NCAAbbs

(AP) -- Mosses once grew and insects crawled in what are now barren valleys in Antarctica, according to scientists who have recovered remains of life from that frozen continent. Fourteen million years ago the now lifeless valleys were tundra, similar to parts of Alaska, Canada and Siberia - cold but able to support life, researchers report.
http://www.physorg.com/news137089101.html
oh, and I love the little politically correct caveat:

For 50 million years the Earth has been cooling, he said. "As it cools it crosses thresholds. This is one, when Antarctica became permanently frozen and locked up."
"You have to understand where these thresholds are," he added, "Because, if human beings are unfortunate enough to push climate over one of these thresholds, it could be a total catastrophe."

But we've never been warmer!!! In the 150 years of recorded temperatures it's never been hotter!!!

It pains me just how ignorant some of you are.

'baaa, baaaa' said the sheep.

I am amazed how those who believe man is responsible for global warming can disregard nearly one billion years of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
[pertaining to the earth's naturally occuring warming and cooling periods],
yet fall hook, line and sinker for suspect corrolating data generated and collected over the past few years.
No one has scientifically explained the differences between the other warming periods and how man is causing this current period, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age) as a preponderance of the data and evidence indicates warming is a cyclical event.
I'll take one billion years of scientific evidence v. <100 years of data ANY day.

We can't accurately predict weather over more than a few days.
We can't make it rain [during drought] or stop rain [during flood].
We can't create wind currents and/or patterns, or prevent the same.
Yet, [otherwise intelligent] people can be led to believe mankind can alter (even by accident) an entire planets' climate.

Believe what you want BlazerMatt. But we're hardly ignorant.

I don't think you are ignorant. Just stubborn.

If you don't believe humans are altering the climate on this planet, then you are a dangerous individual.

Yes, the planet has naturally cooled and warmed over time, but never AS RAPIDLY AS IT IS DOING RIGHT NOW. If human pollution weren't in the mix, it wouldn't be dangerous, because the cooling and heating would be taking place over millions of years. The changes that are taking place now are taking place over decades, not the tens of thousands of years in which they used to occur. Then, the earth and its life could adjust. Now, it can't.

stubborn? maybe.
unconvinced? certainly
please counter my points with evidence. I'm open to compare anything you have that is different from what I've already discovered.
The more we learn, the more the 'man-induced' global warming crowd falls behind.

I've never said global warming was man-induced. I have said it is man-enhanced. And the science I've seen supports that.

The same could be said for you.

The science I've seen does not support.
120 or so years of temperature measurement does not trump the past billion or so years of geological, chemical and paleontological evidence.
The topic in today's thread is more evidence against. More evidence from a mere 14 million or so years ago.
If the planet were only 14 million years old, 140 years of measurements would be 0.001% of time.
So in reality, our recent evidence can hardly be relevant to the earth's past or future.
And we've seen swings in temperature within the last 120 years.
I refuse to jump to conclusion over what amounts to less than a snapshot in time.

I'll post some of these again, for anyone interested.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...olest.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100k.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon...e10866.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/3526...in-decades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

Science is fact, not consensus.

Science is fact. That's the first sound thing you have posted.

Fact: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Fact: Carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses) make up around 20% of the total equation that regulates temperature on earth (the exact amount varies in relation to all the other factors, but never by more than 2-3% in the scientifically measurable recent history of the earth.)
Fact: The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is higher than it has been in human history.
Fact: That excess carbon dioxide comes from human sources (we know this because the isotope ratios of CO2 from say, burning gas in a car engine, are different from the CO2 isotope rations found in say, CO2 coming from an animal.)
Fact: In recorded history, every time CO2 levels go up (in the absence of some other forcing to contradict the effect) temperature goes up.


This isn't rocket science. As an FYI, what happened billions, and even millions, of years ago, has no effect whatsoever on what happens today or whats going to happen tomorrow as far as climate science is concerned. Its not really worth studying past about 650k years ago because we just lack the data to do a proper study that would have any real scientific meaning. I mean, we know it was warmer in the Cretaceous for example. We also know the CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. But I cant use that as an argument linking CO2 to temperature because we are missing the other 80% of the data. Fortunately, I dont have to reach for a scientifically invalid "proof" to link CO2 to temperature because it can be proven mathematically.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. The first rule of stats.

