It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming Deniers Become More Desperate By the Day

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: FyreByrd
Until countries find other energies and stop burning coal, and the ocean floor stops puking out methane, nothing is going to slow down, or prevent anything. The earth might even need to put a stop to those darned volcanoes too. (And don't forget forest fires all over the globe.


Seriously limiting greenhouse emissions will reduce the likelihood of strong methane releases from the ocean which are induced by higher temperatures. Oh yeah, that semi-pause in surface temperatures---heat's going into the ocean. Where---guess what---it starts melting the stuff keeping in the methane!

Volcanoes are irrelevant and unchangable.

What would actually work? Very large immediate carbon taxes to fund crash building of nuclear reactors in all developed countries, especially China, and an enforced death penalty on the mining of coal.

So, yes, humans actually could do something about it.

Is the problem severe enough to justify a response like that? Yes.

If the climate were being changed in the same way by hostile extraterrestrials, would they do something like that? In a flash.
edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: FyreByrd
Until countries find other energies and stop burning coal, and the ocean floor stops puking out methane, nothing is going to slow down, or prevent anything. The earth might even need to put a stop to those darned volcanoes too. (And don't forget forest fires all over the globe.


Seriously limiting greenhouse emissions will reduce the likelihood of strong methane releases from the ocean which are induced by higher temperatures. Oh yeah, that semi-pause in surface temperatures---heat's going into the ocean. Where---guess what---it starts melting the stuff keeping in the methane!

Volcanoes are irrelevant and unchangable.

What would actually work? Very large immediate carbon taxes to fund crash building of nuclear reactors in all developed countries, especially China, and an enforced death penalty on the mining of coal.

So, yes, humans actually could do something about it.

Is the problem severe enough to justify a response like that? Yes.

If the climate were being changed in the same way by hostile extraterrestrials, would they do something like that? In a flash.


Taxes? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Hey by the way, I also love how you make up your own science about the world so it supports your view, but it still really doesn't. And that is because taxes aren't going to fix human beings being puppets and shills and liars, and criminals like those who are pushing the joke you are trying to sell.
TAXES CAN FIX ANYTHING!! VOTE FOR ME!!! I NEED YOUR VOTES AND YOUR MONEY!! "Hey Michelle! we just ran out of caviar and lobster tails!!! WE NEED NEW IDEAS ON TAXES!!!
TAX THE AIR!!! "hey yeah, not bad"
edit on 11-8-2014 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: mbkennel

You are still too clever by half. Most of the folks who DO NOT WISH TO BE INCONVENIENCED (to whom the rest of this missive is devoted) are in the camp that thinks that the free market will resolve this.


The free market responds, doesn't resolve. It's like thinking the free market will prevent people from dying from an Ebola epidemic. The free market will be very good at raising prices for masks, and the wealthy will find a supply at a high price and yes there will be more masks produced than otherwise. [what would stop an epidemic? socalized universal vaccination, of course]

And likewise with global warming land values in Canada and Russia will go up and Florida will go down. And that will resolve nothing.
edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

see what I mean? Complete lack of logic. Of course taxes change human behavior the same way paying people changes human behavior.

If burning coal costs more money people will do less of it. If there are jobs and business to earn to build nukes, then people will do more of it. The result will be less carbon emitted into the atmosphere for energy production.

What is my view on the world? The laws of physics always beat people's emotional desires.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Yes, a complete lack of logic in our current government leaders and idiots who want to tax the air. I agree.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
The free market responds, doesn't resolve. It's like thinking the free market will prevent people from dying from an Ebola epidemic. The free market will be very good at raising prices for masks, and the wealthy will find a supply at a high price and yes there will be more masks produced than otherwise. [what would stop an epidemic? socalized universal vaccination, of course]

And likewise with global warming land values in Canada and Russia will go up and Florida will go down. And that will resolve nothing.

You know, perhaps that is another reason for opposition that I hadn't considered before.

