been mounting that man-made global warming could be triggering devastating climatic changes and, yes, possibly the coming of a new ice-age.
19 Sep 2005 @ 20:09 by jazzolog : Here's The Thing, Conservatives
Are you telling me an Ice Age comes on during a person's single lifetime? I'm 65 (don't ask me to count or be sure) and getting my water from a well in Southeast Ohio, where it hasn't rained 2 inches all summer. I agree that we are rather in the dark regarding statistics, since those dudes in the last Ice Age somehow didn't scrawl on the wall what we need to know---at least that we've found so far. But in my personal bones I'll tell you something has changed radically with the climate since I was a boy...at least here in the States. And you refuse to put our oil addiction into this equation? Why?
19 Sep 2005 @ 20:31 by astrid : Here
you can get recorded actual/factual DATA from several hundreds of years back, as the Swedes have kept track ot all things possible. I know for sure that Upsala University saved everthing in their Library, since early seventeen hundred century -not least weather, and certainly from the very day Celcius invented his famous thermometer, and in many cases overall Info was gathered since 1660ies. [link]
This on might be the best for any Data search:
Here's the Royal Library in Stockholm; [link]
Weather/Climate has always a Big issue in the Nordic Countries!... geee , I wonder why!...
We know from these data bases that during Linne's time, for instance, the climate in Scandinavia was warmer and then cooled down a little... So, yes, there's always been fluctuations.
Hey, anybody tell me why and how are the Ocaeans salty??? Don't event try to pull a fast one; the TRUTH is NOBODY has come up with the answer to that one yet!.... So how much do we and the so called establishment phu-phu brown noser "scientists" really know?????..... NOT MUCH!.... that's why they make things up as they go; the ARROGANT Muthaf---r for whom Lucifer is the Metaphor ) believes that HE/MAN can rise above LIFE/"God" Nature!..."Let's tear down Nature and do it all OUR WAY!, eh?!"
ANY scientist this deluded I have no difficulty pardoning and let them take the first flight to the outer Galaxies and play Big Shot there instead!... Why not???? Whaaaaat, you say they can't ????? such Big Shots and they can't?????
Well good.... so, let's go on doing things here that Nature has never done Herself despite all the things She HAS done,(Maybe, JUST MAYBE NATURE KNOWS WHAT SHE CAN AND CAN'T DO (to) Herself???!!! What a novel concept!!!) and it won't have an impact, naehhh....
Well the secret is that it is ALL MEANT to have an impact: to destroy Nature = PROGRESS ( is the secret Op.Code) so that WE,( the GLAMOUROUS "LUCIFERs" -who REFUSE ACCOUNTABILITY for ANY Actions. EVER!- ) the little cute devils, can have some fun! We can pull it off... Heyy, how hard can it be to destroy everything, huh???... Child's Play! Exactly!
How can anybody fall for this crap???? Have they never dropped a pebble in any Body of Water and seen the rings spreading ever wider???
Can these "scientists" not put two n'two together????? JUST BECAUSE WE CAN POISON AND DESTROY!.... HECK, LET'S DO IT!.... LET'S GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOOOO MUCHHHH FUNNNNNNN : ) : ) : 0 *!*.... ^L^ ...
19 Sep 2005 @ 20:41 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : A non scientific perspective
That if you dump gunk into a pool you pollute it. Our gunk originates from a variety of manmade energy sources. We contribute to the gunk every time we start up our SUVs. The Chinese are playiing catch-up.
Yes, it's a big sky, and a very big world. But how much filth can go into the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask that question? Or to suppose that the effects of this dumping may lead to warming?
This simple cause and effect logic is supported by objective and cold headed scientists. Are they merely conspirators against big corporate interests? Or, rather, do those who refuse to take these warnings seriously represent corporate interests?
Who, as a lay person, would you more readily believe?
19 Sep 2005 @ 20:48 by bushman : Well
here are a couple links on weather and the sun.
Main stream solar info:
This maybe is the largest collection of weather info on the net:
And this info is intresting:
Again if you look at the CO2 output of a forest fire, and we have had how many major forest fires in just the last 5 years?, and toxic gases from huge volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa, man burning oil is just plain miniscuel, in my book. But as you know I'm all for finding alternitives to burning fossil fuels. In the last 10 years alone we have seen how many volcanic eruptions?, that put tons and billions tons of heat absorbing matter into our atmospere. Man just can't compeet with that kind of activity, on a yearly output measurement.
19 Sep 2005 @ 21:11 by Hanae @184.108.40.206 : Good question, jazzolog.
Out of fairness, I'd like to point out, however, that not all conservatives agree with Bushman or Open Mind (sic), or are dittoheads.
The quote below is from Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection [link]
"Businesses, especially those that produce or use large amounts of fossil fuels, will have to acknowledge that climate scientists are quite possibly onto something big. More time planning for a world that runs on carbon-free energy would be in order. Business can be part of the problem or part of the solution. We'll all breathe easier if it's the latter. Global warming is a big deal and we're all responsible. Future generations are awaiting our answer."
19 Sep 2005 @ 21:50 by Hanae @220.127.116.11 : Volcanoes are doing it? Hit or Myth?
MYTH: Of course greenhouse gases like CO2 contribute to climate change, but only 3 per cent of carbon dioxide is from human sources. The rest is from other natural ones. Typical soundbyte: "You just don't seem to understand the scale of the Earth's atmosphere. What we are doing is the equivalent of sneezing into a hurricane. We simply do not have ability to create the impact that the GW wackos think that we do."
FACT: Although human sources of carbon dioxide are a small percentage of the total carbon cycle, they are not insignificant. For the past 420,000 years, until the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 1750s, this cycle of carbon exchange was roughly in balance. Since 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 per cent (and is still increasing at 0.4 per cent per year), mainly due to burning oil, coal and gas, and the large-scale removal of forest and other land-use changes. These human activities have forced the carbon cycle out of balance and out of the known range of variation. Coal, oil and gas, which are mostly stored in deep underground deposits, are outside the natural living carbon cycle. When we extract and burn the fossil fuels they added into the carbon cycle artificially. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, one of the principle greenhouse gases, are now likely to be higher than they have been for 20 million years.
