# Earth hottest it's been in 2,000 years



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 23, 2006)

It's only the National Academy of Sciences. What the hell do a bunch of scientist know about science anyway. Let's keep telling ourselves it's just a normal cycle for Mother Earth.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming


----------



## pizza (Jun 23, 2006)

kind of makes you wonder.. what happened 2000 years ago that made earth hotter than it is today?

-steve


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

pizza said:
			
		

> kind of makes you wonder.. what happened 2000 years ago that made earth hotter than it is today?
> 
> -steve


Ha! *Good *point! 



			
				highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> Let's keep telling ourselves it's just a normal cycle for Mother Earth.


See above.

I'm going to let this new global warming thread go for now. The first sign of politics and this baby's gonna get locked tighter than a nun's legs.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

pizza said:
			
		

> kind of makes you wonder.. what happened 2000 years ago that made earth hotter than it is today?
> 
> -steve




Love this reply...it was EXACTLY what I was thinking...

some people will never buy the fact that this is cyclical and that even these "scientists" are just theorizing themselves...

NOONE REALLY KNOWS...is that soo hard to understand??

I don't think so..

M

P.S. Thanks for letting this one go for now...MODS


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> Ha! *Good *point!
> 
> 
> See above.
> ...



As a graduate of a Catholic school I'm deeply offended.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

pizza said:
			
		

> kind of makes you wonder.. what happened 2000 years ago that made earth hotter than it is today?
> 
> -steve




Cavemen mustve been burning up fossils fuels at an alarming rate...wonder what gas prices were back then...I can't imagine the first wheel was good with gas mileage....

Tee hee... 

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> As a graduate of a Catholic school I'm deeply offended.



I can't tell if this is sarcasm.....

I also am a graduate of catholic school...just so its known...

M


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

I was an alter boy as a kid (no....nothing happened...  )


----------



## Marc (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I was an alter boy as a kid (no....nothing happened...  )



So was I... which makes your comment that much funnier.


I'm goign to borrow that, just so you know.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I was an alter boy as a kid (no....nothing happened...  )



you sure you're not repressing it??? ;-)

joke if you didnt know..LOL

M


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> you sure you're not repressing it??? ;-)
> 
> joke if you didnt know..LOL
> 
> M


Nothing that I can remember. Who the hell knows though; I was sleeping up there most of the time. I did trip and fall off the alter once. Luckily it was right after mass so not that many people saw...


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I was an alter boy as a kid (no....nothing happened...  )



UR killin the Catholic Church in this thread Greg. Is nothing scared to you?


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> UR killin the Catholic Church in this thread Greg. Is nothing scared to you?


No wink?


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> UR killin the Catholic Church in this thread Greg. Is nothing scared to you?




Sorry to make this a HUGE hijack...but...

HPD.....I think the church is doing a good job of that all by itself....Greg's joking isn't going to change that one way or the other...

M


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Sorry to make this a HUGE hijack...but...
> 
> HPD.....I think the church is doing a good job of that all by itself....Greg's joking isn't going to change that one way or the other...
> 
> M


I can't tell if he's serious or just being smart-alecky because of an apparent disagreement with the politics "ban" here. In any event, I'm Catholic so I'm allowed; just as an Irish man is allowed...


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I can't tell if he's serious or just being smart-alecky because of an apparent disagreement with the politics "ban" here. In any event, I'm Catholic so I'm allowed; just as an Irish man is allowed...



I'm just being smart-alecky because of  the politics "ban" here. Dang, you see right through me.


----------



## Marc (Jun 23, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> UR killin the Catholic Church in this thread Greg. Is nothing *scared* to you?



Freudian slip?




Just so we're clear, the only edit I made was to add the bold.


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> Dang, you see right through me.


More sarcasm. I love it. Everyone is grumpy because it's summer. Don't fret, all. The days are getting shorter and the snow will be here soon............or will it? :-o


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> I'm just being smart-alecky because of  the politics "ban" here. Dang, you see right through me.



