Climate Change

...

 

Yes, and their most advanced sundials couldn't predict a desert. According to archaeologist Dr. David Wright, from Seoul National University, South Korea, starting around 8,000 years ago in the regions around the Nile, pastoral communities began to appear and spread westward. Overgrazing removed more and more vegetation, increasing the albedo (the amount of sunlight that reflects off the earth’s surface) of the land. This affected atmospheric conditions enough to reduce monsoon rainfall, which caused more desertification, resulting in a feedback loop which eventually spread over all of the modern Sahara.
What Really Turned the Sahara Desert From a Green Oasis Into a Wasteland? | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
Humans may have transformed the Sahara from lush paradise to barren desert
Did Humans Create the Sahara Desert? - Science & research news | Frontiers
Did humans create the Sahara desert? New research challenges the idea that changes in the Earth's orbit triggered Sahara desertification
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-humans-sahara.html

 

Think of the money we'll save on heat in the winter, though...

 

it has nothing to do with overgrazing it has all to do with the giant ball of fire we are orbiting we re currently between 2 ice ages when its little warmer

 

"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak - and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicistknown for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013.[2]

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

 

And you know this how? Are you a climate scientist? Prof. Wright obviously thinks otherwise, and has research data to back it up. Dogmatic statements without sources don't carry much weight.

 

He's gittin' up there, isn't he? Almost as old as Scratcho! Yes, he has distinguished credentials. But other experts in the field have strong reservations about the objectivity of his opinions on this matter. He has the reputation of being a contrarian, and his skepticism includes doubting the relationship between second hand smoking and lung cancer. He has a web page on the website of the conservative Heartland Institute, which promoted denial of a relationship between tobacco and cancer and now is a major promoter of climate change denial. He was affiliated with the right wing libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, and his research has been funded by Peabody Energy Co., a coal company that funds research critical of climate change. Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change His professionalism and intellectual honesty have been questioned by some of his peers (e.g., Prof. K.A. Emanuel, MIT; C.S. Bretherton, University of Washington). 22 MIT climate scientists tell Donald Trump: Don't listen to our retired colleague, climate change is real And importantly, he's an outlier. Looks like Meagain beat me to it!

 

Can’t have that! A contrarian?!? *gasp*

 

I have zero problem with the support of coal and fossil fuels. Try getting rid of that stuff today and see how efficiently the world runs.

 

Wouldn't want to get rid of it today or overnight, but it makes sense to transition to less polluting energy sources: wind, solar, etc. My problem with the support of coal and fossil fuels is similar to my problem with big tobacco: when folks in those industries sponsor disinformation to resist such a transition.

 

A person who is reflexively contrarian can be too critical of mainstream science and too accepting of pseudoscience. I know a guy who is one of the leading experts on wind energy in the state, but is also a contrarian who is inclined to believe the unbelievable simply because mainstream science doesn't. By that, I mean ancient aliens, pyramids in the Antarctic, etc.--stuff you might believe. Since you seem to accept the notions that a reptilian elite from outer space is out to control us and that the Mayan calendar is somehow prophetic, the two of you would probably get along great. But I tend to favor rationality. I think it's pretty well-established that second hand smoke can cause cancer. Lindzen isn't convinced. Skepticism is useful up to a point, but there comes a point when it isn't.

 

I never said that I believed that second-hand smoke doesn’t cause lung cancer or that I believe Reptilians control the planet. I don’t accept or reject the opinions of people in a complete broad stroke of black or white. I can agree or see truth in one idea of a particular individual, and yet see another view of theirs to be too extreme or unrealistic. It’s good to have a nuanced approach. I’m open-minded to many possibilities, but some things I’m willing to entertain more than others. Reptilians COULD be real, but I would need some intriguing evidence. But just because I might not fully accept one idea, doesn’t mean I automatically dismiss other views of David Icke, or anyone else. Icke was the first person to give me insight into the coming of Oculus VR headsets as far back as 2018. I was literally telling people these were coming a bit earlier than anyone knew of them existing. Doesn’t seem that the first wave in 2021-2022 of the Metaverse has caught on completely yet, but thanks to Icke I knew and was warning people about the Metaverse before it had a name a few years before anyone could conceive of it. I look into many people and many theories. Agnosticism is a good place to approach subjects.

 

I’m just curious, do you reject aliens or just ancient aliens? Because we are nearly at full disclosure of the existence of ET at this point. If they exist now, do you reject that they existed and visited in ancient times?

 

I try to have substantial evidence for beliefs that are supposed to be factual. If and when ET makes his debut, I might be there to get his autograph (assuming he's friendly).

 

And you’re not in any way accounting for the risks that an obsession with one’s carbon footprint can begin to erode individual liberties, such as how often you can drive, what kind of car you can drive, WHETHER you can drive at all, etc.

You seem to have zero concern with the possibility that the Captain is a liar and a lunatic, and that when we get to port we are all going to be hauled off into human trafficking from the vessel (human trafficking just another silly conspiracy theory).

I’m not sure why people think that the world is all rainbows and cotton candy, but there are real Eugenicists and Depopulation supporters in this world. There are real psychopaths and sociopaths that don’t see people as real people, but who have no empathy for others, and this makes it easier for them to ruthlessly gain positions of power and influence.

Then there are those who see no reality to conspiracies and who seem to think that there’s just a ton of honesty from politicians and the elite few who have a lot of money. I’m not sure why you would assume that.

You also seem to think that something such as the Holocaust could only exist in the past, and any conspiracy that’s ever existed could only be from a past age, or that they simply never have existed in all of history.

Today? There can’t be powerful people conspiring! That’s silly talk. There are none, and have never been any conspiracies.

The Club of Rome has a ploy, but it’s just because they care about us! There’s no one who wants to control society. How absurd! When has anyone in history been a psychopath who wants power over people? That never happens!

 

I do believe those two words are mutually exclusive. Their intersection is the null, or empty set. (A) honesty (B) Politicians