How very intensely beautiful, dear András !!!

Thank you. 

I knew, somewhow, that you are a poet. Your question is in itself a beautiful poem. 

Yes, a pragmatical good scientist can be spiritual (when emotions imbalance rational reasoning, in the same proportion).

No, we might have to fight these irrational interferences to our more pragmatical reasoning, if we want to get somewhere with scientific certitude.

It is an anatomical accpted fact, that our brain has two sides. Some develop mostly the right hemisphere and become great artists. Others develop their left hemisphere to acquire good pragmatical reasoning.

Only a very few manage to imbalance and develop both with no mutual linterference, and those few atre the special ones, that we'd all like to get to be. 

Very shrewd and enticing question, dear Andras, that reflects the wisdom of communal consciousness at best!

I agree with you, my dear friend, that the real paradigm should be the safety and quality of human life and existence  instead of mere business  concerns and issues! Moreover, in an intellectually ideal situation, scientists and researchers should lead (but not be led by) society!

Dear András, unfortunately for all of us, Science has followed the root of money and now is serving big projects, like Earth overheating, climatic change, CO2 emissions and other not validated with broad confidense hypotheses.

When I checked my electricity bill I recognized that I have to pay a "Special tax reduction of tailpipe emissions" of €76 !

So, Science is not so innocent as claims to be...

Dear Andras, you have several questions, so I have some answers (within the limits of my understanding).

Is it enough clear and logical thinking without ethical and aesthetical backgrounds?

Clear and logical thinking will be better if synthesized with ethical and aesthetic values.

Is it possible to look for the truth if one cannot transmit and distribute it? Is it sufficient to find a tiny piece of truth without building it into the wholeness?

It is possible to look for the truth, even if one cannot transmit and distribute it.  It may be another person who comes along to transmit it.  It may be another who synthesizes the little pieces of truth into a beautiful whole integer.

Are able scientists to form a just and sustainable world? Why if the answer is yes, and why if it is not?

For this question, I can only answer from my own set of values.  Able scientists are able to work towards a sustainable world, if they know that they are intelligent creatures (made in the image of God), to manage the world for the good of the whole human race now, and generations to come.  The world is never ours, WE ARE STEWARDS.

Dear András,

you know the kind of my possible answer. Only one recipe. Use your natural science brain and know how and try to find an explanation and possibly a good tip for help. If we accept the methan news in your paper we should immediately ask for the reasons. If we have caused these reasons by our behaviour we must try to change it and to avoid more of this horrible gas (also emitted by cows, pigs etc, which we consume).

After having found a satisfying explanation we should try to find international reaction. And and this moment it´s possible that we must use not scientific but sociological and eventually emotional "arguments".

Dear Maria,

It the world is destroyed the human culture with the poetry will follow it.

There is a Hungarian song which is the setting to music of a József Attila’s verse saying:

If the world must be destroyed

there be some flowers on its tomb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxNZe1VYDsc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_J%C3%B3zsef

Another better known song is Where Have All the Flowers Gone? sang by Marlene Dietrich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VseETz8C48c

“When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?”

When will WE ever learn, when will WE ever learn?

Dear Hanno,

I am very sorry that not you are the advisor of policy makers. Indeed!

Dear Andras, Maria and all; to answer: “When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?  THE ANSWER IS NOW.

WHAT MUST THEY LEARN?  IT'S THIS (In case you wonder, PARDIS IS MY IRANIAN FRIEND, SO IS RAOOF. ):

Human beings are members of a whole,

In creation of one essence and soul.

If one member is afflicted with pain,

Other members uneasy will remain.

If you have no sympathy for human pain,

The name of human you cannot retain.

– A poem by the Persian poet Sa’adi (1210 – 1290)

gracing the entrance of the Hall of Nations of the

United Nations building in New York City

(In relation to the Q, it's to be a steward; the Owner is the CREATOR.  Both lessons are related.)

Dear András,

this depends on the needed energy and patience to do the convincing work.

Dear Miranda,

Your answers are really comprehensive.

As to the synthesis of little truth fragments, each of us should make a try to join together the puzzles.

As to your hope, how much is the rate of able scientists?

Regarding your last answer, I am afraid many of us in spite of wearing the image of God do not follow the word of God.

