Search This Blog

Sunday, May 04, 2014

Global Warming Hysteria and Evolutionary Thinking

Evolutionary thinking makes people do stupid things. That's right, I said it! Many supporters of evolution are ignorant of the flaws in evolutionary sciences — and I believe many are willingly so, since they refuse to examine evidence that challenges their paradigm.


Credit: Ted Scambos & Rob Bauer, NSIDC
Many scientists believe that global warming (or "global climate change") is a fraud and dare to doubt the "consensus". For example, this NASA scientist believes that it is nonsense. (If he would examine his assumption about an ancient Earth, he would see that the same kinds of assumptions, politics, grant money, bad science and circular reasoning that bolster global warming also form the "billions of years" age of the earth that he believes.) There are some scientists that believe global warming might be real, but not over the last fifteen years and it is not anthropogenic. It's the wild-eyed screamers that are causing harm, and their global warming beliefs are based on evolutionary assumptions.
What would you think if scientists were to suggest that large tracts of uncultivated land, which could be used to grow crops to feed hungry people, should be left untouched? And how would you react if their reason for leaving this potential farmland unused was to combat climate change? 
Believe it or not, that is precisely the scenario discussed in a recent issue of the journal Nature. Since 1990, about 77 million acres of cropland have remained uncultivated in Eastern Europe. Given the millions of hungry and undernourished people in the world, one would think that an intentional refusal to cultivate such land would be absolutely out of the question. However, if this land were put to the plow, some worry that the carbon released into the atmosphere as a result would contribute to global warming, and one scientist has even suggested that about two-thirds of this land should remain uncultivated indefinitely.
You can read the rest of this global warming and evolution connection at "The Bitter Harvest of Evolutionary Thinking".

5 comments:

cavalier973 said...

On the radio the other day, they were claiming that scientists studying the effect of increased carbon dioxide on plants found that the nutritional content was lessened by higher levels of CO2.

It reminded me of the article on the blog "Buy the Truth":

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/co2-enrichment-and-plant-nutrition/

The opening paragraph:
"It was noted in previous posts that for crops with C3 photosynthetic pathway the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are limiting to plant growth. Crops are currently starved of CO2 in a similar way to being starved of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, light etc. Current atmospheric levels of CO2 can thus be regarded as a plant stress, which weakens them and makes them inefficient. At higher levels of CO2 this stress is reduced, and the plant copes better with all other types of stress, including heat and cold, atmospheric pollution, root pathogens, as well as shortages of water, minerals etc."

radar said...

Cavalier973,

Yes, I like that blog! What is amusing is that there was a study done on the growth of weeds in which higher levels of CO2 caused the weeds to grow faster. This study was one of a group of studies barfed out by Climate Alarmists as part of their evidence that supported the limiting CO2 emissions. Wow!

It is obvious that CO2 causing weeds to grow faster is an indication that CO2 causes all plants to grow faster (which is in fact true). With the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere available for plants to use it is therefore beneficial to plants to have it emitted whenever possible!

Limiting CO2 is just another hidden facet on the war against the poor people of the Third World. Banning DDT has caused malaria to kill millions of African people. Limiting CO2 has made it harder for farmers to grow crops and especially for those who have limited resources. Then there is a hidden prejudice inherent within the typical Darwinist objections to the provision of electricity and other typical facets of modern civilization. They say they want to preserve the culture of primitive tribes. But is it not just another way to make it less likely people of color will live better and longer and produce more children?

radar said...

Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" that purported to show that DDT was killing off all those beautiful Goldfinches and Robins and other beautiful birds. Like a mob boss relaying orders for subordinates to give to subordinates to give to another mobster, Carson's book did not directly ask people to stop the use of DDT to control mosquito-borne malaria. But it did do exactly that.

http://rachelwaswrong.org/ is a resource to consider what Carson accomplished. Her book helped inspire the modern green-nutjob movement, which is a counterintuitive assortment of elitists and ignorant naturalists who have certainly helped kill off poor people and people of color by their initiatives. Planned Parenthood came from Eugenics which came from Darwinism which gave people an excuse to live ungodly lifestyles and limit and kill off non-whites.

The reason green nuts are counterintuitive? Darwinism is supposedly a survival of the fittest philosophy. Why would Darwinists want to preserve one particular form of a common fish or owl while at the same time encouraging the murder of human babies in the womb?

Syed Kazim Ali said...

Latest All Hot Current Affairs, Bollywood News updates, funny and lol pictures
HotCurrentAffairs

Syed Kazim Ali said...

Latest All Hot Current Affairs, Bollywood News updates, funny and lol pictures
HotCurrentAffairs