When talking about climate change, the liberals always focus on the negative consequences. There are some good ones too – if you’re into that sort of thing.
(CNN)Could this be good news about global warming? Latest research suggests that human intervention has postponed the beginning of the next ice age.
The researchers suggest that even moderate human interference with the planet’s natural carbon balance, through activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, might delay the next glacial cycle by 100,000 years.
Scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany have found that the Earth’s last eight ice ages can be explained by a relation between insolation — solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface — and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This also helps to predict future glacial cycles.
Perhaps we can agree that having Wisconsin under a mile of ice again would be a bad thing. Perhaps not.
Excellent!
Let’s keep the ice age from hurting us!
Why liberals want to hurt us by speeding in the next ice age is beyond me.
No surprise that things are beyond you.
Baldy,
You don’t like that I embrace the science of global warming delaying the next ice age?
Are you denying the science?
kev:
No, those are your words, not mine.
It is your last statement that is just another one of your off topic, factless proclamations that brought about the comment. Just as your response is another feeble attempt to put your words in other folks mouths.
Baldy,
So enjoying the idea that global warming, from a scientific point of view, is preventing/delaying a catastrophic ice age is “feckless”?
I call it embracing good science.
Global warming delaying the next ice age is the basis of Fallen Angels — a novel written by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. It was published back in 2002.
http://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Angels-Larry-Niven/dp/0743471814/ref=la_B000AQ416S_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452893899&sr=1-7
kev:
Once again, making stuff up to prove your point. I never used the word “feckless”.
How does your embracing of good science relate to denying evolution? Or that a couple weeks ago your were claiming that the pope wasn’t christian because he had something to say about climate change?
Baldy,
Evolution is not science, just bad theory.
kev:
Denial of evolution is just bad ideology. And certainly not a sign of your embracing good science. Just another example of your double standards..
Baldy, evolution is a theory, not fact.
Just as creationism is a theory, not fact.
Science has not proved climate change exists.
Science has not disproved climate change exists.
Fact is that climate change has not been proven or disproven and for my money, it doesn’t exist.
Creationism is to evolution as alchemy is to chemistry
The first is a firm belief in magic . The second is fact bast
The chasm is ponderous but Some not only equates the 2 but prefer intelligent design
That’s of course their right .
Here’s a thought
Creationism had all the facts it needed around the time fire was discovered and hasn’t changed a single tenent since that time
There is one fact – The universe was made by an Intelligent Designer with all power
That intelligent designer made our solar system with only one inhabitable planet and even that one has a center and north and south that are almost uninhabitable .
He allowed 99.9% of the species on the planet to go extinct
Assuming man has existed on the earth for 100,000 , the designer watched passively For the first 98,000 years , then and only then did Designer intervene
And he put on a human sacrifice to insure he meant business , after sitting on his hands all that time watching us suffer
The Designer chose illiterate Man ( rather than the Chinese who could have gotten the message out far faster with their ability to read and write )to tell the story of his greatness
And the Designer brought in the thought of hell ( not in the OT) where mistakes you made in this life puts you in torment for eternity
Then he let another illiterate chap rip off the Jesus story and start the religion of Islam
Some designer ,huh?
Mark:
Great post. Keep up the good work.
Dan:
Isn’t it a great county we live in ? Where an individual can believe anything they want as long as they don’t impose that individual believe on others. Unlike religious theocracies.
Baldy,
So you are accepting this good science that global warming benefits us by delaying the next ice age?
If not, wouldn’t that make you the one with the “double standard”?
And Baldy…
Mark had a great post? It has nothing to do with article posted and it was like reading graffiti on the wall…it made coherent sense to you?
kev:
I’ll accept that the article made sense; that climate change (if it continues at the present rate) would delay the next ice age. Nowhere did I say otherwise. I didn’t say it was good or bad science, nor did I use the word “feckless”. That is all stuff you are making up.
And Mark’s post was in response to the one by Dan. Maybe you didn’t pick up on that. Nonetheless, in my opinion it was a good post. I still have a right to say that right? And I really thought you would find Mark’s post educational. But like they say, you can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink…..
Baldy,
C’mon now! Before this article you ran around like a standard global warming disciple saying it was bad and chastising those who did not embrace the “science”….now global warming is neither good or bad?
I’ve always been consistent, global warming is a great thing, and the science backs it up on ice age prevention!
Wouldn’t this now make you a ” hypocrite” on the subject.
I’ll admit my auto correct put feckless in instead of “factless”, but I know you really meant feckless given your indignation toward this particular science.
kev;
If you are a polar bear, live in low coastal areas, or if you like boreal forest ecosystems, climate change is bad. If you want to delay the next ice age (which was 10000+ years out) then the one article is in your favor. But looking back at your previous stance on climate change would prove you to be making things up once again, as you always denied climate change and the science behind it.
The only thing you have been consistent with is your flexible standards regarding truth and fact.
It is the height of hubris to make a statement like “but I know you really meant feckless” without any proof other than your all knowing arrogance. Feckless describes you perfectly.
Nothing but false accusations and personal attacks. Way past time to ban this idiot.
seek:
I disagree. Kevin should be allowed to stay and say whatever he wants. If he makes outrageous or outlandish claims we should take the opportunity for a teaching moment.
Baldy,
So you admit that the attempt to curb global warming will benefit only some and hurt many?
So this isn’t about “science”, it’s about political power?
Don’t you feel bad chastising those of us smart enough to realize that being against “science”?
(BTW, pretty sure seeker was talking about you….not that I agree with him.)
kev:
No, I don’t admit that, because it doesn’t make any sense. None of what you said did. But it is a free country and you can believe whatever you want. Anyway, polar bears usually vote R.
More lies and personal attacks. Way past time to ban the poster at 8:05 p.m.
seek:
Where did I lie? It is well known that the polar bear community is pro conservation (the root word of conservative) as their homeland is being threatened by shrinking arctic ice. No lie there..
Baldy,
Do you embrace, and encourage, global warming now knowing the science predicts it will delay, and possibly eliminate, a catastrophic ice age?
If not, why do you deny the science?
Kev,
there are enough deniers of climate change in the US to mute any meaningful
Actions or even discussions on the topic
The long term prognosis for the planet is
One of destruction – universe’s being created and destroyed as they have for eons
In the mean time ,
If you and your buds are correct , we have no problems
If you are wrong , the long term consequences to your kids and their kids kids is a tad worse than the national debt problem
The truth is that both of us won’t know the real answer in our lifetime unless the Designer changes what he has created and allowed to happen for millions of years and/or or cleans the planet up for us
If either of those happens , I will admit I was wrong .
Is there any circumstance that would cause you to admit you are wrong ?
Mark,
“Climate change deniers” really are “Ice Age Preventionists”.
Those in your camp, that deny the science of ice age prevention and the tremendous benefits of any alleged warming, are “destructive ice age advocates”.
Terminolgy update FYI.