When will WE ever learn, when will WE ever learn? to be a faithful and good steward of the Earth?

Dear Marwan,

I would like to survive with you the time when we will have a tiny word how to be the world!

Man is an intelligent animal as scientists say, but it is an animal who does not learn from its mistakes as expected.

However, before when all gone, write on my grave stone, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"

Dear Miranda,

Your ANSWER was: NOW. If only you were right! By the way, as to Paul’s great contribution, the situation seems to be irreversible means that this "now" must be late.

I hope that I am wrong.

Dear Cecilia,

Scientists can manage similar situations not to serve as obedient servants the money and political leaders and to contradict the hypocritical mainstream paradigm (business above all).

Dear Paul,

Unfortunately, your estimation and argumentations is perfect. I hope your contribution and the presented references will persuade the participants and audience of this thread.

The question is to find a relevant and efficient answer. It is sad how the Principal and the parents -you mentioned - accepted your lecture. The only fortunate thing is the behaviour and openness of the children. It seems to me that the best solution is the good and comprehensive education. Another question is how long the operative and intelligent answer and deed can be delayed.

Dear All,

I have met so many intelligent and ethical colleagues here at RG. Most of them were full with good will. What do you think are there so many bad people? Or so many indifferent and conformist folks? Or is the operation of the society order so deformed and incomprehensible as we are in such a difficult situation?

Dear Paul,

It is me who is thankful to you helping me to better explain this subject. I think the young generation can fine understand the difficulties of our age even they know better its operation and vulnerable points than we, their parents. We should help them to be more independent and unconventional than our generation is.

First, I loved Paul' s answer. Not so much the scientific data, but his experience with the kids and the Principal. The Principal: that defender of the common sense. To a large it is the common sense which is to be blamed, for, as we all know, it is un-critical and it always follows the shortest path.

I'd like to call the attention to one more issue that has not been raised here: what about all those knowledge managers? Namely, all those administrative that decide in terms of cost-opportunity, investment-profit,and the like? Any scientific enterprise is nowadays strongly permeated by those guys. Scientists depend, it appears, nowadays to a large extent on them. And it seems that no one focuses on their serious sins. Let's just emender that jargon: the CEO's, the decision-takers…! Awful language. Eve more awful reality...

DEAR ANDRAS AND ALL, I am very busy, but I am glad I have opportunity to answer Andras' Qs recently posted: 'What do you think are there so many bad people? Or so many indifferent and conformist folks? Or is the operation of the society order so deformed and incomprehensible as we are in such a difficult situation?'

IMHO, there so many bad people, so many indifferent and conformist folks, a deformed society, people who are selfish, and this deformed earth that we humans have caused, because of original sin, and that leads to our disobedience to God, and that means actual sins.  HUMANS TAKE OUR STEWARDSHIP OF THE EARTH LIGHTLY.  WHAT CAN WE EXPECT WHEN HUMANS TURN OUR BACKS ON GOD?  

http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/if-a-grain-of-wheat-dies-it-bears-much-fruit

Dear Paul,

What you explained above are accurate symptoms if mainstream (democratic) societies.

1) ”in my country is that only 1/3 of children have regular contact with their father,”

→ direct or indirect non function families

2) „teachers in schools are penalized unless the children in their too-large classrooms graduate from their course” → pre-coded indirect lack of quality demands

3) “in many competitions, all participants receive an award” → meaningless pseudo-democratic attitude

4) the top of Buggins’ turn (contra-selection): “too many strangers asked them what planet I was from” → of course not you are contra-selected but your evaluators are a product of mainstream Buggins’ turn. This is a real paradox ex earth habitants call ET (planet) the man conserving and developing his own humanity.

By the way I am treated like you, except, I do not know my nickname.

Dear Cecilia,

Your hamster example is the perfect educational antithesis of the good stewardship Miranda expounded earlier. By the way, children protected from guilt they initiated its cause is the best way to produce unconscious consumers. The answer of the teacher - "don't cry, we'll buy another" - was another top of teaching unsuitable human behaviour: how worthless life is or life can be a result of money transaction. I am afraid these children have been educated not to build a sustainable world.

Dear Miranda,

Unfortunately (because of facts), I agree with you. However, my happiness is receiving and sharing your ideas and good intentions. It is a positive feeling not to be alone among black and grey sheep.

