Did Man Cause Climate Change Or Vice Versa?
Climate change is not solely, mostly, or even significantly caused by man. A brief review of some important events in climatological history will help us gain some perspective.
First, there was nothing.
Then there was the “Big Bang,” according to experts. And everything.
That was a pretty big change. The biggest ever. And we didn’t even exist. The Earth was born. The planet’s entire landmass, dubbed “Pangaea,” was connected at first.
Eventually, it split up and the now separate continents drifted apart, taking up residence in roughly their current locations. Another big change. We weren’t around then, either.
Somehow, dinosaurs arrived… and then were made extinct. No Homo Sapiens trod the planet at the time. Ice Ages came… and went.
Mile-thick glacial ice sheets pushed hundreds and thousands of miles farther south in the northern hemisphere and then retreated due to a rapidly warming Earth.
Few humans, and fewer domesticated animals, existed; there were no factories and no fossil-fuel-based energy production or consumption.
Yet all these massive cosmic and planet-wide changes happened.
Ergo, it is simply and logically impossible to assert with smug certainty that humans are the cause of most or all of the climate change that may be occurring today.
We were, however, apparently the result of the many massive cosmic and global changes that preceded us.
“Man-caused climate change?” Not so much.
Climate change caused man? Maybe.
The alarmists blames nearly everything on man-caused climate change. Drought. Floods. Global warming. Global cooling. Poverty, starvation, riots, war, emigration, mudslides, increase in invasive species, the decline of the bee population, bleaching of coral reefs, and probably skyrocketing college tuition.
Using their own “reasoning,” could we also assert that climate change has caused the dramatic increase in the number of men who identify as women and vice-versa?
Just as alarmists state that global warming causes or includes global cooling (hence the need for the term “climate change”) and that one or the other — or both simultaneously — is occurring as a result of man’s activities, there are some men and women who prefer to identify as the opposite gender… or both genders at the same time… or neither gender at all.
Or as any of the other 70-some-odd currently recognized “genders.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the increase in the numbers of those confused about their gender eerily parallels the purported rise in global temperatures in the last several decades. Coincidence? I think not.
These ‘do-gooders’ are all for changing mores, changing genders, changing demographics, technological change, etc., etc.
Former President Barack Obama famously touted “change you can believe in,” and “hope and change.” However, they can’t countenance change in the things they can’t control, like the ever-changing climate of planet Earth.
There is a famous passage from the Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Some have this exactly backward. They think they can change the climate. They believe they can determine their own sex. And they will never accept otherwise. But they don’t have the courage to change their minds.
Many don’t believe in God, either. Although, ironically, many seem to believe they are God.
Clearly, they do not have the wisdom to know the difference.
Read more at American Thinker
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
James McGinn
| #
Eric, your narrative contained a promise it didn’t deliver on. So I thought I’d help you out:
Human evolution began with the emergence of monsoon climate. Monsoons climates are distinctive because they contain a very severe and deadly dry season:
Human Evolution and the Emergence of the Subconscious
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17527
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
tom0mason
| #
This planet moves through the void of space carrying with it a life force. A force that is governed by God given nature, a force that has decided that currently humans should survive a while longer. We all survive and flourish as a part of nature’s apparently chaotic cipher. We, despite so many denying God’s existence still flourish, and despite so much evidence showing that nature could, at any moment, wipe humans from the planet – from existence, still survive.
Humans live and flourish still — enjoy it and have a happy and successful new year.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO,
Long time, no read. A prosperous New Year to you and to all who read this.
I have decided to put my efforts, to convince you and PSI Readers that the multiple times observed fact that the atmosphere’s temperature has never been observed to be lower than the atmosphere’s dew point temperature; both measured at the same place and time, absolutely refute the idea known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (GHE), on hold.
