All Beliefs are Welcome Here!
“Scientists say the record heat seen in Europe but also North America and parts of Asia this year points to the influence of man-made climate change, and could become more common in future.” -KBTX News (Link to article: Animals, crops suffering as Europe's heatwave hits new highs )
The above news agency is a local station here in Central Texas.
Drought has been around as long as life on Earth. Drought has caused the collapse of civilizations in the past. The Ancient Maya are now believed to have suffered the effects of severe drought that caused the collapse of their magnificent city-states.
Humans no-doubt have had an effect on the cycles of life on Earth. But I am still on-the-fence when it comes to man-made climate change. People think greatly of themselves and imagine they can control Mother Earth. Mother Earth can take care of herself and will adjust our population accordingly when the need arises. Food supplies can dwindle, catastrophes can happen, man-made anything is minute in the grand scheme of things.
Do you think man-made climate change is going to take out life on Earth?
"But I am still on-the-fence when it comes to man-made climate change."
That is a reasonable position to take. In my estimation, man made climate change is minimal, or insignificant, compared to the physics, or politics of climate change.
What makes me laugh is the notion that "climate deniers" are some sort of exotic breed of idiot. What is idiotic to me, is when people deny the sun is getting warmer, and try to turn it into a political agenda. It's more political group think.
What is even stranger is the moronic notion of belonging to some self proclaimed moral hierarchy, putting themselves on some moral pedestal, as though they have been nominated to save the human race. I call them the "Union of Concerned Empaths", sort of the same as religious "end of the world" scare mongering zealots. They claim the industrial revolution is a plot to kill innocent people in the third world, while the third world inhabitants are having their arms chopped off by their political opposition.
If they only knew, they need to save themselves from themselves.
So, they maintain while the sun gets warmer, "they, the global warming scare mongers", will tell you the sun is cooling, which is rediculous. The physics of star evolution such as our sun maintain that this type of star gets hotter over time, until they get near the end of their life cycle. Not because the empaths and their conspiracy minions say otherwise.
Even by a mere fraction of a degree, they complain about the earth getting warmer by the same measure, as their delusions of the sun getting cooler. Or denying reality, at the same time they will tell you the earth getting warmer has nothing to do with the sun.. It's like saying the changing of the seasons has no effect on climate. What is even more idiotic, is when people deny the sun is getting warmer, and try to turn it into a political agenda.
It's not that they are stupid, or don't know better. Their idea of changing the planet is to change the politics of the planet to their own models. It's more of a lopsided Keynsian political junk economic conspiracy theory in reverse, than it is reality.
What they do is unscientific in a sense that they rely on limited data of climate fluctuation statistics that date back to the early 1900s, while claiming they know more about climate science than their idiological adversaries. They base their entire models of doom on a future prediction of sea level rise, while not one flood on earth has currently occurred due to a rise in sea levels. It is all predicated on models that will "occur" in the next 50 to 100 years, sort of like the fanatics who wrote the Book of Revelation, predicting biblical Armageddon.
If the bible fanatics are right, then what need would we have for climate empaths? If the climate empaths are right, then what need would we have for bible prophesy, unless there is that "sinister" connection between the two?
Which means the empaths are simply buying time.
The Sun does appear to be the main forcing agent in climate change. Human activity is miniscule to Sun activity. The Sun has been at it’s strongest over the past 60 years.
I’m always leery when politicians choose an agenda.
"Union of Concerned Empaths". LOL.
The argument is whether humans accelerate the already natural process of global warming. With so much at stake, I think it goes without saying that ANYthing we can do to put it off as much as possible is a good thing.
Cold places like northern Europe and the mountain areas benefitted from global warming. Remember the reports of grapes growing in Newfoundland and England? It will be that again, however, the places that are already warm - as you mentioned - Central and South America will dry up and become deserts. Not a problem 1000 years ago, but a HUGE problem now with millions upon millions of people living in these areas.
So, while I do not believe human accelerated climate change will take out life on earth, I do believe it will make it very very bad for many people here.
Your view makes sense Aurelia.
Many years ago, I read "The End of Nature" by Bill McKibben. It really persuaded my thinking. The title is misleading, he does not predict the end of life, he states that the natural cycles of the Earth have been altered by man-made climate change. He talks about the shifting growing seasons as you mentioned. The USA would no longer be the bread-basket of the World, Canada would become the major food producer.
In global warming, for example, vast expanses of the earth will, for the first time in centuries, be available for cultivation. Robert O. Mendelsohn, of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, suggests the gains in agriculture, in particular, will be greater than the losses.
I remember my profs in my Ecology classes quoting McKibben about Canada becoming the next breadbasket of the world. I remember one suggesting, not entirely tongue in cheek, that our descendants might thank us if we decided to emigrate to Canada now, and set down roots and get land before the rush.