Sure, a huge volcanic eruption could bring a new ice age. Some speculate it might have happened in the past, and it might yet happen someday in the future. But clearly it' s not what is happening to the planet now.
As for solar activity, once again, while it is true that Solar variability has played a crucial role in determining temperature variations over the Earths history, more recently it is of limited importance in comparison with the effect of increased greenhouse concentration and it cannot explain the fast warming of more recent decades. The US space agency NASA is clear that "as of now greenhouse gases afford a plausible explanation for such changes".
19 Sep 2005 @ 23:15 by jerryvest : If you ever travel through towns or
cities that have refineries like the Los Angeles Area during the summer you will experience the polution. Some days, it stinks so bad that you can hardly breathe. My chidren even cried during their first visit to the Area as the toxins were so bad. I was shocked when I first visited beautiful West Virginia. In Charleston and other communities in the southern part of the state, there are all kinds of toxic plants that spew out their waste products. We live in southern NM, near El Paso, Tx and Juarez. Some days it is better if you wear a mask to protect your lungs; however, the general population that lives in these areas seem to adapt and accept these poisons as if they don't exist. Has New Jersey cleaned up their act as it was one of stink holes of our nation as well.
I think that these corporations and our governing officials are 'closing their eyes and noses' to these offensive dumping grounds--I suspect their minds have also been affected as they don't get it, even when they are deeply emersed in it. Last summer we went to some of the beaches around LA, Long Beach, San Pedro and there were many signs posted telling the guests to stay out of the water as they may be injured--and it wasn't the sharks or fish they were speaking about.
Yuk, this is really a nasty environment and we humans should clean up. "Self denial produces self-indulgence." Oscar Ichazo
19 Sep 2005 @ 23:44 by scotty : Even IF
the planet isn't suffering global warming caused by man - or anything else for that matter - what the hells wrong with us that we can't just be CLEAN and respectful and loving and CARE for this planet as if she were part of us !! 'Cos she IS !!!!
If we had we wouldn't be asking all these questions in the first place !
20 Sep 2005 @ 00:49 by astrid : " ....as if she were part of us"
Oooohhh Scotty, Honey....it's even "worse" !!! WE are indeed part of HER!!!..... She CAN survive -and in fact do just FINE- without US but we're f------d without Her!.... even the Daaaalin' Lucifers, unless, of course, they all will sit in their gilded UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS (indeed whole "Cities", they've built for themselves to "ride out "The Storm"! WHAT storm, one can wonder!.... and somehow I don't believe Bushy, nor Open Mind will be invited to hide out there in the "Safety" of their Earty Cocoon... So there went the Prize for that Loyalty down the drain!...) while we on surface are expected to rot and dissolve to fertilize the earth... WHY DO THEY NEED FERTILIZER any way, cause they will conctrete it all over any way, 'cause DIRT is soooo, oh gosh... dirty... earthy.... eeeeeuuuuuuu, yuck! Let's just hope they have enogh food, so they don't HAVE to resort ot cannibalism. That they do it in their "sacred" Luciferian "satanic" rituals is of course a different story, cause that is chosen by them in accordance with ( their sick ) "free will", not by necessity!... Bushy, or Open Mind for that matter, you don't believe me about the Undergroud cities they have where to hide , when they have reached their desired destruction of the Planet, do you? How about YOU guysm doing a little research in that field and also WHY these cities are built, not just that they are in place but ESPECIALLY WHY/WHAT PURPOSE!!!!
20 Sep 2005 @ 02:07 by bushman : Anyway
We are, at least some of us are doing our best to clean up as we gain knowledge and off the shelf equipment. But no one on this planet knows how the weather was 400,000 years ago, they can do tree rings and ice cores, and soil cores and sort of guess. There are micro climates that are harsh and others that are very mild, so the over all climat in the past cant be easily figured out. As well, I have a therory that man has been here just as long as any other living thing, going back millions of years, we know that all life has genetic markers that are synthetic, this means that most life if not all has been geneticly engineered, and if the world came to an end not death to all, but substancial, that those plants and animals engineered to handle say root rot or something else would survive, what if I told you all life on this planet was manmade? Its posable but maybe unlikely but then again, look at the plants in your yard, just how many of them do you think are native plants? Most of them have been modified by us humans to grow in places they wouldnt. So it stands to reason that anciant man has been doing exacly the same thing we do today, that most the oil we burn is from buried cities of anciant mans tech, check it out, what would happen to LA CA, if you burried the whole place under 300 to 1000ft of dirt rock and mud? It would sublimate into a black gooo. We just have no clue, we think we do, but we just don't know how it was or will be. Least we came from Mars to begine with, then we got a good exaple as to what may happen to us, by just looking at Mars since most the atmoshere on Mars is CO2. Theres enough evidence that there was a nuclear war in our anciant past, from a few anciant cities in India turned to glass. So maybe thats where our last ice age came from. You say she the living Earth, yet the Earth was made just as any other planet in the universe, suns blow up, planets blow up or just get cooked up, and make star dust, if anything is our mother it was the big bang, we are all made of what the universe is made of. And one day our sun will expand into a red giant clear out to jupiter, life is tenitive in our universe. And our planet is a meer dust spec in this universe. Ok so one day our sun will get hotter and hotter as it expands we will have a few million years to terraform Mars and plant it up, maybe even Jupiter might ignight into a small sun, and we could move to one of jupiters moons. Obviosly planets adapt and so do humans. Theres plenty of anciant stories of fire and brimstone, still no one knows for sure and blame a god for it. We dont know, if the sun gets rained on by cosmic dust, just like the Earth does, something like 130 tons of space dust lands on our planet every year, Id assume that alot more lands on the sun, makeing slag, that one day the sun could blow off this shell of slag. I personaly think this is the case, as cycles go, ever been to an iron smelting plant? Slag , slag , slag. What do you get when you burn volcanic rock at high temps? You get perlite, what is hot melted perlite? It's called brimstone. I personaly take the Hopi's version of world history as fact. How many of you have read and understood thier history and prophesies? They account for 5 times this planet was flooded, as well the Mayan calender predicts past ice ages and super droughts going back over 1 billion years, how do you explain this? Unless it's all a predictable cycle. The Hopi say when the bluestar kachina dances in the sky and then becomes the redstar kachina, that the beginning of the cleansing is here. Not very scientific, but holds plenty of truth. I say if you can keep from useing fossil fuels go for it, if you can't survive with out them at least try to minimize the use of them best you can, thats all we can do at this point in time.
