The public is getting very bad information about what is going on. The corporate governance network has spent billions broadcasting propaganda based on scientific reports by the IPCC - the United Nation 'official story'. Well, it turns out that the politicians were allowed the edit the science report - watch this two and a half minute video.
The major factor in the temperature changes on earth is the sun. The political agenda has absolutely nothing to say except that the industrial revolution caused the carbon dioxide that drives the temperature. Right now - i would say that our current weather, including the California drought, is being caused by Geo-engineering and the agenda has nothing to do with climate change. It has to do with control.
The reverence given to PhD's in this society was once earned. Now, the university system is a subsidiary of the economic agenda of the political elites. The ability to earn a degree depends more on playing the old boy network games properly, than achievement or knowledge. I can only speak of the chemistry departments first hand - a lot of superb scientists never got their degree because they failed in the discipline of negotiation. In other words, they didn't kiss ass and jump thru the 'proper' hoops.
Knowledge is something that is acquired by putting in the hours of reading and watching and experimenting and mental gymnastics. You take an idea and work it into a form that you can test. Your question must be falsifiable from the data. By this, i mean that you have to address the proper question and get a final answer to that question, with new questions the experiment generates.
To design an experiment to choose between possible answers is very different than coming up with proof for the answer that the agenda wants to hear. You don't need a PhD to think for yourself and decide your criteria of truth and burden of proof. Proof always is positive - a negative result leaves open more possibility.
I know who i like and who i don't like, as far as my science peers are concerned. I tend to choose the best of the best and begin at that point - without going back to the commentary on whether the information is acceptable to the common scientist. I value Rupert Sheldrake and Richard Alan Miller and Michio Kaku - even though all three have their biases for or against the system. I believe that we can have conversations with these individuals in real time that will allow us to inquire directly - if we can demonstrate that our queries are worth their time.
One of our largest challenges today is information sequestration. The past 20 years of science has been especially stagnant, as rewards go to political and entertainment spheres and those who support the big science status quo. Our change in weigh is so great, that we will have to sort through what we know to differentiate myth and legend from truth and natural law.
Natural resources are either limited or abundant, depending on your perspective. Ownership belongs to those who control the pathways through the system. That is either the current political system, or mother nature. The two seem to be in artificial conflict - because mother nature just is and doesn't see this as a battle at all.
When the weather is being manipulated with chemtrails and HAARP and military strategy and all sorts of vibration - all along the electro-magenetic spectrum - perhaps the thing to do is to power down and set everything to minimum and start by evaluating what we really know, in each of our chosen fields.
If the metabolism of mother nature actually is arrested by the political system, it may be quite a bit more than we bargained for. We have to see it for what it is - by cutting through the b.s. and opening the conversation with enlightenment as to what we currently know, at the cutting edges, that relate all the fields in which we live our lives.
namaste' ... doc