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:
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?