RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Countrymen,
In my unlettered opinion, the global warming, if there is such, is ordinary cyclical and, to the extent human-driven — and such must be the case somehow for no activity is without consequences — the culprit is not burning of fossil fuels — which my friend who manages high-tech drilling tells me is good for rapidly expanding rates of use for the next 400 years at least, both oil and especially natural gas! — but the rearing and destruction of animals, especially fish but also cattle.
Factory fishing is doing no one knows what to the oceans’ natural cycles and rearing land animals for meat is well known as the world’s largest source of pollution — not to mention grinding sorrow, which itself has definite consequences — such as the animals’ revenge that is called mad cow and another of their revenges that is called AIDs (from Africans copulating with monkeys).
There is no need to use animals for food, and, to turn herbivores into cannibals is evil. The structure of being is angered by these activities — and that is the source of excess heat on the planet, such as there is.
Related 1: RIP: The Great Cholesterol Scam (1955 – 2015)
Update 1: Richard Fernandez: The Global World Hits A Snag
Update 2: The Z Man: The Eco-Struggle
Update 3: Seven Earth Day predictions that failed spectacularly
Update 4: The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.
In reality, the scientific question is more about where you put the line in the cascading list below:
1. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and contributes to warming
2. Projected CO2 increases can cause roughly 1 degree Celsius of warming
3. The warming we have seen to date is primarily due to CO2
4. Positive feedback factors aside from CO2 will multiply the warming by 3x to 6x
5. The warming caused by the feedback cycles will lead to a catastrophe
Guess what – the 97% of scientists consensus that we keep hearing about pertains to #1 and #2. Once you get to #3 the consensus gets a little shakier, and the percentage of scientists signing up for #4 and #5 is way, way smaller …. The warming crowd and their political allies want to keep the argument as the simple yes / no, which implies that you either buy all 5 or you are a moron who doesn’t even believe #1 or #2.
Update 5: Norman Rogers: Scientocracy Busts Open the Motivation behind Global Warming Politics
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