AGW represents a fundamental threat to capitalism. While some might argue (accurately, I'd say) that the U.S. is more corporatist than capitalist - the ideal of the free market / capitalism is there. Capitalism will not tackle AGW until it's too late to do anything about it.

Since proponents of free market economics tend to believe it to be without fail, and it's obvious that AGW is one of those things that is outside the scope of said system, they cannot believe it to be true.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: mbkennel
The free market responds, doesn't resolve. It's like thinking the free market will prevent people from dying from an Ebola epidemic. The free market will be very good at raising prices for masks, and the wealthy will find a supply at a high price and yes there will be more masks produced than otherwise. [what would stop an epidemic? socalized universal vaccination, of course]

And likewise with global warming land values in Canada and Russia will go up and Florida will go down. And that will resolve nothing.

You know, perhaps that is another reason for opposition that I hadn't considered before.

AGW represents a fundamental threat to capitalism. While some might argue (accurately, I'd say) that the U.S. is more corporatist than capitalist - the ideal of the free market / capitalism is there. Capitalism will not tackle AGW until it's too late to do anything about it.


True, not without external intervention. Of course, capitalism didn't tackle the smog problem or acid rain or any collective environmental problem. However, once non-market influences are applied, the free market is not bad at deploying solutions which are available with near-term R&D.

And that's the entire point of carbon/greenhouse taxes, and cap&trade (which is a mainstream and very successful part of emissions control for sulfur dioxide today): use the market to give solutions given an incentive.

But clearly a non-free market intervention/alteration has to take place first, and that's what some people don't want.

High fuel taxes promote development of higher efficiency vehicles than otherwise. Capitalism is really good at developing various new engines and selling them to people who want them because fuel prices are high, better than a 100% command economy.

They sell more Teslas in Norway (expensive, taxed, fuel, even though it's an oil producer) than Venezuela (massively subsidized fuel, 10c a gallon, and likewise an oil producer).



Since proponents of free market economics tend to believe it to be without fail, and it's obvious that AGW is one of those things that is outside the scope of said system, they cannot believe it to be true.


The underlying ways to evaluate the world is different. We start with laws of physics and work through their consequences.

They start with people, not thermodynamics. Who are My People, and who are My Enemies. Since the ameliorations (hardly solutions) to AGW involve influencing the free market, they assume that it's People who are deemed to be part of Enemies, take as their goal the disparagement of capitalism as foremost intrinsic motivation, and that motivation is further to harm Me and My People.

It's a profound projection. Why do con men feel like people are always trying to take advantage of them?

Here, the denialists they assume policy facts and arguments are arbitrary weapons to be deployed to favor and disfavor outcomes on certain groups of people---because that's what they do.
edit on 12-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

So, if this ranted garbage about the immense damage we're doing to the world was actually done by people who live the life they instruct us to do, I MIGHT take them seriously (if I could turn a blind eye to the growing body of peer-reviewed work that negates their AGW gospels)



There isn't.


. But they don't, so I take the sum of the whole to form a conclusion that the alarmism is just a bunch of crap.



That is profoundly illogical. (And it also shows the conservative fixation on people and people's groups as threats, instead of abstract facts)


You ignored my point concerning the alarmism that these peopel scream about. I attacked their alarmism and claims (mostly conjecture and unsubstantiated) that it is all because of we humans. It's not profoundly illogical, because there is plenty of substantiated, peer-reviewed evidence that indicates the contrary. Just because you choose to 'believe' that the pro-AGW evidence outweighs the anti-AGW evidence does not, in and of itself, make my comment "profoundly illogical."

Hell, your point about doctors could be expanded to say that, as knowledge and science expands, things that used to be used as medical remedies by doctors are now known to often times be antithetical to the desired effect. Just like with medicine, as climate science progresses in its understanding of climate and cause/effect relationships, IMO, the anti-AGW data is winning out.

