http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=158119932&videoChannel=2602


OK If Global warming is man made by our modern machines, why are they finding artifacts from 3000 years ago when the ice is melting..

If man didn't cause it then, man can't be causing it now?

Interesting logic there.

I'm surprised Reuters didn't ask the question?

What SBD is pointing out is that they are finding artifacts buried in glacier ice where the ice did not exist 3,000 years ago.

If ice did not exist there 3,000 years ago and the planet was warmer then, could the current fluxuations in temperature be more likely to be attributed to the natural fluxuations that have occured over millenia as opposed to man made influence?

It's a valid question in my mind.

Wait, wait,....... I forgot my climatologist credentials at the door.

Nevermind

It's not the fact that the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, but rather the rate at which it is happening.
Using ice core samples, scientists can look back over 6K years and see what global temperature patterns were doing.
Nothing in the past even comes close to what is occurring now.
Should we be concerned?

Says who? The IPCC?

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html

"Nothing in the past even comes close to what is occurring now.
Should we be concerned?"

Not if you're a conservative. Any science that doesn't support their faith-held beliefs is junk science is the impression I'm given. That, and since the human-induced increment is less than the historic natural range in variation, it's not worth doing anything about. Very comforting reasoning - not.

Sg

I'm sure nobody else thought of what SBD was pointing out, SW.

Or they did.

Whichever.

Its a good reason to buy a bigger boat that's forsure..

Salmo for smart guy whom I respect on this board I think your last comment was a little shortsided.

There aren't many people out there who have no concern for pollution of the environment, liberal or conservative, doesn't matter. No one wants to see their backyard $hit on.

Much like in fisheries conservation issues, differences occur in the recommended methods for tackling the issue.

This is the new American media climate (intended) where emotions are much more important than facts. Unless of course we find a random tidbit of information which calls into question the vast preponderance of the evidence. Then we wrap that fact into a BS coating of "entirely possible" logic and voila, problem solved.

New approach. We're all going to die a fiery death before this matters.

I'll call it the "Scorched Earth" justification principle.

I forgot Jeebus is a-comin' so nothing we do makes any difference, anyway.

Gotta love bible belt logic.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Are you Nostradomus all the sudden?

Scary thought, yes, but really? Therefore we really shouldn't give a flying fugazee about anything.

I'm hoping for a seriously epic plague to slow down global warming. Kidding, but seriously.

One word: Pestilence

Far more available than "random tidbits" that call into question the "vast preponderance of evidence" IR.

Fact is, the vast majority of the IPCC data has been proved false.

If you believe money can change the weather,..... whats stopping you from writing checks to the UN right now?

How many farts in a fish tank does it take for the tank to reach 98.6 degrees?

I think population control should be in the forefront of this anti-warming movement.

It's kinda like a 100 doctors telling you that you have a brain tumor and one that says it's just a headache.
The majority of the worlds climatologist are saying the earth has a potential brain tumor and a handful are saying it's just a headache.

The anti climate change idiots are the same ones who feel we shouldn't worry about species going extinct because "species have been going extinct for thousands of years".