Enlighten Me Free


Housekeeping: As is posted on the EMF Message Board page, this forum is for support, sharing opinions and experiences for those who have left RSE and have doubts and concerns about their tenure there. It is NOT a place for proselytizing for RSE, JZK Inc or Ramtha.  Play nicely or your post will be sent to cyberspace time-out for all eternity. The disclaimer for EMF is located on this page http://enlightenmefree.com/disclaimer.html and all posters agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Be sure you've read it before posting.

You may also want to visit a complementary forum at FACTNet http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/779.html

If you wish to use a Spell Checker, you may wish to use this free one: http://www.jacuba.com/

Want to contact the EMF moderators? Email messageboard@enlightenmefree.com



General Forum
Start a New Topic 
DEBATE: Global Warming

Okay, so we know that Ramthimher is a proponent of the Global Warming Theory. However, there are people who disagree with the all-knowing (not) Ramthim her.

Because of that teaching, and the belief of certain people that it's untrue, let's talk it out.

The ISSUE can be debated without attacking posters.

Ramthimher ought to read these articles, for a start.

Global Warming, climate change
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide. Several years ago Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?"

Letter to natural SCIENCE: Global Warming is Not Happening Global warming is not happening. Dr. Kevin Trenberth

There is No Global WarmingSCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON. And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists now agree that global warming is a fact

Global warming - Scientific conclusions?
Once again, I hope people will realize that true wisdom is knowing what do people who do not depend on there being a "global warming" problem say?

What Global Warming Debate? Global warming is like the new fad, or hobby, but it's not true! www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/debate.html

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming


If people could only get off the moveondotborg bandwagon, they might actually learn something about the climate and atmosphere and why the IPCC won't include clouds as a part of Earth's weather in their silly computer models.

Can you IMAGINE THE CHAOS here on Earth if we'd been running science by .....consensus?

"90% of the "scientists" think that the Earth is flat, so it must be...."

This is a TERRIBLE reflection on the public's general IQ level.

It's one thing to not recognize "The Sting" when it's happening to you. It's something else entirely when the dipwad third grader manages to sell you a bag of dirt and claims it's chocolate cake.

For shame, people. For shame.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

if ref to the general population's IQ:
you have a very similar tactic similar to JZ of putting people down who might not be very educated about certain issues or who might not agree with you, in particular as a republican.
Maybe you could stop slamming people here.

You have some very good points, but if you could SHARE information and not slam a poster or people in general, it might come across a bit better.

If this does not appeal to you, then no wonder why you get hit with all the so called "ligthening rods".
You are acting like JZ- a fricking know-it-all.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming


I think you're misconstruing my comments. It's no secret that our population's acumen has been steadily decreasing since the 1960's. I made my concern for that clear when we met in person. I have found over the years that when a person's baseline knowledge base is challenged, that most of the time they respond by increasing it. They start reading more. That works for me.

After all, a person's education level in this day and age is strictly determined (most of the time) by their own desire and ambition, is it not? We can be as literate or as illiterate as we choose to be. We are not victims.

And I'll ignore the comparisons to JZK. ;-) LOL!!!

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

If we attack a poster/people because we believe they attack posters/people, then where does that get us ? A conundrum.

It might be helpful for readers not to take things so personally, and to look deeper at the issues that are being presented.

The issues here are global warming, and now, the overall decrease in intelligence of our society.

Is it a decrease in intelligence, or knowledge and information ? Or both ?

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

This website is not for the faint of heart. It is not my intent to bash public schools in this post. It is my intent to suggest that there is a correlation to a decrease in free thinking if children are dumbed down and taught to a test, and the loss of well developed critical thinking skills. Children in schools are referred to as "worker bees" and "human resource material". For whom, I may ask ? Certainly not for developing their own entrepreneurial talents!


Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

The Moderators;

Regarding global warming: My position is clear. It's bunk, all natural and non-human caused.

Regarding IQ: It's knowledge, of course. They are being taught junk and it's reflected in their knowledge base. (they (pronoun) - the kids)

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

Regarding the decrease in literacy in American society;

The first year that American students are compared against students from other nations is in the 4th grade. In those tests, American kids score in the 92nd% in Science, the 70th% in Reading, and the 58th% in Math. They beat 26 out of 35 nations in reading literacy, including Germany, France, and Italy. Only Japanese and South Korean kids scored higher in science literacy than American 4th graders.

After eight more years of the benefits of the American public schooling system, 12th grade American students science scores have fallen to 29%. Only Lithuania, Cyprus, and South African kids are dumber in science than American 12th graders are. Math scores have fallen to 14%.* Most of our 12th graders do not possess the skills to function and operate the aparatus of our own society....rather obviously.

