Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 44

Thread: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

  1. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ridrfan View Post
    of course I want to do nothing (as far as "man causing global warming" goes. I think its a bunch of garbage. I dont want to "fix" it, because I dont believe it needs to be fixed. We can all stop driving our cars tomorrow, shut down the factories etc. and have as much affect as taking a cup of water out of the Atlantic will change the way the tides flow. Its not going to change anything.
    Yeah- I "get" your position. But that's NOT what most scientists think.
    But I forgot- all those scientists are only plotting to re-distribute worldwide wealth and/or personally enrich themselves.
    Did you ever think- what if I'm wrong? What if all the scientists are right....and we do still have a chance to possibly change this course we're on to disaster? Isn't the chance that they just MIGHT be right worth doing something? Wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution? I would.

  2. #34
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    507

    Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

    All the scientists cant be right, because they dont all agree.
    Go ahead, do whatever you want, Im not stopping you. If you really feel so stongly about it, I will give you my address, and you can pay the amount of money that Im going to have to pay in increased taxes, gas and power bills going up, etc. I just cant pay any more. I live in a country that still has not reached tax free day for the year 2007 (which is July 15), so forgive me if I dont want my tax burden to go up.

  3. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ridrfan View Post
    All the scientists cant be right, because they dont all agree.
    Go ahead, do whatever you want, Im not stopping you. If you really feel so stongly about it, I will give you my address, and you can pay the amount of money that Im going to have to pay in increased taxes, gas and power bills going up, etc. I just cant pay any more. I live in a country that still has not reached tax free day for the year 2007 (which is July 15), so forgive me if I dont want my tax burden to go up.
    LOL...yeah, JAZ, the check's in the mail.
    But seriously, the vast majority of scientists DO think there is a problem.
    And the British study done recently showed that doing nothing will result in greater economic hardship and costs. Nobody wants their taxes increased- I certainly don't. But we will pay- one way or another. I'd rather pay now to try to prevent worse costs down the line.

  4. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

    yea...it's always a minimum cost when those collecting the money get it started... the chineese and indians are prolly lining the pockets of the scientists already...the lawyers are already gearing up .... it's all about parasites... punishing and pilfering from the successful..

  5. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    yea...it's always a minimum cost when those collecting the money get it started... the chineese and indians are prolly lining the pockets of the scientists already...the lawyers are already gearing up .... it's all about parasites... punishing and pilfering from the successful..
    Why is it that you guys always only see things throught the prism of MONEY? Everything is either about getting or stealing money. So, in your world there just isn't any room for ethical scientists actually concerned over what the SCIENCE is telling them? It can't be that the majority of worldwide scientists are actually justifiablymoved to speak out- it's got to be that they are all being paid off?
    Gosh, I hate the world rightwingers live in. LOL

  6. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    507

    Post Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts


  7. #39
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    507

    Post Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

    Dang it... here, I copied and pasted the article....

    The surface of most of Greenland is entombed by a thick ice cap, but some time during the past 800,000 years, the southern part of the island actually lived up to its name. It was covered by a thick, verdant boreal forest similar to that now found in many regions of Canada.
    The Greenland forest contained pine trees, yews and aspens, where a profusion of insect life - including beetles, flies, moths and butterflies - flitted among the plants.
    The surprising discovery, made by an international team of scientists (including some from Canada) and outlined in the current issue of the journal Science, was based on an analysis of tiny fragments of DNA preserved in ice drawn from cores drilled nearly to the bottom of Greenland's ice sheet.
    The finding suggests that at some point in the relatively recent past, Greenland had to be far warmer than it is now, and a substantial part of the island was forested, unlike today, when about 85 per cent is ice-covered and much of the rest is inhospitable Arctic tundra.
    "We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland, which is currently hidden under more than two kilometres of ice, was once very different to the Greenland we see today," said Eske Willerslev, a bio-archeology fellow at the University of Copenhagen, who headed the research team. "Back then, it was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects."
    Although it is not known exactly when the ancient forest died out, the researchers said it most likely existed between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, perhaps even as recently as 130,000 years ago.
    To support the type of trees found at the site, average temperatures in summer would have been warmer than 10 degrees, while winters wouldn't have fallen below -17. This Greenland would have matched the name Erik the Red gave it more than a 1,000 years ago, a bucolic moniker apparently intended to lure more settlers to the Norse explorer's nascent colony.
    Although the climate that gave rise to the ancient forest wouldn't be described as balmy, it was probably not too far different than the middle latitudes of Canada, where the boreal forest is the predominant ecosystem.
    "Parts of the boreal forest in summer can be a pleasant environment, so there is no reason to think it wouldn't have been similar in Greenland," said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, who worked on the project.
    Dr. Sharp said the ice at the bottom of the cores acted like a natural freezer, preserving many of the living things that existed at the time the forest was buried in snow. The ice, drawn from a thin layer just before bedrock begins, contained a mix of silt, small pebbles and bits of organic matter.
    Why was this debris so significant?
    Because, in the absence of a fossil record in this ice-encrusted area, scientists had to rely on other indicators to determine the type of environments that once existed there.
    They were confident the DNA they found accurately portrayed forest conditions in the area and didn't arrive on wind or precipitation from more southerly parts of the world.
    To test this hunch, they analyzed ice from the bottom of a glacier that formed in the past few thousand years on Ellesmere Island, and found the DNA it contained closely matched plant species growing nearby. In addition, ice layers from parts of the core drawn in Greenland just above the bottom - representing more recent snow deposits - didn't contain DNA.
    Dr. Sharp said it is likely that parts of Northern Canada, such as southern Baffin Island, would have been forested at the time that Greenland was also heavily wooded. At present, the closest boreal forest to Greenland is along the Labrador coast and parts of northern Quebec.
    The findings have mixed implications for the current concern over global warming and the stability of Greenland's vast ice sheet, which, if it melted in its entirety, would raise global sea levels by about six metres.
    The research indicates that within the relatively recent past, due entirely to natural fluctuations in climate, Greenland was as warm or warmer than many of the predictions made for human-caused global warming.
    Scientists say the ice sheet covering the ancient forest existed during the warm, interglacial period that occurred 116,000 to 130,000 years ago, when temperatures were about five degrees warmer than today. "If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," Dr. Willerslev said.
    But if this view is wrong, and this part of the ice sheet does melt, it would have major implications for sea coasts. Water levels would likely rise one to two metres. "That's not a big deal 400,000 years ago when the human population was essentially non-existent," Dr. Sharp said. But today, "you've got 104 million people living within a metre of sea level."

  8. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Let's see the Al Gore/ Global people refute these facts

    "But if this view is wrong, and this part of the ice sheet does melt, it would have major implications for sea coasts. Water levels would likely rise one to two metres. "That's not a big deal 400,000 years ago when the human population was essentially non-existent," Dr. Sharp said. But today, "you've got 104 million people living within a metre of sea level."

    Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? We know that carbon emissions are warming the earth- that's not in dispute. Whether or not there were periods of warmth eons ago is beside the point- right here, right now, we are facing some pretty heavy-duty consequences of rapid warming. The question is- what are we going to do to try to mitigate the repercussions?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •