Go to IT CURES HOARSENESS! The "Global Warming" Hoax
- Add a comment
- Go to Remains of 8000 year old Stone Age settlement found under English Channel
RE RISING SEA LEVELS
You know and I know and most of us know if we have been even slightly informed that Ice Ages have come and gone throughout several hundred thousand years. The end of the last one brought us the filling of the Mediterranean Basin, and the filling of the Black Sea Basin.
So this is a natural sequence of events.
But the evidence I see tells me that we are in a period warmer than has been recorded. The data I see as demonstrating this is ice core samples from the Greenland Ice Pack, where scientists have concluded that, from pollen, co2, etc. in those cores, we are in the warmest period in hundreds of thousands of years.
Again, the issue is -- can we do something to at least mitigate it?
Are you a doomsday prophet who says that we cannot because this is 100% natural?
Or can you not admit that this is at least partially due to human activity and there are steps we can take that will give some measure of relief?
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 16, 2007 at 6:45 AM
| link to this | reply
THE EPA (FROM WHICH SITE THIS GRAPH COMES) FOSTERS A RADICAL
AGENDA?
They provide information.
The graph is information.
I have read much of what you have supplied, and I have seen its shortcomings.
It comes from an agenda, not a desire to learn.
I have to admit you do come off as a mouthpiece for American Industry and oil concerns.
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 16, 2007 at 6:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: "the graph i have provided demonstrates a natural warming/cooling . . .
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter! You are proving, obliquely, my theory that "global warming" theory is being postulated not out of any kind of sound climatological science, but rather as a means of forcing a radical environmentalist agenda on the rest of us, regardless of the harm it does to humanity.
The question I have for you now is this: If there may be natural causes to the climate changes we are now observing, but "we cannot rule out the pollutants of human activity," then how do you explain the results of severe climate change before human activity could even have been considered a factor?
Referrring to my post from Monday August 13, how many fires do you think the Stone Agers had to light to so radically alter the climate as to melt ice sufficient to raise the sea level to flood their settlement in what is now the English Channel?
"I will have you checkmated on your next move" - Mr. Spock to Captain Kirk, Where No Man Has Gone Before
posted by
WriterofLight
on August 14, 2007 at 8:32 PM
| link to this | reply
the graph i have provided demonstrates a natural warming/cooling
so we cannot say that it is totally man-made.
i guess the point i keep trying to make is this:
there may be natural causes for what we observe now
the glaciers and ice caps and arctic ice melting -- droughts -- sea levels rising in the present day (East Coast is concerned about the rising seas impacting the development along the beaches [a concern for right now for this U.S.A.]) -- unusual and violent weather -- etc.
however, we cannot rule out the pollutants of human activity.
if this is entirely natural, then we face a very sad future -- disasters and disastrous consequences -- and there is nothing we can do about it.
however, if there is a man-made component, then we can take actions to mitigate the results of the warming trend, and the consequences would not be so great.
so on what side would anyone prefer to err -- that it is totally natural and we cannot mitigate it, thus expect a dark future -- or that there is a human component and there is something we can do to lessen the effects?
personally, I would prefer the latter -- and do something about it. Even if it does nothing for global warming (or temperature change), a lot of people will reap a more healthy environment and fewer cases of respiratory, etc. illness.
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 14, 2007 at 7:15 AM
| link to this | reply