"Do these extreme temperatures have anything to do with global warming? Yes -- if you believe the scientists," said syndicated columnist Bill Press on 7/16/12 in "Heatwave Telling Us Something?" But then he jumps from this logical possibility to a conclusion (caused by 'greenhouse gas emissions') that depends upon which scientists you listen to. Oh well, most of them, you see. Can that be problematic?

Although science should always be trustworthy, it isn't, because an establishment has developed wherein science is sometimes wielded like religion. Those who dissent, even if correct, can find themselves marginalized, slandered, media-silenced, and without grant money. It's another symptom of the deep manipulation of human society by the Elite. In too many cases, then, it's just dogma handed down to regurgitators.

Look what happened to Dr Andrew Wakefield, who correctly drew the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. His name was struck from the medical register in England. The brilliant Wilhelm Reich died in an American prison for his IDEAS.

Not to mention that climate science is still in its infancy, really. The point is, there is controversy, even if one side is heavily 'favored.' But IF there's an agenda being pushed, you'd have to expect that ratio. And, in this case, hi tech weather manipulation to 'sell' the agenda is not out of the question. It's been a major focus of the corporate/military nexus for a long time.

Lop-sided ratio hasn't prevented us from being misled bigtime in the past. For example, we still hear from 'scientific medicine' that cholesterol causes heart disease, when it's primarily inflammation. We still hear that HIV causes AIDS, when there's no such proof (only the appearance of it). We hear that vaccines are safe and effective; but there isn't one long-term study on possible negative effects, and the history of 'success' is both a PR statistical mill and the playing down of disasters.

And have you ever heard the statement, "Scientists once thought... but now..."?

One can cite multiple scientific boondoggles. These days, the corporatists and their Elite masters have made science their handmaiden. Rich enough? You can buy any result you want.

A common Elite tactic is to use any big crisis—real or imagined, concocted or accidental—to advance their Agenda of global control via corporations and banks. Environmentalism is no exception. Thus, the main point is, that even if the CO2 hypothesis is accurate, we must be wary of it being exploited by the globalists to enhance the global fascist state. And of our good intentions playing right into the hands of our slavemasters. In this case, one red flag is a proposed global carbon tax, which fits so well with the globalist agenda.

Now, on one level, globalization is understandable since we are all inhabitants of Earth. However, what we might not want is to be ruled, herded and controlled by a bunch of unelected technocrats, as predicted by Elite player and Obama handler Stanislaw Brzezinski "Between Two Ages: America'a Role in the Technocratic Era." This is being previewed now in the EU, and is what the 'trade' zones are ultimately about. Economic crises are being manufactured to bring countries to their knees and facilitate the global 'solution.'

It might be a good thing to reduce CO2 emissions, anyway; but one dissenting scientist I've heard, Australian David Archibald (who has his 'enemies,' obviously) says more is even better—for plant growth, including food crops.

But won't it be funny if humanity proceeds on the CO2 hypothesis of warming, but finds out that it was the sun all along, or some unimagined phenomenon.

Although warming may have unpleasant effects, it's funny to hear the concern for cities from rising sea levels. The unwise placement of human structures on shorelines amounts to just another human folly. Ultimately, however, it's not cities we should worry about so much as their toxic impact on the oceans.

Van Gelder says, "There is no greater emergency than this." She might want to look into the potential of Fukushima to end it all. It is imminent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiuDQKazXLA&feature=player_embedded#! And she might want to read this page on the nuke threat in general: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2009/1742

If I were the Earth, I might ask the Universe to help me try to shake off my human torturers. These self-obsessed creatures who think they're the most important beings on the planet—even more important than the planet itself. Actually, we're less important than bacteria and earthworms. Humanity is entirely dependent upon microorganisms for its very existence, continuation, and health.

One thing is certain; in the minuscule space of about 200 years, humanity has managed to convert a planet of indescribable beauty and mystery into a craphole. Rising sea levels will put the icing on that cake—if Fukushima or other nuke disaster doesn't get us first—which is at least as likely as global warming.

