NASA admits climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbit, not because of SUVs and fossil fuels
(www.sott.net)
🔍 Notable Narrative Buster
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
I'm just confused by your logic. The Sahara formed into a desert type environment approximately 11000 years ago. Humanity was supposedly nomadic (not agricultural) stone implements and not much else technologically. Thinking animal skin clothing, possibly wooden spears with stone heads, etc. How exactly did they cut down all the trees and make the Sahara into desert from once lush fauna? The theory of anthropogenic climate change comes from the last 140 years or so from the beginning of the Industrial age. Which deserts have been formed in the last 140 years? All the ones that I am aware of were for far older than 140 years. Ancient manuscripts describe the big famous ones in excellent detail. I am just trying to figure out which ones are newly formed? The dust bowl in the 30's was completely recovered farmland within a decade or so. This was an object lesson about farming practices. The land recovered because rain kept coming and they stopped over utilizing the same farm land. They restarted rotational crop farming. I guess my point is that the land restores itself if the rain keeps coming. The changes in rain patterns are not manmade and the Earth is not warming in any unusual or alarming rate. We just happened to be in a warming cycle. When it turns toward another cooling cycle, will this also be because of human beings?
Grazing and hunting and fire. I already said that. I have said a number of things you keep ignoring. That is obnoxious. Anyone can look this shit up. For example:
Humans as Agents in the Termination of the African Humid Period
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2017.00004/full
"This paper explores scenarios whereby humans could be viewed as active agents in landscape denudation."
He has a theory, he finds data that may support this theory, however almost all the sources he cites have competing theories. This is a possibility with no way to resolve the question. If northern Africa was grassland, why did it not spread. The grazing animals would have moved further south into central africa. Herds that were this large would have dramatically changed the central African continent into more grassland. The theory is that grazing animals affect the area once the herd becomes large enough. They enter a more wooded area and begin damaging the forest ecosystem causing a recession in the wood line. This gives way to more grass and shrubs rather than trees whose primary methods of reproduction are destroyed by the grazing animals. Over time, the trees are reduced by changes in temperature, natural fires, disease and insect activity. Thus giving rise to more grass and shrubs that provide additional food resources to the grazing animals allowing the herd to expand and create more ecological changes. See, I can make up stuff that you can neither prove or disprove. I could find data to help corroborate my theory, but I honestly am not inclined, because it is simply a waste of time. Unless some rich person wants to fund me to sit around making up some science sounding stuff to promote my theory. This is how modern science works. Whomever is funding the work gets the conclusions they want or else there is no further funding to be had. If these theories were decades old and had no relation to furthering the agenda of anthropogenic climate change, I would view them less cynically, however these types of "scientific" theories have abounded of late and so they do not carry the same weight as less politically convenient theories. If this doesn't strike you as being overly convenient in tune with the current agenda, then I am sure you don't see it. I view almost all theories with equal skepticism until tangible and convincing proof is offered. Not one single resource you have provided had anything more than a theory. Theories are great, if they can be verified or disproven. If they cannot, then they are simply excercises of thought.
But you have been stating your own theory or belief or whatever it is as fact. I am telling you there is information to the contrary and you can improve your game by finding out what you can to educate yourself or you can not. I would want to find out more if I were you. If you were me you would want to put it that way. It's cool, dexter. No hard feelings, have a good night.
I have been reading your links. The issue is that the industrial age is what they are saying has increased anthropogenic climate change. That is roughly within the last 140 years. When they start in on talking about "evidence" from thousands of years ago, before there was any written records, it is hard to take seriously any conclusions they draw. We don't even really know how the pyramids were built in Egypt from 2500 BC, yet they are going to say with any certainty what happened 8000 years ago, 11k years ago, 85k years ago. It seems absurd and the timing is very suspicious. There is and agenda to curb human progress for the majority of human beings, just not for the rich, wannabe "elite". They can't even hide the hypocracy. They have multiple homes, consume ridiculous amounts of fuel and energy, they fly around in private jets and boats, all while going to places together and talk about how all the rest of us can reduce our "carbon footprint". I simply don't trust anyone on tbe scientific field anymore, unless they have hard evidence. Suppositions, inferences and theories can have all kinds of circumstantial evidence, however most are simply a possibility. The evidence you provided were all just theories with no real evidence. The evidence was bits of data that could mean multiple possibly theories, but they propose one that is conveniently in line with the current agenda. Does it not make you the least bit suspicious? We have seen that there has been a tremendous amount of corruption and gross incompetence and ignorance among the entire field lately. Especially with the entire COVID pandemic. Have you not seen the massive amount of falsified data? The majority of the scientific community went along with this false narrative, even though the evidence was false and the data was manipulated. Don't you think that it is possible that this same type of manipulation is possible in other fields of science?
