War and the Idea of the Static Universe

The Static Universe and War

http://junkscience.com/2011/08/24/will-climate-change-cause-war/

“Will climate change cause war?”

They have developed a new meme as a way to win our hearts, or at least use our values against us to gain power over us.
War.
On first blush, it is self-evident that  no one likes war. Warhawks, by definition, do, but there are explanations to account for that –
and, also, it is not quite safe to declare that warhaws like war per se, but maybe see it is a ready choice since they do not acutely

feel the consequences of war personally. The numerous sentiments about the generals watching the lines on the map moving from side to

side, and all that.

So, the marxists are now pushing the idea that we should act now, based on hints of global warming, because if we wait too long for a

real signal to appear, it might be too late – catastrophic consequences will result –

-now those include “war.”

Yes, global warming will cause war. A clear predictoin from the marxists.

First of all, this is contrary to a bunch of other recognized bits of wisdom (to be discussed).
But second-of-all, this prediction is, again, based on the acceptance of
THE STATIC UNIVERSE.

When I was in grade school, the thing we learned about nature was that it was always changing, and populations of animals and plants were

always changing. This was one of the few meta-lessons, above specific details about biology, population dynamics, etc.

As an example: we learned that there was the idea of a ‘pinnacle forest.” If a cataclysm wiped out a forest, or field, it might end up

barren. Then, “colonizers” would grow. Their seeds were always borne on the winds, and would always be there to settle a suitable habitat

– one with no competition.  This is how it is with bread mold. You don’t need to foster or cultivate bread mold. It is ubiquitous. Bread

left out for a couple days is the virgin terra, and will be colonized.

However, the early colonizing plants would be replaced by the slightly more permanent plants, etc., culminiating in long-developing

trees, the “pinnacle forest.”

But eventually the trees would drop branches and leaves, and lightning would strike, or a hurricane or tornado or earthquake would

displace these trees. And the progress from colonizers to long-lived plants would again set its inexorable pace, only to face some

eventual change yet again.

Hard to believe, since the landsacpe we schoolchildren knew had been there, on our drives outside of town, for the entirety of our lives.

But a but easier to believe when we were informed, “the habitat we know is not native to this audience; it has been shapedfor over 100

years by farming and grazing. Our landscape used to be [insert landscape here].”

In awe, those of us who paid attention in grade school would never look  at the prairies, or swamps, or savannah, or forests, the same

way again.

There are now more trees on the contintental US now than in the past 200 years; they just were not all the quick-growing pines in

southeast. pine – the weed of trees.

Now we revere an oak, a maple. Someone safeguarded it, and if it was bought, it was bought at a good price, relative to other trees, and

was taken care of tenderly to achieve its maturity.

All of this to illustrate how we were taught biology: things change. WE could see it. We knew it. And only know it better as we see

various landscapes get cleared by hurricane, or fire, or earthquake, or bulldozer.

We see the progress they taught us in grade school. We have no doubt. To everything there is a season.

However, to the marxists, there are not seasons. change is an opportunity to make us fear that life as we know it is changing, and so

observed change means we should hand over power to them.

Hypothetical disaster, or governance by totalitarians.

Of course, this choice is easy, if and only if the disaster is hypothetical.

So, politically, it MUST NOT be portrayed as hypothetical. It must be portrayed as sure.

Nothing in science. politics, or biology is ever sure.

Yet this is what is required to inspire FEAR.

AGW as a socially recognised problem is failing. Partly because of two things: one, the marxists did not yet accomplish what they thought

they would before they were found out ot be liars, and two because we are seeing: nature changes – saome places have been drought-ridden,

per AGW theory, yet other places have just barely surfaced from historically notable snow-melt floods.

The weather is not cooperating.

So, other lines of FEAR must be activated.

Starvation, and other phenomena, etc.

And war.

War.

We all took undergrad psychology, where the profs attempted to show how illuminating social science could be: violence rises with

temperature. Sure – makes sense.

Expand that.

War will cause various conflicts, which will lead to war. You can always find a PhD ready to predict a plausible future.

“War” is vague enough that you can redefine various problems to be “war:” the riots in Greece, harsh comments on the internet, etc.

So, here we have it: we should hand over the planet to the elitist totalitarians and the watermelons because we, otherwise, will face

war.

We are opposed to war. So, to be consistent with our values, we must agree with them.

This is pathetic. Especially because if we really think about it, increased temps will probably lead to less war. We will gain habitat

that is more productive for growing crops. We will gain nore hospitable habitat – the vast frozen tundra of Alaska, Russia, and China

offer impressive opportunities.  Antarctica might be seen as an alternative. And all of this new residential construction would let us

build homes green from the ground-up.

So, the whole idea is ludicrous. But it yet again demonstrates the theme that to accept the point of view of the world of the

alarmarxists, you must accept the view of the static universe, where the only thing you can be sure will not change is that change will

happen. And the verso: if there is no habitat change, we will not have wars. Right. I’ll buy that.

A sad reality for the marxists is that, up to the time of Marx’ birth, our world has been vastly infused with humanitarian respect for

life, decreased death from war, decreased conflicts per 1,000 population per year, etc.

History has nations rising and falling with great regularity. Partly due to invasion from warring neighbors or foreigners.

It is only in the recent era where we could possibly have a ruling class that could manage to be free from front-line battle. Nations

free from the violence of piratic no-man’s-lands. An era of more internationally-recognized treaties than ever. Etc.

The moment we got to this point is the moment Marx began writing. Writing exactly the opposite.

So, when you hear this stuff, use your brain. Go look up stuff for yourself. Remember, if you are old enough, to the way things were

taught before th emarxists figured out they could get steady jobs in public education. To the time when nature had one constant aspect:

change.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s