Whew...I thought that might get semi "ugly" and force a ban on religion too ;-)

M


----------



## awf170 (Jun 23, 2006)

I really don't know why I am going to respond to this, but hey...

2,000 years is not a lot of time in terms of the earth.  We are are obviously in a warming cycle right now and exiting a mini-ice age.  We are accelerating this warming cycle, it is unknown to which degree we are doing it.  We maybe increasing the warmth of the earth by something like .00001 of a degree or we might be increasing it by something huge like 3 degrees.  I really don't think there is anyway to know at this point in time.  So why not play it safe and try to do what you can against global warming?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2006)

I prefer talking in here about hiking and skiing personally.... :wink:  Can we get back to that discussion?


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> I prefer talking in here about hiking and skiing personally.... :wink:  Can we get back to that discussion?



Please....

M


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> I prefer talking in here about hiking and skiing personally.... :wink:  Can we get back to that discussion?


Ahem...*Miscellaneous *Discussions...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> Ahem...*Miscellaneous *Discussions...



True, but I like to see lots of good discussions in the skiing and hiking rooms.  We aren't a "Miscellaneous" Forum :wink:


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> True, but I like to see lots of good discussions in the skiing and hiking rooms.  We aren't a "Miscellaneous" Forum :wink:


True, but I also like to see lots of good discussions between skiers and hikers in the "Miscellaneous" room.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2006)

awf170 said:
			
		

> I really don't know why I am going to respond to this, but hey...
> 
> 2,000 years is not a lot of time in terms of the earth.  We are are obviously in a warming cycle right now and exiting a mini-ice age.  We are accelerating this warming cycle, it is unknown to which degree we are doing it.  We maybe increasing the warmth of the earth by something like .00001 of a degree or we might be increasing it by something huge like 3 degrees.  I really don't think there is anyway to know at this point in time.  So why not play it safe and try to do what you can against global warming?



You're a bright kid Austin.

The article actually states that they have proof that Earth is its' hottest in 400 years and that it MAY be the hottest in 2,000 years. MAY...not a very scientific proof of much of anything. 400 years of study out of a global existence of over 5 BILLION years. Utterly insignificant.

That said, we put too much crap into the environment and we ought to cut down on it or stop it altogether ASAP, whether or not it contributes significantly to the normal, cyclical global warming pattern that we, in our short and insignificant lifetimes, happen to be living in.


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> The article actually states that they have proof that Earth is its' hottest in 400 years and that it MAY be the hottest in 2,000 years. MAY...not a very scientific proof of much of anything. 400 years of study out of a global existence of over 5 BILLION years. Utterly insignificant.
> 
> That said, we put too much crap into the environment and we ought to cut down on it or stop it altogether ASAP, whether or not it contributes significantly to the normal, cyclical global warming pattern that we, in our short and insignificant lifetimes, happen to be living in.


I agree with both paragraphs and was going to post something similar to your first, but you stated it far clearer than I would have. As far as your second paragraph, I think that was pretty much the consensus in the "other" thread before it went all political. I'm not sure what's left to debate here...


----------



## Marc (Jun 23, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> You're a bright kid Austin.
> 
> The article actually states that they have proof that Earth is its' hottest in 400 years and that it MAY be the hottest in 2,000 years. MAY...not a very scientific proof of much of anything. 400 years of study out of a global existence of over 5 BILLION years. Utterly insignificant.
> 
> That said, we put too much crap into the environment and we ought to cut down on it or stop it altogether ASAP, whether or not it contributes significantly to the normal, cyclical global warming pattern that we, in our short and insignificant lifetimes, happen to be living in.



I don't think anyone would argue your second point Jim.  I think the point of disagreement comes with how fast we change our behaviou and how it is initiated.  Generally the changes demanded by those who see global warming as an inevitable and immediate crisis would cost at least the American people jobs, and probably lots and lots of jobs and add decline to an already unstable economy.