You and others are more than welcome to disagree, but just don't get upset when the man-is-the-cause-of-everything-bad-in-nature guilt trip is dismissed, sometimes with a chuckle. It's not because I and others have not done our homework concerning data and experiments and physics--it's actually quite the contrary.

I was also born with an inate ability to read between the lines in life, and when I see all of these alarmists' actions not mirroring their claims and prescriptions for a cure, one should really start wondering about that instead of saying, "Meh, but doctors still smoke." Maybe in this case, it's not that they're ignoring the truth, but exagerating it (and they know it, as is evident in their actions).

Best Wishes!

(funny thing is, I live a "greener" existence than Al Gore does, but it's because I like to not waste resources, not because I think the planet is dying because of me.)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Capitalism is not the problem, it's the apathy of the American people that creates the problem. If everyone would just "do their part," so to speak, conscerning limited waste and consumption, things would get better in the environment.

Well, apathy, and CRONY capitalism.

Of course, you know I'm not "siding" with you on the whole AGW thing, but I am a proponent of respecting nature, regardless if we're in a natural warming or cooling trend.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Global warming is real. Just not caused by man. But I understand how people like you like to attach themselves to "a great cause" no matter how wrong it is.

It's trendy to be Earth conscious.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

So, if this ranted garbage about the immense damage we're doing to the world was actually done by people who live the life they instruct us to do, I MIGHT take them seriously (if I could turn a blind eye to the growing body of peer-reviewed work that negates their AGW gospels)



There isn't.


. But they don't, so I take the sum of the whole to form a conclusion that the alarmism is just a bunch of crap.



That is profoundly illogical. (And it also shows the conservative fixation on people and people's groups as threats, instead of abstract facts)


You ignored my point concerning the alarmism that these peopel scream about. I attacked their alarmism and claims (mostly conjecture and unsubstantiated) that it is all because of we humans. It's not profoundly illogical, because there is plenty of substantiated, peer-reviewed evidence that indicates the contrary. Just because you choose to 'believe' that the pro-AGW evidence outweighs the anti-AGW evidence does not, in and of itself, make my comment "profoundly illogical."


It's illogical to believe that Al Gore's (or anybody else's) personal habits have any bearing on proper understanding of the physical properties of the planet.



Hell, your point about doctors could be expanded to say that, as knowledge and science expands, things that used to be used as medical remedies by doctors are now known to often times be antithetical to the desired effect.


Medieval physician's misunderstandings does not mean that our current understanding of physics is profoundly wrong.

Nobody applies this level of fear, uncertainty and doubt to any other part of contemporary scientific understanding, especially physical science. Doctors used to use leeches in medieval times, and so that means well, maybe they'll discover how to transmute lead to gold chemically and the current chemistry paradigm is wrong?

Understanding of the physics of the universe is completely different from the medieval period to now, there was a major step change from understanding almost nothing to understanding almost everything (at a fundamental law level).



Just like with medicine, as climate science progresses in its understanding of climate and cause/effect relationships,


Climate science does progress, in 1950's, the general principles were being developed but quantitative predictions were not yet available nor was sufficient data collected. Now it so, enough to make significant reliable predictions on some aspects.

The cause-effect relationship is unquestionable. After all, are you disputing the physics of the natural (pre-human) greenhouse effect? What temperature would the Earth be without it? Is there a difference in radiative properties of molecules from humans and what was there before?


IMO, the anti-AGW data is winning out.


What would be anti-AGW data?

a) no change in chemical properties of the atmosphere from human carbon burning
b) no change in observed atmospheric emissivity
c) alternate, verified physical mechanism, and observational evidence supporting it, showing a distinct cause for warming not related to changes in greenhouse effect, evidence of a substantially greater reliability and magnitude than that which attributes it to greenhouse effects


edit on 13-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: FyreByrd

Global warming is real. Just not caused by man.


What is the observable evidence and theoretical mechanism, then? How is that evidence stronger than that from increased greenhouse effect?

How does the observed increase in greenhouse effect NOT influence the climate?



