In an article titled "What Do You Mean Ecology" by Robert Wolf, http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-do-you-mean--ecology-by-robert-wolff-120508-73.html Roger Stritmire writes a comment titled " Global Cooling"
From the first sentence, I know that you don't know what you're talking about, which is a shame because you are right that the word "ecology" is important. That's what makes the sham science currently being promoted as "climate science" insisting that the planet is about to burn up so damned dangerous. Much of what you say is sensible, but all of what you say is damaged by your acceptance of the dangerous lie that CO2 is a threat to the world's climate. Try reading a little bit about the real science that has led James Lovelock along with the founder of Greenpeace and many other former adherents to the global warming theory to reject the climate alarmism of the 1990s. Keep the peace.
In support of Mr. Strtmire, Greg Koch writes in his "One thing is the modeling"
I would add that there is quite a bit of catch-up necessary for ecology studies that had a surge back in the '60s and '70s, and how dreadful it was during my more impressionable years to study our ridiculous linear representation of the world. Better metrics for ecology were developed using nonlinear math in the '90s. Among its countless recent inroads, we developed a far better picture of cyclic warming from El NiÃ±o and anti-El NiÃ±o with its severe population control. Although, many cycles develop over geologic time when a human being looks like gnat larvae on the Earth's ass. (I would add to Roger's comment - Be patient.)
I would discuss both statements by saying that because one hears a scientist making a statement does not mean that he is correct. More importantly, the above quotes neglect the bigger picture of environmental destruction through deforestation, standardized cropping by industrial farms, the pollution of the waters and air, and dead zones in the ocean created by our actions. Even if you neglect global warming and put blinders onto the trends, then you can't neglect the horrid effects of actions such as mountaintop removal, gulf oil spills and nuclear power plants close to exploding while spitting out deadly radiation.
Furthermore, if we look at the work of physicist David Bohm or the neurologist Karl Pribram, we would find that science in its theorizing on the "holographic universe," in which this manifest world arises out of an unmanifest state as saying nothing different than the tribal religions of our ancient grandparents. Were these people rational when bouncing about naked and singing to the Gods while perhaps inhaling a natural herb that makes one journey into other dimensions? Yet, they say the same thing as science. Perhaps more of us should inhale those herbs! Indeed, limiting ourselves to this three dimensional universe may be the nail that ultimately puts the final nail in the coffin of our species. Perhaps more rationalists should smoke weed or ingest some mushroom? Their point of view would definitely change and would provide evidence that their view is relative to their mind state and is NOT absolute truth. Science is simply A way of looking at the world and not THE way.
Some of those in science have JUST come around to understanding what the ancient tribal religions and the mystics of the modern day Christian, Jew and Muslim state. Perhaps we could say that we devolved during the past 6,000 years with the advent of civilization and its nursing the likes of rational philosophy and science? Yet, giving credit where credit is due, some scientists are revisiting the role of religious teachings regarding the creation of the universe (e.g., the holographic theory). Indeed, as I state in my unpublished manuscript, Sophia's Web, holographic theory places the creation stories of various religions, including the Bible's Genesis 1, as being eternally now.
According to the theory, this reading and my writing emerge from the state of what physicist David Bohm calls the Unmanifest Implicate Order. When studied closely, this Unmanifest sounds a lot like Genesis 1:2 as well as creation myths throughout the world. The point is that if you take the story from a rational point of view, you would think the book says the universe was created 6,000 or so years ago. No, it is saying that the universe in its ground is uncreated and this moment of your reading and my writing arises from that uncreated ground. Think about the implications of this. Where is the real power for change? The power is in me and you. This is exactly what the corporations, scientists and government do not want you to know. The power is in us, not the scientist or anybody else.
Furthermore, as discussed by the "Roundtable on Climate Change" held in Portland, ME on 5/13/12, the evidence regarding global warming from both traditional scientific and personal levels is not as conclusive as Strtmire and Koch suggest. In attendance at this roundtable were: Lisa Pohlmann, executive director, Natural Resource Council of Maine, Curt Spalding, Administrator EPA Region 1, Jestena Boughton, owner of Colony Hotel in Kennebunkport, Anthony Buxton Preti Flaherty, Augusta, Sam Day, high school student and outdoorsman, Harry Dwyer, ghost dancer, forester and certified master logger, Mark Green, PhD, ocean acidification scientist St. Joseph's College, Peak's Island, Martha Kirkpatrick, Rector of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in Lincolnville, David Marshall, City Councilor, Portland, Steven Mulkey, President of Unity College, Burck O-Herin, Sheepscot Wellspring Land Alliance and registered guide, Tony Ownes, MD, emergency room physician, Cape Elizabeth, Peggy Pennoyer, MD allergy and asthma specialist, Scarborough, Mark Power, commercial energy efficiency engineer in Portland, and Steven Rowe, former Maine Attorney General.
Many of these Maine natives spoke to the change in the weather and its result on the land, including its use for hunting, fishing, and other sports and the increase of health problems from increased environmental stress. They too provided data, scientifically derived, regarding the warming trends of the planet. Thus, their data apparently contradicts the purported statement by Stritmire regarding James Lovelock which also signifies that science is not some "objective fact finding rational discipline." Indeed, it is open to the individuality of interpretation and may even be swayed by other factors, such as cultural conditioning. As an electron behaves as a particle when it is being observed and a wave as it is neglected, then it appears that environmental science is a function of who is looking and what he is looking at.
Furthermore, more important than the data derived from science, we should closely listen to the stories of Mainers who have ticks that normally come out in late June latching to their skin in March and April. What's even worse is that the "old timers" in the crowd say they never knew of ticks when they were younger! Even more important, some of the panelists were working in the field and up close to the results of global warming and deforestation. They weren't detached scientific types engrossed in rational thinking. Yes, these people walk into what was once rich and diverse woodlands and instead find a monocropping of pine trees that have taken the place of the rich diversity inherent in the old days before standardization and monoculture cropping. And what's the cost to the world? Any bug that goes after a pine tree will find a wild feast and ultimately destroy the entire forest. And, as any person versed in Chaos Theory would realize, the changing of one variable changes everything else.
The scientific manner of isolating variables is simply not a solid way of looking at life just as standardization of everything from education to making underwear is not sustainable. Why? It is not sustainable because everything affects everything else. Variables cannot be isolated. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If we tear off the top of a mountain in West Virginia, the immediate environment is going to change and a massive holographic effect will occur that affects the entire planet. Everything you do from going to the bathroom to playing with your children, to driving your car has macroscopic effects. Let's take playing with your children. When you play, you develop warm feelings with your child and help her to trust the world. In so doing, you affect how she performs in her friendships and in her work, be it school or future adult work. Then how she affects her academic and personal relations affect those people, places and things that they interact with. The interaction you have with your daughter has global implications! This is a simplified example, but it does illustrate chaos theory"and yes, chaos theory is not going to neglect the impact of genetics. When they say everything, they mean everything.
Thus, taking global warming aside, if you go out and gaze into a stripped bare mountain void of any life, how is it going to affect you and the world you live in? Or, to bring air pollution into this, if you go out and breathe in a horrid stench from a factory farm that, apparent to your senses, contains thousands of penned up chickens in tight cages, then how are you going to feel? Disgusted, maybe? Yes, there is a time and place where we may listen to a scientist. Yet, ultimately, we have to trust our senses alongside our deepest intuitions to tell us if something is wrong. Move past the experts. Like the high school student and sportsman listed above, trust your nose, i.e., your deepest sense. This sense is much more valuable than the rationed views of the traditional scientific type anchored in reductionism.