20 Sep 2005 @ 02:19 by bushman : PS
Astrid, lol, what if I told you I know where one of the anciant underground cities is, and that I got room for 50,000, and thier pets, with running water and hydroponics bins, that right now as I type, am deciding who would be considered to be saved? Least a big rock from space hits it again, lol. Anyway is very hard to get to it, only the young and strong could make the climb to the entrance. I found it studying a 7000 year old rock carving map near here. The city is called Baboquivari. Dont believe it? Then don't, call me a nut. :}
20 Sep 2005 @ 02:37 by astrid : The point still is:
just because we CAN destroy we SHOULD, eh? What are all your THEORIES but EXCUSES????? Find your "Yes" and your "No" in other words DROP ALL BS whether you call them ideologies, sciences, religions or trudelutt, for that matter, and find your yes or no! THAT IS WHERE YOU START; the very most deepest CORE-YOU start! and like scotty says: why not live as decent humans, without NEED to destroy all we touch???? where's your dignity, Man? Would THAT be thinkable /as in possible, even just a tiny little bit? Would such an Option/Question get your 'Yes' answer or 'No' answer????????
There's NO dignity without decency! To justify any "scientific" misbehaviour /destruction of our Planet with all this BS about "how it all evolved, or came into being" etc... Jeeeeeezus! I'm sorry Bushy, it doesn't make you look knowledgable at all!... quite the opposite... JUSTIFICATIONS ARE ALWAYS PATHETIC!!!... Even the Wisdom we are used you to portray is out the door!....
People drive cars flawlessly for 30 years and more and then one day they STILL make that fatal mistake!.... Why???? most of the time because of arrogance!
Destroy yourself, bushy and YOUR IMMIDIATE surroundings if you really really must; if that is the most desirable thing you can think of, but IAM part of this Planet too, and I do NOT give you my blessing to destroy MY PART of the Earth! Choose another Galaxy and take your Like Minded with you and destroy eachother: pour acid over eachother , eat some mercury and aluminum and kadmium and take it all down with some Battery acid or Antifreeze or just and shoot eachother!...and besides; just as an example; JUST BECAUSE not ALL animals have died from Antifreeze, does it mean we should not look for better NON-TOXIC alternatives, ???
Whadddzup with this Pissing Match of "Scientific Proof" ; how totally OK it is to be destructive???????????????????????????????????????????? .... almost like a MORAL DUTY to be so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know, I have lived most of my life with and around -even married to- some "serious" scientists, big boys... and NONE of them impressed me! quite the opposite.... a bunch of really lost pitiful little boys, who sold their soul to the devil as the saying goes!.... Today on ncn has proven to me that time of "Wonders" is never over!
20 Sep 2005 @ 04:01 by bushman : Um
Do you drive a car or take a plane or a bus? do you buy food mass produced or grow all of it yourself, how much oil did it take to build your house? How much oild did it take to put you thru school? Aperently your very good at being a hypocryit astrid, because I know for a fact I use less and destroy less than you ever will. Shall mankind just sit and become idel so as to not hurt one thing? That isnt what humanity is about, we are explorers, and inventors, what have you personaly invented to help mankind? Proove it, bring me your best friend scientist, you were married to some of them? Just how many is some?, that tells me alot, like how capable you are with relationships, bring me the beef. I dont use antifreeze for one, stoped useing it over 20 years ago. You brag about how well adapted you are, yet, here you are trying to tell someone who has been doing years of studies in agiculture and all things to make this a better world for all, not just the vegi heads. Sit on your butt and veg, and youll do nothing but whine. I happen to want to travel to the stars for real, not just in my mind. And its a fact, sometimes destruction does make a better world. If the Nazi's haddent been destroyed, where would we be now? Your an extreemist in my book, one that sits on her butt and whines rather than comming up with plausable solutions, a dreamer. But thats ok, your god died on the cross for your sins and mine. Instead I believe that I am part of that great creator, and right now my god lives in me. Let the world see your contributions to mankind. It took 1000s of years to get where we are today, it's going to take that long to fix it up and find the perfect alturnitives, get a grip on reality, theres 6 billion people on this planet, surly one of use will eventualy fix it. We are all still babies, and the majority dosnt know any better. Just because I have a pest control advisors licence dosnt mean I push toxic methods, I don't need to because I took the time to find those safe alturnitives you use today. I don't think you personaly could handel 1 day living in the stone age, and thats where we will be if you lala's dont get off your butts. And I don't mean whinning to the gov. Let me see you walk 1000 miles to show some 3rd world nation how to grow food, let me see you build the first free energy machine, let me see you cook your food with out makeing smoke. Or let me the world know you dont cook and eat raw foods only. I think its way to complicated for you to deal with, so you just stay home tell the world how wrong they are and live in your paradise of bliss while we do the hard work. I bet you flip out and cry when you accidently step on an ant, don't you? lol. Yes, I kill millions of living things everyday, from plants to animals, it's my job, whats yours? Show me what you got, besides some personal pipedream. :}
20 Sep 2005 @ 04:35 by astrid : Yes, I remember,
that you ( the real you!...heheheheh..... ) told me!... That is quite awesome, I think. The Q still remains: would (the ) you (of today!...) be invited to join, just because you've been spending your day defending their "science". I doubt it! Today you have been talking one thing and I know you live another, much better, MUCH more lIfe sustaining way ! : )
I really don't think you changed into a DEVIL ( = a person who totally lives by DOUBLE Standards!) overnight!.... BUT there's so many other "bushy's" out there who totally believe that it's OK to be destructive, just because we CAN and then they defend it with a so called/sc. ) science that is not even worth being called science!
