I have been reading and watching videos of global warming and was wondering if the trend of up and down warming is a natural thing. On one video in 2003 in greenland they found that the up and down trend from medevil to roman times and so on and so on , were all up and downs. Is it possible its natural , or is it possible from her on out the warming will get worse , or will it eventually go back down on its own . Just wondering.

There is not such a great case for the idea that human emissions of carbon dioxide are driving up temperatures as many would have you believe. It has gained a lot of political momentum, far more than is justified by an analysis of the case against carbon dioxide. It is an example of how politics, and not merely reasoning and experiment, has shaped scientific thought. In fact, the Royal Society, the formerly prestigious and oldest surviving scientific institution, has altered its motto over this issue from "Nullius in Verba" ("on the word of no one") to a pathetic one with the meaning reversed: "Respect the facts".

I agree with both of you... If humans are causing or contributing to Global Warming, why is Mars' polar caps diminishing as well? Maybe the martians are causing their Global Warming issues as well!!! Ha!

And for the record, Al Gore is a crackpot. He is so out of touch it is unreal, and while there are many scientists that would agree with his theory, there are many more who oppose his thinking. There is absolutely nothing scientific to back up what he precludes. And the nobel peace prize got watered down after he won. This holds true whether you consider yourself a Democrat or Republican.

With or without humans the global climate changes a lot over time remember the Little Ice Age only ended a couple hundred years ago. So yes, the up-and-downs is entirely normal. The question is how much are we contributing to the current changes?

I read somewhere where not only Earth...but mars and a couple other planets are going through "global warming periods".....Gores video showed that the global warming occurring now is not caused by human activites.

There have several global warming occurances millions of years ago....and remind during the time of the dinosaurs there were no ice caps at alll....so if it happens again...it is not out of the ordinary

predator....the little ice age which ended around 1850 is always overlooked by global warming alarmists.....saying it is just human activities causing it over the last 150 years.

realistically it would only take one good volcanic eruption, or meteor impact to do as much damage as humanity has.

however... ignoring the impact that we have on the ecosystem is just as foolish as worrying about the sky falling.

i think it is difficult to know who to believe, as we have to bear in mind many of the scientists who claim we aren't doing anything to cause global warming are on the pay roll of oil companies, i think we need to get our heads out of the clouds and think, whether we are doing damage or not is irrelevant, we cannot continue like we are, i keep saying it, humanity is pushing itself into a moral, financial, and ecologocial hole, which i don't think we can get out of unless we do something soon

You guys shouldn't disrespect Al Gore. He invented the internet after all.

aba...one severe impact or supervolcanic eruption would create a catastrophy far worse than the current warming trend wether mankind has anything to do with it or not

global warming is a result of the coming of a new astrological age.

a man will meet you carrying an earthen pitcher of
water; follow him into the house where he goes in"
(Luke 22:10; Mark 14:13.)

I love it when people stick their head in the sand. Regardless of what you read or watch on TV, we are destroying the earth. It makes no difference who or what you believe. The balance of nature took millions of years to form, we are destroying that balance in a few hundred.

I laugh when people argue about stupid things. Its like being in a cage with hungry lions, it dosent matter which lion bites you first, you will be eaten by them all.

It becomes stupid when the edifices of your vehemently maintained position start to come unglued and do not meet with such wide acceptance, but it was not stupid when you were arguing strongly over this issue. If the threats are many, then it is obviously sensible to concentrate our efforts on the threats, not upon paper tigers (or paper lions, in this case).

Mankinds negative impact on the enviroment certainly can not be denied.
His impact on global warming is certainly debatable.
I am more concerned about the deforrestation that has gone on in the world.

Sure Andrew, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Don't focus so much on Climate Change issue, focus instead on my comment about Natures Balance.

We are destroying the earth and nature, if you want study upon study to prove what a grade 3 student understands, then I feel sorry for you. Since grade 3, I have understood that mankind is destroying the earth.

Good Luck, and I hope the denial pill is making you feel better.

SD.....I agree ...there have been times in the past when there were no ice caps.

I am in denial of what, exactly? Certainly man is having an impact upon the earth. However, I do not believe in what we are told about anthropogenic global warming, which seems largely a tool for ensuring a hierarchical society into the future.

As to nature's balance supposedly forming over millions of years, I believe that is nonsense. I am a student of applied mathematics, and therefore of the nature of complex systems. Balances in nature exist but are fleeting, and we are not destroying a balance that has been millions of years in the making. The earth's climate exists in a homeostatic, and not a static, state and is punctuated by chaotic inputs of volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts. Species form and become extinct in response to naturally changing environments and the behaviour of other species. Landscapes are altered by earthquakes and fluid erosion and wildfires.