If following Austin's logic train, which I agree is quite astute especially for his age-
Premise 1) We don't know how much human activity is contributing to climate change (or if it is the sole contributor)
Premise 2) Premise 1 is moot since we know, in general, our activites aren't adding to long term sustainability in terms of human life on this planet
Conclusion 1) We should change our behavior to increase long term sustainability.

The problem lies with Conclusion 1) in forgetting and/or ignoring the costs, which should certainly not be overlooked, associated with modifying the way we live and the speed with which we change.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2006)

Marc said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone would argue your second point Jim.  I think the point of disagreement comes with how fast we change our behaviou and how it is initiated.  Generally the changes demanded by those who see global warming as an inevitable and immediate crisis would cost at least the American people jobs, and probably lots and lots of jobs and add decline to an already unstable economy.
> 
> If following Austin's logic train, which I agree is quite astute especially for his age-
> Premise 1) We don't know how much human activity is contributing to climate change (or if it is the sole contributor)
> ...



Agreed...several other issues:

1) What makes you think that changing the American way of living would end the problem? We are fossil fuel pigs, but still we account for about 30% of global consumption. What about the other 70%? What about all the other countries on Earth? What about emerging economies like China and Russia? Who is going to tell them to give up fossil fuels? Us? Americans think about themselves way too much...this would cost jobs on a global scale and would castrate emerging economies. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, the question is how.

2) Everyone mentions change. Humans like change about as much as root canal work and taxes. Alot of people talk about it, few ever implement it. So there has to be a motivator that will incentify folks to change and consume less fossil fuels. What is that plan?

3) Brazil made a commitment to switching from oil to ethanol years ago. Now 70% of their cars run on ethanol. If they can do it, why not America, the greatest country on Earth? Please, non-political answers only.


----------



## Marc (Jun 23, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Agreed...several other issues:
> 
> 1) What makes you think that changing the American way of living would end the problem? We are fossil fuel pigs, but still we account for about 30% of global consumption. What about the other 70%? What about all the other countries on Earth? What about emerging economies like China and Russia? Who is going to tell them to give up fossil fuels? Us? Americans think about themselves way too much...this would cost jobs on a global scale and would castrate emerging economies. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, the question is how.
> 
> ...



I'm assuming when you reference "you" in issue 1) you are addressing the board's general populace and not me directly?  I don't think I implied anywhere in my post that changing the behavior of Americans exclusively would solve any problems.

Having been to China recently, I've seen first hand the environmental disaster the whole populated east coast of that country is.  Preachin' to the choir with that one.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2006)

Marc said:
			
		

> I'm assuming when you reference "you" in issue 1) you are addressing the board's general populace and not me directly?  I don't think I implied anywhere in my post that changing the behavior of Americans exclusively would solve any problems.
> 
> Having been to China recently, I've seen first hand the environmental disaster the whole populated east coast of that country is.  Preachin' to the choir with that one.



You = the general "you" as in anyone who happens to read this.

As for part 2, you don't need to go to China...check out any of the old eastern bloc countries, environmental disasters all. Even the old West Germany is a total mess...I visited Bavaria and marvelled at crystal clear streams that were utterly dead and devoid of any life due to organic pollution.


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I think that was pretty much the consensus in the "other" thread before it went all political. I'm not sure what's left to debate here...



Kind of hard to debate when you are gagged . 

On one side there are the scientists who are fair game to ridicule and misquote, and on the other side are the....


----------



## andyzee (Jun 23, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> True, but I like to see lots of good discussions in the skiing and hiking rooms. We aren't a "Miscellaneous" Forum :wink:


 
I say you should lock this thread!


----------



## salida (Jun 23, 2006)

Some where along the lines in my pseudo meteorology training, I overheard a few smart scientists debating that in a serve bout of global warming, it could make northern mountainous locations, near water (pacific north west, new england, and norway, places like that) much colder.  Resulting in longer winters and more snow...  THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN IN SCANDINAVIA...

