Global Warming?..... Not the first time?

Question

During the life of our earth so far, do we know how many times this planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles? We all know of 2 ice ages which also infere that there were at least 2 warming ages. Antarctic drill cores suggest that there have been a few more . Some scientists drilled elsewhere , in Africa I think, and concluded that there have been many more global temp changes, noticing the different rock and organic layers. Man does contribute a lot to global warming, witness large cities creating their own weather patterns, as an example. In my view we are / were due for some kind of global change regardless.This earth is continually changing ; plates shifting/sliding, volcanoes, weak rifts opening up. Most changes we would not normally be aware of anyway since they occur under water.

So whats the answer? My short one? "Get used to it"

Any other thoughts out there?

Answer 1

Let Them Eat Tofu!
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism .

Answer 2

Of course this isn't the only time it has happened. Man's huge problem with it is that we might be here to witness and experience it first hand. I do think that we really do contribute a lot to this process, but it is still inevitable that there will be a major meltdown in Earth's ecosystem, and eventually it will go into a veritable 'hibernation' stage and come back after a time to harbor a brand new breed of life form. I can't believe that environmentalists can be so blind to this fact, and the fact that it is a constant and recurring cycle in earth's history. I mean, seriously as an ecologist, meteorologist, botanist, all these types of scientists that seem to be so concerned about the matter at hand you'd think that they would have been educated on the fact that this keeps on happening! All the geological evidence points to it, and it's only a matter of time before it happens again. It will keep on happening until our sun collapses into itself and crushes the solar system around it. I still think that we should use what little power we have in that department to aviod it a little while longer instead of just burning everything we can and screamin' out "bring it on!" but this type if thing is anything but unprecedented.

Answer 3

It is not part of the natural cycle. That is a huge misconception that is, unfortunately being circulated. The natural cycle occurs every 100,000 years. The global warming we are having now has occured within the last 50 years. And the carbon dioxide levels are twice the level they ever were at the highest points in Earth's entire geological history. The carbon dioxide level are projected to get to four times that in 45 more years.

Answer 4

Global warming and cooling cycles do happen over the course of thousands and millions of years. BUT this is not about a natural cycle in anyway. It is also not something that we will get used to if we don't do something about it. I am baffled by your general hostility to life on earth, including your own. What is more amazing is the idea that global warming is some sort of liberal conspiracy theory. To what End??? Oil companies, the automobile industry, coal companies etc. are really the only interest groups out there with any real motive to decieve people on this issue. You are just swallowing thier propoganda completely. The pitiful thing is that you aren't even going to benefit from it, as they get rich polluting your environment. As for actually addressing the issue, its not a matter of ceasing to use power etc. It is really a matter of using the energy of the sun, wind, ocean waves etc. Energy doesn't grow on trees but thats pretty much the next best thing. SO far, however, we have yet to develop these sources of power. It is certainly not because the US is technologicaly deficient. Rather, we--corporate america backed by the republicans--have dragged our feet on doing so.

Answer 5

No, it's not the first time. But the scientific data conclusively shows that this time is different.

It's faster, and getting much faster. It's caused by man, not volcanoes, or urban heat islands. All those things have been exhaustively analyzed and shown to be incorrect explanations. See:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm#WEB

http://www.realclimate.org/

for data and details.

The above is why 99+% of climatologists think global warming is real, caused by us, and extremely dangerous.

Our society is far more dependent on climate than the prehistoric world. Getting used to it is simply not an option. Unless you like the following scenario.

Rich countries like the US desperately spending hundreds of billions of dollars to relocate people away from the lowest lying areas and rebuild infrastructure lost there. Also spending hundreds of billions relocating agriculture and irrigation systems to deal with changing temperature and precipitation patterns. All this causes a worldwide economic depression.

Poor countries already struggling to feed themselves won't be able to do any of that very well. Millions die of starvation. The rich countries won't help - they have their own problems.

That's not the worst possibility, just the most likely. The following is unlikely, but possible.

Because of creating a huge industrial society totally dependence on fossil fuel use, China faces complete economic collapse and revolution. Chinese leaders refuse to cut emissions, in spite of the fact that the impacts are obvious. Desperate nations make war on China to get them to stop. The war goes nuclear.

Answer 6

Ask Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Answer 7

no it is not the first time the earth cooled or warmed