"Give me your four-year-olds, and in a generation I will build a Socialist State."
Vladimir Lenin

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the State."
Adolph Hitler

*Sources: Darcy Olsen, "Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers," Goldwater Institute Policy Report No. 201, February 8, 2005 (citing, inter alia, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, "International Comparisons in Fourth Grade Reading Literacy: Findings from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study", April, 2003; "PIRLS 2001 International Report: Study of Reading Literacy Achievement in Primary Schools", Boston College, 2003, Chapter 1, available at timss.bc.edu/pirls2001i/pdf/P1_IR_Ch01.pdf; and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, "Outcomes of Learning: Results from the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment of 15-year-olds in Reading, Mathematics and Science Literacy", December, 2001, Chapter 2, available at nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002115.pdf).

"Math never lies"

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

""Give me your four-year-olds, and in a generation I will build a Socialist State."
Vladimir Lenin

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the State."
Adolph Hitler""

We were very unhappy with the public school system, since our kids were initially in a private school where they were taught according to their abilities instead of "grade level." Once the children were too old for this school, we took matters into our own hands, constantly challenging our kids to "work" since it all came so easily to them. We again re-enrolled them in another private school, since the public school's gifted program was simply "enrichment" which benefits all children, not only the exceptionally gifted. The problem with exceptionally gifted children is they can become "lazy" since it all comes so easily to them. All we could "get" from our local schools was an advanced placement in math for our kids. Everything else they'd already done in their earlier years. Finally, we worked with them on our own, and also hired tutors simply to "challenge" them, since what was taught when they entered HS was elementary to them. I believe the early years of their schooling, when they were taught according to their capabilities - reading one-on-one, math -one-on-one- was largely responsible for this. The math? Both schored 1550 or higher on SAT's, if that means anything at all. I don't think it really means that much, with the exception of perhaps college scholarships, which were forthcoming and quite helpful! The point is, in this time when our educational system is failing in certain areas, parents have to take charge and continue to offer challenges to their children. Parenting is hard work, but so worth it when you see well-adjusted and thriving young adults. It's our story, for what it's worth, and I'm not generalizing, since I only know what I read and have experienced. God knows there is much more! But we do need to be there for our children, while remembering who WE are, as well. We can learn a lot from the kids, as well.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming


Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

so, i posted similarly in Tygers Al Gore thread, but i'll reitterate.

I believe absolutely that global warming is occuring, and I plan on devoting a good chunk of my life to help prevent it.

I think it's really really important to distinguish between JZ/R's claims, and what actual scientists claim. Not just about climate change. About everything. You're letting JZ win in a totally different way if you reject every word she said so strongly that you forget that some of what she says is based on truth.

What i mean is, JZ takes things that are either true, or have a chance of being true (global warming, reincarnation, naturapathic healing, etc) and exploits the **** out of them. but that doesn;t mean that nothing about them is true. lots of eastern medicine is really valid. just because JZ tried to get Jeff to self heal his way out of AIDS and it couldn't work doesn't mean that no one can self heal about anything. that's one of the big logical fallacies. Tyger, i feel, is exploiting logical fallacies just as badly as JZ is. comparing her version global warming to Al Gore's is like comparing a parent that beats their kid up for eating sweets before dinner to a parent who gives their kid a time out for the same offense.

JZ takes the science behind global warming and blends it with copious amounts of babble and nonsense that have no backing. A huge huge aspect of science is PEER REVIEWED papers, and none of Ramtha's "studies" have ever been perr reviewed that i know of.

there is, however, LOTS AND LOTS of peer reviewed work that says that humans are largely contributing to the phenomenon of climate change and that the consequences could cause a lot of suffering. when i'm less tired i will look up some of this info. but Tyger can drop the words "junk science" as much as he wants to; it won't change the fact that thousands of scientists who are not dolts, but whp are highly respected and who do lots of original, perr reviewed work, have many reasons to believe that we are responsible for climate change. i know there is evidence to support the contrary position as well. that's fine. but to just blow all claims that we are making global wamring off as "junk science" is a poor scape goat.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

"peer reviewed" is a joke to anyone who knows what the term means and has an ounce of sense.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

And maybe such a poor scape goat is just a way not to take our own
responsibilities, like not bother recycling or driving high fuel
consuming vehicles or driving "recreative" vehicles just for the
fun of it or saving energy or using less poluting forms of energy or composting organic matter or having
responsible consuming habits...

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

".......and....and...and maybe" Will you stop already...history is self-evident.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

Big smile

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

I recently received an email from a friend urging me to sign an emergency petition
“trying to save the crucial climate change talks in Bali.
When I referred back some alternative scientific studies that questioned Al Gores “science’
She immediately wrote back asking…
“Wouldn't you like a clean, unpolluted creek with healthy fishes?
Rain that is not acid? Ocean that are clean etc etc.......?
Now my integrity was in question because I offered an alternative source of information....
I have no doubt that humanity plays a positive or negative role on our beautiful planet,
and on EMF...!
And that global warming "Or is it Gaia warning?"
is indeed a fact…
but I am open to looking into alternative scientific facts..!
dark chuckle..

And Yes.. We do recycle,
but I do not..and will not... share chocolate.

In the mean time..

I did a little more research tonight and found this...

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov seems like a fairly intelligent chap….
Just to pronounce his name takes a PHD..