I would love to find that cave city opening!... hahaha... but, hey mark it well and stand there with your video cam ready when the Dorks "walk"(probalby in wheelchairs or carried by slaves! ) in there!.... IF you by then can stand on your two legs... considering what must have been done to the Planet by that Moment to be at hand!
Well. Anyhooo, I wish you Sweet Dreams about a flourishing Rich BEautiful Earth, beaming with With LIFE and all the Nature's Bounty of Fruits and Flowers and Bird Song and Sweet smelling Fragarance filling the Air!... Tomorrow we know nothing about! THAT is the Truth! *!* Nighty Night, now. -L- // : )
20 Sep 2005 @ 09:50 by jazzolog : Cows Are Doing It? Hit Or Myth?
This is a wonderful thread, and I hope we all are grateful for the various contributions...and wonderings. When we were children we probably explored in some way thoughts and actions about destroying things, killing things. Maybe we tried to imagine a world where it was possible to be alive ourselves without knocking off something else. But we feed and are fed upon. We breathe and are breathed. I guess there are people who enjoy tearing things up...just to prove they're dominant---for the moment. For sure, there are too many of us...even now, and we show no signs of an ability to control our numbers. What worries me most are the many people I know and see around who have become fatalistic about life in these times. There's a suspicion and even hatred of other people, just because---oh, any excuse will do. There's a feeling of me-and-mine and Death to all who stand in my way. I cannot bear to live like that, and I don't like the philosophical conversations that I seem to be getting into increasingly around the town I live in with people who do like living like that...and see no alternative anyway. Is it hopeless to imagine a human being who walks lightly on the Earth, and who tries to leave things a little better for the next guy to come along?
And Hanae seems like a nice person. How do we get him/her to come on in...and are you in Japan?
20 Sep 2005 @ 15:12 by Quinty @18.104.22.168 : Maybe I'm projecting too
but the gloom and pessimism regarding our future seems to be widespread. Progressives, in my lifetime, have never been so pessimistic.
And, yes, the source of our gloom is a corrupt and ineffective political system which is centered in Washington. We have people governing this country who are not providing leadership but who are exploiting all our country's wealth and resources. And since they firmly grip the the reins today they are riding full speed ahead.
I couldn't agree more with something somebody above said. We shouldn't pollute simply because it is not the decent thing to do our world. We shouldn't waste our energy searching for excuses and rationalizations which will get the corporations off the hook. For they are not intellectually honest.
20 Sep 2005 @ 23:15 by Hanae @22.214.171.124 : So long, then
and thanks for all the fish.
It's an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For
instance, on the planet Earth, Man had always assumed that HE was the
most-intelligent species occupying the planet, instead of the THIRD most-intelligent.
The second most-intelligent creatures were, of course, dolphins who - curiously
enough - had long known of the impending destruction of the planet Earth. They
made many attempts to alert Mankind to the danger, but most of their
communications were misinterpreted as amusing attempts to punch footballs or
whistle for tidbits. So they eventually decided they would leave Earth by their own
means. The last-ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a surprisingly
sophisticated attempt to do a double backward soumersault through a hoop while
whistling "The Star-Spangled Banner". But, in fact, the message was this:
"SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!"
So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all, but oh dear
You may not share our intellect
Which might explain your disrespect
For all the natural wonders that grow around you
So long, so long and thanks for all the fish!
Your world's about to be destroyed
There's no point getting all annoyed
Lie back and let the planet dissolve
Despite those nets of tuna fleets
We thought that most of you were sweet
Especially tiny tots and your pregnant women
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long and thanks for all the fish!
21 Sep 2005 @ 01:49 by jerryvest : Interesting thoughts about the
intellegence of the dolphins. I once attended a presentation by John Lilly who thought the same thing about these creatures. He had taped their interactions and it was a remarkable experience hearing all of these high pitched sounds interacting with one another.
Also, it was interesting to hear Kurt Vonnegut on the Bill Maher show the other night state that it might not be a bad thing if humanity is wiped off our planet as we have been so destructive and harmful. I think he was on the show to talk about his new book, so perhaps I can learn more about his prophecies by reading it.
Do you have any suggestions about maintaining our calm while our Mother Earth gets destroyed? Do you find value in building networks like this to advocate for nature and to promote health (physical, mental, emotional & spiritual) love, peace and justice?
21 Sep 2005 @ 08:21 by jazzolog : The Intelligence Of Hanae
(S)He leaves us on the hook...so I'll bite harder: if humans are #3 and dolphins are #2, what is the most intelligent creature on our planet?
Jerry, I have a feeling Hanae, like many of us, has invested quite a bit of time trying to network with others for love, peace, justice and downright survival of the Earth (as a habitat for life anyway). Sometimes the prospect looks absolutely hopeless.
21 Sep 2005 @ 15:53 by Quinty @126.96.36.199 : The dolphins
appear to be quite sweet and clever.
By any chance, does anyone know where they bought their tickets to leave? I'll be visiting Canada for about two weeks: a country I once thought, in my foolish youth, to be "nebishy." But that was long before I came upon the classic Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."
How much do the Canadians think about us? Rubbing shoulders with the somewhat crazed Super Power to the south must make them edgy? Would they like to throttle us, nock some sense into us, or do they simply wish we would move to another part of the continent?
Another question: do most Americans still believe all the peoples of the world envy us, wish they had our wealth and power, slovishly emulating our mass popular culture?
21 Sep 2005 @ 20:59 by astrid : Dear Jazzo,
LIFE WILL ALWAYS WIN!...DESPITE some .....! And, besides, there's much more Life LOVING people out there, than those hellbent towards destruction -before they can start living!.... Any one who thinks that "take away the ones who trust Life and THEN -after THAT- WE will start living and have some real fun here".... Now how silly isn't that?! Don't worry about them!
