There was a time when the clergy and scientists harmoniously declared that the Earth was FLAT. This dogma was mandated and forced upon everyone until the flat-earth theory was undeniably disproved.
Presently, the hot-air notion that carbon emissions are causing global warming is backed by scientific dogma. The hot-air dogma has been repeatedly drummed into people’s heads. Any who dare to question the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) dogma are ridiculed and labelled as ignorant sceptics.
There is supposedly sufficient scientific basis behind the hot-air notion of the correlation between carbon emissions and global warming that is so overwhelming that to question or debate the notion is deemed irresponsible and ignorant. In other words, the proponents of this notion expect everyone to swallow their dogma.
One has to wonder why this carbon dogma has been elevated to an unassailable “fact”. Why are all scientists expected to accept the carbon dogma and convince the public to believe in it?
There was a time when environmentalists were very concerned with pollution issues, and they constantly warned people of the dangers of nuclear reactors. It was not long ago that environmentalists cringed, violently protested and even stopped trains when nuclear power was advocated, and they were quick to bring up the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to justify their concerns. Many of these same environmentalists have now been “educated” to believe that nuclear power is carbon friendly. These “newly enlightened” environmentalists have shifted 180 degrees in their positions regarding nuclear energy. They now openly accept that nuclear power will combat global warming because they believe so strongly in the notion that carbon emissions are directly responsible for global warming.
The environmentalists who now propose nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions have been “educated” to forget that many nuclear reactors use water to cool them. The heated water is then discharged into the streams. This may be defined as carbon friendly, but it is detrimental to the environment. These new “greens” were once the “save-the-planet” environmentalists, but they have been “educated” to now actively lobby for more nuclear reactors to be constructed! So thorough has been their “education” that these environmentalists have forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the fact that nuclear reactors heat up the rivers and kill the fish. They have forgotten that nuclear waste is not really biodegradable. In short, they have forgotten their self-proclaimed mission to protect the planet.
According to the current “scientific” notion, carbon emissions in the atmosphere are the main culprits for global warming, and all other factors are disregarded in the ETS equation. Most scientists are supporting the carbon dogma by claiming that increases in glacial melting, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water temperatures around the world indicate that the truth behind the carbon dogma is irrefutable. However, the mere existence of these symptoms does not necessarily make them correlative, and as such they cannot conclusively support, let alone verify, the carbon dogma. This begs the question, “Does the concept necessarily explain the environmental symptoms, and do the symptoms preclude the validity of any other concept?”
My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.
It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.
In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!
It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?
Amitakh Stanford
Presently, the hot-air notion that carbon emissions are causing global warming is backed by scientific dogma. The hot-air dogma has been repeatedly drummed into people’s heads. Any who dare to question the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) dogma are ridiculed and labelled as ignorant sceptics.
There is supposedly sufficient scientific basis behind the hot-air notion of the correlation between carbon emissions and global warming that is so overwhelming that to question or debate the notion is deemed irresponsible and ignorant. In other words, the proponents of this notion expect everyone to swallow their dogma.
One has to wonder why this carbon dogma has been elevated to an unassailable “fact”. Why are all scientists expected to accept the carbon dogma and convince the public to believe in it?
There was a time when environmentalists were very concerned with pollution issues, and they constantly warned people of the dangers of nuclear reactors. It was not long ago that environmentalists cringed, violently protested and even stopped trains when nuclear power was advocated, and they were quick to bring up the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to justify their concerns. Many of these same environmentalists have now been “educated” to believe that nuclear power is carbon friendly. These “newly enlightened” environmentalists have shifted 180 degrees in their positions regarding nuclear energy. They now openly accept that nuclear power will combat global warming because they believe so strongly in the notion that carbon emissions are directly responsible for global warming.
The environmentalists who now propose nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions have been “educated” to forget that many nuclear reactors use water to cool them. The heated water is then discharged into the streams. This may be defined as carbon friendly, but it is detrimental to the environment. These new “greens” were once the “save-the-planet” environmentalists, but they have been “educated” to now actively lobby for more nuclear reactors to be constructed! So thorough has been their “education” that these environmentalists have forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the fact that nuclear reactors heat up the rivers and kill the fish. They have forgotten that nuclear waste is not really biodegradable. In short, they have forgotten their self-proclaimed mission to protect the planet.
According to the current “scientific” notion, carbon emissions in the atmosphere are the main culprits for global warming, and all other factors are disregarded in the ETS equation. Most scientists are supporting the carbon dogma by claiming that increases in glacial melting, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water temperatures around the world indicate that the truth behind the carbon dogma is irrefutable. However, the mere existence of these symptoms does not necessarily make them correlative, and as such they cannot conclusively support, let alone verify, the carbon dogma. This begs the question, “Does the concept necessarily explain the environmental symptoms, and do the symptoms preclude the validity of any other concept?”
My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.
It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.
In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!
It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?
Amitakh Stanford