The evidence is all too clear. Our country is under siege from within by a coalition of would-be oligarchs who are trying to buy the United States. Their level of intellectual understanding of consequences is inferior, but the aim of their collusion is simply a kind of homegrown fascism, whether they know it or not. By using their corporate power to buy control of the institutions of government at both federal and state levels, they aim to reduce democracy to an impotent sham.

"The Greatest Generation was able to come together as a whole society when the Nazi invasion of Europe and the bombing of Pearl Harbor proved to be threats that couldn’t be ignored. Car factories were repurposed for tank production. Rubber and metals were recycled. Everyone planted victory gardens. Many went off to war."

But, but ... if we were to read -- and take seriously -- what Zinn and Chomsky have spoken about the myths of World War II, then maybe we would not be so quick to heroize those efforts. Germany and Japan both wanted to be the central economic powerhouses in their own regions of the world, but could not be because of US dominance in trade the world over. The US would not permit them to create their own demand markets to consume their overproduction; the US wanted it all for itself.

All this policy did was lead to widespread depression and desperation, which in turn was manipulated by disingenuous leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and others to create an excuse for making war, which also created a quick fix but temporary economic solution. The bigger result was widespread devastation of Europe and a good chunk of Asia and Africa.

So let's lower that rhetoric a notch, OK?

"It will take that level of mobilization, built on a deep patriotism, to build and sustain the effort to avert catastrophe."

"Patriotism?" You mean nationalism, the kind that can delude whole nations -- like Germany or Japan in the 1930's -- into a collective mindset of superiority, to the detriment of other countries?

No, dear. This will require a worldwide effort, one built on One-Worldism, based on the understanding that there is only one planet we can inhabit, for the time being at least. Maybe in your perfect world, there is a way to segregate the corruption of the environment nation by nation. But on this planet, the toilet I pee in today is the tap water you drink tomorrow. It doesn't matter where you or I live or pee.

Namaste!

This article is right on, but what's really the first step? Vote for Obama, and vote for Democrats. We individually can make a small difference (better than none I suppose) by changing our own lifestyle, but we have to make it government policy or face disaster! So, don't throw away your vote or protest by not voting, vote and make sure as many people as possible also do. If we can squeak by for 20 or 30 years, the falling cost of Solar Panels and natural gas will economically change the pollution to clean, abundant energy, but do we have 20 years of this same old pollution? Scientists disagree, either way it's gonna be a close one!

The 5 steps suggested are overly optimistic. Our only hope is to accept the fact that the problems technology has created will not be solved by more technology. Our mistaken presumption that spikes in our climate can be understood purely in terms of human causes, gives us the megalomaniac justification for trying to reverse trends we are not even sure are trends. But what the hey, there's money to be made here, too.

Shortages of energy are like shortages of an addict's drug. Changing drugs or their suppliers, do not relieve us of our cravings for power. A ready supply of electricity/fuels and the availability of jobs have an inverse relationship. We need to find ways to use human and animal energy, fueled by the energy of the sun captured as life force in our food, to accomplish the work necessary to sustain a more interesting and eco-friendly existence. We need to reconsider our obsessions with finding an easier way. "Easy" feels good, in the short run. But in the long run, nothing beats good, hard, honest work.

As far as alternative energies, both the wind and ethanol boondoggles are net producers of carbon, and who knows what kind of damage is being done to the environments of China and other countries that are mining the rare earth elements necessary to sustain the solar industry. And even then, this technology can effectively only serve a small number of wealthier inhabitants of the planet, and their delusions of greenness, at the expense of the vast majority of people who can only afford dirty energy, if any at all.

Read Jerry Mander's, "In the Absence of the Sacred."

The actions and inaction by our elected "representation" has been nothing short of treasonous.

Big Oil and the chemical industry owns the politicians so nothing good can happen until that incestuous relationship is broken irrepairably, and civil debate won't do it.