And instead direct my efforts to convince you and other Believers in The Creator God and in His Son, Jesus Christ, who died because of our disobedience, but rose again to prove that we can be saved, that the Charles Darwin’s idea of Evolution is an absolutely wrong idea because the eggs laid by the female bird (Eagles for example) must be incubated for any little eagles to hatch.
For I have just concluded that one possible reason my efforts relative to the GHE has not been universally successful is that I have not been beginning at the beginning.
And you comment has just been a encouragement to me. Thank you.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom O,
Given your comment, I offer this gift for 2021 relative to ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection’ which I read at (Darwin-online.org.uk)
“Chapter VII—Instinct. I will not attempt any definition of instinct. It would be easy to show that several distinct mental actions are commonly embraced by this term; but every one understands what is meant, … .” (pp 185)
“Frederick Cavier and several of the older metaphysicians have compared instinct with habit. This comparison gives, I think, a remarkably accurate notion of the frame of mind under which an instinctive action is performed, but not of its origin.” (pp 186) In this statement Darwin replaces any action that appears to be created (original) instinct to be acquired habit for whatever reason.
“It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal structure for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of life. Under changed conditions of life, it is at least possible that slight modifications of instinct might be profitable to a species; and if it can be shown that instincts do vary over so little, then I see no difficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating variations of instinct to any extent that may profitable.” (pp 187) At least possible, might be, if it can, so little, to any extent. What just happened to so little?
“No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection, except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations.” (pp187) A clear clarification of so little. Having clearly established, by Darwin’s own words, the condition that would (not could) refute his idea of the evolution of living, complex forms that can be observed, I could stop here.
However, I must disclose, with his own words, that he should have realized what this evidence which absolutely refuted his idea On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. For on page 190 he wrote: “The possibility, or even probability of inherited variation of instinct in the state of nature will be strengthened by briefly considering a few cases under domestication. We shall thus also be enabled to see the respective parts which habit and the selection of so-called accidental variations have played in modifying the mental qualities of our domestic animals.”
I fast forward to page 192 where he wrote: “Natural instincts are lost under domestication; a remarkable instance of this is seen in these breeds of fowls which very rarely or never become “broody,” that is, never wish to sit on their eggs.”
Next, I fast forward to page 194 where he wrote: “The occasional habit of birds laying their eggs in other birds’ nests, either of the same or of a distinct species, is not very uncommon with the Gallinaceae; and this perhaps explains the origin of a singular instinct in the allied group of ostriches. For several hen ostriches in the case of the American species, unite and lay first a few eggs in one nest and then in another; and these are hatched by the males. This instinct may probably be accounted for by the fact of the hens laying a large number of eggs; but, as in the case of the cuckoo, at intervals of two or three days. This instinct, however, of the American ostrich has not as yet been perfected; for a surprising number of eggs lie strewed over the plains, so that in one day’s hunting I picked up not less than twenty lost and wasted eggs.”
Before I went back to the beginning and started to read what Darwin had actually written, I had written an essay titled: Darwin’s Idea (Evolution) About The Origin Of Life Is A Wrong Scientific Idea. My essay began: “The objective of this essay is to establish, by a video (https://vimeo.com/224854624) about the nesting bald eagles in Smith Rock Oregon State Park (2017) by George Lepp, that Dawin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life is wrong.”
I sent this essay in 2018 to ‘Church’ friends and family. but no one seemed really excited; possibly because they already ‘believed’ that Darwin’s idea was wrong. But after reading the following, all scientists should ‘know’ that his idea is absolutely wrong. For all bird egg’s need to be ‘incubated’ if any little birds are to hatch from any eggs that the female bird lays.
For Darwin had to know that when a chicken sits on an egg, it incubates it. To incubate means to keep something safe and ‘warm’ so that it can grow. But I do not read the word ‘incubate’ in the 31 pages he wrote about the topic of INSTINCT.
Have a good New Year, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Intuition keeps pace with…..
Instinct is the first cousin of intuition. I can feel it.
Cheers. Matt
Reply