Global warming Bombshell ...

[Guest]

I don't know how many of you have actualy heard me mention that I don't beleive in global warming. But, I stand by this being the history of the world let alone the universe will be a never ending list of things that the human race will learn from long after our great-greatgreat-grandchidren are old!
Look back just in out history here in the United States.
We have seen droughts, year after year of cold winters, hotter then normal summers! OOPS. the question here is what is a normal season.
We don't know, and we will never know!
If it is global warming, which I'm still not convinced, then there is really nothing we can do about it. Except to park every fossil burning machine and go back to the horse and buggy!
But, wasn't there a time when the Middle East was covered with grain fields like the Great Plains here in the USA?
Global warming? Nah, a natural evolution of the earth curing itself of what man is doing to it!!

[Stormsfury]

We have seen droughts, year after year of cold winters, hotter then normal summers! OOPS. the question here is what is a normal season.

Normality is an average of extreme observations, summed up and divided by the number of entries to come up with ... an illusion of normality ...

[Matthew5]

That would be something to see the Sun blow up...The biggest firework show around....Are we ready to see a firework show like that?

[Stormsfury]

That would be something to see the Sun blow up...The biggest firework show around....Are we ready to see a firework show like that?

Are you on the right thread? ... and also, NO it wouldn't be too good, considering being fried to a cinder isn't exactly my idea of a good fireworks show ...

[jimbo]

Off point a bit but: I have always felt it was a little species-arrogant to say that Homo Sapiens was killing the planet. What we should be concerned about is if Homo Sapiens are like yeast in a fermentation tank, producing wastes in a closed environment that will eventually kill off the yeast while leaving behind a vessel that will normalize its chemistry in time, of course there won't be any yeast to enjoy it.

Mother Nature taking care of business.......

[vbhoutex]

they are supposed to make conclusions based on facts. instead, they mold "facts" to fit pre-existing conclusions

To a point I have to agree with you, but I think it should read "Some mold "facts" to pre-existing conclusions".

[Sanibel]

Please expound on what you mean that you "find it telling that they don't come in and say so in relation to posts that uphold the conservative view".

Simply that the poster said that science is limited to only the last 40 years for determining earth's previous warming cycles. This is entirely incorrect. Science is able to determine ancient earth's temperatures and climate patterns many different ways including deep ice core sampling and bog core vegetation and pollen sampling. I see many posters chime in on the skeptical side but don't point out an obviously wrong point made by someone who is also on the skeptical side. Interesting.


There were 2 'National Geographics' this year with the majority of both issues covering Global Warming. I think the last one was September's edition. I suggest anyone citing "environmental nuts" should read these issues and see what some of the world's best experts think about that. The September issue was written specifically to address popular misbeliefs currently being espoused towards GW and its seriousness...

[sponger]

I watched NG special and while alarming, I also felt is was biased! We know the norm for the Earth is cold and the exception is warm. We certainly need to reduce green house gases, but the envirionmental movement to eliminate nuclear reactors makes that less likely. I think fuel cells will go along way to leading the reduction. but nuclear power has to be part of the solution. IMHO

[vbhoutex]

Thanks for the explanation.

[img]Simply that the poster said that science is limited to only the last 40 years for determining earth's previous warming cycles. This is entirely incorrect. Science is able to determine ancient earth's temperatures and climate patterns many different ways including deep ice core sampling and bog core vegetation and pollen sampling. I see many posters chime in on the skeptical side but don't point out an obviously wrong point made by someone who is also on the skeptical side. Interesting.[/img]

I am referencing no one in particular with this reply. I think you have a point, up to the fact that many may not have/take the time you do to research in depth some of the subjects they comment on. Wrong or right in that assumption, or in thier assumptions, I do feel they are due their time to expound on the subject whatever it may be. I see it as the "duty" of those more educated/motivated/having time available to research the particular subject, Global warming or otherwise, to "correct" us if we are wrpng in some of our assumptions.

As far as the particular point made above, maybe that poster was not aware of the scientific fact you pointed out which indeed discounts the original statement about 40 years of data.

[CaptinCrunch]

We as human's know nothing about how our planet goes thru cycles. 10K years we had a Ice Age so say the planet has a 20K year cycle, then we would be half way thru or maybe at a peak of the warming cycle, so in another 10k years we'll start a new Ice Age.

[Wnghs2007]

We as human's know nothing about how our planet goes thru cycles. 10K years we had a Ice Age so say the planet has a 20K year cycle, then we would be half way thru or maybe at a peak of the warming cycle, so in another 10k years we'll start a new Ice Age.

Yeah so who knows. It could be another 50,000 years are climate stays like this and then 2 million year ice age we just dont know.

[tronbunny]

Off point a bit but: I have always felt it was a little species-arrogant to say that Homo Sapiens was killing the planet. What we should be concerned about is if Homo Sapiens are like yeast in a fermentation tank, producing wastes in a closed environment that will eventually kill off the yeast while leaving behind a vessel that will normalize its chemistry in time, of course there won't be any yeast to enjoy it.

This is a fairly good analogy, except in this example the tank is inanimate.
The earth is by no means inanimate. It is a dynamic entity that is part of a system that is infinitely more significant than the "yeast" that is mankind.
Yes, it is very arrogant of us humans to thinks that we, even as an entire collective parasite, have enough power to influence geologic processes in a significant way. I will concede that our nuclear arsenal could make a serious dent in earth biohistory, but what is that in comparison to a 5km chunk of rock from a distant planet?