22 Sep 2005 @ 10:05 by jazzolog : Bushman's Peat Bogs
The peat bogs in Siberia Bushman refers to up near the top of this thread were frozen a few years ago. The melting, not only there but across the whole latitude (including Alaska and Canada), has been caused by Global Warming. Yes, the carbon dioxide thus released will make us even warmer; that is the vicious cycle the scientists have been warning us about. Besides the CO2, insects that now can thrive in the warmer temperatures, are reducing the rich timber supply up there to tundra.
23 Sep 2005 @ 07:10 by bushman : Mars warming?
At Mars' south pole, an escarpment of frozen carbon dioxide has retreated nearly 10 feet a year over the past three summers.
"It's evaporating now at a prodigious rate," said Malin.
The significance of this is Mars is experiencing climate change, or has experienced climate change."
Why Mars may be warming is a mystery, he said.
23 Sep 2005 @ 08:45 by jazzolog : Men From Mars
Well, I doubt it's from the exhaust of the Land Rover. Good point Bushman, but as the President has modeled for us: "I prefer to err on the side of life." Ahem, harrumph...yes. So it couldn't hurt if humans here clean up our act a bit, eh?
23 Sep 2005 @ 16:47 by bushman : Most of us
are, Jazz, it's more about what the media is pushing, your not seeing small solar companies, installers etc... on TV, probablly the cost of putting a commercial on. I stead of governments taxing cow farts, why arnt they pushing the medias to public service of getting the word out, and bringing costs down on green equipment and services? I been educating people for years about alturnitives to useing oil for fuel and power. The problem as I see it , people are so lazy, they don't want to take the time and find the stuff, so people in the know must spread the word that very efficiant alturnitives are available, we must creat the demand, force companies thru demand to bring thier stores closer to the people. Why isnt there a solar store in every town? No demand?, it's about show and tell. It's about walking up to some poor sucker at the gas station, and bragging in his face, wow you pay 3 bucks for a gallon of gas, hmm, I just pay 10 cents, it's about haveing a dinner party, and bragging to all your friends, that you are makeing money right now from the electric company, and all these party lights burn for free. Make your neighbor jelouse. Thats how I do it. :}
23 Sep 2005 @ 20:01 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : Sir John Lawton on Katrina and Rita
Here, in the US, calling those who say global warming is not man-made "loonies" is considered impolite. Not for the head of The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in the UK.
Perhaps the example of rightwing radio and the news media doesn't exert as powerful a cultural pressure there. Nor do corporate interests exert as much pressure to reshape science.
Super-powerful hurricanes now hitting the United States are the "smoking gun" of global warming, one of Britain's leading scientists believes.
Rita moves west across the Gulf of Mexico in a satellite image taken Friday at 2:45 a.m. ET. (NOAA)
"If this makes the climate loonies in the States realise we've got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation."
The growing violence of storms such as Katrina, which wrecked New Orleans, and Rita, now threatening Texas, is very probably caused by climate change, said Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Hurricanes were getting more intense, just as computer models predicted they would, because of the rising temperature of the sea, he said. "The increased intensity of these kinds of extreme storms is very likely to be due to global warming."
In a series of outspoken comments - a thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration, Sir John hit out at neoconservatives in the US who still deny the reality of climate change.
Referring to the arrival of Hurricane Rita he said: "If this makes the climate loonies in the States realise we've got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation." As he spoke, more than a million people were fleeing north away from the coast of Texas as Rita, one of the most intense storms on record, roared through the Gulf of Mexico. It will probably make landfall tonight or early tomorrow near Houston, America's fourth largest city and the centre of its oil industry. Highways leading inland from Houston were clogged with traffic for up to 100 miles north.
There are real fears that Houston could suffer as badly from Rita just as New Orleans suffered from Hurricane Katrina less than a month ago.
Asked what conclusion the Bush administration should draw from two hurricanes of such high intensity hitting the US in quick succession, Sir John said: "If what looks like is going to be a horrible mess causes the extreme sceptics about climate change in the US to reconsider their opinion, that would be an extremely valuable outcome."
Asked about characterizing them as "loonies", he said: "There are a group of people in various parts of the world ... who simply don't want to accept human activities can change climate and are changing the climate."
"I'd liken them to the people who denied that smoking causes lung cancer."
With his comments, Sir John becomes the third of the leaders of Britain's scientific establishment to attack the US over the Bush government's determination to cast doubt on global warming as a real phenomenon.
Sir John's comments follow and support recent research, much of it from America itself, showing that hurricanes are getting more violent and suggesting climate change is the cause.
A paper by US researchers, last week in the US journal Science, showed that storms of the intensity of Hurricane Katrina have become almost twice as common in the past 35 years.
Although the overall frequency of tropical storms worldwide has remained broadly level since 1970, the number of extreme category 4 and 5 events has sharply risen. In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year but, since 1990, they have nearly doubled to an average of about 18 a year. During the same period, sea surface temperatures, among the key drivers of hurricane intensity, have increased by an average of 0.5C (0.9F).
Sir John said: "Increasingly it looks like a smoking gun. It's a fair conclusion to draw that global warming, caused to a substantial extent by people, is driving increased sea surface temperatures and increasing the violence of hurricanes."
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
25 Sep 2005 @ 01:11 by Open Mind @184.108.40.206 : Look guys, it's simple.
Earth will eventually be too hot to support life due to the Sun's expansion. Look at what's happening to Mars. Humans are not the problem but the natural solution to cope with the problem of the Sun and other natural disasters. We are a single species, evolved for intelligence which has the means to carry Earth's seeds to the stars. Species of non-technological orientation, even the "sweet and clever" dolphins, are fading out because their intelligence is obviously not adapted to evolution's needs and are naturally 'self regulated' out of the system.
The very things which the Green Freakies criticize like our corporate culture and gasoline also lead to the ability for space travel; surprise, surprise.Are we learning yet?
25 Sep 2005 @ 01:18 by astrid : Let me be the first one
to wish 'HAPPY trails' to you, Star-studd, ; ) /// *!* !