Dear Paul, I do appreciate your comment to my paper. That paper is part of research I ' ve been carrying about how living things compute, My next paper is abut the information processing in the immune system.

If we remember the de Solla Price's quite suggestive distinction between little science and big science, it is in the latter where knowledge managers and the like claim to have become as necessary conditions for science to (what about that, huh?).

The freedom and liberty of scientists is a time that somehow provokes a kind of "saudades"...

There is no original sin, but uncritical scientist are sinful. Trumpeting a press release without reviewing the original paper and others in the field is not scientific. Methane vents are well-known and it is well-known that they come and go. Methane vents are assumed connected to tectonics, though not proven. Methane has been linked to mass extinctions, but not proven. The microbial methane production required massive volcanism to support it. Cause or effect?

Demetris was correct in saying the problem is scientists(?) who are only too happy to find what the funding agency was seeking and expounding on it without validation.

Dear Joseph,

Of course, reliable sources are needed to have clear and consistent opinions. Regarding the presented news, one should wait some months or more to read a scientific publication about it.

I have found some more details relevant to this case:

https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/large-methane-plumes-discovered-on-laptev-continental-slope-boundary-evidence-of-possible-methane-hydrate-release/

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Arctic%20ice/Big%20methane%20release.pdf

http://www.biogeosciences.net/4/521/2007/bg-4-521-2007.pdf

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FDirk_Nuernberg2%2Fpublication%2F225759154_13C_isotope_depletion_in_ikaite_crystals_evidence_for_methane_release_from_the_Siberian_shelves_%2Flinks%2F54aeaa030cf29661a3d3a311.pdf&ei=WADqVNmZAsyyUabNgsAE&usg=AFQjCNHa55z5H1nQYtePIlHCw-FjiJL_TQ

I repeat: Is it sufficient to find a tiny piece of truth without building it into the wholeness?

Truth and wholeness depends on the truth. There are many truths of no importance. It is true that my mother had red hair (really bright red hair). Is that important to the stability of the local economy or the low temperature at my house tomorrow? Surely my mother's hair color is part of the wholeness. Please tell me where to build it into the wholeness. 

It is true that methane seeps from the ocean floor and from the pond near my house. Has anyone demonstrated a model that builds these methane seeps into the wholeness? How can they? No one knows or even has a good idea of the earth's methane budget. Not even close.

Similary we talk about carbon capture and reduce emission. but still several industries are emitting and no care is taken by the industry, regulators or  the local people . In spite of  non utilization of available technology government and policy makers are spending money in search of new technology to reduce the same.

Dear Joseph,

It seems that the thread is going to direct to metaphysics. Let us start with the truth. As I have learned there is absolute and relative truth. The absolute truth is impossible to approach for a human. Or there is an infinite process made by immeasurable generations of people to approach truth. Relative truth is what is accepted by people to be reproducible and suits (scientifically?) acknowledged facts, events and processes. Relative truth can be restricted and subjective too. Subjective truth like morphs are the hardest things even the explanation of absolute truth (as a thinking experiment) is powerless against it.

By the way even the word “red” cannot be a truth for a not English native speaker because “rot”, “rouge”, “rojo”, “vermelho”, etc. are not the same colours.

Dear Andras

I had no metaphysical intent. I would be surprised if anyone in any language that recognizes red hair of any shade or hue would dispute that my mother's hair was red. I would be surprised if anyone, except those committed to metaphysical frivolousness, would dispute that it was true that my mother's hair was red. 

I was addressing your question," Is it sufficient to find a tiny piece of truth without building it into the wholeness?" by asking about a tiny truth and wholeness. Any meaning in your question escapes me, in particular, to the context of methane seeps and the seque to a just and sustainable world.

Dear Paul,

I am aware that nobody could formulate better and more correctly the innate objective of an open scientific forum than you did. I am very thankful to you for it.

Dear All,

Please, read this contribution and distribute it among all who can be contacted:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229

Ripple, W. J. et al. World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

Dear András, 

Science has followed the root of research...

Between many reasons of climatic change, the greenhause effect ( Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated cases )

The emissions of metant in the fermes in the reality id not dandereous, it is in result of réaction with CO2, produced oxigen ...

The main effect & probleme of increased greenhouse gas emissions is global warming.

Not all hypothèses was validante ..