he he yeah funny Eric. We saw you wash your hands immediately.

By the way, I have the copyright on the termite saying - its in my book. If you copy it I'll find you and put you in painful debt. And I'm a man who'll do that just for the fun of the game - my fun of course, not yours. 


Ok, back to the subject of Cycles of change & civilization altering processes.

Warmist like Heisenberg like to say they know atmospheric CO2 causes the temperature to rise because the Vostok ice cores prove it does. They say this to children and adults as if its a fact.

The ice cores from Vostok at the south pole show the repeated and regular rise and fall of atmospheric temp and carbon dioxide over hundreds of thousands of years, through successive cycles of ice ages, and demonstrating there is a correlation of some sort between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. 

But throughout all the data’s ups and downs over hundreds of thousands of years, the CO2 increase never precedes the temperature increase. In fact the CO2 increase lags about 800 years behind each temperature increase. The belief orientated warmists don’t mention that when they are telling people to believe in their "science" – I think that’s called deceiving by omission.

To claim a cause that comes 800 years after the result, and to try to hide it by omission, is not science.   

When pushed on this matter they will then say something like, “Well…um…actually…yes..um…er…well...yes…um…ok..well…um CO2 might not cause each rise in temperature initially…because um   … but then we that 800 years after temp begins to rise that CO2 then rises and doh. Why did you mention the 800 year lag? Security! Security! Kick that man out"

As an example of so called indisputable warmsit scientific logic see here: 
(and notice how a couple of "coulds" and a "might" equals definitely)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

I could go on point by point through the (yawn) fraudulent hockey stick graph, the fraudulent hiding of the medieval warming period and the little ice age, the false data (another yawn), skuldugerous email leaks, and my particular favourite - the false logic. 
But hey I don't have time just now. Maybe another day.

Heisenberg, no need to feel pressured by me to put up your case unless you want to; its all through the media and education system anyway, so we are all familiar with it (bombarded with it). 

“If you are so sure of your facts and evidence, present it. Put it on a thread. In point form. The solid facts and verifiable evidence, point by point, that demonstrate that human produced carbon dioxide is causing the Earth's atmosphere to heat up, melting the icecaps, causing seas to rise, and threating life on the planet. Don't put up more hearsay, don't just repeat the broad vague assurances that catastrophic man-made carbon caused climate change is happening because the "scientists" say so. Give us the simple solid facts that demonstrate it. Or do you just share an emotional belief system with other carbon haters?”

You are of course right to question whether human global climate change is just yet another belief system. An afterlife conversation board is not really the place for an in depth climate debate- it would quickly be considered off-topic. But in short: The UK National Research Council challenged climate change sceptics to an online public debate in December 2006. A panel of climate change experts answered questions about the science of climate change and discussed a range of scientific theories that try to explain the recent global warming. The challenge ran for six weeks and had 365 postings. Some of the objections you raise and many others are addressed. For those who are interested a summary of the question and responses are here: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp#CO2. I will reiterate that the vast majority of climate scientists now believe that human activities are changing the climate.

However, my central point is much wider than a debate about global warming and has more relevence to this board. In earlier posts I have argued, for example, that the Scole Experiments should be taken seriously and so should some mediums. I will use a legal analogy: even though we know that jurors have pre-existing beliefs/prejudices when they sit on a case they are told just to focus on the evidence presented in court. It seems to me that when it comes to emotional topics such as climate change or afterlife evidence that evidentially-based thinking is thrown out the window and other factors come in. I got a sense of this from your post when you said:” I think it is wrong for school teachers to scare little children and make older youths disrespectful by lying to them that the previous generations have ruined their planet and the world is going to cook, seas rise, no drinking water, etc.)”. Notice here it is the not the evidence you are are talking about but the inconvenience or not of global warming ! I see this with presented afterlife evidence where it is not the quality of the evidence that is debated but vague notions such as ‘that sort of thing does’nt happen’ or ‘that can’t happen because there is no theoretical basis for it’. My simple contention is that just as in a court case, prior expectations, beliefs, prejudices,hopes,fears  should be temporarily laid to one side when examining the existence or not of a phenomenon.

  I suspect that in most cases, climate scientists don't have the benefit of clearer and more direct communication with expanded guidance, and tend to focus on the more obvious, in front of their faces data and concepts.

   With that said, i do understand and believe that human pollution and effect is affecting global climate change, but i'm also aware that there are other factors at work besides these. 

    What's interesting is that within the last decade or so, there's been more research and findings on under water ocean volcanic and venting type processes going on.  More over, more and more of these seem to be "appearing" rather than having always been there and we just missed them. 