25 Sep 2005 @ 04:01 by bushman : You know,
my only wish going as far back as I can remember, think I was 3 maybe, I had this dream of being the first man to plant a tree on Mars, I figured by the year 2000, I would be there planting trees. No such luck, but there is a slight chance, if I was to live to around 80, and had a few millions to pay for the ride. :}
25 Sep 2005 @ 04:32 by astrid : I still think you will be lucky
and be able to do it; fulfill your dream! In just a few years there will be two ways to get there I predict ( now this entirely my prediction, OK .... all acc. to my Understanding of both Man-made equipm. and Cosmic equipm. that we will have at our disposal -IF all goes well, that is! )
The Manmade technology-apparatus will be able to get there, to Mars, after 2012 sometime. And also, moreover, by -and certainly after- 2012 many people will know how to transport themselves with the power of Thought alone!
You are a very strong, very Powerful Soul; a very special guy, who will have a few more revelations and then you will know how/when which of the Physics to use your advantage, without ANY destruction at all!... Mark my words! : )
I do wish you all the GOOD you so strive for and envision AND already LIVE in your daily life! ALL you "need" is to realize how &why the Mainstream always represents the LOWEST COMMON DEMONINATOR of our collective consciousness/Mind/Knowledge base and achivements! NONE of Mankind's greatest achievements was EVER invented by guys WITHIN MAIN -STREAM, but STOLEN BY THE MAINSTREAM guys and incorporated INTO theirs -AFTER the/ir initial rejecting part and then the/ir pooh-pooh- ing part was over and done with, and the part of (their) acceptance kicked in!... : )
Diesel's Motor, running on PeaNut oil (as shown in Paris year 1900) is just one such example..... Remember the Coral guy?.... He did NOT use Mainstream science in his building techniques!.... nor did he use any destructive earth hurting techno-equipment( bulldozers etc). Well, you know all this!
25 Sep 2005 @ 04:34 by astrid : ***
klicked twice by mistake!.... ooops : )
25 Sep 2005 @ 10:24 by jazzolog : See The Whole Universe
The Astronomy Picture of the Day [link] for September 25th shows a Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe map representing the universe. I found the description contained some rather startling ideas~~~
"Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever."
25 Sep 2005 @ 15:48 by Quinty @220.127.116.11 : Any physicists out there?
The concepts of a finite universe or a beginning and ending of time has never made sense to me. For a finite universe implies boundaries, borders, edges. And, logically, there is always something on the other side of a boundary.
Wouldn't that, whatever it is, too be a part of the universe?
And if the universe is infinite, for there is always something on the other side of a boundary, wouldn't the same apply to time? Which would be without a beginning or end? (That is, if time exists?)
Man, Jackson Pollock had it right. The universe looks like one of his paintings! Or maybe Monet's water lillies after a late night out.
25 Sep 2005 @ 17:13 by astrid : Dear Quinty, yes.... go here
[link] Noel is a really cool guy and has a LOT of knowledge AND Wisdom! You can always feel free to toss him an e-mail and he will respond, I'm sure.( Just refer to Astrid, as we are old good friends ). He is a physisist far far above and beyond the confines of Mainstream ("science") And he can tell you a thing or two about "Reality".
I personally perceive "Time" as the "distance between conception of an idea and its manifestation into our 3:rd dimension (where we can see and touch Cosmic Energy -or Particles, if you prefer that word-) as 'Matter'
The higher our co-creativity consciousness ( = our vibrations) is, the more immidiately -and with less manipulation- do we manifest things.
The Newtonian physics takes us only so far! That's for sure!!!... We wouldn't have microwave ovens, plus a whole "shitload" of other Everyday Items today, IF we had only made use of (Cartesian; Descartes and Newton) Mechanics. But we incorporated ideas thought up -as in observed- by guys who were more open to life, because they operated from OUTSIDE the BOX = the LIMITIT/ED -ING confines of what the 'establishment/"Mainstream" allowes us Humans! And this has always been the case. This will always be the case.
And even when new means are incorporated, there's another Discovery to be made by someone who dares to go above and beyond what he is officially allowed!
This how and why we eventually can BUILD Space vehicles that will take us a CERATAIN distance into the Space -like Mars, being in our own Solar System-.... but then.... ther's a stop HOW far these Things can go!.... But, Bushy, like I said yesterday: you will most likely be able to use manmade vehicles to Mars.
The Q is when you want to go to other Galazies... They won't take you there, -they simply wouldn't survive in the environments they would have travel through anymore than a horse and a cart on our busy freeways!... not to mention the distance factor!... Those places will be explored only by those who know/understand the power of the thought /Mind and have learned to harness - and use that Power correctly: in harmony with Cosmic Laws. Everything is Physics!... : )
25 Sep 2005 @ 18:12 by astrid : I just found this
[link] , 30seconds ago!
Ohhhhh, gaaaaawwwd, how good it feels when you ( and your own pecerptions ) get confirmed/validated by someone else having seen the same as you!
Here Tesla talks about the many Octaves of conciousness; the theme in my book!.... and how Life is DIFFERENT -a "little diff" in each vibration/al field -as in musical note and then "majorly" diff.in the next Octave! and even more so in the next! etc!...
Swan, you mentioned Jesus and Buddha in Nhala's blog : " Even Buddha and Jesus and other great enlighten masters continued to evolve."
Swan, you are right, only change the the word "contiuned" to continUES to evolve! They are still around, perfectly alive, with a body visible and tangible IN THEIR OCTAVE while INVISIBLE and INTANGIBLE to us in THIS OCTAVE!!!
