Actually, think it started out as global cooling. 
In 1960s and 70s, the threat was a new ice age.
Sometime in 1980s “global warming” snuck in.
1 Like
I think it was all the hot air from Jimmy Carter.
I started as weather
The Greenhouse Effect
A green house is made of glass (and supporting structures).
Glass is impervious to infra red light.
When the sun shines the glass absorbs the IR, heats up and warms the interior of the greenhouse.
The greenhouse is enclosed, no wind can go through and remove the heat (unless windows are provided).
On a sunny day the interior of an unventilated greenhouse can easily exceed 100-Fahrenheit.
Along comes a scientists, “we are polluting the atmosphere” (s)he says.
“Fuck off!” is the reply.
Scientist thinks for a bit … all this gaseous effluent is providing a blanket around the earth, you can see the smog like a great enclosure … heating up the world like a greenhouse.
…
So what is needed is a comparative test for the amount of IR reaching the surface of our world.
Ahh … procuring historical data could be a bit tricky … hmmm
85% of statistics are made-up on the spot.
Scientists (probably encouraged by Big Pharma) said:
Phenacetin is a marvellous remedy. It defeats headache and cold symptoms.
( prolonged use of Phenacetin destroys your kidneys, which is why you can’t find it anymore )
Thalidomide is a marvellous treatment for expectant mothers experiencing difficulties during pregnancy.
( BTW your child will be born without limbs, or maybe only half of the required amount)
Why would you trust a scientist? They are only useful for describing or analysing effects that can already be observed.
1 Like
In the beginning was the world. The original soothsayer was misheard, they thought he said “word”.
The world was a big rock covered with an atmosphere consisting of gaseous elements which had achieved the minimum energy state for the environment at the time. The CO2 content of the atmosphere was measured in percent, tens of percent. After all why would a reactive gas such as Oxygen exist in a higher energy state when there were plenty of other elements around all wanting to react with it and in so doing reduce their energy state (and complete some electron-shells).
Then along came some prehistoric plant-life. How it got here is the subject for another thread, but said plant-life was a form of algae and it set-to synthesising foods substances from the CO2 in the atmosphere. The plant-life lived in local colonies, thrived and covered the majority of the world’s surface. This prolific plant-life was so effective at converting CO2 into Oxygen and other things that after a long while there was not much CO2 left in the atmosphere.
Don’t believe me? Fossils of this species are abundant all around the world if you know what to look for. Examples of this organism still exist in waters off the Australian coast. It has died out almost everywhere because secondary life forms deposed it from its environment. Also in current times the plankton found in the oceans now performs a huge part of the Oxygen synthesis along with other terrestrial based plant life.
So… still think CO2 is a bad thing?
I have been unable to find a picture of a man standing in front of a small cliff. In the surface of said cliff-face could clearly be seen the outline of a giant fossil, about 30 feet high, ten to fifteen feet wide and shaped like some of the posts found on a dockside for tying up ships. The dock-side post are of course only about 2 feet high, but the vaguely mushroom shape is unmistakable.
Where did “the world” come from? It all must have had a genesis. Did nothing explode and create everything?
I believe that the universe is infinite. Or do I mean perpetual…?
A black hole absorbs all nearby matter and/or energy. In fact I was taught that nothing escapes a black hole, and then I discovered that people are analysing the emissions from the edges of black holes ??
So I submit … the energy within a black hole builds to the point where the energy content exceeds the abilities of the enclosure to contain it. Then there is an explosion of plasma or something … and a whole new phenomenon is born. It would appear that the last one was about 14 billion years ago.
The fact that “the consensus” is that the universe is 14 billion years old is merely evidence that the regeneration cycle is perpetual … IMHO
The “world” is merely an accumulation of loose bits that has grown into a rather large object. The accumulation process is ongoing.
We don’t know what black holes are, really.
I heard Barbara Marciniak talking about black holes as entry points to other universes, while white holes are exit points such as our sun.
I’m struggling with such concepts as:
There is an infinite number of universes.
There are worlds where time progresses from future to past, which can be proven mathematically.
In our universe, all timelines are occurring simultaneously, our past, present and future.
There is an infinite number of “futures” and we choose one.
(One man’s future may not be the future for others)
etc., etc.
That is one guess as to what and how. But where did the first black-hole come from?
It is the concept of “beginning” and “end” which is causing the problem.
1 Like
Truth is the problem. Postmodernism believes we all have our own version of truth.
1 Like
Have you read the case of Napoleon Chagnon the last ethnographer?
I think that there are some holes in the theory that the universe is 14 billion years old, started with a big bang and that there’s no force that can overcome gravity when a star collapses. If you think that we know all there is to know about how stuff behaves and how things got to be where they are now, I’d say that you’re very optimistic. The same goes with LastManOut, invoking some mysterious ultimate force and calling it God doesn’t mean he’s got it all figured out, either.
God is unfathomable.
There.
LastManOut is OK.
1 Like
Yes, I agree, I respect people of faith and try not to disparage their beliefs. I’m just a hard core skeptic.
Explaining things with something unexplainable is unsatisfying to me.
I’m more testy with “scientists” who think they’ve got everything figured out, especially the pseudoscientists who are the subject this thread.
1 Like
Ditto - even the old adage - ‘‘in the long run we are all dead’’ Keynes.
Is up for interpretation when you ask the simple question - what IS death anyway?
“Postmodernists,” have achieved the ability to write about their thoughts in a uniquely impenetrable manner. Their neo-baroque prose style with its inner clauses, bracketed syllables, metaphors and metonyms, verbal pirouettes, curlicues and figures is not a mere epiphenomenon; rather, it is a mocking rejoinder to anyone who would try to write simple intelligible sentences in the modernist tradition.” ~ Marvin Harris