I am certainly not a proponent of pollution, yet there is a reason it should be properly classified as "Global Climate Change" as opposed to "Global Warming", it does in fact cool some locations.  The 50 year average temperature in Scandinavia has decreased during that time frame, and possibly could happen in similar geologically formed places.  

(tried to bring it full circle here)


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 23, 2006)

one thing is for certain, after years and years of disagreement, no one can argue that the global climate is changing. for a long time, a lot of scientists and lay folk said the increase of climate was exagerated. it is most definitely not. the question to be asked is why?

many people point to a naturally occurring cycle. just because something has previously occurred naturally does not mean we are in a naturally occurring cycle. to assume so is not logical, relying on the past to predict the future. we need cold hard facts (or hot ones if you prefer). putting forth the suggestion that just because it happened before naturally, it is now happening again naturally does not hold up to logic.

what has been shown is the recent _rapid_ increase in temperature. i think the image going around now is being referred to as the hockey stick effect or something like that because the temp was averaging a straight line for a long long time and only in the last 100-150 years or so has the line gone up, and dramtically so, so it bears a resemblance to a hockey stick. a dramatic sudden increase does not seem natural to me.

despite my strong belief that the human created gases being put into the atmosphere over the last 150 years have had a strong effect on recent global climate change, i will admit the jury is still out on a conclusive answer. but the evidence i have reviewed seems to lead more in that direction than the other direction. i have not seen much strong evidence that this is a natural cycle. but that kinda thing is hard to prove, i will admit... which is the only reason i say the jury is still out. folks who believe it is a natural cycle do not have to prove anything as you never have to prove a negative in an arguement. those postulating cause and effect bear the burden of proof.


----------



## Greg (Jun 24, 2006)

YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> Kind of hard to debate when you are gagged .


Your displeasure with the political "ban" is also very obvious. The mods and I have discussed this at length and the consensus remains that politics do not add significant enough value to this board to warrant allowing them anymore. Most political threads eventually get locked because some folks simply cannot debate these topics in a civil manner and result to mud-slinging. You weren't even a member here last summer when some political debates went way too far, resulting in this ban so you're probably not aware how bad they can get here.

As far as whether I have the right to limit what is and what is not talked about here, I will use an analogy that I've used before. A message board is like a bulletin board in your local grocery store. The owner (me) and the managers (mods) have every right to remove something tacked to that bulletin board that they don't feel is appropriate. Case closed.


----------



## salida (Jun 24, 2006)

Also, to add to the above.  Looking through statistics I would be very suprised that the Earth's temperature hoovered around "average" for very long in its 5 billion year history.  It is only natural that there would be widely varried temperature fluctuations.  I am however, not claiming that our current "warm" episode is not human induced.


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 24, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> Case closed.



You completely missed the point. What's good for the goose, shoud be good for the gander. If you really mean NO POLITICS then don't enforce it selectively.   If you haven't noticed,  other than one post I don't talk politics. I am not a Democrat, Republican, Communist, or Socialist.  

This board is private property and you absolutely have the right to remove posts and lock threads. I come to this board for discussion about skiing, and hiking.  I don't come for Ann Coulter and the flat earth society.

Discussions about beer is okay though.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 24, 2006)

YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> This board is private property and you absolutely have the right to remove posts and lock threads.


ummmm, greg has every right to remove posts and lock threads. the board IS private property, greg owns it. this whole concept that BB's and forums are entitled to some sort of freedom of speech guarantee is ludicrous. i am the first person to line up to speak out for first amendment rights... but this is not the case. over moderation and removing posts will naturually select members that like that style of BB and forum membership. people vote their approval in participation rates.

regarding no political threads, i was originally against the idea but it was a REALLY good call. things were getting out of hand. it is a thin line between misc discussion and politics, i think greg and the mod team has done well to monitor that line appropriately. when something is boarderline, they usually pop in with a quick warning. if you don't like it, you don't have to post in those topics, just skip them.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jun 24, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> ummmm, greg has every right to remove posts and lock threads. the board IS private property, greg owns it. this whole concept that BB's and forums are entitled to some sort of freedom of speech guarantee is ludicrous.