So man pollutes rivers, destroys the habitats of wild animals, overfishes and reduces the present amount of biodiversity, but life shall continue when he is done. He will not destroy life by this action, nor even necessarily destroy himself. It may well happen that through the consumption of finite resources, society itself shall eventually be destroyed, but humankind, and nature, shall live on.

So what then is the purpose of the misanthropic sneering that "mankind is destroying the earth"? It cannot literally be true. Mankind may be destroying areas of rainforest and seafloors and particular species, but the earth is remaining intact, and life is still flourishing. So mankind is bringing change and not ultimate destruction. You may well argue that it is change for the worse, but why should one be compelled to value pristine nature in the absence of humanity?

Eventually, if human society becomes extinct, this pristine natural state shall resume in a timespan that is geologically insignificant, and after a few aeons there will once again be abundant biodiversity. Why is there a rush to accelerate this process? What does it matter about the state of the world once society has perished? The cycle of life is harsh. I am not sure that the animals would be grateful for suffering the rigours of life merely for the satisfaction of some long-dead humans.

We ought to attempt to reclaim areas of natural beauty, but it should be for the enjoyment of humanity and not at the expense of quickly dissolving civilisation by removing its industrial capacity and the reasons are twofold: one is that this is inevitable if and when civilisation no longer exists, and the other is that it is also meaningless in this case.

It is a meaningless truism that in order to sustain our present state of existence we must live in a manner that is sustainable (if you will pardon the trite buzzword). Consumption of finite resources cannot be sustained forever, but we need not exagerate the effects of the consumption of fossil fuels. Environmental problems that are actually caused by this view immediately come to mind: biofuels are seen to be a "carbon neutral" source of fuel with the consequence that areas of rainforest are cleared to produce them (in actuality, there is not enough land to produce enough biofuels to meet even a fraction of our energy requirements, and their production itself is very energy intensive). The second example is that areas of countryside and coastlines and natural waterways are blighted with contraptions to inefficiently capture the energy of natural fluid flows. High voltage powerlines are also constructed over vast distances with large pylons in order to exploit the best sites for energy production via these means.

Andrew:

I am very satisfied with the fact that your a mathematics student. I for one hold a college degree as well, but so what.....so does GW Bush an many other idiots of this world . Education is supposed to make you open your mind to other ideas and perhaps alter your way of thinking.

I, like you used to be rigid in my train of thought and how I perceived the world. But, through evolution perhaps or opening my mind a little more, have started to think a little differently.

There are many studies, by many sciencetists that swing one way or the other. I don't for one second think these studies are not influenced or biased by/towards corporations or who ever they may benefit or hurt.

Fact remains, because of my job I have had the opportunity to travel/live in many parts of the world. I have been on every continent except Antarctica. I have seen first hand the pollution, misery, eco-destruction etc.

My point is only one. We are destroying our eco-system, I don't think much will be left for future generations. But let the studies and arguments go forth and multiply, while the earth and its inhabitents suffer.

Like I said, enjoy your Denial Pill and hide behind your mathematics degree. In the end the raping and pillaging of this planet continues......You cannot change my mind like I cannot change yours. Your awakening has to happen on its own.

You said "but why should one be compelled to value pristine nature in the absence of humanity?" I say, because nature is beautiful and because it gave me life. I love her like I love my birth mother, its a respect thing.

HickoryS posts: “I am very satisfied with the fact that your a mathematics student. I for one hold a college degree as well, but so what.....so does GW Bush an many other idiots of this world

"My point is only one. We are destroying our eco-system, I don't think much will be left for future generations.

“Like I said, enjoy your Denial Pill and hide behind your mathematics degree. In the end the raping and pillaging of this planet continues......You cannot change my mind like I cannot change yours. Your awakening has to happen on its own.”

I honestly do not find this portion of your above post to be that from a person who has had ‘an awakening’ HS.

The post seems, if anything, condescending.

Andrew is not denying the fact we have finite resources with which to live on.

And I do see a Global Awakening in regards to the many problems facing Humanity’s continued survival and expansion.

Andrew, like myself, find it misanthropic when people dispassionately argue ’Humanity is killing the Earth’.

At this stage of Human evolution, Humanity does find itself, for the first time ever, in the awkward and serious position of having to deal with crucial survival issues on a Global Scale.

And these issues are being dealt with.

But, the hue and cry that Humanity is raping the known World and are not concerned by this is not apparent to me. I see many steps being taken to tend to ’Our Garden’… the issues that are facing us now…

These discussion boards are cool because it gives us all an opportunity to express ways and means in which we can rectify the problems now facing Humanity.
But that takes effort and many folks will rather complain than make the effort to provide solutions… ~rore

And especially when they say something like "save the animals not the humans!" Product of an awakening? Give me a break.