It's trendy to be Earth conscious.


It's trendy to believe in non-human induced global warming because it lets people tell themselves that they are a sensible reasonable moderate.

This is not a statistical problem, it is a physics problem. You need to have a BETTER explanation backed by mechanistic physics and observations and quantitative modeling.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I was also born with an inate ability to read between the lines in life, and when I see all of these alarmists' actions not mirroring their claims and prescriptions for a cure, one should really start wondering about that instead of saying, "Meh, but doctors still smoke." Maybe in this case, it's not that they're ignoring the truth, but exagerating it (and they know it, as is evident in their actions).


Again, you're focusing on people as a way of understanding physical reality. That was my point.

It's equivalent to believing that since the USA and USSR made thousands of thermonuclear weapons, then that means that "oh all those alarmists saying how dangerous they are and how it will kill us all---they're just alarmist capitalist haters. If they were so incredibly destructive and dangerous to oneself in war then they wouldn't be building so many".

Focusing on the actions of people, and disregarding the scientists who say "no, we know the properties of nuclear physics and physiology of radioisotopes very well by know, they're really really bad. And we've even measured them". And no matter how much data & physics the scientists put out, the behavior of people is looked at and not the data.



edit on 13-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Let's just end this discussion. Your belief that people who scream about dire circumstances that will end the world as we know it (and generally get funding or massive income as a result) yet live a life that doesn't reflect their claimed reality shouldn't be a logical indication of the severity of the "problem" is illogical in itself. I'm not talking about all points of the climate science, I'm talking about the alarmism--the same alarmism resultant from suppositions and faulty computer models that are consistently proven wrong by accurate empirical evidence.

I agree that there has been an increase in measurements of CO2 that doesn't (to our current understanding, which isn't very good) necessarily match up with measured historical increases. To a certain degree, I disagree as to how much (due to relatively inaccurate measurement instruments) or how quickly it has risen, and to a massive degree, I disagree with how much of the changes in weather (not climate, because a couple hundred years doesn't mean jack to the study of climate) are attributable to human activity because of the myriad factors of things that we do understand (and those that we don't) that contribute to climactic changes.

You go on and on about physics as if I didn't graduate summa cum laude and that I haven't been researching this topic for nearly a decade--both sides of the argument. I changed my point of view on it BECAUSE of researching both sides and having a working understanding of the physics involved in said arguments. You don't need to treat others who disagree with your conclusions as imbiciles who have a lot to learn--this is an unsettled, poorly understood science, so while you (and I, for that matter) think we have a great understanding of the mechanisms that affect global climate trends, the reality is that we don't, and we can only base our OPINIONS on what we deem is the best evidence. I have yet to find evidence significant enough to indicate without doubt that humans and our habits and emissions are the main cause of ANY change in weather, let alone the most influential variable in the equation. It's that "without-doubt" part of it that keeps me skeptical.
edit on 14-8-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nomickeyshere
a reply to: FyreByrd

line up all the "scientists" who advocate global warming and list how much money in grants they are getting from the US gov.
then do the same for all the scientists that say global warming is b.s. and list how much grant money they get.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


does that matter?...they get grant money from the government, so what?...the government serves all the people...if the scientist is a climate-denier and is paid by the fossil fuel industry, that's a conflict of interest because of the profit motive behind it.
if this is your big argument, it fails miserably....this would mean anything studied and/or written about by all of our government agencies is false...it doesn't pass the common sense rule



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: mbkennel

Let's just end this discussion. Your belief that people who scream about dire circumstances that will end the world as we know it (and generally get funding or massive income as a result)


Do you know how university funding works? The university sets a MAXIMUM salary for researchers. If somebody gets a $1 million grant, how much extra pay do they get? $0. They can use this money to buy equipment time, hire postdocs and soft money researchers, supercomputer time, build instruments, pay for conference travel, etc. If I get grants I will get promoted a bit faster, but still on the same scale. There's no massive income anywhere.

