Surely, it can't be just pollution levels. It doesn't seem to fit all the points. Look at the levels of pollution during the industrial revolution in the 1800's. Much worse than they are now. OK, so they didn't have the pertrochemicals, but they sure did burn fossil fuels. Did we have the global warming problems then, or were they just not documented?
A cosmic shift does seem to fit all the problems better than pollution does. Plus, we have evidence of water in the now - deserts etc. Evidence much earlier than pollution problems. It could be a natural occurance, just on a bigger timescale than we're used to?
I remember reading once, that the reason for global warming was methane from cows!!
If that's the case (taking a giant sideways step here), are the problems with the environment because we're living too long? The longer we live, the more s*** we produce and hence gases?? Back in the 1800's, the lifespan wasn't so long. Plus, there were vast areas of grass everywhere. We've lost lots now because of houses - because we live longer and therefore need more. OK, the rainforests have been decimated, but surely we can't underestimate the CO2 absorbing power of the humble blade of grass?
BTW, aren't fossil fuels natural? Coming from vegetation, they're only emitting what they've absorbed in the first place - like the reasons we hear for burning wood. It's just a bigger time scale. Cosmic shifts again?
Has anyone got a chart for an event in the 1800's - are there any obvious similarites? Or conspicious absences? I wonder if the new planets have anything to do with it?
Rabbit over.
Comments?
Eristic
Montgomery Burns in an episode of the Simpsons blocked out the Sun in order to make people buy more of his nuclear-generated electricity.
didn't see that one - sounds a good one! (why do I keep seeing the same ones
) Ah well, I must have read a book and can't remember any more. typical
take care
light