The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

It was wrong-all-along. I won't embed the video because it's over an hour, but this pertains to the subject at hand: PLASMA COSMOLOGY [Full Infomentary]

Suspicious0bservers
Plasma Cosmology contains interviews with top professors and government scientists, examining the problems with the prevailing dark matter paradigm. Dr. Peratt describes what the government learned and classified during secret nuclear tests underground.

[All Darc]

There is so solution to a problem such huge be solved once it get real, installed. That's why it'sd important to try to avoid or at least reduce the damages.
But today civilization are way more frail in many aspects than in past times, since we used with technology and confort.

A pole magnetic inversion or gigant solar flare would be no problem for indians 200 years ago. But today it would mess with technology and lead to chaos. Food supplies are shot, few months, compared to long reserves of 70 years ago.
The economy in global scale it's also more sensitive. Manufacturing and feedstock between nations in a chain of productinon in teps involving many fields.

Politics are also very frail, since we have nuclear power and ideoloy and politic instability. If a nation get way more affect by climate change, and get food shortage, they will not sit and dye, but will try to use nuclear power to push other countries to help them.

[redpoint5]

That's an interesting question; are we (humanity) more resilient to extinction due to our advanced technology, or more prone to extinction due to it?

My assumption is that most people who believe global warming is the biggest problem probably also believe technology is largely to blame.

[All Darc]

I don't think we will extint that easily, but could be a mass dead in global scale.
Even after a nuclear holocaust some people would survive in anti-nuclear shelters with long food and stations to recycle air and water.

The bad use of technology, and the bad investment or lack of good investments to make technology better in some aspects, like cleaner and new technologies to cleam air and water and recycle trash (especially plastic).

In the case of a nuclear doom they should have a sellection of better people for the shelter, more inteligent and civilized people. At least if the world will bloom aways they can't miss the chance of reduce criminal and sociopath incidence among human population.

The problem ithe human neurology. People are not really affected by be aware of the dead of children and sufsering. If the gradual changes, nature destruction have a constant and direct effect of a particular private thing of each person/citizen, people would be more participative.
For example if web signal fall and somone lost their Candy Crush game, they every time nature get worse, they would be more eco green citizens.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That's an interesting question; are we (humanity) more resilient to extinction due to our advanced technology, or more prone to extinction due to it?

My assumption is that most people who believe global warming is the biggest problem probably also believe technology is largely to blame.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by freebeard

"Natural variability" includes the Sun, clouds and cosmic rays, but not to include Plasma Universe?

As stated, the sun has been at Total Solar Irradition low for 13 years, but Earth biosphere temps continue upward. AGW deniers have been talkin' 'bout cosmic rays for decades & have no confirmation from astronomers. Again, AGW deniers use AGW "sigh-ants" to talk about cloud changes, without noting that cloud changes may be AGW generated....AND with some effects that negate cloud change effects on AGW.

[oil pan 4]

Astronomers dont study cosmic rays, that's physicists.
Neither of those study the weather or climate.
That would be like a texas coton farmer giving a lecture on selling rice in China while in france.

Dark matter being mysterious particles that have huge mass but are non interactive. Not regular matter which happens to be non lumenous such as dust along with other forces that we currently think we understand.

[All Darc]

I once heard about a simple particle, in atomic scale, that could destroy the whole universe. It would react with ordinary matter and transform it on replicas, as a virus.
It was said that was require much more elnergy than a supernova explosion to creat such matter, and thay it would travel in light speed.

[redpoint5]

The fact that any matter at all exists is a miracle, as particles (or energy) should have had anti-particles that cancel out. By some miracle, there's more of our type of "stuff", or it somehow escaped annihilation, and the other miracle is that it isn't evenly distributed in the universe.

Unexplained mass then, doesn't sound impossible to me. We're a lot closer to knowing nothing than everything. Infinitely closer to nothing.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Astronomers dont(sic) study cosmic rays, that's physicists.

Physicists take astronomy classes to more clearly understand particle physics effects. Astronomers take physics classes to more clearly understand astronomy effects. Well, how 'bout dat!! Very small thangs affect very big thangs & big thangs affect small thangs. Who woulda thunk et!! Four oil pans fit somewhere between.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The reason I know so much is because I have made so many mistakes." R. Buckminster Fuller

Those people who make lots of mistakes & don't learn from their mistakes, don't know too much.... kinda like AGW deniers.