This is not to deny the reality of the observations by real scientists like reported on NIDS, Maccabee, Stanford, Sturrock and in some of the Weird Desk postings on http://stardrive.org
Disclosure is the secular sci-fi equivalent of The Second Coming e.g., Dan Smith.
The most successful sci-fi moral equivalent of Christian Fundamentalism is L. Ron. Hubbard's Scientology. Indeed, the Operating Thetan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_Thetan
is what metric engineering is really all about, i.e. the psychokinetic manipulation of the gravitational curvature and possibly torsion fields - Uri Geller on steroids so to speak.
Start by bending metal, end by bending 4D spacetime for warp drive and star gates. That is Magick without Magic.

For the record, I have no position on this either way. It is not my field and I am too busy to properly study the opposing arguments.

Cap'n Jack Sarfatti Is Man-Made Global Warming Science Fraud For Money? http://bit.ly/aNdjZq
'bout 6 turn o' yer hourglass ago from the port o' AutoTweet Connector · Weigh in · Arr!

Randy Tinkerman Jack, why do you keep getting sucked into this crap. Do you actually think you should rely on the New Yawk Post for a discussion of real science? Can't you stick to your field? You detract from your real value.
'bout 6 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti Not at all, but it needs to be discussed rationally not shouted down. I have no position on this issue. You are reacting like an ideologue fanatic. The issue is complex and rather than personal attacks you should give an intelligent refutation of the article. The first sign of totalitarian fascism is the shouting down of dissenting opinions and making it a crime to ask unpopular questions.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! ·  2 mateys · Jack Sarfatti A good example of the creeping totalitarianism is the British Ban on Michael Savage - and one does not have to agree with his opinions to see that.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Randy Tinkerman There was no personal attack. And i will not refute this article's pablum, nor stoop to a discussion of it. The refutation, including placing in context, is in the peer-reviewed literature. There is not a whit of ideologue in my comment, and you know that.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti Randy these are emotional remarks. It may be that the article is wrong. I don't know. I do not have time to investigate it, but am interested in people's informed opinions on the details. Is the reporter lying about the Indian scientist for example? Could be, I haven't a clue and I have no position on this. Man-made pollution is bad for health of course and no one in his/her right mind wants to increase it in any case.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Randy Tinkerman There is nothing emotional about leaving the discussion to peer reviewers, nor not refuting a particular claim. Trumping an outlier among tens of thousands of data points is new to the politics of science, i suppose.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Greg Chilik It's entirely appropriate to offer criticism of the IPCC for making unverifiable predictions of future climatic effects (and for not performing basic, standard checking of their conclusions and the mathematics which supported their premise). They allowed the claim of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers to be the centerpiece of their report, a claim which would raise red flags to anyone with a basic knowledge of oceanography or atmospheric science.

The IPCC falls into the trap that their detractors can easily take advantage of: publicizing dramatic examples of their predicted forecasts of the effects of extrapolating the current warming trend X number of years into the future. Specific predictions will nearly always be wrong, and gives opponents ample ammunition to discredit the prognosticator.

That being said, the writer of the Post article cannot be considered to be an objective commentator either -- the byline is not a Post writer but a spokesperson for a group which does have a specific political agenda. The writer also accuses the IPCC of making predictions without being able to back them up with evidence or mathematically correct formulation, yet engages in the same behaviour when throwing out politically charged phrases like "...economically ruinous 'cap and trade' anti-warming bill" without providing any substantive analysis in support.

More troubling is the writer continuing the political smear against all scientists: that their work is motivated by and results influenced by grant money which funds most academically-based research. Jack, I know you're particularly sensitive to the sense that scientific disciplines can get caught in their own feedback loop and end up in close-minded groupthink....but that's quite different from saying that entire scientific disciplines would deliberately falsify data en masse for the gross pursuit of money.

You can find countless scientists who work either individually or in independent groups studying climate data who can draw the conclusion that human civilization has fundamentally altered our atmospheric chemistry, but stop short of inferring that they know what the future results of this change will be. They don't fall into the intellectual or publicity-motivated traps that the IPCC finds itself in, but they do share a deep concern for what the [very unpredictable] results will be of increasing the carbon dioxide level of Earth's atmosphere far past the ceiling of normal historical fluctuations.
'bout one turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jeff Kooistra The article is fairly accurate but I don't think except that the AGW "cause" isn't deliberate fraud. The 2035 claim was included in the IPCC report even though experts pointed out it was a mistake. The recently completed review of the IPCC was highly critical (find it here: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC.pdf) Speaking of peer review, it turns out large portions of the IPCC reports relied on anything but peer reviewed literature (not that peer review impresses me one damn bit) despite claims to the contrary.

