My argument is that terrestrial climate is dynamic, and has been changing cyclically for the Earth’s entire lifetime. Climate change exists and is natural. Climate and energy on Earth are products of the Sun by such an overwhelming margin as to make human influence vanishingly trivial. Al Gore lied about that and has formulated huge self-serving propaganda in order to benefit personally. We should divert the funds earmarked (uselessly) for climate engineering to proper, meaningful environmental hygiene, social responsibility, and protection of those creatures over which we have been granted dominion. Human beings are legitimate citizens of Earth, and have as much right to be here as monkeys. All species use their given abilities as they best see fit. However, due to an absence of natural predators and good wars, human population pressure exceeds the ability of the environment to sustain itself. There are too many people, too many monkeys, too many jellyfish, and too few leopards and way too few objective scientists. We need to get rid of some of the excess, usually taken to mean someone else, not ourselves. I’d start with Al Gore, then Osama bin Laden, then Robert Mugabe, then Julius Malema, then this bitch monkey that keeps busting my gutters and telephone line.

7 comments on “Why are we Here?

  1. Robert E. Cobb

    Please consider “intelligent life reciprocally propagated from infinity to infinity by intelligent life is a natural consequence of evolutionary panaltruism keyed as well to intrinsic needs of all intelligent life, i.e., to know from whence we came, safety and security, meaning and purpose.” – from Building Life-Centred Cosmologies: Human Unity in the Age of Cosmic Genealogy (www.forelawsonboard.net/CosmicGenealogy.html.

    In holistic forelawsship,

    Robert E. Cobb

  2. Skywalker

    Hi Robert,

    Huuuhhhh??????

    Is that a comment on what I posted? I honestly don’t understand what this is about. It seems to me you are just advertising your own hypothesis or philosophy without consideration of my posts or indeed even using physical science. I simply do not get this, and would ask you to limit your comments to logical discussion of the topics I post.

    Thank you.
    Hilton

  3. Robert E. Cobb

    Dear Hilton:

    I believe your contribution on many issues is considerable; however, you apparently have overlooked the work of N. C. Wickramasinghe, Fred Hoyle, and Brig Klyce (www.panspermia.org) with respect to panspermia, barely discussed in your writings. I cannot speak for Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, Klyce and Arp on directed panspermia, but my comments to you definitely are a response to “Why Are We Here?

    Forelaws on Board is located not far from Rolla and Cape Girardeau, and I am very much inclined to go along with you and Oliver Manuel on our star’s composition.

    In forelawsship,

    Robert

  4. Hilton Ratcliffe

    Dear Robert,

    I do appreciate your participation here, although it is difficult to establish what your theory is from what you’ve written here, and how that might link in to any of the streams of my blog. You are right – panspermia is not one of my areas of interest, and I don’t recall ever having much to say about it. I am still puzzled how your comments relate to my post about climate dynamics and the anthropogenic global warming swindle. Does panspermia in your view have an effect on climate? If so, it seems to be stretching things a bit.

    Regards
    Hilton

  5. Robert E. Cobb

    Dear Hilton:

    Achieving global water equilibrium on Earth, over time, will have a decisive bearing on climate change and climate conditions – something with which humankind – or I should say human unity and evolutionary panaltruism – can become intimately involved. Brig Klyce’s website http://www.panspermia.org is all science. Panspermia will advance your holistic vision and participation in cosmology issues.

    In forelawsship

    Robert

  6. Peter Willey

    Has anyone ever attempted to estimate an optimal CO2 level for our atmosphere? Since this gas is vital for all green plant life, and therefore for all other dependant life on this planet, I would guess that this has been attempted but I cannot find much written on this. I seem to recall reading a paper which suggested that many forms of plant life struggled to function at CO2 levels below about 230ppm, whereas CO2 correlated growth continued to be seen even at levels in excess of 1000ppm.

  7. Hilton Ratcliffe

    Hi Peter,

    I doubt there is such a thing as an optimal level of atmospheric CO2. We know from geological records that we have had eras in history prior to human civilisation where atmospheric carbon was ten times the current level. All current populants of Earth survived and flourished despite – or because of – these carbon spikes. One would have to take a preferred point of departure – is it optimal for plants only? Greenhouses routinely elevate their CO2 levels to around four times current atmospheric levels to stimulate plant growth, and that in turn creates a higher oxygen abundance. Nature is a self-regulating mechanism, and the damping effect of planetary atmospheres has allowed live to develop abundantly on at least one planet. The greenhouse effect is in reality a weather damper.
    Perhaps the only sensible answer I can give to your question is that current CO2 levels are well within the comfortable limits for bilogical life on Earth.
    Regards, Hilton

Leave a reply

required

Captcha * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.