I think YSD is saying the same thing as you Steve.

Can we get back to the nuns?

"It's alright to kiss a nun, but don't get into the habit"


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 24, 2006)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> Can we get back to the nuns?
> 
> "It's alright to kiss a nun, but don't get into the habit"



Speaking of bad habits

http://www.cutters.com/webPage/editors08QT09.html


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 24, 2006)

oops, my bad. i read that as "absolutely no right". my bad!!


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 24, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> oops, my bad. i read that as "absolutely no right". my bad!!



I figured as much.  I just chalked it up to lack of snow.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jun 24, 2006)

YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> If you really mean NO POLITICS then don't enforce it selectively.


All the mods agree with that and as of two weeks ago we have decided to have a 0 tolerance for political posts.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 24, 2006)

*..........*



			
				Marc said:
			
		

> ....Having been to China recently, I've seen first hand the environmental disaster the whole populated east coast of that country is.  Preachin' to the choir with that one.


  Their economic powers to be simply haven't yet developed procedures of hiding their waste from media, like we have.
Give em' a little time....and I think they'll grab, or try to grab, some island to turn into their dumpster.
Think you'll ever catch either a CNN or FNN correspondent following our trash?  Maybe one _Special Report_ per year....:-D :flag:


----------



## JimG. (Jun 26, 2006)

YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> You completely missed the point. What's good for the goose, shoud be good for the gander. If you really mean NO POLITICS then don't enforce it selectively.   If you haven't noticed,  other than one post I don't talk politics. I am not a Democrat, Republican, Communist, or Socialist.



Well, I think there's a difference between discussing a topic (and interpreting facts or lack thereof) and political rhetoric.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I think it's wrong to suppress that.
But when opinions are stepped on or trashed or misinterpreted to conform to someone's idea of a political agenda, then the discussion will be locked. So far (other than the flat Earth society reference), that hasn't happened in this thread.


----------



## salida (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm glad the earth isn't flat, it would be hard to go downhill skiing!


----------



## JimG. (Jun 26, 2006)

salida said:
			
		

> I'm glad the earth isn't flat, it would be hard to go downhill skiing!



Now that would be a real problem!


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 26, 2006)

salida said:
			
		

> I'm glad the earth isn't flat, it would be hard to go downhill skiing!



You mean it isnt?

i been duped..

M


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 26, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Well, I think there's a difference between discussing a topic (and interpreting facts or lack thereof) and political rhetoric.
> Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I think it's wrong to suppress that.
> But when opinions are stepped on or trashed or misinterpreted to conform to someone's idea of a political agenda, then the discussion will be locked. So far (other than the flat Earth society reference), that hasn't happened in this thread.


Let's step back a bit.  

I made a point of complimenting Greg on the moderation of the boards at Hunter manic monday.  Prior to my post, I had not made anything resembling a political post, and bashing of other public figures had already started in that thread.

http://forums.alpinezone.com/93759-post21.html

I admited my mistake.  The complete political ban is only two weeks old.  AFAICT, it was discussed in private, and no formal announcement was made of the new zero tolerance rule.  My comment about equal application was based on my readings here since I joined, not just that thread or this one.  IMHO, it had been uneven.

Having a debate about whether global warming exists is extremely political.  Just look at how many times people have asked for this subject to be dropped, or this thread to be locked.  I am just going back to gritting my teeth and clicking next when one of these threads comes up.

Tom
Environmental Protection Agency
1990-1991


----------



## Greg (Jun 26, 2006)

YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> I admited my mistake.  The complete political ban is only two weeks old.


Incorrect. We simply reaffirmed our stance as we've sort of been a bit lax and have overlooked some thinly veiled political posts lately..



			
				YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> AFAICT, it was discussed in private, and no formal announcement was made of the new zero tolerance rule.


This is correct. This "reaffirmation" was discussed privately among the moderators.