   If there is an internal change going on in the Earth, and Cayce's guidance clearly, clearly predicted Global Climate change some 80 years ago, and in reference to a specific time range (which was very accurate) in relation to an internal Earth change, then it would make sense that much of the heating of the Earth is happening via these underwater volcanic and crustal vents. 

   Climatologists tend to ignore data like this, and focus more on obvious and better well known data like various gaseous emissions.  The problem with science in general is that of one of over training in just one area-e.g. too much narrow focus. 

    Also, i've mentioned this before, but back in 98, i read a very interesting National Geographic article, which was about two scientific researchers noting independently in their research that in the year of 1998 the Earth was starting to bulge more at the equatorial region.  From what i remember of the article, there wasn't a clear understanding of WHY this was happening, but whatever it was, it is massive in meaning and innuendo. 

   This specific year of 1998 is perhaps the most mentioned date in the Cayce readings as regards the multi-leveled "Earth Changes", of which the physical aspect started in 1936 with an upheaval deep within (presumably within the core) of the Earth. 

  1998 was cited as the true and earnest beginning of the changes, and in reference to the Aquarius Age starting and the Earth changes really picking up, they said something like *In 1998 we will begin to better understand what these changes mean*   I can find the specific quote for those interested. 

Hey, but Cayce's work is so passe eh?  LOL 

  Oddly enough, according to Galactic Cycle researchers and astronomy buffs like John Major Jenkins, 1998 was also the exact, specific year of the some 26, 000 year cycle of Winter Solstic Sun-Earth alignment to the Galactic Core.   Yes, the exact, specific year of THE alignment within a rough 36 year period of alignment which started in 1980 and technically goes on till 2016.  Notice 1998 is exactly mid way inbetween these.

Oh, the plot thickens, indeed it becomes like porridge since when Cayce's guidance talked about this year, we scientifically virtually knew NOTHING about the Galactic Core, let alone about this alignment and cycle. 

   So, i suspect that Global Climate change is a much more complex, deep, and relative subject and issue than many would give it credit for.   Whether the "warmists" or the non warmists.   

   Indeed, i've received various messages relating to Cayce's info in regards to massive internal Earth changes eventually going from being gradually unfolding to in our faces and quite "Earth changing". 

  Not too surprisingly, this info is mirrored in completely unrelated sources. 

In Bob Monroe's account of future humans circa some 3500 A.D. or so, he saw that his beloved Central VA near the Mountains area was now coast line.   Oh honey, that won't happen just through typical, pollution/warmist "global warming".  Ain't enough ice at the poles to do that. 

  Rosiland McKnight in her guidance sessions with Bob Monroe at his lab, saw the future probabilities and it appeared that the North and South Poles had shifted. 

  If these shift about 180 degrees relatively quickly, it would explain why there is no past evidence in the ice cores of such crustal shifts, since the ice would remain more or less intact, because they would still be at the poles--just opposite ones. 


  Your crazy prophet who seeks no profit, who speaks of both crisis and hope, come again, and again, and again  (yet, no matter in what Age or cycle, so few actually listen).



 

Volu wrote Quote:


  Perhaps the first part is true some, but you also seem to misunderstand what i was saying.  I don't mind debate on Climate Change--in a way it's on topic to the meaning and purpose of this Thread. 

  What i would like to leave at the door are the personal insults and machismo that have been going along with otherwise interesting, and sometime on topic debate.  This is what i would call the "pissing" contest, or maybe it should be called, "mine is bigger than yours".  Dunno, i'll let you all decide.

  Re: my original request, which i rebrought up not long ago, well it seemed like a lost cause by the point i decided to post again, and so i said "screw it".   

  Volu wrote, regarding the Earth Changes taking his body out, Quote:


  Indeed, and it feels like you want that to happen, and from tuning into you, it feels like it is because you are in a lot of emotional pain here though that pain is deep and protected by layers of numbness.

  I wish you would see that holding onto that pain, that anger, that scarring that others have given you and to a lesser extent you have created for yourself as well is a waste of time.  I wish you would see the benefit in full forgiveness, and letting go of all that and opening up more fully to that consciousness that Bruce labels PUL, and Monroe perceived as "White" energy, for if you let it wash over you, it would take away all that pain, all that hurt and anger, all those defenses and numbness.

  and it would leave you behind joyful and at peace. 

From one Capricorn born, to another, and one who also spent years just waiting and wanting to leave.  The Goat path up the mountain is hard for sure, but not insurmountable.  The goal at the end is not intellectual knowledge and info about the nonphysical, but a state of being, about real and deep happiness which nothing outside of self can affect.