So heat is building up in the atmosphere for some unknown reason

It's actually gone down here in the last few years.

And yes. That's how it's happened the past few times that we've gone through warming and cooling phases. You know, before the combustible engine and humans.

thanks for the off-handed compliment.
wish I could say the same for you.

now, put all the associated science together and prove causality.

You must study the past to be able to equate past climate conditions with present climate conditions.
If we don't know what the temps. and CO2 levels were in the past, how will we know todays levels are different?
Maybe the global warming crowd can't study the past because it doesn't support their contention.

Now I'm confused. Are we cooling or warming?

you can't use these CO2 levels (evidence from the past) to link because you're missing 80% of the data, but.......

.......you can use mathematical CO2 models to link, absent 100% actual scientific data.
Why not just use the real CO2 measurements from the billion years of chemical evidence we have from the past?
We have millions of years worth of paleontological, chemical and geological evidence.

Where's the scientific evidence to support your argument?
Science is not corrolary.
Science is not concensus.
We once had the concensus
1) the earth was flat
2) the earth was the center of the universe
we all know these consensus beliefs were incorrect.

Um..your quoting wiki? please don't use that...it's laughable.

Not a single one of those sites proves anything about this.

just more evidence against the contention of man made global warming.
refute, if you can.

Um...ok

Well, check out the flucuations of the ocean's ph with ice ages. they pretty much rise and decline at the sametime. Too many variables in past ice ages, we know the earth is slowing down, so how long were days back then? Is there the same amount of volcanic erruptions?

Even if there are more volcanic eruptions, is that caused by us too? So, we can now cause a volcano to erupt? Are we causing the earth to slow down as well? The earth has warmed and cooled for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so long after humans are gone.

The models the IPCC uses are extremely flawed, intentionally, to force anthropogenic CO2 emissions into being the driving force behind warming, when it makes up a very small fraction of even CO2 in the atmosphere, much less the total atmosphere.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters...nckton.cfm


Even the founder of Greenpeace is doubting man-made global warming.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdate...60625.html


The most renowned hurricane forecaster is skeptical.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

Here's another article opposing MMGW:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...83,00.html

More proof against MMGW from NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab showing that Water Vapor and NOT CO2 causes global warming:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...d=88520025

More than 400 of the most prominent scientists around the world oppose MMGW:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...63dc2d02cb

What could possibly be causing climate change on Jupiter??

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

Here's even more evidence that the MMWG and Climate change models are terrible flawed:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

More evidence the sun is the culprit:

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=91


There are many more that I could list, and will do so if requested. So far, you have not provided any data to back up your claims whatsoever, only talking points.

Game. Set. Match.

What does a single link that you posted prove against my point?

nothing.

What you posted had nothing to do with my point about ocean ph vs. global temperature?

Answer these questions before you post another 15 links to about what ever.

how many of your links that you posted come from published research?

how many are or can be considered op-ed?

Also, let me do what you guys do post a bunch of links which don't really back each other up:

let's quote WIKIE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming



Let's throw in a government site to try to look smart:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/


A bunch of op ed:

http://www.physorg.com/news138297883.html

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/be...16211.html


http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_...so?id=8757


Also, please re-read what I wrote:

You answered:
"Even if there are more volcanic eruptions, is that caused by us too? So, we can now cause a volcano to erupt? Are we causing the earth to slow down as well? The earth has warmed and cooled for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so long after humans are gone."

To me explaining that you shouldn't use data from past ice ages


Thanks..

Lou-A-B, I know trying to prove a negative is a bit*h, but please post conclusive scientific proof of the mmgw contention.
Until someone can, mmgw is only a theory, much the same as the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Ample links have been posted to cast serious doubt to the validity of this [flawed] theory.
Consensus (look it up), cannot be science.
That being said, you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe.

btw,
has anyone else noticed the subtle shifts in nomenclature those promoting this theory have interjected into the debate?
They've gone from calling this 'global warming', to 'man-made global warming', to 'climate change'.
What will they think of next?