			
				YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> My comment about equal application was based on my readings here since I joined, not just that thread or this one.  IMHO, it had been uneven.


I would be interested in seeing some other specific posts/threads that demonstrate this "uneveness". Feel free to PM if you prefer.


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 2006)

bigbog said:
			
		

> Their economic powers to be simply haven't yet developed procedures of hiding their waste from media, like we have.
> Give em' a little time....and I think they'll grab, or try to grab, some island to turn into their dumpster.
> Think you'll ever catch either a CNN or FNN correspondent following our trash?  Maybe one _Special Report_ per year....:-D :flag:



I'm not the media.  I just said I saw it first hand.  What the hell are you talking about anyway?  Are you implying that the US is the same as China when it comes to pollution control?



> Having a debate about whether global warming exists is extremely political. Just look at how many times people have asked for this subject to be dropped, or this thread to be locked. I am just going back to gritting my teeth and clicking next when one of these threads comes up.



That's not true.  The only reason it turns political is because the ramifications of the debate are extremely political and therefore filter their way back to the global warming discussion, which in isolated terms, is purely scientific.

Since politics and the way with which people live their life in this country are inextricably linked, the debate naturally turns personal and rather heated.

There is no passion like a person has for his own life, I always say.

After all, I do love me.


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 26, 2006)

Marc said:
			
		

> After all, I do love me.



Just not in public please


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 26, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I would be interested in seeing some other specific posts/threads that demonstrate this "uneveness". Feel free to PM if you prefer.



I really don't want to discuss this anymore.  Threads about beer, varmints, and grilling are cool.  Ann Coulter, Global Warming, or Iraq, not so cool.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 27, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> what has been shown is the recent _rapid_ increase in temperature. i think the image going around now is being referred to as the hockey stick effect or something like that because the temp was averaging a straight line for a long long time and only in the last 100-150 years or so has the line gone up, and dramtically so, so it bears a resemblance to a hockey stick. a dramatic sudden increase does not seem natural to me.



Spot on, there, *Riv*. No one doubts the cycles, and no one doubts that the global climate is changing. It does that, being an immense, and immensly complicated, system. The question is if it's really hapening faster, which it does appear to be, and if so, what's causing it. The only thing truly different between now and 2000 years ago is industrialization. You could say that the rise 2000 years ago is partially our fault, as well, what with the rapid spread of agriculture making significant changes in the environment. Remember from your high school science classes that in an experiment you have control constants and variables. We are the variables here- any change in outcomes can parsimoniously be attributed to a change in the variables.

The science is easy- both to debate and to agree on. The solutions, though, are the hard part. And not so much the what (reduce greenhouse emissions), as the _how_. That's when it gets into the political realm. Those solutions run the gamut. You can ascribe whatever titles you want to it, but it boils down to do nothing to do everything. Debating the science is the game of the do nothings, returning to hunter/gatherers is the game of the do everythings. Somewhere in between lies the answer. 

The major problem I see is that while we're arguing over _if_, we're not preparing for the _when_. Climates change, sometimes dramatically. Not being prepared for the change, no matter the cause, is what leads to extinctions. Humans have always been adaptable (that's why we're still here), and never more so than now. The big scare, though, is that we may not be adaptable enough if we let things (ourselves included) get too far out of hand. Some would argue that it's already too late, that we've hit a couple of tipping points already (Greenland ice sheet as exhibit 1). I don't know that that's truly the case, but I think we're mighty close.

When the equatorial deserts reach north to the 40th parallel and the Arctic Zones reach south to the 41st, we'll know we're in trouble. The good news is it'll only take about an hour to get from the sunny beach to the snowy slopes.

/I so hope this thread didn't get locked as I typed this...


----------



## skibum1321 (Jun 27, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> parsimoniously


What are you trying to make us think that you're smart or something?


----------



## JimG. (Jun 27, 2006)

YardSaleDad said:
			
		

> Let's step back a bit.
> 
> I made a point of complimenting Greg on the moderation of the boards at Hunter manic monday.  Prior to my post, I had not made anything resembling a political post, and bashing of other public figures had already started in that thread.
> 
> ...