This is all so very COOL!... don't you guys think, eh? : )
25 Sep 2005 @ 18:23 by bushman : One day,
what I call a, "Osmo Molecular Force Bubble" Its a small device you wear as a neclace. It works like a transporter, shield, and local enviornment. You activate it by holding it with one hand at your chest, while picturing in your mind, where you'd like to go and when in time. This device also fits into a mechanical amplifyer, this mechanical amp, is attached to whatever vehical or even stone blocks. Basicly, the whole of the device works off the human auora and valances with in it, you can extend your auora around objects in your local area, with a shield that would allow you to walk on the sun if you liked. All still in a solid physical human body. Anciant tech, got to love it. :}
P.S. That might be how Jesus did it. But, the issue here, is how to use, the natural resources we have left, to best facilitate our tech away from useing those natural resorces. I been working on a CO2 based ecconomy, where everything is run on high presure CO2. CO2 is easy to pull right out of the air, as well, with some of the new tech powerplants that convert trash to thier base elements. Most of that CO2 would end up in storage world wide. It's fairly safe, in simple storage tanks, I spose if one broke open, anyone close would get frozen or sufocated, depending on size and volume of the tank, but tank presures are below 200psi in liquid state. The high presure parts to run a machine, a liquid vaporizer that takes it up to say 5000psi. It goes like this: Low presure liquid tank/ High presure liquid injector/ High presure vaporizer (solar-elec-battery powered)/ HP lines/ HP diverter valve (F or R)/ HP variable flow valve (gas peddle)/ Self lubricated phnumatic motor/ just attach all this to the car of your choice. Got CO2? Then use it. :}
25 Sep 2005 @ 18:44 by astrid : Bushy, now you're humming!...: )
something like that...I'm sure! On this site, [link] you can find a lot of interesting Ideas by a lot of "Outside-the-Box" -thinking guys -and this is just the beginning!
Who knows, the Method you describe might just be the Best One -as in most efficient and most beneficial- and maybe combined with a few other methods as well, eventually SOME of these Ideas will be/come the leading one Method of energy production, thus saving us before The Final Annihilation -if not sooner!
I totally have faith this will work out: you and I are NOT the only ones, working daily being more gentle, less toxic for each passing day; there's many who do this very same thing alongside with you and me, Bushy, and that amounts to considerable amounts!... Now that you guys are at it, check this out: [link]
We all together can and will put the screws into the sides of the TOXIC Corps and force them to take heed -one way or the other! This is how so many of us are working on saving the Planet!... So there, Jazzo et al! : )
8 Nov 2005 @ 10:41 by jazzolog : Royal Couple "Tuck In To Organic Fare"
At least that's how the BBC captioned one of its photos of Charles and Camilla sitting down to lunch at a San Francisco middle school, where the kids grow and prepare their own food as part of the curriculum. O bliss, o rapture! How do I get a job there?
There was not much coverage in the States, outside California, of their visit to the state this week. The Chronicle this morning gives us a lovely story of the visit to the school and Charles' environmental speech that evening~~~
ROYAL VISIT TO THE BAY AREA
A green day by the bay for royals
Couple see organic garden in Berkeley; attend events in S.F.
- Julian Guthrie, Karola Saekel and Jesse Hamlin, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
England's Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, may have left verdant Inverness to come to San Francisco, but on Monday the royal couple found promising pockets of green on a cool gray day.
Charles and Camilla, who arrived in San Francisco late Sunday afternoon after a weekend visiting with organic farmers in Marin County, spent Monday as they'd spent Saturday and Sunday.
They talked agriculture, food and the environment.
The day began at the Edible Schoolyard in Berkeley, where the prince and his wife of seven months, the Duchess of Cornwall, toured the 1-acre teaching garden founded in 1994 by renowned chef Alice Waters, who runs Chez Panisse restaurant. The garden and adjacent kitchen at Martin Luther King Middle School are an integral part of the school's academic curriculum. And, the schoolyard is the model for Waters' ambitious plan to bring organic food and farming to all schoolchildren in Berkeley.
Charles and Camilla, on their first trip to the United States as a married couple, were met at the Edible Schoolyard by an array of notables, including California's first lady, Maria Shriver; Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates; Berkeley school Superintendent Michele Lawrence; Berkeley school board President Nancy Riddle; and San Francisco and California Chief of Protocol Charlotte Mailliard Shultz.
Across the street, a crowd of about 500 spectators mostly cheered the arrival of the royal motorcade.
The couple started their hourlong visit with a stop at the garden's outdoor wood-burning oven, where students offered up a freshly baked pizza of cheese, potato, onion and rosemary. All of the produce toppings had been planted and harvested by students.
While November may not be the ideal time to visit a garden, the prince, who has been farming organically at his Highgrove estate since 1985, appeared moved by what he saw. The garden was still green with herbs, vegetables and flowers. A small bouquet was harvested and handed to a smiling Camilla.
The royals also sampled soup made on the premises. The soup was made from squash, chard, carrots and garlic. The garlic, taken from braids hanging on a wall, had been picked over the summer, braided and dried for a winter's worth of soups and stews. The decorative braids were labeled by variety: Nootka Rose, Spanish Raja, and Breath Buster, to name a few.
"There is a really good scent in here," the duchess said as she entered the kitchen.
Charles and Camilla chatted easily with the 40 or so students and asked questions that reflected a familiarity with organic farming. Charles took an interest in the school's compost pile, and listened attentively as students pointed out the various breeds of chickens that produce a dozen or so eggs a day.
Waters, who led the royals on the tour, said students at the school are ethnically diverse and represent a dizzying array of languages.
When one student complimented Charles on his accent, the prince shot back, "I like yours too."
Waters, who met Charles at a sustainable food conference in Italy in 2004, said the prince brings unparalleled legitimacy to the movement.
"They totally get it," Waters said of the couple.
After leaving the school, the prince and duchess boarded a Coast Guard ship and headed to San Francisco's Ferry Building, where hundreds of people cheered their arrival. They were greeted by Mayor Gavin Newsom and the rousing lyrics of "California, Here We Come."
Charles and Camilla were dressed in outfits that were a similar shade of blue. A press secretary described the hue as "Air Force blue." Charles wore a tie given to him on his last visit to the Bay Area nearly 30 years ago. It was a blue and gold UC Berkeley tie. His suit was by his Saville Row tailor, Turnbull & Asser, and his shoes by John Lobb. Camilla's wool crepe dressing coat was by British designer Roy Allen.
Charles spoke to a group of some 300 business and civic leaders who share an interest in safeguarding the environment.
The occasion marked the West Coast launch of Charles' "Business & Environment Programme," established in Britain in 1994. It was the only major speech Charles gave while on the final leg of his U.S. visit, which began on Tuesday in New York and traveled to Washington, D.C., and New Orleans.