Why do the climate forecasts stop at year 2100? There's plenty of extra uncertainty there, but also because the best guesses show it getting far worse.


yet live a life that doesn't reflect their claimed reality shouldn't be a logical indication of the severity of the "problem" is illogical in itself


What life would that be exactly? A long term collective global problem over 100 years doesn't get solved by going to a cabin and eating bugs. Maybe doing scientific research and promoting global political and economic measures to change the future outcomes is the right thing to do. Personally I happen to enjoy technological civilization very much, and I'm willing to spend 20% more on my electricity bill to get it powered by solar, wind & nuclear.



. I'm not talking about all points of the climate science, I'm talking about the alarmism--the same alarmism resultant from suppositions and faulty computer models that are consistently proven wrong by accurate empirical evidence.


It's not just computer models, it's underlying physics. The extra heat does have to go somewhere. The models could be wrong on here versus there.



I agree that there has been an increase in measurements of CO2 that doesn't (to our current understanding, which isn't very good) necessarily match up with measured historical increases. To a certain degree, I disagree as to how much (due to relatively inaccurate measurement instruments) or how quickly it has risen,


That's just plain ignorant. The measurement of CO2 is a very solved problem. Scientists on this problem keep sealed samples of air for decades from years past, so that they can later measure them all with exactly the same modernized instruments.


and to a massive degree, I disagree with how much of the changes in weather (not climate, because a couple hundred years doesn't mean jack to the study of climate) are attributable to human activity because of the myriad factors of things that we do understand (and those that we don't) that contribute to climactic changes.


Why do you know better than the people who do it for a living?


You go on and on about physics as if I didn't graduate summa cum laude and that I haven't been researching this topic for nearly a decade--both sides of the argument. I changed my point of view on it BECAUSE of researching both sides and having a working understanding of the physics involved in said arguments. You don't need to treat others who disagree with your conclusions as imbiciles who have a lot to learn--this is an unsettled, poorly understood science, so while you (and I, for that matter) think we have a great understanding of the mechanisms that affect global climate trends, the reality is that we don't, and we can only base our OPINIONS on what we deem is the best evidence.



I have yet to find evidence significant enough to indicate without doubt that humans and our habits and emissions are the main cause of ANY change in weather, let alone the most influential variable in the equation. It's that "without-doubt" part of it that keeps me skeptical.


In any absolute physics scale, obviously humans aren't a major part, the Sun is 1366 W/m^2 and additional greenhouse forcing a fraction of that and the human increase to that a fraction still. Nevertheless the climate can be pretty sensitive to small changes, as the magnitude of the perturbation is of the same order of that in the cycles which gave the ice ages (in the other direction of course).

In any particular fluctuation weather is dominated by the underlying natural forces of course, so looking at any one thing won't show human influence to any large extent. It's the long-term small secular change from humans that starts to keep on adding up and that will be significant.
edit on 14-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: mbkennel


There was NO previous scientific consensus about man-made global cooling!


The 70's scientists were economists and political scientists who claimed that energy should be rationed because we would run out when the climate turned colder.


You mean, people thinking of the consequences of what would happen if there was significant cooling? What's the problem with that?

Back then economists and political scientists didn't pretend to be climatologists, unlike now. IF there was going to be significant cooling, then yes you would need to lower energy consumption and increase insulation because all else being equal consumption for heating might increase.


Thinking about contingencies is a good use of expert brain power. At that time, the 1970's, the climate had been cooling for 20 years or so. I remember back then, rain puddles would commonly freeze over night.

However, what was happening was pro government propaganda. Every news show talked about the energy crisis with a subtext of the world is going to freeze, get ready to obey parental government. An short allusion to doom if the free market wasn't socialized advertised itself at the beginning of every science text book. Unavoidable rationing was also mentioned.

As soon as the cold spell ended, the socialists started on global warning. It stands to reason that the climate will get warmer after it has been colder. I guess they discovered some success in imparting a doom for sure, someday, message.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Semicollegiate
Looks to me that chart still shows global warming.