Tom, I just want to say that I'm not picking on you. And I don't think you went on any political rants. And I can see how you think this ban is kind of new; it is relative to the date you started posting here.

What you missed was the political ugliness last year. VERY UGLY. And we'll leave it at that.


----------



## pizza (Jun 27, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> What you missed was the political ugliness last year. VERY UGLY. And we'll leave it at that.



How ugly was it?


----------



## JimG. (Jun 27, 2006)

pizza said:
			
		

> How ugly was it?



Such a setup? Asking me how ugly it got and having that avatar there at the same time?

Steve was there for the political circus last year and he went away for a while because of it. That's about as ugly as it can get.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 27, 2006)

pizza said:
			
		

> How ugly was it?




It was so ugly, {insert Mother joke here}

It got pretty stupid, consisting mostly of ad hominems.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 27, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> It was so ugly, {insert Mother joke here}
> 
> It got pretty stupid, consisting mostly of ad hominems.



And we're going to leave it at that.  Back to the topic....


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 28, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> It got pretty stupid, consisting mostly of ad hominems.



I totally agree. Attacking the person’s position is fair game, attacking the person’s character is wrong and childish.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 28, 2006)

Nice avatar, *HPD*


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 28, 2006)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...al_panel_supports_98_global_warming_evidence/

Interesting article on the "hockey Stick" graph. Sure there are problems with it, and no one's ever said there weren't, but the NSA panel agrees the basic idea still holds.

Funny, though, that the anti-global warming crowd fixates on little bits, never realizing that there's no way dumping huge amounts of crap into the atmosphere can be a good thing.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> the anti-global warming crowd



Who are these folks? They deny that the climate is warming? That's pretty much head in the sand stuff isn't it?

It's one thing to debate the global warming scenario and mankind's contribution to it, it's totally another to deny that warming exists. I'd like to meet some of those folks.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 28, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Nice avatar, *HPD*



Thanks for noticing.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 28, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Who are these folks? They deny that the climate is warming? That's pretty much head in the sand stuff isn't it?
> 
> It's one thing to debate the global warming scenario and mankind's contribution to it, it's totally another to deny that warming exists. I'd like to meet some of those folks.




I don't want to get political, here, but the vast majority of their reps in DC sit to the right of the center aisle.

To be fair, they don't so much say "There's no global warming" as nit pick the science as a way of stalling the debate. So yes, head in the sand stuff.


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 28, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Who are these folks? They deny that the climate is warming? That's pretty much head in the sand stuff isn't it?
> 
> It's one thing to debate the global warming scenario and mankind's contribution to it, it's totally another to deny that warming exists. I'd like to meet some of those folks.



http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+lies


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I don't want to get political, here, but the vast majority of their reps in DC sit to the right of the center aisle.
> 
> To be fair, they don't so much say "There's no global warming" as nit pick the science as a way of stalling the debate. So yes, head in the sand stuff.



Well, I think you did get political with the anti-global warming comment. 

What you basically meant was that politicians bend facts and lie for political ends. Sorry, that takes place on BOTH sides of the aisle in Washington.

Next time it's a lock.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 28, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Who are these folks? They deny that the climate is warming? That's pretty much head in the sand stuff isn't it?
> 
> It's one thing to debate the global warming scenario and mankind's contribution to it, it's totally another to deny that warming exists. I'd like to meet some of those folks.



      “The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability” - Rev. Jerry Falwell

Maybe you'll get to meet him one day. BTW I’m citing him as a man of God, not a political figure.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> “The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability” - Rev. Jerry Falwell
> 
> Maybe you'll get to meet him one day. BTW I’m citing him as a man of God, not a political figure.



I have no desire to meet ANY politicians, conservative or liberal or independent, nor do I want them deciding what to do about global warming issues. These are folks whose heads are in other people's pockets, not in the sand.

Persistent political flame bait.

LOCKED.


----------