Robert O. Mendelsohn, of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, suggests the gains in agriculture, in particular, will be greater than the losses.
I sure hope Mendelsohn's right. I remember reading that England's farmers were turning out 4 crops a year each. That's a ton of food.
With the USA no longer able to feed the world, I hope our allies (IF after this administration we have any left) will remember us kindly when we're asking for food.
"England's farmers were turning out 4 crops a year each."
The ancient Aztecs were able to accomplish the same feat on their chinampas. But they too ran into a cycle of drought and were unable to feed the growing population. During the drought years many of the Aztecs sold themselves into slavery in order to survive. Eventually the drought conditions ended and they were able to resume four crops a year.
Civilization requires a steady supply of food. When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, they were amazed at the level of success the Aztecs had reached in the art of civilization. Of course, they were aghast with their religious practices.
So many things to make it very very bad, and so little time!
human intervention in a lot of things will cause changes in many things, and I don't doubt that some change in the climate could occur due to human intervention.
But there is a bigger issue here that rarely gets addressed, by the opposition to the climate Nazis.
For every 10 people who are inadvertently "murdered by man made climate change", there are probably 100,000 who benefit from the industrial revolution in ways that no one 200 years ago could have dreamed of.
Whether they come from the University of Helsinki, or the University of What’s Happen’in Now, if it weren’t for that fact, I would not go as far as to consider them as a bunch of well educated maudlin emotional kooks. Their educational prowess does little to vindicate them in that respect.
There is plenty of scientific evidence outside of climatology to counter balance the climate nazi grievances. It is simply heavily censored by their media bedfellows, who control the entire public discourse and dialogue, creating this herd mentality. When it comes to being critical, the media is one giant mega-shit pile of criticism, grief, and angst. It’s a form of perverted psychic vampirism. A source major source of disinformation, mass strife, violence, and chaos. They have taken free speech, and turned into an abusive toxic cesspool. The thing about the information age is the truth is all around, you just need to do a little digging to unearth reality. It’s not something that jumps right out in front of your TV screen or other device.
It is not a secret that all of academia is in bed with these media circus clowns. This is how they create their overblown "consensus". These maudlin malcontents have even gone far enough to threaten prosecution of energy companies who do not bend to their whims, calling them out on a new idiotic legal jargon known as "climate deniers". Opinions notwithstanding, there is plenty of supporting hard science to refute the "conspiracy of the absurd"; exaggerated, politically motivated half truths; I would refer to it as circumstantial evidence, and it’s not hard to come by at all. You don’t half to resort entirely to climatology, but I’m sure there are plenty of esoteric climatologists who disagree with the herd, but can never be "heard" in public forums.
"Physical geography includes the following fields: geomorphology, which uses geology to study the form and structure of the surface of the earth; climatology, which involves meteorology and is concerned with climatic conditions; biogeography",
"For every 10 people who are inadvertently "murdered by man made climate change", there are probably 100,000 who benefit from the industrial revolution in ways that no one 200 years ago could have dreamed of."
Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor.
Environmental scientist Fred Singer charges that the misplaced resources going to fight a natural change that is beyond human control “will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations.”
I would change that number to a million who benefit, against zero (0) who are collateral damage, any more than they are collateral damage to any other natural disturbance.
"Environmental scientist Fred Singer"
I've never heard of him, but yes, I totally agree with what he is saying. that supports my argument more than sufficiently, and I know he is not the only one. I won't quote anyone, because my opinions or arguments are based entirely on research that I do. We are all more than capable to think for ourselves in that respect, it's only a matter of who chooses to do so, or become a sheep herder for someone else.
Climatology is only one piece of the puzzle. For example, you have solar physics, geology,
vulcanology, paleomagnetism (study of plate tectonics), magnetosphere (magnet field of earth) , VARIOUS Ice Ages that have existed on this planet etc etc
All of these topics factor heavily into HOW THE EARTHS CLIMATE HAS EVOLVED, AND HOW IT WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.
I'm not so sure the warming of weather & altering patterns is climate change at all only because it happened so fast and could actually be a partial pole shift,but they wont tell you that,but I was also reading a post on another site the other day its probably another American conspiracy theory most likely that they were saying the Greek fires were started by releasing energy lazer beams into the sky & to alter the weather around the world..for what reason IDK...I post the video below out of interest only I dont endore it..not sure if its full truths,as the Greek news mentioned arson only..But they do have these beams I know that as a fact,if they start fires is another story.. and if they alter all weather patterns around the world I'm not sure either,its a interesting topic though..
I've heard about the laser theory in reference to the Greek and California, USA fires. I'll watch the video link you posted and see what they say.