Charles began the talk by saying he and his wife were happy to be in San Francisco. He referred to Camilla as, "My darling wife."
Charles spoke fluidly and at times ventured away from the prepared text of the speech.
"I'm so glad you still have the wonderfully evocative sounds of the trams," Charles said, referring to the streetcars. He lamented the fact that England did away with its trams some time ago.
He said he set up his Business and Environment Programme specifically to challenge business leaders around the globe to understand and engage in environmental and social issues.
After citing statistics and anecdotes highlighting global warming and climate change, Charles said, "We simply can't go on as we are. Somehow we have to find the courage to reassert the once commonplace belief that human beings have a duty to act as the stewards of creation."
Charles received enthusiastic applause at many points throughout his 15-minute speech.
He said that it is time to stop debating the reality of global warming and globalization and start thinking about what to do to improve conditions.
"We have to accept that globalization comes at an alarming price for the future," he said. "That price may be paid in terms of displaced rural communities ... and the destruction of social and cultural systems built up over many centuries."
In closing he said, "The environmental crisis we face is another situation in which I believe the United States could use its power and influence to help create ... a sense of purpose around environmental stewardship."
Long after the prince and duchess had left the Ferry Building, local vendors were taking stock of the royal visit.
Steven McCarthy, manager of Prather Ranch Meat Company, showed off photos of Charles and Camilla surveying the goods.
"We talked about British pigs," McCarthy said, readjusting his cowboy hat as he leaned against the counter. "Prince Charles told me that it's very good to see people do organic farming, especially with meat.
"It was clear he knew what he was talking about. It was like one farmer talking to another."
The royal couple planned on having a few hours to themselves before heading to a black-tie dinner at the new M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, where they dined on a fancy organic meal whipped up by Waters and her Chez Panisse crew in the company of about 25 local corporate big shots -- among them discount brokerage king Charles Schwab and Yahoo cofounder Jerry Yang.
The royal couple swept into the museum in the pouring rain with attendants holding brollies over their heads. The British press, penned under a white tent separated from their American colleagues, shouted, "Sir, sir, sir!" and "Ma'am, ma'am, please!"
Once safely inside the museum courtyard, the royals turned around and obliged the press with smiles.
They were quickly followed in short order by Newsom and his estranged wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom.
"I think the prince will be very impressed" with the new museum, the mayor said.
Some of the British scribes were apparently impressed by Guilfoyle Newsom, resplendent in a hot black sleeveless gown. "Really good," said one of them.
©2005 San Francisco Chronicle
The Associated Press carried an OK report you can read at CBS News~~~
and this is the BBC coverage~~~
8 Nov 2005 @ 16:15 by Quinty @18.104.22.168 : A prince of a prince
That's amusing, that kid complimenting Charles on his accent. And the prince complimenting him back. What the future king may not have got is that the kid was impressed with his class. (At least that's how I take it. And I hope the kid wasn't a newly arrived Laotian immigrant.)They do know how to "breed" them over there, don't they, though sometimes they don't get it right. Like Edward VIII, who married a Nazi spy.
What the future king said was indeed true: globalization will destroy ancient cultures. The three hour lunch, local cheeses, all those stupendous marks of the civilized life we know in Europe. All threatened. Too bad the future king has no power.
8 Nov 2005 @ 16:46 by dempstress : Speaking
as one 'bred over here' I can only comment that Quinty is plainly a man of taste and discernment.
9 Nov 2005 @ 16:29 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Thanks
that's very sweet of you.
(And of course I completely agree.)
2 Jun 2008 @ 23:02 by Barry Brooks @126.96.36.199 : What's Wrong With a Techno-fix?
What's Wrong With a Techno-fix?
Since almost everyone agrees that we need more and better technology to cope with the world's problems why would the idea of a techno-fix meet any opposition?
The problem arises when tech is seen as the total solution, as if our need for waste should be continued and our goal of unlimited growth is beyond question.
The idea that Malthus was wrong and the green revolution would save us is a great example of folly and denial.
The multi-dimensional impact of our huge footprint on the planet will not be solved by providing lots of energy, or growing GM food on the moon, even if we could.
When we face the unemployment our technology makes possible we take a step toward being radical. This is part of the class problem.
When we face the population problem we will get closer to being radical, to finding the roots of our problems. This is part of the superstition problem.
To avoid being radical we can hope for a techno-fix. However, if we don't get to the roots of problems we can not fix them. Meanwhile, the techno-fix for oil has diverted us from limiting population and pushed us closer to depletion of this planet's other limited resources. There are limits to growth. Don't be blinded by the techno-fix.
3 Jun 2008 @ 15:27 by jazzolog : Thanks For The Link Barry
You've got some interesting ideas at your site, and I'm hoping too things go that way. It's amazing what has happened in the years since I posted this article. GM now is shutting down truck and SUV plants, including the Hummer. Is America slowly getting the point?
24 Sep 2016 @ 03:33 by Jornse @188.8.131.52 : WONDERFUL
WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait.. [link] Website [link] Information [link] Visit
17 Oct 2016 @ 17:03 by 633cash @184.108.40.206 : agen bola terbesar
This is great and really informative.. I'll keep following your web and your article, thanks for sharing :)
Other entries in Environment, Ecology
12 Jul 2010 @ 09:06: Human Energy Cap and Freeze 2010
27 Jun 2010 @ 09:37: Flood in Draguignan
31 May 2010 @ 09:12: The New Norm
29 May 2010 @ 10:27: The Transition Movie
28 May 2010 @ 01:03: Survival of the Enlightened
16 Apr 2010 @ 21:01: The Cloud - or Last call / Final Calling wake-up call ?
12 Mar 2010 @ 13:04: One photo and the memory it contained. . .
7 Mar 2010 @ 18:16: Sunday . . . at my computer
12 Nov 2008 @ 22:37: HAPPY SIXTH DAY - MAYAN CALENDAR CHANGE!
20 Apr 2008 @ 17:08: The Redemption Of Spring