Early human impacts and ecosystem reorganization in southern-central Africa
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/did-humans-shape-landscape-fire-85000-years-ago-180977669/
Beginning in roughly 10,000 B.C., people around the world adopted large-scale farming as part of the Neolithic Revolution. But humans in need of resources have been shaping their surroundings for much, much longer than that. As a new study published in the journal Science Advances suggests, Stone Age people in southeastern Africa used fire to intentionally transform the landscape around Lake Malawi some 85,000 years ago.
“This is the earliest evidence I have seen of humans fundamentally transforming their ecosystem with fire,” says lead author Jessica Thompson, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University, in a statement. “It suggests that by the Late Pleistocene, humans were learning to use fire in truly novel ways. In this case, their burning caused replacement of the region’s forests with the open woodlands you see today.”
These are excellent displays of guess work. The data these people have composed is estimating human habitation and technology for 200k years ago? Seriously? I admit, most of the geologic terminology is beyond me. Geology has not been any area that I have researched. Considering that these very same scientists were in universal agreement that there were no communities of humans with enough free time to build permanent megalithic structures until the beginning of civilization in the lower region of modern day Iraq, approximately 5000 BC. However Goebeckli Tepe just threw that all out the window. No we are led to believe that they can determine arson 85k years ago. This is quite the leap for me to be able to take very seriously. This is guess work. Find some data, come up with a theory, but there is no way to confirm or dismiss the theory because we have no way of proving or disproving it. The scientific community also believed that the city of Troy was made up as a story by Homer, until they found the ruins of Troy. This was not anywhere close to as old as what these folks are proposing. This coincides in 2021 perfectly with the concept that humans are capable and even responsible for climate change. Is it not convenient to further the climate change theory? I don't know how old you are, but I remember the mongering about the coming of another Ice Age in the 70's. Then there was the depletion of the ozone in the early 80's, then it was Acid rain on the late 80's, then it was global warming in the 90's, then when the world wasn't getting warmer, they pointed to any change in weather and called it global climate change. They have been beating that drum ever since. This is questionable at best. You have obviously convinced yourself that this is fact, it is apparent that we are at an impasse. The only thing I can say at this point is that we will see. When the world doesn't become Mad Max, then I guess I am right. If it does, then I guess you are right.
Those are just some examples of information about this. Read Schauberger, please and understand how when the trees are removed by burning or otherwise the soil gets baked. Temperatures rise due to loss of shade causing increased evaporation. Too much evaporation predictably...dries out the new desert, killing the microbial life in the once living soil. There will be less rainfall due to the aridity. If there is rain then flooding occurs due to the relative impermeability of the ground.
Trees are the heatsinks of the planet. They cool the ground and help it retain moisture. Of course climate is going to change when you take so many away. It's hotter, more arid, it's harder to sustain life...They just wanted grasslands for their herds but it was done so much the land couldn't support the grasses anymore. I would think at the end of the ice age there would tend to be a lot of water freeing up globally but maybe not in the Sahara. They went in the opposite way and dried up.
I will take a look at his data, his theory and his conclusions. On the surface, it seems counter intuitive. I grew up in Northern California. The massive wild fires have been an annual occurrence for as long as I can remember. They weren't this bad when I was a kid, but the changes to the lumber industry and even the rural folks being able to chop down trees for firewood was banned and eliminated. This makes for more dead wood that becomes tinder for outrageously massive fires. Most of the time these fires were caused by lightning and sometimes they were caused by careless campers or rural inhabitants, but after the devestating fire, the soil was regenerated by the fires and the forests restored quickly. Within a few years, we were back to those areas and camping again in the Boy Scouts. You wouldn't even be able to tell that there was ever a fire. They have found that most of the new fires were arson, within the last decade or so. Some have been because of the cartel sending their people up to burn entire forests, just to eliminate a legal pot farm. Nowadays, there are arsonists that are setting the fires because of climate change. From my own personal experience, it seems counter intuitive. I will look at what Schauberger has proposed. I will also look into him as a scientist and see where his funding came from. I think it is important to know where he is coming from and what his background and supporters are. I unfortunately find this is necessary, based on the number of fake studies, theories and falfied data that has been revealed over the least 10 years.
Okay, so I started looking into Schauberger. This is Viktor Schauberger, correct? This is more interesting and not at all modern day pseudo science. This is going to take me a lot longer than I expected, but you have piqued my curiousity. Some of what I have read about his beliefs in water seem inherently or instinctively correct, but it is going to take a lot more reading to get the full picture. I am still a bit skeptical about 8500 years old humans burning a quarter of a continent and turning it into desert, but I will get back to your after I have had some time to study. It may take a while, but thank you for pointing this information out.