Even if the models listed differ in 'how much' (assuming the chart to be accurate).
It's more blatant here, though.

Edit: Also, I think the last IPCC estimate was 4 °C by 2100, not 10 °C by 2010.


Compared to what? Maybe the Earth likes it best the way its going.

Has IPCC ever said what the natural variation should be?

Like the climate never changes.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


You know what a system does when it is out of homeostatis? It swings wider in the opposite way, in the hopes of coming back to it's set point.

Unfortunatly, this set point is moving and with it you get just what we are seeing wider and wider weather/climate extremes.


Nobody today knows where the set point is. The real average temperature might be anywhere in the past billion years.

Negative feedback could account for all of the warming that humans will ever see.


800k BC - 450k BC In 2007 researchers dated DNA from Greenland mud under 1.2 miles of ice to about this time. The DNA indicated the presence of pine, yew and alder trees, as well as insects. Due to uncertainties in the dating, scientists could not rule out that the samples dated to the last interglacial, 130,000 to 116,000 years before the present.



640k BC Volcanic eruptions in northwest Wyoming, extending to Idaho and Montana, created a caldera some 40 miles long and 30 miles wide. The surface collapsed thousands of feet into a magma pool and marked the area later known as Yellowstone. Continuing eruptions caused climactic changes around the world.



c430k BC A prolonged warm period that lasted 28,000 years reached its peak about this time.



125k BC A long period of global warming began that lasted to about 11.5k BC. Polar meltwater raised the sea level by 4-6 meters.



120k BC An alteration in the Earth's magnetic field occurred.



110k BC An alteration in the Earth's magnetic field occurred.



74k BC The major Toba volcanic eruption occurred in Sumatra about this time. It was later believed that this eruption caused a major temperature drop and reduction in the human population. An ice age soon followed.



40k BC In later Washington state Mount St. Helens was born and intermittent eruptions continued to about 500BC.



40k BC - 12k BC A great river of ice formed in Oregon’s Wallowa Valley. The moraines around Wallowa Lake remained after the glacier melted.



40k BC - 2000 Sea level seems to have dropped at least four times in this period.



c38k BC Volcanic activity on Kauai, Ha., ended about this time.



c33k BC About this time, or more recently, a catastrophic earthquake carved out the Golden Gate and the waters of the Pacific rushed into the exposed plain to form the SF Bay. [see 8000BC]



30k BC - 14k BC Scientists in 2007 said that prevailing winds in North America during this period blew from the East Coast. The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered much of the eastern two-thirds of the continent deep into the Midwest and the later Middle Atlantic states.



28.8k BC - 12.2k BC Analysis of core sediment from the bottom of Lake Pata in the western Amazon River basin in 1996 indicated that the area remained covered with lush tropical rain forest during this time of maximum glacial coverage in the northern latitudes.



25k BC San Francisco and the Bay Area were home to mammoths indicating cold temperatures of an Ice Age. In 1934 a 10-pound mammoth tooth from this time was found by engineers working on the new Bay Bridge. In 1983 SF workers building the foundation of the Pansini Building at Pacific and Columbus found fossilized mammal bones that dated back to this time.



23k BC Lake Bonneville crested and covered some 20,000 sq. miles over what is now Utah, Nevada, and Idaho.



23k BC - 18k BC The last glacial maximum took place over this period.



c22k BC The last ice age began and humans in Europe retreated to Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.


www.timelines.ws...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: canucks555

Science has to be used to be proved. That is what science is for, to make things possible.

There are just as many true believers on the secular side as on the Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto sides.

The secular true believers are just going with the flow.

Real science has no consensus. Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.

AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.





And Mr. Semi (?) Collegiate there are more religious beleivers in Climate Crisis and working towards pulling other religious heads out of religious - well - places.


How is this relevant to whether human caused global warming is real?

AGW is political sophistry.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join