Most regular readers here know I'm not a "climate change" guy. I'm just not on that bandwagon for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that I have a memory, and was also exposed to a bit of science. I don't, for example, view carbon dioxide as a bad thing, since that's what plants breathe, and exhale oxygen so we can breathe. Funny how that works. Nor am I on the bandwagon that says that cow (or any other kind) of fart is responsible for "climate change." In fact, I go all the way back to "Earth Day" in the 1970s, where schools all over the country spent a whole day learning about the "climate" scare of the age: the coming global ice age if we didn't mend our ways. That quickly morphed into global warming, and when that didn't pan out, the Dr. Fausti's of the time began to push another narrative in order to "follow the science": "climate change." This handy tautology allowed "The Science" to claim that any twitch or jigger in "The Data" was due to human action. Now don't get me wrong, I do think humanity is having an effect on the environment, but I don't think it's because we're eating lots of hamburgers, which requires lots of cattle, which eat lots of grass and which makes them fart a lot. And besides, methane - whether smelly or not - is a sign of life (see yesterday's tidbit on Enceladus).
No, I do think humanity is having an effect on the environment. But not for reasons the climate change people are talking about, but rather, because of the intrusion of covert technologies - weather manipulation and other geophysical engineering technologies - into the mix. Like authoress Elana Freeland, I view the effect of these technologies to have been and to be so all-pervasive that it is no longer really possible to speak of purely natural weather any more than it is possible to speak of "real markets" since the rise of algorithmic computer trading. On this view, "climate change" becomes a deliberately concocted story to mask the use and effects of those technologies.
So with that as context, consider the following story (which, oddly enough, I found while looking at another article someone had sent in):
Here's the gist:
Nearly a century ago, scientists worked out that our universe is expanding. More recently, researchers discovered this rate of expansion is increasing as time ticks by. As our universe expands, the galaxies, stars, planets, and all they contain move farther and farther apart. This means our universe should be getting colder as it expands.
But that may not be the case after all. A team of international scientists compared the temperature of cosmic gas farther away from Earth (and, therefore, farther back in time) to younger gases nearer to our planet and to the present day.
According to their calculations, in the past 10 billion years, the mean temperature of these gases has increased by more than 10 times, Universe Today reports. Their analysis revealed the cosmic gas spread across our universe can reach temperatures of roughly 4 million degrees Fahrenheit. The scientists published their findings in October 2020 in the Astrophysical Journal.
Now, I cannot even begin to describe what a spanner-in-the-works this is. For those of us raised in the 1960s and 1970s with those wonderful General Electric films by "Mr. Science" that talked all about the "Big Bang" and "heat death" and entropy and all that, this "universe-heating-up" is a bit like saying "If there's heat death and entropy, then where is it?" The universe appears to be rolling up the hill, not down it.
And that's a real problem, notwithstanding the following "explanation":
What's the deal here? Astrophysicist and study author Yi-Kuan Chiang of Ohio State University broke it down in a statement:
“As the universe evolves, gravity pulls dark matter and gas in space together into galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The drag is violent—so violent that more and more gas is shocked and heated up.”
Measuring changes in our universe's temperature over the course of roughly 10 billion years isn't an easy task.
In other words, the universe is heating up because it has gas and "dark matter" clustered together.
When you're done laughing at that one, join me in a skeptical "Uh huh..."
Now I don't know about you, but this sounds a bit like a cosmological cow fart of an explanation. Perhaps what needs to be done is to crowd fund Greta, and launch her into space for a universe tour to find out just what the heck is really going on. She may well discover that there are exo-bovines out there, eating too much exo-grass and exo-farting as a result, and that they need to be given a stern puckering of the Swedish face and a righteous "how dare you!" scowl, because that explanation isn't nearly as ludicrous and circular as the one that's given here.
See you on the flip side...