Bardo wrote on Sep 19th, 2011 at 9:15am:Justin,
I always enjoy your posts. You are reasonable and knowledgable, although I don't always agree with you. And I won't hijack this very interesting topic, except to ask you to cite your sources for claiming that an actual majority of scientists are not "on-board" with the concept that man has caused the Earth's climate changes. I have not seen any evidence of your claim, and would be very interested in seeing yours.
Peace,
Freeman
Thanks. It's a valid point and question. To be honest, I haven't taken a personal poll of all the scientists out there that research and speak on climate, so I cannot say with such certainty that this is the case. It was an overly generalized assumption and statement, but one not without holistic reasoning behind it.
I came to the conclusion from a mix of factors--having examined the climate issue myself, listening to an alternative researcher whom while i don't always agree with--i very much respect--his name is Michael Mandeville and he runs a Yahoo group about Earth changes (originally inspired by the Cayce readings), and observing some scientists speaking about the cyclic nature of Earth's changing climate.
This is a very complicated issue, and is so because of the nature and "climate" of science today (which is as extreme and variable as our Earth climate has become). It has, especially in some countries more than others (cough, cough, especially the U.S. which has too much influence on the world), become so enmeshed in with politics, money, and media.
If a researcher breaks away from political and media agendas, which often seem greed and/or fear driven, then often what happens is funding dries up. It's really tough being a scientist with integrity and especially tough for those who think outside of the mainstream paradigms.
So, I would say that there seems to be more researchers hoping on the bandwagon of climate change being human pollution induced ala something akin to Al Gore's movie.
Here is the most basic, essential, and core fact in all this hoopla, and is a big part of why i made that overly generalized statement.
There are ice core samples that date back almost a million years. They are clear and direct in what they tell us about our co2 levels over a very long period of time. There is also other clear data which shows past climate in other ways.
In both cases, it is very clearly shown that the Earth has a very up and down continuing cycle with these. There are peaks and valleys throughout that those time frames. It is erroneous to automatically assume that because we are now in a peak, that it's directly correlated to only human pollution because this
appears to be the only factor which is different.
Btw, I'm not saying that human pollution isn't contributing some, or that scientists who lean more to the natural cycle theories don't take this into account. What I am talking about is primary cause.
But how can any scientist with integrity who is not being pressured by financial (and thus by default political) considerations, ignore that above basic, core fact of the evidence in the Earth? I'm not a trained scientist, but I have enough deductive reasoning, logical and observational ability to recognize that we cannot jump the gun with the theory with the only human pollution affecting things, when our Earth's history shows a very up down cyclic nature.
It also further complicates things because of the politics and media perception of the right wingers and/or ultra conservatives vs the liberals. There is a media fostered perception that the right wing and/or conservatives push the natural cyclic theory about climate change because they often are primarily business, corporate, and financially minded and worry about environmental reforms affecting their way of life and business. There is definitely some truth to that perception.
Then there is the perception that the liberals or the left care less about the money, and back environmental reforms because they back the human causation theory of climate change and they care more about other people and the Earth than they do about money and/or their cushy or convenient lifestyles. There is some truth to this perception.
However, there are gray areas, and there are other agendas on both sides. These get less mainstream media coverage. These gray areas and hidden agendas are also greed motivated. Are we too believe that Al Gore and those like him are just a really great guys who are just motivated by concern for the Earth and their fellow humans? It would be mighty hard for such an ethical, PUL attuned person to even get to such high levels of politics as he has (which is why the real deals, like Kucinich will never be able to get into the running for President or the like). No, sneek a peak behind the Oz curtain and you will see politics and agendas (again primarily based on money and power/status).
Speaking personally, for an American, I'm rather green and environmentally minded (a part of the reason of why i eat vegetarian). I don't like or respect wasting resources, and I certainly don't like the idea of us polluting and damaging the Earth, which I know also by default damages us now and future generations.
Yet, I don't fit into either category in the above, because having both gone within about this issue, and examined the evidence without preconception or emotional bias, I've come to consider that climate change is primarily being caused by natural factors (Mandeville, also nothing even close to being a right wing or conservative type, cites scientific evidence of this frequently on his site). However, I still strongly feel that we should do everything we can to clean up our act, stop polluting and wasting resources so much.
In any case, we are still shooting ourselves in the foot. Whatever the primary cause of climate change, more pollution=more bad health for us and the Earth we depend on for material survival.
So maybe the illusion and false perception of humans primarily causing global climate change is ok since it may lead to more environmental reforms and societal changes. However, for those interested in Earth changes and who have gotten messages about this and who seek to make people aware of the nature and general timing of these, then a more accurate understanding is more beneficial.
Cayce's info was quite accurate about these trends, though his info has often been misinterpreted and mythologized. Generally speaking, Cayce's guidance only concerned itself with outlining general time frames, trends, and causes of the Earth changes.
Fitting in with the purpose of the thread, this primarily relates to the nature of the "Earth core crystal", though Cayce's guidance didn't specifically call or refer to it as that. For those who can read inbetween the lines, they outlined an event deep within the Earth, that caused a differential in the axial alignment of the inner to the outer Earth.
And then this inner Earth change or "upheaval" was cited as a primary reason for the global climate change towards a trend in warming (which by nature increases extremes, even of cold sometimes).
Then a time frame for the beginning of such developments and observation of these climate and other changes was given, from 58' to 98' (the original upheaval was said to have occurred in 36)'. Then eventually, this source btw did not say exactly when, this would lead to some catastrophic Earth changes--a fast crustal movement/migration.
This source said this has happened multiple times in the Earth's history, and often corresponded with periods of human history with similar civilization dynamic parallels as our own--a conflict between increasing spiritual awareness and the forces of greed, selfishness and materialism, population expansion, mistreatment of the Earth and natural forces, etc
While we don't have concrete records of such past civilization changes, we have plenty of ancient recollection from around the world of same, and we have the Ice Core samples, and other data which indicate that past extreme changes have happened, and in a rather cyclic manner.
Home
Pages: 