  Nor is it about "Light" vs so called "dark" polarities.  These both are illusions.  There is only original expanded Consciousness, and relative, later formed states of less expanded and suffering states of being and consciousness and you are scared of the former because it requires surrender, it requires letting go of all you have known and held on to, it requires self change and effort towards a different way, and so you lash out at the "Light" from your relatively less expanded and suffering state. 
   

Justin,
"Re: my original request, which i rebrought up not long ago, well it seemed like a lost cause by the point i decided to post again, and so i said "screw it"."

If there was a certain energy lingering here, becoming silent, it wouldn't mean approval but a chance to change the (gasp) rude word into something more blurry. Screw that. So, allrighty then.

"What i would like to leave at the door are the personal insults and machismo that have been going along with otherwise interesting, and sometime on topic debate.  This is what i would call the "pissing" contest, or maybe it should be called, "mine is bigger than yours".  Dunno, i'll let you all decide."

Why go on about PUL and the essential unconditional bit if wanting to leave male energy and intellectual movement not approved by femininity at the door? Even a slight bit of male bonding will unravel the mysteries of what queen winter deems as insults and rudeness. It's not about size of the toe, the earlobe, or the knuckly part on the ankle for that matter.

"Indeed, and it feels like you want that to happen, and from tuning into you, it feels like it is because you are in a lot of emotional pain here though that pain is deep and protected by layers of numbness."

Your tuning into me is really tuning into your - emotional understanding of my words and concepts. Anticipating life without a body becomes emotional pain. Power becomes anger. Not succumbing to yin becomes not letting go. Because you see one side doesn't mean others don't exist or are expressed on a regular basis, like softness, joy and so on. In this forum, with the dominant force being yin, this particular voice and volu..me is the more interesting one.

"The goal at the end is not intellectual knowledge and info about the nonphysical, but a state of being, about real and deep happiness which nothing outside of self can affect."

Lofty since everybody hurts sometimes, when happiness is out on a lunch break. Keeping it real. Besides wonderful states of being, intellectual knowledge is also part of the gift unwrapped while here, otherwise 'lesser sources' would be all that and then some. The goal at the end of the rainbow is like the coming of different possible changes, we'll get to see.

"Nor is it about "Light" vs so called "dark" polarities. These both are illusions."

And yet you write 'lacking in Light' in another thread. Anyways, they're very much alive in every aspect of life on earth, in areas of the astral too. Easier to recognize once noticing some traits of the extremes. Light in the most extreme form wants nothing but to give. Dark in the most extreme form wants nothing but to take. Both want restrictions in order to limit and filter out the opposing polarity. On their own they are imbalanced. Both extremes fear losing their dominant position to the dynamic and confusing middle ground. Like the dude said to the people of amerika - either you're with us, or you're against us, leaving out the spectrum in between.

"It requires self change and effort towards a different way, and so you lash out at the "Light" from your relatively less expanded and suffering state."

Self change, effort, ever towards conforming to yin that is. A quality that light 'n bright is supposed to be void of is arrogance. The irony is, making yin the elusive exclusive, is a less expanded option. Worth noting is also who are prone to suffering and victimhood.

Crossbow:

What if a person intentionally said mean things to others? Would that be okay?

crossbow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:49am:

recoverer wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Certainly. Being offended is part of life. Trying to eradicate offence is oppression of life.

Besides, people are seldom as offended as they portray themselves to be. Pretending to be offended is the commonest con on this planet.

1. Thugs pretend to be offended just before they bash someone.
2. War hungry nations pretend to be offended as an excuse to attack another nation.
3. People pretend to be offended as an excuse just to vent their own anger and irritability.
4. And many pretend to be offended to claim what they think is the moral high ground, and expect others to restrict their speech and opinions so as “not to offend”.

Point 4 is just bullying and oppression by yin instead of yang. The end result is the same - loss of others freedom of speech and expression - it is just a softer more deceptive method of doing it than the other methods. All methods guise themselves as righteous, in some way try to justify themselves, but they all oppress others. People are best known not by how they present or portray themselves, but by the effects of the end results of their wills upon other's lives. If oppression (restriction of speech & expression) is the result, then they are oppressors, regardless of whether they do it by yin or yang, by soft or hard methods. 

Oppressing others by pretending to be offended only works against decent people, because decent people try not to offend others. As it is a method used on the decent, then those who use it must be the indecent.   





(Personally, I don't mind offending others, and I don't mind others offending me, and I don't mind conflict, although great conflicts, both internal or external, are unpleasant of course. Life is conflict, in both its essence and its manifest. I realise and accept that. Giving and taking offence is part of life, part of finding self and truth. I accept it and play the game, with all its bumps and bruises.)


Bardo, are you referring to me?