I see you are here so before we redo the Crevo wars I will say have a blessed day and take care.
I have made my point and lurkers will know at least some of us here understand real science (<>AGW).
Between this and Vaxxers if I was an external observer I would rightly say we went around the bend.
God bless
LOL freedumb2003! Do you take me for a “Crevo warrior?”
Thanks for your kind words of blessing!
Questions: What is a “Vaxxer?” I am unfamiliar with that term. Also, what is the significance of the open caret/closed caret sign — “<>” — with respect to AGW (anthropogenic global warming)?
FWIW, AGW strikes me as being a highly unlikely story. It certainly cannot account for the Mediaeval Warming Period (~400 years in duration), or the Mini Ice Age that followed it (~400 years in duration). Not to mention that there have been no signs of global warming in the present century as the AGW model predicts. So climatologists changed the rhetoric from global warming to climate change.
But the climate is always changing. If you look at the historical record, it’s hard to see that CO2 emissions is the consistent cause of such changes. One supposes that during the Mediaeval Warming Period, there was very little by way of CO2 emissions given that the warming occurred in a pre-industrial setting. And yet Greenland was green. The record shows Greenland then supported all kinds of agricultural activities, which today it does not.
However, were it the case that CO2 emissions is the cause of climate change, then it seems to me the best remedy would be for all human beings (and other living animals) to just stop breathing. After all, we inhale oxygen, and exhale CO2. But if we were to do that, plant life would die as well. For they “inhale” CO2, and “exhale” oxygen. This is the fundamental symbiosis of living Nature.
But if one raises an objection to the “blessed” theory, one is called a “climate denier” or a “science hater.” I have already acknowledged that I do not deny that climate changes. I am merely suggesting that science may be barking up the wrong tree in saying that CO2 emissions is the primary driver of this change.
Likewise, I regard Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as another unlikely story. Bottom-line, ToE regards human nature itself as “evolving” over time. And yet if one is a student of human culture and history, going back to the beginning of the human records — which date back to something like 20,000 B.C. — what one finds most striking is how little human nature has actually changed over time. That being the case, I would argue that human nature is not “evolving,” rather it is a “given” — something relatively fixed over the passage of time, from generation to generation, first to last.
The idea of an “evolving humanity” strikes me as a very weak myth — but it is a concept that clever politicians can manipulate to the distinct disadvantage of actual human beings…. Just look at what Hitler did with it, or the eugenicist Margaret Sanger for instance.
But if human nature “evolves,” can we ask: Toward what is it evolving? Machine life???
Just some thoughts. Thanks so much for writing, freedumb2003 — it’s good to see you again!
God bless!