Bohm's theory in contrast to what Butterfield seems to suggest, does permit us to think of matter in motion, but it's no longer classical in the sense of Newton and Maxwell because of the magickal quantum potential with very weird properties as described in detail by Bohm and Hiley in "The Undivided Universe."

Quantum Curiosities of Psychophysics, by Jeremy Butterfield

Naivete about Physics
The first danger arises from a cluster of views, widespread in our intellectual culture, about
physics as a science: that it has as its subject-matter, matter in motion, which it describes with precise mathematics; that what it tells us about this subject-matter is cumulative (i.e. it never gives up previously established claims); and even that at any given time, discussion among practitioners is uncontroversial. In short, the picture is of physics as a concrete floor of established, precise facts about simple concepts of matter and motion: a floor so firm (albeit perhaps dull!) that other sciences can build upon it. Needless to say, this picture is false. Physics is much more interesting than this picture suggests! It has a much more varied, and strange, subject-matter than the matter in motion of classical mechanics; and it is steeped in controversy. (For an antidote to this false picture, cf. Leggett 1987, esp. Chap.s 5 and 6.)

...

Roughly speaking, the measurement problem is: QT's laws about how the states of objects
change over time seem committed to the prediction that macroscopic objects often have no definite positions—nor definite values for other familiar physical quantities like momentum or energy. ('Quantity' is jargon for 'numerically measurable property'; 'magnitude', 'variable' and 'coordinate' are also used.) But this seems manifestly false: tables and chairs surely have definite positions etc. As it is sometimes put: the macrorealm is definite. (Or at least, we experience the macrorealm as being definite. So, if QT is to account for our experience, it must either secure such definiteness, or at least explain the appearance of it.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000193/

from endnotes of my book Destiny Matrix 2010 up-date of the 2002 book

[1]  Yakir Aharonov wrote : 4.2 Destiny states: new solution to measurement problem
Up until now we have limited ourselves to the possibility of two boundary conditions which obtain their assignment due to selections made before and after a measurement. It is feasible and even suggestive to consider an extension of QM to include both a wavefunction arriving from the past and a second “destiny” wavefunction coming from the future which are determined by two boundary conditions, rather than a measurement and selection. This proposal could solve the issue of the “collapse” of the wavefunction in a new and more natural way: every time a measurement takes place and the possible measurement outcomes decohere, then the future boundary condition simply selects one out of many possible outcomes [35, 32]. It also implies a kind of “teleology” which might prove fruitful in addressing the anthropic and fine tuning issues[77] The possibility of a final boundary condition on the universe could be probed experimentally by searching for “quantum miracles” on a cosmological scale. While a “classical miracle” is a rare event that can be explained by a very unusual initial boundary-condition, “Quantum Miracles” are those events which cannot naturally be explained through any special initial boundary-condition, only through initial-and-final boundary-conditions. By way of example, destiny-post-selection could be used to create the right dark energy or the right negative pressure …

However, Aharonov et-al here do not invoke the hologram principle nor does he seem to be aware of how Tamara Davis’s 2004 Ph.D. from the University of New South Wales provides the connection of our observer-dependent future event horizon boundary condition of the accelerating universe to the dark energy in my formula
 
Dark energy in our past light cone ~ (area of our future horizon)-1

4.1 Reformulation of Dynamics: each moment a new universe
 
This is Tibetan Buddhism!  
“ … the description of the time evolution given by QM does not appropriately represent multi-time-correlations which are similar to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen/Bohm entanglement (eq. 1.1) but instead of being between two particles in space, they are correlations for a single particle between two different times. Multitime-correlations, however, can be represented by using TSQM. As a consequence, the general notion of time in QM is changed from the current conceptual framework which was inherited from CM, i.e.: 1): the universe is viewed as unique, and the objects which inhabit it just change their state in time. In this view, time is “empty,” it just propagates a state forward; the operators of the theory create the time evolution; to a new conceptual framework in which: 2): each instant corresponds to a new pair of Hilbert spaces, (i.e., each instant is a new degree of freedom; in a sense, a new universe); instead of the operators creating the time evolution as in the previous approach, an entangled state (in time) “creates”the propagation: a whole new set of structures within time is able to “propagate” a quantum state forward in time …
http://il.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1232v1.pdf

https://public.me.com/adastra1

Rough draft of the book plus my Santa Fe Lectures from I think 2004 or 2005.