This is his view…



Khabibullo is the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and a researcher at the laboratory of solar physics at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
He is an outspoken global warming skeptic.
Abdusamatov claims that global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity.. This view contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Abdusamatov also contends that even the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.
" The latter statement contradicts measurements of the chemical composition of the atmosphere, while the former violates Fourier's law of heat conduction.

From.. Wikipedia link…



Here is an article from New Scientist 2001.

Mars could be undergoing major global warming
Mars is undergoing global warming that could profoundly change the planet's climate in a few thousand years, new data suggests.
High-resolution images taken by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show that the permanent south polar "ice" cap shrank significantly between two successive Martian summers - a period roughly corresponding to two Earth years. If the trend continues at the same rate and the polar cap is entirely frozen carbon dioxide, "the whole cap would be evaporated in a few thousand years," Mike Caplinger of Malin Space Science Systems told New Scientist.
Journal reference: Science (vol 294, p 2141, 2146)



National Geographic News

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Mars's southern polar ice cap, has shrunk in recent years due to planetary warming—similar to what's happening on Earth.

According to one scientist's controversial take, the simultaneous rise in temperatures on Earth and Mars indicates a natural—and not a human—cause for global warming. But the vast majority of experts maintain that humans are responsible for Earth's climate changes and that the Mars phenomenon is mere coincidence.



Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

David : "but I do not..and will not... share chocolate."

If the chocolate comes from fair trade market, it's OK


Re: DEBATE: Global Warming


Can you re-send your email to me?
my computer decided to erase four days of Emails...

I suspect..
Bad karma for not sharing my chocolate...


Re: DEBATE: Global Warming


But EVERYONE KNOWS that it's those dastardly Republicans Bush and Cheney and Halliburton and CORPORATE GREED!!!! (hysteria takes over) and ...VIETNAAAAAM....and all that Nazi-like stuff that Republicans do that is melting the ice caps on Mars. Earth isn't enough for them....oh no. They made a real estate deal with the aliens (source: Ramtha the Enebriated One) and are killing Mars for CORPORATE GREEEEEEED, man......oh, and VIETNAAAAAAM too.

All true. All "science". Like evolution, you know. "Real science". Hey can someone come and shovel my driveway....all this global warming dumped a bunch of snow on it.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

Personally, I’ve been a critic of limiting one’s viewpoints based solely on the results of “peer reviews”. I’ve commented on this in at least one post in the past. Since this topic has come up again, I thought I’d share some information for those who care to read it.

The flaws of “peer review”….





Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

and....for those interested.......

With regard to peer reviews: Critics also make the point that peer review not only fails to prevent the publication of flawed research but also permits the publication of research that is fraudulent. This leads into the topic of “ghost writers” for someone’s agenda.

CBC Marketplace: Inside the business of medical ghostwriting
Medical ghostwriting: you may not have heard of it, but you'll probably want to .www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/

Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals | UK News ...
Hundreds of articles in medical journals claiming to be written by academics or doctors have been penned by ghostwriters in the pay of drug companiesobserver.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1101680,00.html

Ghostwriter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With medical ghostwriting, pharmaceutical companies pay ghostwriters to produce papers in medical or scientific journals on the outcomes of new medications.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter

Are Medical Journals Haunted by "Ghost Writers"? : Bio Job Blog
Fellow blogger, Jacob Goldstein, over at the WSJ Health Blog posted a story today about a prominent hypertension researcher who was approached by a me.www.biojobblog.com/2007/11/articles/ideas-and-indulgences/are-medical-journals-haunted-by-ghost-writers/

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

Tyger- are you saying you don't believe in evolution? I'm not necessarily saying "Omigod he doesn't even believe in evolution!!!", In just wasn't exactly sure who you were making fun of.

The reason I ask is because if you don't beleive in evolution, then our views are so fundamentally different that I could'nt even try to debate you on global warming anymore. this probably sounds patronizing, but that's not how i mean it. I just can't have a scientific debate really with someone who doesn't beleive in evolution because we are coming from such fundamentally different views that there is really no point.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

The scientific method is based on the ability to measure and then to duplicate that measurement. From that you arrive at a probability that something may or may not be true. In that duplication of a probability is more likely if the same scientist re-does his study therefore you have other scientists try to duplicate his findings i.e. "peer review". To eliminate peer review seems to give license to anyone claiming a probability to proceed without question,witness jz. To claim "belief" in any aspect of science, herein Global Warming, implies "faith". Presently any theory on GW is precisely that, a theory with each theory having it's own probability. So far the only person claiming the ability to see into the future with certainty is ol blubber lips herself. I am supposing that none of you have done actual research or devised your own computer models on GW so in effect you are choosing the data you want to believe in. That is entirely acceptable. Keep in mind that whatever you choose to believe it is at best a "best guess". To claim certainty of a future truth raises other questions.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

Bud said, "Keep in mind that whatever you choose to believe it is at best a "best guess". To claim certainty of a future truth raises other questions."


Remember there was even a time that people believed the Earth was flat ! People were murdered for speaking out that it wasn't flat. Goes to show the degree to which some people need to "believe" in certain viewpoints, too.